Committee of Adjustment

2:25Good afternoon Guelph. I'd like to call to order the December 12th, 2024 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment.

2:33We have a somewhat different schedule today as we have a staff presentation, first followed by the consideration of applications starting at 4 p.m.

2:43So we will proceed first with the three housekeeping items on the agenda, finally followed by the staff presentations and any questions.

2:52Then at 4 p.m. we will proceed with the opening remarks and consideration of applications on the agenda.

2:59To start off, I'd like to ask Member Bellaman to provide the territorial acknowledgement. Member Bellaman.

3:07Thank you. As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work in Guelph, a city built over rich indigenous histories.

3:17We 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.

3:27In our actions today we can move towards reconciliation. We should take pause and make those decisions with intention and gratitude.

3:38This place we call Guelph has served as traditional lands and a place of refuge for many peoples over time, but more specifically the Attawanderank and the Haudenosaunee.

3:50This land is held as treaty lands and territory with the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

3:57Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldeman track and is part of a long established traditional hunting ground for the six nations of the Grand River.

4:07Many First Nations, Inuit and Métis people have come from across Turtle Island called Guelph home today.

4:18Thank you Member Bellaman.

4:20Good afternoon Members. Do we have any interest of pecuniary nature that I should be aware of? Seeing none, I would like a member of the committee to move the acceptance of the meeting minutes from November 14th.

4:41Member Goodfellow and a seconder. Member Sayer. All in favor.

4:47And that is carried.

4:49We have a staff presentation on the advisory committee of council framework update. So I will ask staff Dylan McMahon to come forward and make that presentation. Mr. McMahon, welcome.

5:02Thank you very much Mr. Chair, members of the committee for having me here today. My name is Dylan McMahon. I'm the acting city clerk and it's a pleasure to be able to be here today presenting for this third time to the committee of adjustment with the final results of the redesigning advisory committees of council project.

5:20For members who have been on the committee for a couple of years, you'll recall that this project began in 2023, phase one of the project culminated with council's approval of a governance framework for advisory committees at the end of 2023.

5:35And phase two of the project has been taking place this year. We're looking to review all of golf's advisory committees and I use the term advisory committee colloquially to refer to any body created by council.

5:47So the committee of adjustment is not advisory in nature, but for the sake of having one term to refer to all of our groups, I'll use the term advisory committee.

5:54So we've been reviewing all of our committees. There are 14 currently to make sure that they are first in compliance with the governance framework approved by council, but secondly, to make sure they reflect the best allocation of resources possible.

6:07And finally, we haven't to date reviewed all of the golf's advisory committees holistically. So over the years we have occasionally created one amended in terms of reference.

6:16We've dissolved their merge committees periodically, but we've never looked at the entire grouping as a consistent program of work to think, is this the best arrangement possible to give city council the best advice possible on the topics of importance consistent with golf's strategic plan.

6:32So that has been the work of phase two. And that's what I'm here to present to you about today.

6:38The projects included a great deal of engagement with all of the committees. So we've met with each committee twice this year. We also held two workshops with the chairs and vice chairs of committees.

6:48And we held small group discussions with members of council with the exception of a quasi judicial committee like committee of adjustment.

6:54The purpose of an advisory committee is to give advice to council. So obviously it's important that we make sure we're given advice to council on topics where they are ready and willing to receive that advice.

7:04And that brings us to our list of proposed advisory committees. So we have 14 committees currently were proposing a shift to seven, but I will just add a couple of caveats because while we're reducing the number of committees in half, we expect these committees to meet roughly

7:20monthly, not to say we have meetings for the sake of meetings. We don't, but we've tried to design the topics and mandates of these committees so that we would have material that would allow for meetings roughly monthly.

7:29Maybe that's eight or nine times a year. Maybe it's 11 times a year.

7:32Obviously, a particular interest to this committee is recommendation number seven, which is to merge the committee of adjustment and the property standards committee.

7:44When I talk about merging property standards and committee of adjustment, it's important to understand that each has its own statutory legislative framework.

7:53So I would think of it more as merging the membership of the committees. The committee would still meet as a committee of adjustment as you do right now, the same meeting schedule once a month or twice a month as needed based on the number of applications.

8:05In addition to those committee of adjustment meetings, you would meet periodically as the property standards committee to hear property standards appeals.

8:12So where there's been a property standards complaint and the city has issued an order to a property owner, they can appeal that order to the property standards committee.

8:20Those appeals happened relatively infrequently. So over the past couple of years, the property standards committee has been meeting two, three or four times per year.

8:29And we heard from both the property standards committee and the committee of adjustment when we came and talked to you earlier this year.

8:35Both committees felt like they could take on more. In the case of committee of adjustment, you have that second meeting time scheduled in every month.

8:42They're used occasionally to maybe three times a year. But generally speaking, we would look to use those second meeting dates in order to meet as the property standards committee to review property standards appeals.

8:52Depending on the timelines associated with an appeal, there may be times where property standards would need to meet outside of that second meeting.

9:01But we'll do our best to try and arrange the calendar such that we can hold those dates and then use them as appeals are filed.

9:09So there's increased efficiency on the city side because recruiting for committees can be a challenge and we are reducing overall the number of committee positions that we have, which we think will make recruitment a little bit easier.

9:20And then certainly for the members of the property standards committee, this will allow them to take on significantly more work.

9:27I think we've noted and heard from committee members who are only meeting once, twice, three times a year that it's hard to get into the flow of things, so to speak.

9:36It's hard to really feel like you get a sense of the procedures of your meeting, a real deep understanding of the topic or type of materials that are coming forward.

9:43So by merging the committees, we're increasing workload, but hopefully that's going to be not overwhelming, but rather engaging for the committee members and we're confident that it's not putting too much on the folks who are going to be on the merged committee.

9:56That's the end of the formal presentation. I will just talk a minute about next steps.

10:04So we're going to all of the committees this fall. We'll be to the last of the 14 committees next week and we'll be bringing a final report to council during the March meeting cycle.

10:14So first to the March 4th committee of the whole meeting and then to City Council at the end of March.

10:18If City Council approves this proposal largely as presented, then we'll be ready to go and to recruit in April.

10:25We'd like to bring that recruitment back to City Council in May for the final appointments to be made, which would let new committees start meeting depending on the committee in the June, July, August timeframe.

10:35Obviously we need to be aware of timelines for statutory committees, so there may be a bit of a delay there for committee of adjustment based on where you are at the meeting cycle and we'll make sure that we time this out in an organized way.

10:48But because the number of overall positions available on advisory committees are shrinking, there will be a need to declare all positions vacant to ask folks to reapply if you're interested in reapplying and then to go through that appointment process.

11:01Our goal is to bring back many of the members currently serving who are interested in serving within this revised structure, but also to bring in some new faces as well.

11:10So we hope to have a good combination of new folks on committees, maybe folks serving on different committees if you take a look at that list and there are some that are of interest, and then also some new folks as well.

11:21So with that being said, I'm hopeful today or I'm recommending that you'll pass a recommendation to City Council to merge the property standards and committee of adjustment meeting or committees, and then otherwise I'm happy to answer any questions.

11:36Thank you very much. I appreciate your, not only your time and your effort on this, but your alacrity in making the presentation. Committee members, do we have any questions for Mr. McMahon?

11:54Mr. Sears.

11:55Yeah, I was just going to ask maybe for a bit more detail on other committees, like are there other committees that are going to be merged or are there some that, you know, some may be disbanded, but their mandates will go to other committees?

12:14Yes, absolutely. I wonder if Mr. McDonald might be able to pull up that presentation again and I'll flip back to the slide that has the seven committees listed on it.

12:24So I'll just go through the list quickly and I can give you a sense of whether these are new, remaining, merged, that kind of thing.

12:41So generally speaking, accessibility advisory committee and the heritage advisory committee are staying as is.

12:47Those are statutory committees generally speaking without significant mandate changes.

12:52What you see in the next category are both mergers of committees, but also the addition of new mandates.

12:59So planning environment and water, for example, is a merger of the current planning advisory committee, the Waste Innovation and Resource Center Public Liaison Committee, the Water Conservation Advisory Committee, and the Natural Heritage Advisory Committee.

13:13So we're merging those four mandates, but we're also adding language about climate change and the environment more directly and Council's 100% renewable and net zero goals.

13:22So it is a merger, but it's also an expansion. Arts and Culture Advisory Committee is a merger of the museum and public art advisory committees, but also to include arts and culture more broadly than those two specific committees do right now.

13:37Transportation is an expansion of the transit advisory committee.

13:40So right now we have a committee focused on transit, but not focused on other ways that people get around the city, whether that's driving, walking, cycling, trails, that kind of thing.

13:50So that's an expansion effectively of the transit mandate to consider transportation more generally.

13:55The Business Development Advisory Committee is a merger of our Tourism and Economic Development Advisory Committee.

14:02We've now been to both of those committees and I think there's likely a name change here to Economic Development and Tourism Advisory Committee, which is consistent with the master plan that City Council has approved.

14:12So all of those committees are a combination of merger and expansion of mandates. Many of the committees I just mentioned, they meet two or three times a year.

14:21So we largely expect to absorb the work that they're doing within the mandate of a broader committee.

14:27Okay, thanks. That's helpful.

14:29Member Goodfellow.

14:33Yes, I have a question about the number of members that will be on the Committee of Adjustment and Property Standards Committee.

14:40Through you, Mr. Chair, so the governance framework approved by Council indicates that committees should have seven, nine or eleven members.

14:49So obviously odd numbers to avoid tie votes.

14:52We have not finalized that work. We're working with the Secretary, Treasurer, and the folks in our Property Standards Division.

14:58I think generally right now we're thinking that the number seven works well and there has been no problem identified to raise that number.

15:08But if you have specific feedback in that regard, this would be the time to let us know.

15:12But otherwise, I think largely remaining at seven is our intention.

15:16Okay, thank you.

15:17Member Spears.

15:20Through you, Mr. Chair, could you just expand a little bit on the dissolution of the committees and the reapplication and how long that process would be anticipated to take?

15:29It sounds like it'll take a while.

15:31Yeah, it will take a little while and it's different for a statutory committee like Committee of Adjustment than it will be for some of our discretionary committees.

15:39So at the end of March, assuming that Council approves what we've presented, we'll look to start the recruitment right away.

15:46So the committees will keep meeting. So Committee of Adjustment will keep meeting exactly as it does right now until such time as we've recruited for the new merged Committee of Adjustment and Property Standards Committee,

15:55and then had time to actually have those folks appointed and bring them together.

15:59So at the earliest, I think for a statutory committee like this one, you're in the July-August timeframe.

16:05It could run as late as perhaps September, but I think we're hoping for summer.

16:11It's a little different for CFA. For the discretionary committees, we don't want to put people in a position where they're serving for three or four months on a committee they know is about to be dissolved.

16:21So we'll move as quickly as we can. But the process of opening up applications, they'll be open for at least three weeks, perhaps four weeks.

16:30Obviously staff need at least a couple of weeks to review those applications, make recommendations to Council. Council has to meet to formalize them.

16:36So as quickly as we can in the range of next summer.

16:40Any follow-up? Was there any follow-up members?

16:49Okay, thank you. I do have a couple of follow-up from some of the things we raised. I noticed in just a quick look at Property Standards that I think they have, they generally have five members, and it looks like they only have one active member.

17:06Am I reading that correctly?

17:08Sorry, could you repeat that question? You are right that they have five active members. I just missed the second part of your question.

17:13Sorry about that. It appears that there's only one active member at the chair at this point. Is that correct?

17:20Oh, I see. So you're likely looking at the listing committee members that we have online. So because this work has been underway, we have paused all recruitment and continued all current membership past whenever the expiry would have been.

17:35So the committee right now I believe has three or four, sorry I don't remember off the top of my head, they are down at least one member, but we've not been recruiting to fill those positions specifically because it feels disingenuous to have a volunteer member of the public join a committee and then be told one or two months in, hey, we're merging, your position will be declared vacant and you'll have to apply again.

17:57And I guess the other question I have relates to, and maybe it's a little in the weeds and a little early to ask, but let me ask anyway, hypothetically, could, depending on how busy, especially committee of adjustment, sometimes we can have two very full meetings at busy constructions season, would it be possible to say, like we're doing tonight?

18:26Pause or suspend the committee of adjustment meeting recess and then take up the property standard meeting all in the same meeting schedule.

18:36Yes. Yeah, so depending on the month and the schedule and like C of A there are statutory timelines associated with those property standard appeals.

18:44So we'll always look to do it in the most expeditious way. So if it makes sense to have a property standards committee meeting at 2pm and then committee of adjustment at four, we would certainly do that.

18:54If it makes sense to use that second monthly date, if it's available, we would do that.

18:58Like C of A, we'll look to bring applications or in this case appeals forward as quickly as we can. We'll be respectful of the fact that these are volunteer committees.

19:08And just to follow up on that, are there legislative timetables with property standards? I know there is with committee of adjustment. I wonder if there is with property standards as well.

19:20There is. Yes. I don't want to claim to be the expert and I'd be reluctant to state what they are right now, but there are statutory timelines included in our property standards bylaws to that effect.

19:30Awesome. And I guess lastly, are you looking for a motion from a committee of adjustment today and what would that motion be?

19:40I am looking for a motion and I've actually got it here. If you just give me one moment that the committee of adjustment recommends to city council the creation of the committee of adjustment and property standards committee.

19:50And I should add that we spoke with the property standards committee last week and they did approve the similar motion from the property standards committee.

19:59Great. At this point, committee members, what is your wish? Do you want to entertain this motion? Member Goodenfellow.

20:12Certainly. So I motion that the committee of adjustment recommends to the city council the creation of the committee of adjustment and property standards committee.

20:21Do we have a seconder? Member Mimbrano, is there any discussion on the motion before us?

20:28Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, can you call the roll?

20:33We can do a show of hands. Oh, I'm surging with power. Committee members, can we show hands on this motion?

20:42That appears to be carried. Do you concur, Madam Secretary Treasurer? And that motion has passed. Thank you very much, Mr. McMahon.

20:51I look forward to how these changes will get implemented in the new year and the best of the season to you and your staff.

21:01Thank you so much and thanks to all the committee. I will just add that you will probably not hear from us on this project for a month and a half or so,

21:09but expect before we go to council in March some more communication so you can take a look at final reports and understand how to participate in the council meeting when these motions come forward. Thank you.

21:16Thank you very much. Committee members, at this point I would like to take a brief recess and come back at 4 p.m. Can I have a motion to that effect?

21:28Member Balaban, a seconder. Member Goodfellow, all those in favor? We stand adjourned till 4 p.m.

21:38Good afternoon, Guelph, and I'd like to call back into order the December 12th hearing of the Guelph Committee of Adjustment.

1:02:09This hearing is being held in hybrid format with attendees appearing in person or remotely and is being live streamed and recorded.

1:02:17Please be advised the public hearings form part of the public record and the words, names and images of those participating shall be recorded and posted online.

1:02:27Before I outline the hearing format, if you're watching online and wish to speak to an application that's being listed on the agenda and you have not yet submitted a request in advance of this hearing, please call the number displayed on the screen now, which is 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

1:02:49That's 519-822-1260 extension 2524, and you will receive instructions on how to participate.

1:02:59For those attending the hearing in person, you shall also be given a chance to address the committee. A final call for delegations will be made when each application is called.

1:03:09The agenda for this hearing has been posted online at Guelph.ca.

1:03:20I'll remind all committee members and staff participating in the hearing to please mute your microphones when not in use. Applicants will be unmuted when their application is called.

1:03:31I'd also like to share the hearing format we will be using this afternoon to navigate through each application.

1:03:39Each application shall be called by the secretary-treasurer and the call-in number for those wishing to speak to an application shall be displayed on the screen.

1:03:49Afterwards, the applicant will be given an opportunity to add anything further to their application to a maximum of 10 minutes.

1:03:56You will hear a chime when there are 30 seconds left and another when the 10 minutes have elapsed.

1:04:03If you are the applicant and have nothing further to add, then you can simply say so.

1:04:08The committee will then be asked to ask questions of the applicant and staff.

1:04:13After that, we will hear from members of the public who wish to comment on the application.

1:04:18Please note that all comments should be addressed through myself the chair.

1:04:22Please avoid repeating concerns already shared by others and focus on adding new information.

1:04:29Comments are limited to 10 minutes or less and you will hear a chime when there are 30 seconds left and another when 10 minutes have elapsed.

1:04:38For delegates who have advised staff in advance of the hearing that they wish to display a presentation, your presentation will be displayed on the screen.

1:04:48A remote is available at the podium for delegates to advance the slides.

1:04:53Any members of the public who have submitted requests to speak prior to a hearing will be the first invited to provide comments.

1:05:00For those watching the hearing online, if you wish to speak to an application and have not yet submitted a request in advance of the hearing, please call the number displayed on the screen now.

1:05:11For those attending the hearing in person, you will also be given a chance to come forward to the podium and address the committee.

1:05:21Once all comments from the public have been heard, the applicant or staff will be given the opportunity to respond to the comments.

1:05:29Finally, as the chair, I will turn to my committee members for emotion and deliberation as well as a vote on the application.

1:05:37When the committee is making a decision on an application, the secretary-treasurer shall call each member's name and each member will respond if they are in favor or opposed to emotion.

1:05:49And as the chair, I will announce the result of each vote.

1:05:53If you wish to receive a copy of the decision on an application, including information about the appeal procedure, you must submit a written request.

1:06:04A written request can be made by contacting staff using the contact information shown on the screen.

1:06:14To receive a copy of the decision, please email cofaatgualf.ca with your name and the file number you are interested in.

1:06:25Please note that owners and applicants automatically receive a copy of a decision.

1:06:30I have confirmed with the secretary-treasurer that we do have some deferral requests and I will turn it over to the secretary-treasurer to call these requests.

1:06:45Before I do that, Madam Secretary-treasurer, to that effect, we have staff recommendation that three applications staff have suggested be deferred.

1:07:00I would like to amend the agenda so those three are heard at once if we can.

1:07:08In sequence prior to the rest. Thank you.

1:07:14Thank you, Chair. As you have already outlined, there are three applications on the agenda that are being recommended for deferral.

1:07:21First, staff is recommending deferral of files B-51-24, A-92-24, and A-93-24 for 39 Armstrong Avenue until the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed severed parcel will have adequate and available servicing.

1:07:40In this case, the agent has agreed with the request to defer and correspondence indicating this has been circulated to the committee members in advance of the hearing.

1:07:50As the applicant has requested deferral, I will turn it over to the chair for a motion on this deferral request.

1:07:57Thank you. Committee members, do we have a motion before us? Member Spears?

1:08:03I move that the 39 Armstrong application be deferred.

1:08:10And do we have a seconder? Member Sayer? There is no discussion on deferral. Madam Secretary-treasurer, may we have the vote?

1:08:21Thank you, Chair. Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion which is to defer the application. Chair Smith?

1:08:30In favor. Member Balaban?

1:08:32In favor. Member Goodfellow? In favor. Member Mambrenio? In favor. Member Sayer? In favor. And Member Spears? In favor. That's carried, Mr. Chair.

1:08:42Thank you. And so that application has been deferred. May we have the next deferral application, please? Or application that is recommended for deferral?

1:08:54Next application that we have recommended for deferral is file A-90-24 for 493 Victoria Road North.

1:09:07Staffs recommending deferral in order to give the applicant an opportunity to revise the application based on the staff comments provided.

1:09:15I will note that shortly before this hearing the agent has agreed with the request to defer. As the applicant has requested deferral, I'll turn it over to the chair to address that deferral request.

1:09:29Thank you. Committee members, do we have a motion before us? Member Goodfellow?

1:09:33I move that we defer the application for 493 Victoria Road North.

1:09:38Thank you. And do I have a seconder? Member Mambrenio? There is no discussion on a deferral, so I will return it to the secretary treasurer for a vote.

1:09:51Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to defer the application. Chair Smith? In favor. Member Balaban? In favor. Member Goodfellow? In favor. Member Mambrenio? In favor. Member Sayer? In favor. And Member Spears? In favor. That's carried, Mr. Chair.

1:10:10Thank you. That application has been deferred. Just a point of order, Madam Secretary Treasurer. Did we have delegations who wanted to speak to that application? Just for the information of those who wish to speak, I don't know if they were online or they're here.

1:10:28The deferral means that this will be deferred. This application will be deferred to a subsequent meeting that will come forward in the fullness of time, depending on the applicant and what their request will be.

1:10:46So if you have come and wanted to join us today and speak to that, you can do so at another time. I just wanted to make that clear to anyone who may be here.

1:11:00Madam Secretary Treasurer, do we have another request for deferral or application staff has requested deferred?

1:11:08Chair, yes we do. We have one more. Finally, staff is recommending deferral of file A-95-24 for 39 Hayes Avenue to allow the applicant to revise the size of the units to bring the proposal closer to conformity with the required exterior side yard and sight lane triangle as well as to allow the applicant to address concerns about storm water management on site.

1:11:32The agent, Jolene Grossi, is present via video to speak to the application.

1:11:39Welcome. Can you hear me?

1:11:41Hello, good afternoon.

1:11:56Good afternoon. Can you state your name for the record, please?

1:11:59Jolene?

1:12:00And your relationship to this application?

1:12:02Jolene Grossi. I'm doing the architectural design work on the building.

1:12:08Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the Planning Act?

1:12:15Yes.

1:12:16And have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement with staff's comments?

1:12:21Yes, I have and I am in agreement with the exception of the variance request on the exterior side yard setback as it seems that it was sort of left open to maybe some guidance from the committee.

1:12:40You did see that staff is looking to defer this so that these issues can be worked out?

1:12:49Yes. So in regards to like the setback is required to be six meters, we've requested.

1:13:01If I can just interrupt for a second. The question is if you're in agreement with the deferral, if you're not, you, you, I'm happy to give you your 10 minutes, but are you in agreement with a deferral?

1:13:14No.

1:13:16Okay. Asked and answered. So you have 10 minutes to address the committee. Please make as much or as little time as you'd like to.

1:13:24Sure. So basically just focusing on that variance request for the six meter setback on the exterior side yard. We are requesting a little bit of lenience perhaps there.

1:13:39It is, I guess, not a true exterior side yard. It is a laneway that that it's abiding against. And so we are looking for some relief in that six meter setback.

1:13:53Just because the current design is sort of not optimized for the available lot size in this setting and would drastically change the function of the space.

1:14:06So maintaining the 1.2 aligns with the adjacent properties, but I, we are looking for some sort of maybe a meeting point between the six and the 1.2.

1:14:18Is that something that can be discussed?

1:14:26Well, this isn't a question and answer portion of the program. So if you'd like to continue with your presentation, we can talk about that.

1:14:35If there's a motion that comes forward to discuss this, but at this point, I urge you to either make use of your 10 minutes or if you're done, you can certainly say so.

1:14:45I also included yesterday morning I had sent. There it is. Just to sort of outline the options like our 1.2 setback is what we've requested. The six meter is the requirement and the three meter is maybe a meeting point.

1:15:02I just wanted to illustrate that before moving forward.

1:15:06Basically, that's, that's just what we're looking for some guidance on.

1:15:11Okay. If you want to wait right there, perhaps my colleagues will have some questions for you.

1:15:23Committee members. Do we have any questions of this applicant?

1:15:26I don't see any hands coming up. Are there any members of the gallery who would like to speak to this application seeing none? Madam Secretary treasure. Are there any online delegations?

1:15:48Mr. Chair, we haven't received any delegation requests.

1:15:52Thank you. Committee members, we have the applicant not wanting to defer this. However, staff has recommended so I'm at your disposal. What your, what your views are and if we have a motion.

1:16:10Mr. Chair.

1:16:14Through you, Mr. Chair.

1:16:15Yes, Mr.

1:16:16I just want to be sure to city staff if if we if we don't approve this variance. That's it. They can't they can they change it and come back and ask for a different one.

1:16:29But it's a separate application. Correct. So start again.

1:16:33Okay.

1:16:35Through you, Mr. Chair, to the applicant. Do you understand that that little complication there. So if if this variance is not approved and you want to change it to three meters, you're back to the beginning.

1:16:49So you make a new application for a variance. You start again.

1:16:52So that's the difference between deferring it tonight and changing your application for a later date or taking taking your chances.

1:17:01Oh, I see.

1:17:05That complicates things a little bit.

1:17:11Yes.

1:17:15Without knowing the likeliness of if there would be a meeting point in between those two numbers.

1:17:22Correct.

1:17:27If you're asking me, I'm saying we would be taking the advice of city staff very seriously.

1:17:33And if, if they recommend acceptance of a variance that or for a variance that you with them come to agreement on, then it would likely, you know, we would see some favor in that.

1:17:44Otherwise, I think we would go with city staff's recommendation.

1:17:49Okay. So my, my best option is to go back to city and try to work through this with them.

1:17:57Which is a deferral.

1:17:59Okay.

1:18:03So having heard that, it sounds like the applicant is acquiescing to deferral.

1:18:11So do we have a motion?

1:18:18Member spirit.

1:18:20Yeah, I'll move to defer the application.

1:18:23Okay. And do we have a seconder?

1:18:25Member sayers.

1:18:27Sorry.

1:18:28Spears and sayers.

1:18:30And there is no debate on a deferral.

1:18:34May I ask the secretary treasurer to call a vote?

1:18:37Thank you, chair committee members. Please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to defer the application.

1:18:45Chair Smith.

1:18:46In favor.

1:18:47Member Balaban.

1:18:48In favor.

1:18:49Member Goodfellow.

1:18:50In favor.

1:18:51Member Membranio.

1:18:52In favor.

1:18:53Member Seyer.

1:18:54In favor.

1:18:55And members Spears.

1:18:56In favor.

1:18:57That's carried. Mr. Chair.

1:18:59Your application has been deferred to a later meeting and you're free to leave the meeting.

1:19:05You're welcome.

1:19:07Madam secretary treasurer, may we have the next applicant please?

1:19:11The next application is file B-50-24 consent to create long-term lease at 436 Clare Road West.

1:19:26I'll note for those attending remotely, if you wish to speak to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen.

1:19:33The number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524 and when you call in staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

1:19:43Good afternoon. Can you state your name and your relationship to the application for the record please? There you go.

1:19:50Good afternoon. My name is Oz Kamal. I'm the applicant here on behalf of the owners for 436 Clare Road Electric Utilities.

1:20:02Thank you and can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the planning?

1:20:07It was and photos were sent to the committee of adjustment and confirmed as received.

1:20:12Thank you. You have 10 minutes and you can avail yourself to as much or as little as you'd like.

1:20:17Sure. I don't think there's a lot to say. I'll just a very brief overview. So this is a consent to lease.

1:20:23It's a request to allow for a JV with convergent energy and power.

1:20:27Dilley slands from electric utilities to allow for a better battery energy storage system, which is a council endorsed provincial project with an IESO contract.

1:20:36We've reviewed the city staff report and recognize the conditions. We're in support of the report with the conditions. Nothing else to add. Thank you.

1:20:48Thank you. If you want to wait right there, my colleagues may have some questions for you. Committee members, do we have any questions of this applicant?

1:20:55Seeing shaking rather than nodding, I think that says that there are no questions. At this point, I'll turn to members in the gallery.

1:21:05Are there any members of the public who would like to speak to this? I see no motion to do that. Madam Secretary Treasurer, are there any members of the public online who would like to speak to this application?

1:21:19Mr. Chair, I can confirm no delegation requests have been received.

1:21:23Thank you. Committee members, what is your wish? Do I have a motion? Member Goodfellow?

1:21:31I move that we approve the application with the conditions recommended by city staff.

1:21:36And a seconder. Member Balaban, is there any discussion before us on this motion? Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, may I have you call the vote?

1:21:51Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to approve the application with the four recommended conditions.

1:22:00Chair Smith? In favor. Member Balaban? In favor. Member Goodfellow? In favor. Member Mambrenio? In favor. Member Seher? In favor.

1:22:11And Member Spears? In favor. That's carried, Mr. Chair. Your application has been approved. Thank you very much. Thank you.

1:22:19Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next applicant, please?

1:22:31The next application is file A-91-24, Variants for Reduced Side and Rear Yard Setbacks for Existing Accessory Building, Shed, at 85 Cork Street West.

1:22:43I'll also note that if you wish to speak to this application and you're watching the hearing online, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen.

1:22:51That number is 519-822-1260, extension 2524. And when you call in, staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

1:23:03I see the applicant is here. Someone is here. Can you state your name and your relationship to the application, please?

1:23:09My name is Josh Reitzel and I am the owner of the property.

1:23:13Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the Planning Act?

1:23:17It was.

1:23:18Thank you. You have 10 minutes to address the committee.

1:23:21I have nothing to add. I just wanted to field any questions that may come back to me.

1:23:27Okay. Committee members, do we have any questions for this applicant? Member Goodfellow.

1:23:33Yes, through the chair to the applicant. I noted in your application and some of the supporting information that there's a concrete pad that's already been poured and in place and that's why the shed is unable to be moved.

1:23:46How big is that pad relative to the size of the shed? Like, it does fit the space or is there excess room there?

1:23:54It's exactly the same size.

1:23:56Okay. Thank you.

1:23:59Committee members, any other questions? I do have a couple of questions. In your cover letter, I noted that you talked about a disgruntled building inspector.

1:24:18Was the building inspector angry?

1:24:22Yes.

1:24:28I don't want to relay an argument that was presenting one side. I want to be fair in that I had started something that I had not received approval to as a separate issue that has been resolved.

1:24:49Subsequent to that, there was discrepancy on whether or not a means of sealing up the building was permitted.

1:25:01And after acquiescing or accepting my means of sealing the building, there was tension in that relationship that went on several inspections to the point where my contractors left my site and said until you figure out how to appease the gentlemen involved, we won't be returning.

1:25:27And then on the final inspection, there was a complaint about my shed that was placed.

1:25:34So I felt my neighbor, I had gone, I had intended to have the shed with proper setbacks. It was actually a mistake. The pad got poured too close to my property line.

1:25:47I had been talking to my neighbors all throughout the process and when the complaint came in, it seemed more of a personal vendetta than...

1:26:02I mean, of the four adjoining properties, two of them have sheds on the property line that are visible from my shed. It just seemed like it was in bad faith or it wasn't an appropriate complaint.

1:26:20It is bylaw, but I just wanted to put that request out there for diminished views.

1:26:28I don't want to belabor this point and I don't want to be argumentative. However, if you're going to make a public statement, this is part of the public record and you're calling into question a member of city staff who really don't have the opportunity to dissent themselves,

1:26:43I think it's important to understand that, first of all, you, as I understand, you had a committee of adjustment request a year and a half ago and you had a committee of adjustment agreed with what you were going to do and that on your site plan and on your survey, there was no shed indicated.

1:27:09And so I believe that city staff would be within their right when, lo and behold, there's a shed that's built there to call that into question and say this either needs to comply or it needs to come back to committee. Do you agree?

1:27:26I agree. And if I may, I would like to, I was trying to respond to your question, not something I wanted to bring up. If I can redact the comments or retract them, I would, I will.

1:27:40Okay, thank you. And at this point, are there any members of the audience who would like to speak to this application? Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, are there any online?

1:27:55I can confirm no delegation requests have been received.

1:27:58Thank you. Committee members, what is your wish? Member Goodfell.

1:28:04I would like to propose a motion, but I would like to add a condition.

1:28:09Go ahead.

1:28:10So I motion that we approve the application, but with a condition that the shed maintains general conformity with the submitted site plan.

1:28:20Do we have a seconder for that motion?

1:28:23Member Sayer. And is there any discussion on the motion before we move to that? I'd like to ask the applicant if he's agreeable with that condition.

1:28:36Only, I'll ask for clarification. Like the site plan that I submitted with this application.

1:28:44Yes, through the chair. Yes, that's that's the site plan I'm referring to. So I kind of further to the question I had asked you that it would not extend past the size of the existing footprint or past the size as you described past the size of the concrete pad.

1:28:59It was retroactively drawn to the shed that exists.

1:29:03Okay, great. Thank you.

1:29:06Okay, any more discussion on this application. Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, would you like to call the vote please?

1:29:15Thank you, chair committee members. Please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to approve the application with the additional condition recommended by member Goodfellow chair Smith in favor member Balaban in favor member Goodfellow in favor member

1:29:32member. We in favor member Sayer in favor and member Spears in favor. That's carried Mr. Chair. Thank you. Your application has been approved. Welcome. Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next applicant please?

1:29:53The next application is file a-94 slash 24 variance to increase amount of gross floor area of medical clinic use in existing building at 1030 Gordon Street.

1:30:08Also note for those attending remotely, if you wish to speak to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen that numbers 519-822-1260 extension 2524 and staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

1:30:23Welcome. Can you state your name for the record please in your relationship to this application?

1:30:29Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and committee members. My name is Claudio Belvino from the Agora Research Group. We are land use planners and market analysts representing the registered owner of 1030 Gordon Street.

1:30:41Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as for the planning? Yes, it was. It was confirmed by the committee of adjustment.

1:30:48Thank you very much for that. And you have, like all or other applicants, 10 minutes to address the committee, make as much time use of that time as you'd like.

1:30:57Sure. I'll be very brief. So the proposed minor variance is requested to accommodate the medical clinic uses on the site. Specifically, the minor variance request is to remove the requirement set by table 7.1 in the zoning bylaw related to additional regulations number one.

1:31:14So in order to permit approximately 1700 square meters of medical clinic uses rather than the regulation which caps the medical clinic use at 400 square meters.

1:31:26This will permit the entire existing building to be used as a medical clinic use while still maintaining the permitted uses on the site as defined by table 7.1.

1:31:36So for clarification purposes, there will be no change to the site or to the building. Interior building renovations are planned and the building permit will be required.

1:31:46We have read the committee of adjustment comments from staff and agencies and agree with the report. We further acknowledge that staff have no objections to the approval of the minor variance request.

1:31:55We also note that there's no conditions related to the approval. So thank you for your consideration. We'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

1:32:01Thank you. And committee members, do we have any questions of this applicant? Member Goodfellow.

1:32:08Yes, through the chair, but I think this one goes to city staff. Just to make sure I understand, if we approve this minor variance tonight, then is there any restrictions going forward on what else could come into this building or move into this building in the future?

1:32:25Is it then, does it need to be the medical facility or can it then revert back to some other use in the future?

1:32:37Through the chair to member Goodfellow. So this would just expand the number of square meters that the medical clinic use is permitted in the building and would not take away any of the existing permitted uses.

1:32:47So it could revert back to a different use.

1:32:50Wonderful. Thank you so much. Appreciate that.

1:32:53Member Balaban.

1:32:54Through you, Mr. Chair to staff, I also have a question with respect to the holding provision that that requirement of removal through zoning will still be in place, even with the minor variance that we are would be approving.

1:33:10Through the chair to member Balaban, that's correct. That holding provision would still be in place and the intention is, is for further review to be done if there's future residential development or intensification on that site.

1:33:22But as there is no new buildings being proposed, that doesn't really impact this proposal.

1:33:28Okay, thank you.

1:33:33Any other questions of this applicant or staff? I have a question for staff and I'm just curious that the, I think it's 25% of medical use was covered in the 2023 zoning bylaws.

1:33:53That correct?

1:34:01Through the chair back to yourself. I think I need some clarification on that question, if you may.

1:34:05Well, I guess we're being asked for minor variance that doesn't seem minor.

1:34:11To my dopey wave looking at it, it just seems we're going from approximately 25% medical clinic use in this building to 100%.

1:34:25And I'm wondering if that 25% was set by the 2023 zoning bylaw or how did that come about?

1:34:36Yeah, so the current limit isn't based on a percentage. It's 400 square meters. And as I noted in the staff report, most of these mixed office commercial properties are former residential dwellings that were converted to commercial or office purposes.

1:34:52So the zoning regulations were formulated with a much smaller average lot size in mind.

1:34:58In this case, we have a much larger building on a much larger parcel of land that the building is already existing. There's no proposed increase in the size of the building and the existing parking lot can accommodate the increased demand for parking that medical uses usually require.

1:35:15Usually medical uses have a much higher parking demand than some other commercial or office uses, which is why sometimes it's singled out. But in this case, it seems like a suitable location for that use.

1:35:27Gotcha. So if I understand your answer correctly, then another building in a similar situation might be able to have medical office as part of the whole project. Am I getting a more clear picture?

1:35:45Yes, I think so. Another building in a similar situation, but we evaluate every application individually based on their own merits. Yes.

1:35:54Okay, because I'm just trying to formulate, from my point of view, is this considered minor in nature? And you can see where I'm struggling. We're going from a much smaller percentage to 100%. So you've answered my question. Thank you.

1:36:14At this point, committee members, do we have any other questions? Seeing none, are there members of the audience who would like to speak to this application? Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, do we have any online who would like to speak to this application?

1:36:31Mr. Chair, can confirm no delegation requests have been received.

1:36:35Thank you. Committee members, what is your wish? Do we have a motion before us? Member Balaman.

1:36:47I move that we approve the application as recommended by staff.

1:36:54And do we have a seconder? Member Membrano. Is there any discussion on the motion before us? Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, may I have the vote, please?

1:37:07Thank you, Chair. Committee members, please indicate your vote on the motion, which is to approve the application. Chair Smith.

1:37:16In favor. Member Balavan. In favor. Member Goodfellow. In favor. Member Membrano. In favor. Member Seher. In favor. And Member Spears. In favor.

1:37:27That's carried, Mr. Chair. Your application has been approved. Thank you. Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next application, please?

1:37:38The next applications are files B-52-24 through to B-58-24 and files A-96-24 through to A-103-24. This is an application for consent to create seven new residential lots with one retained residential lot and multiple related variances for proposed severed and retained lots at 302 and 306.

1:38:10Thank you. Member Orode South, I'll note for those watching the hearing remotely, if you wish to speak to the application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen, that number is 519-822-1260-XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

1:38:40Mr. Buseman, can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the planning act?

1:38:44Yes, it was.

1:38:45Thank you. As you know, you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

1:38:48Sure. If we could put the schematic or the sketch on the screen. Right now, there's two relatively large lots with larger old homes on Enmer Road.

1:39:03The two properties will be demolished and merged into one.

1:39:10Then we're proposing a total of eight units.

1:39:14As I mean attached units, you can see along the front, there will be a 3.3 meter road widening along Enmer Road.

1:39:25The units are intended to be somewhat similar size all the way through of a similar configuration of lots.

1:39:34The ADUs that we drew on the sketch are not going to be constructed.

1:39:40There's going to be a total of three units per semi-detached unit.

1:39:46City staff are in support. We've reviewed all the conditions and we are in agreement with all the conditions.

1:39:54There's a great infill opportunity and spoken of highly in terms of having this type of intensification on the major roads of the edge of the old University neighborhood area.

1:40:07Also, you'll note that the old University neighborhood group has written in support of the application.

1:40:14I think it's a great positive infill project and I'd be happy to answer any questions or if there's any comments from the members.

1:40:26Thank you.

1:40:27Thank you.

1:40:28If you wait right there, my colleagues may have some questions for you.

1:40:32Committee members, do we have any questions of this applicant?

1:40:35Member Goodfellow.

1:40:37Yes, through the chair to Mr. Buseman.

1:40:40I was really interested in the traffic study and the traffic coming from this new development.

1:40:49I did appreciate that it is on a major artery, has a lot of capacity for additional traffic.

1:40:57But I did wonder about the number of units that are going to be in each building.

1:41:05So I think you just said three units per semi-detached.

1:41:09Yes.

1:41:10So that would be a total of 24 units.

1:41:12Yes.

1:41:13With how many spaces for parking?

1:41:16There's like each right now we have that set back 11 meters from the front.

1:41:23So you could have five spots.

1:41:26You could have four outside and one in the garage.

1:41:29Thank you.

1:41:31I wanted to follow up on that.

1:41:33Then I did note GHD's traffic study, but I also noted that they didn't do a traffic detail traffic study where there were traffic counts done.

1:41:42Kind of a capacity analysis of Edinburgh Road for this kind of additional traffic coming from a development like this.

1:41:50Is that something that had been considered?

1:41:54Do you know more?

1:41:55I don't know much about the study.

1:41:57I apologize.

1:41:58I don't.

1:41:59I don't know.

1:42:00I'm not sure I can comment on that.

1:42:02I don't know if it's part of the application and so I can't comment on that one if that was considered or not part of the study.

1:42:07Okay.

1:42:08So just to follow up again.

1:42:10Yeah.

1:42:11I think my concern is I drive that road every day.

1:42:14I know traffic is does travel pretty quickly through that area.

1:42:20I have seen a number of almost near misses ahead of me on the road.

1:42:24I think that's a concern about the traffic that would be added to this already very busy street arterial or otherwise.

1:42:32If this development was going to go forward because I think what I'm hearing is that there's a potential for 40 additional vehicles if I'm understanding the math correctly.

1:42:42We have three.

1:42:43Well, the minimum parking requirement is three per right.

1:42:46That's so I mean we've set it up for more, but that's the minimum requirement.

1:42:51So we've set it up for more than 30 times eight.

1:42:54Right.

1:42:55That's 24.

1:42:5624.

1:42:57Right.

1:42:58And and there there of course it's been used like if they're used driveways there today and there were uses today.

1:43:03So yes, there are additional ones.

1:43:05I also I live in Oriole Crescent like like I got a maneuver onto this road.

1:43:10I know that and probably a closure in Gordon Street makes it way more busier than this would.

1:43:16And on the traffic patterns because I don't know the details.

1:43:20It's really hard to measure how much more is going to be.

1:43:22I mean if if students end up there will they walk to school walk to school?

1:43:27I would, you know, or bike but we don't we don't know the volume of the traffic.

1:43:31We don't have the I don't I'm not familiar enough with the traffic volume to comment on it.

1:43:37Okay.

1:43:38Thank you.

1:43:41Any other questions for the applicant or staff?

1:43:45Yes.

1:43:46Member Bellamy.

1:43:47Through you Mr. Chair to the applicant.

1:43:49You say there will not be any ADUs.

1:43:53In the back as separate buildings.

1:43:56I see that.

1:43:58I understand that.

1:43:59So as the application came through it showed ADUs as separate buildings in the back.

1:44:07And I mean there's room for them so they could be built in the future which would add additional dwellings to the just.

1:44:16We drew them as we're thinking about them.

1:44:20My understanding is this past Tuesday Council and maybe planning staff can confirm my understanding is they dealt with the number of units on the 70 detach and limit would be three.

1:44:31Correct.

1:44:32So maybe it would staff can just verify my comments.

1:44:34Good staff help with that.

1:44:37Please.

1:44:38The chair to member Balaban so Tuesday evening there was four units per lot by a lot that went forward to City Council.

1:44:44And that recommended that four units per lot be permitted on single detached lots in the R01 zone and not for on street townhouse lots or semi detached lots within the city.

1:44:55So that fourth unit would not be permitted on these proposed lots.

1:45:01Member Goodfellow.

1:45:02Thank you.

1:45:03Yes.

1:45:04Through the chair to the applicant or actually perhaps for city staff.

1:45:07We'll see who gets to this one first.

1:45:09Does the removal of the potential for an ADU at the back end of the site reduce the risks or the challenges with stormwater.

1:45:18Does that address some of the concern that was raised by I believe some of the comments that were in the report.

1:45:24If there is more green space now at the back of that site.

1:45:37Any other questions for the applicant or for staff.

1:45:41I think that's a good question and it's in regards to the stone markers that are identified out front.

1:45:51I know there's been some discussion in heritage circles about those and there was a there was correspondence suggesting that they go back to St.

1:46:03George's church where they were where they walked from at some point in the past.

1:46:10And you comment on that and or staff.

1:46:15They're on their way.

1:46:17Footings have been poured at St. George's Anglican already.

1:46:20So they're they're not quite there but they're going to be there within the next week or two and I believe it's a condition anyways but they'll be there before the appeal period is done for this thing.

1:46:31Okay.

1:46:32That answers my question.

1:46:34Perfect.

1:46:35Thank you.

1:46:36Committee members any other questions.

1:46:38Seeing none.

1:46:40Any members of the gallery who would like to speak to this application and I see none.

1:46:47Madam secretary.

1:46:48Oh.

1:46:49I saw a hand pop out of the corner of my eye.

1:46:52Yep.

1:47:01Go ahead.

1:47:02Madam secretary treasure.

1:47:04Do we have a registered delegation?

1:47:06We do.

1:47:07Mr. chair.

1:47:08The name is Timothy Deweier's.

1:47:09I believe.

1:47:11Yeah, please come forward.

1:47:13Sorry, I didn't mean to rush you.

1:47:15Welcome.

1:47:22Can you state your name for the record please?

1:47:24it's Tim Dewhurst. And can you um sorry you're not the applicant you're a

1:47:31delegate you have 10 minutes to address the committee so please make as much

1:47:35use of that time as you wish. Okay thank you. So I'll start with using my 10

1:47:41minutes for reading the letter that was submitted one week ago today for

1:47:47consideration as to the committee of adjustment for the city of Guelph. I

1:47:51write this letter as a 17 year resident and homeowner in the old

1:47:55University neighborhood here in Guelph. I oppose the proposed infill

1:48:00development that includes a plan to demolish the existing residences at 302

1:48:05and 306 Enboro Road South which are located north of College Avenue. Similar

1:48:11projects have been recently gained approval in the old University

1:48:15neighborhood including on Forest Street just west of Talbot Street and plans to

1:48:20demolish dwellings at 94 University Avenue West as well as 67 and 71

1:48:26College Avenue West. Moreover adjacent to the corner of University Avenue West

1:48:31and College Avenue West the University of Guelph has announced plans to build a

1:48:36residence that could accommodate up to 1,500 first-year undergraduate students.

1:48:41The rapid rate of approved proposals by the City of Guelph in the old University

1:48:46neighborhood prompts reemergence of concerns about a student village and has

1:48:50further implications in areas such as parking. With the proximity of the old

1:48:55University neighborhood to the University of Guelph campus congested on

1:49:00Street parking is already a concern among existing residents. With no parking

1:49:04available on Enboro Road and College Avenue there will be notable parking

1:49:09congestion moving further within the old University neighborhood. The increase in

1:49:14density will also have notable implications for traffic congestion on

1:49:17Gordon Street and College Avenue which is already being observed. While there is

1:49:23high demand for new housing that is more affordable within Guelph these

1:49:27proposals serve to primarily benefit a small number of corporate land

1:49:31developers rather than the typical resident. The result is not subsidized

1:49:35housing rather rental housing where a limited number will be profiting and if

1:49:40these proposals did serve to drive down the value of housing the City of Guelph

1:49:44would have a liability for existing homeowners and should be lowering

1:49:48property taxes. Corporate land developers have the time and resources to buy

1:49:53properties which are often not visibly for sale and develop proposals that the

1:49:58typical citizen does not. It's starting to feel like a game of monopoly among

1:50:02corporate land developers in the old University neighborhood. The proposal and

1:50:08approval process for the City of Guelph appears unfair. For example as a

1:50:13resident of the old University neighborhood I learned about this

1:50:16Enboro Road infill project through Guelph today on Monday December 2nd

1:50:212024 merely three days before the deadline for writing this written

1:50:25submission. This is clearly an insufficient amount of time to prepare

1:50:29coordinated opposition to the proposal. Further I have concerns that corporate

1:50:34land developers in the City of Guelph are developing closing relationships.

1:50:37Soon after gaining approval to demolish dwellings at 94 University

1:50:42Avenue West as well as 67 and 71 College Avenue West for example is observed

1:50:48that these dwellings were being used for training purposes by the City of Guelph

1:50:52police force. Old University represents one of the nicer neighborhoods in Guelph.

1:50:56I urge the City of Guelph to reconsider the rapid approval of infill projects that

1:51:01will change the character of the old University neighborhood. Thanks for your

1:51:05consideration of these concerns sincerely Tim Dewhurst. Just to expand a

1:51:11little bit on the letter that I proposed or put forward I also saw that

1:51:18there's publicity put forward by the City of Guelph only yesterday and in the

1:51:22subtitle or headline reads gentle density will provide more housing options

1:51:28while maintaining small town charm of Guelph neighborhoods. And I'm just going to

1:51:33you know the this this gentle density is being used to describe a building up to

1:51:40four housing units on a property and I'm just going to look up how gentle is

1:51:45defined and my understanding is it's having or showing a mild kind or tender

1:51:53temperament or character or meaning moderate in action effect or degree not

1:51:58harsh or severe. Just looking at the previous development that I was speaking

1:52:04to on 94 University Avenue West as well as 67 and 71 College Avenue West there's

1:52:13a similar development to the one that's being just considered in the proposal

1:52:17today and then that's across the street from a residence for 1500 undergraduate

1:52:23students. I don't consider that to be described as gentle to me that's actually

1:52:29quite severe in terms of the increase in density that will be observed. I also

1:52:34saw that today the University of Guelph announced additional properties will be

1:52:41redeveloped into mid mixed use student housing. They're quite vague in that

1:52:46announcement so we don't know where that's going to be but again it is not

1:52:52suggestive of something anything that's gentle is quite rapid and so I think

1:52:57we've been talking about each of these proposals in isolation but I think it's

1:53:01really important that we start thinking about the compounding effect of each and

1:53:04every one of these that continue to go forward. In the case of the proposal that

1:53:11was earlier this year discussed in terms of 94 University Avenue West and 67 and

1:53:1871 College Avenue West the City of Guelph I'm sure knew about the University of

1:53:24Guelph's proposal to have this residence but that did not enter the discussion

1:53:29when it was considered and given approval for the infill project and I

1:53:33feel like that was inappropriate of the City of Guelph if they had that

1:53:38information not to enter that for at least consideration and discussion about

1:53:42the kind of increase in density that would be experienced. I guess just one

1:53:48additional thing is that there are a lot of concerns about parking that have been

1:53:52expressed but I also have a lot of concerns about safety and liability on

1:53:58University Avenue and like a lot of the old University neighborhood there's no

1:54:04sidewalks so when you have a lot more congested parking there's safety

1:54:09concerns about children and so on where they already don't have sidewalks to use

1:54:13and then they're increasingly moved to the center of the street. The recent

1:54:18development on Talbot or sorry on Forest Street there's been a notable amount of

1:54:28congested parking since that development and it's actually right next to a

1:54:33pedestrian crossing where a lot of kids use to go to John McCrae's school a

1:54:38primary school again I just have safety concerns and I think there's liability

1:54:42ready to happen and so I just think that there's a lot more careful

1:54:47consideration that needs to be given to the planning that's been taking place.

1:54:51I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you. If you want to wait right there my

1:54:56colleagues may have some questions for you. Committee members do we have any

1:54:59questions of this applicant or pardon me this delegate? Seeing none I do want to

1:55:07thank you sincerely for your presentation and just I have a couple

1:55:13of questions. One did you realize that the old University neighborhood has

1:55:18reviewed this sorry old University neighborhood Association has reviewed

1:55:24this and they don't have an issue with this this development were you aware of

1:55:29that? I was not aware of that and the second one is more a question for staff

1:55:36the delicate noted about notice and I guess hybrid question how close are you

1:55:46to this development sir? I would probably be a five to ten minute walk away. Okay I'm

1:55:58just going to turn to CitySaf for some advice so given that how big a catchment

1:56:06area do we normally publish notice to to the residents about? To you Mr. Chair I

1:56:19believe it's typically 60 meters a 60 meter ring around the subject property

1:56:25is what is required under the planning act for for circulation. So this delegate

1:56:29may just be outside of that that catchment area. That's correct. Okay I have

1:56:38nothing further do we have any other questions? Seeing none thank you very

1:56:43much for your delegation I do appreciate it. Thank you. Are there any amount other

1:56:48members of the gallery who would like to speak to this application? Yes please

1:56:52come forward sir. Good afternoon can you state your name for the record please?

1:57:06Yes Andrew Arkle. And you have ten minutes to address the committee. Thanks I

1:57:11just wanted to step up and clarify the plans for the parking and sorry I'm a

1:57:16principle of a through slaving which is the owner of this development. As far as

1:57:22the parking goes I just want to make it clear that this city staff and the city

1:57:27can can clarify this for specifically Miss Goodfell that no parking study or

1:57:34traffic study was required there was no concern from the city. The reason that we

1:57:39had our traffic consultant submit the traffic brief was that this had come up

1:57:46in previous discussions of similar properties and so we felt that getting a

1:57:51traffic brief would alleviate the concerns. It's such a minor incremental

1:57:58increase to such a large road that they didn't feel as though the city I'm

1:58:03speaking for the city and they can clarify this but that there's really no

1:58:06impact to to the general traffic so that's the reason why we have the traffic

1:58:11brief we didn't do full traffic counts we've done we did a full traffic study

1:58:15for another site that was similar and the feedback was again that it was such

1:58:20an insignificant addition to that road that it would be a minor increase so

1:58:27that was sort of the blanket statement for this without doing the full on

1:58:30traffic study which is quite onerous and quite costly and not required. Thank

1:58:38you very much for that information. Committee members do we have any

1:58:41questions for this delegate? Yes member Goodfell. Yes through the chair so I

1:58:46appreciate that clarification that's actually helpful and I guess I again I

1:58:52will reiterate my concern perhaps because I do feel that what I heard and

1:58:58perhaps you can clarify for me but I think what I heard is that you know 24

1:59:02vehicles with the potential up to 40 because there is space for five per unit

1:59:09per semi-detached unit and currently there are two residential homes in that

1:59:17space so that would be an incremental increase of potentially up to 38 so I

1:59:24do respect what you are how you have clarified that that you know it's an

1:59:28arterial road lots of capacity etc etc but I think those are the numbers that

1:59:34are kind of in my head and trying to just think through what that would look

1:59:38like on a busy morning at 9 a.m. on Edinburgh Road with traffic backing into

1:59:44already heavily or quickly moving traffic flow so I think just to add to

1:59:51what you had added there what you had clarified there I think that's my

1:59:55concern and while I appreciate the the additional detail I'm not sure it has

2:00:01changed my concern at this stage any other questions of this applicant are

2:00:09pardon me delegate thank you very much for your information and your

2:00:13delegation I do appreciate it thanks I just want to mention one other thing

2:00:18some of the concerns that have heard regarding stormwater and traffic we've

2:00:23tried to address and we I'm not sure if it's been made aware to this committee

2:00:29but two files that we were turned down on based on similar concerns were

2:00:36subsequently overturned by the OOT recently so 34 Ridgeway was a couple of

2:00:42weeks ago and 10 orchard was yesterday so that probably wouldn't have come by a

2:00:47radar but I just wanted to mention that respectfully thank you for that info and

2:00:56you're free to stay and watch the rest of the proceedings thank you are there

2:01:03any other members of the gallery who would like to speak to this seeing none

2:01:10mr. Buseman did you wish to answer some of the questions raised by the

2:01:17delegation earlier just maybe highlight in on the covering letter that we

2:01:21provided justification we kind of highlighted a number of bullets that we

2:01:25fully in compliance with the new zoning bylaw the variances are all just

2:01:29technical that we're aware of it meets the policies of the official plan we are

2:01:36careful on the consideration of the design and consulting with city staff on

2:01:40that as mentioned and any condition any conditions engineering related any

2:01:45issues there were of course are being dealt with through conditions this new

2:01:49housing type is permitted and we all do know that the city has the goal of 18

2:01:55thousand new units by 2031 and this is just a small part of that I think the

2:02:00relationship with the university developments need to be kept separate

2:02:04that's I mean there's different perspectives there was some upsetness

2:02:10but the university that didn't provide the housing that they could have this

2:02:12year but I guess I'm personally thankful that the university is taking on

2:02:16projects to provide additional housing and I think for them the other one small

2:02:22comment I found interesting from from my client was that the police using the

2:02:29houses that are going to be demolished that's what happens I guess when a

2:02:33demolition permit is approved they get notified right away the police and the

2:02:38fire in case they do want to use it for training so I think it's actually a

2:02:41great great win-win for everybody that the police can use it for a minute I

2:02:45know that in Puslinch they also old homes being destroyed the fire department

2:02:50will sometimes uses a fire practice thing so I think that's a good thing just

2:02:55out of interest I thought I'd let you know about that thank you for that other

2:03:02it I neglected to find out if there were any members of the public online who

2:03:07wished to comment on this so I jumped the gun a little bit there madam secretary

2:03:12treasurer are there any online delegations I can confirm we haven't

2:03:17received any other delegation requests okay it was right for the wrong reason

2:03:20committee members what is your wish member ballam I have a through you Mr.

2:03:29chair just a question of staff a lot of these similar developments have been you

2:03:37know coming through this committee and and in sim in the same or similar

2:03:41neighborhoods has any thought been going through staff or as to the cumulative

2:03:49impact in a neighborhood of this kind of development and has is there any thought

2:03:55to you know looking into or studying it a little bit to see if there is a

2:04:01cumulative impact and should we you know in the longer term if these keep coming

2:04:07to us I mean they are sort of bits and pieces and I'm wondering if any thought

2:04:13has been given to something along those lines through the chair to member

2:04:20ballaban so for committee of adjustment applications we just deal with each

2:04:23application as they come in individually that being said as I previously

2:04:28mentioned you know on Tuesday there was the four units bylaw that went forward to

2:04:32council and there was quite a lot of thought and research behind that and

2:04:36there was a lot of research into going into that to see what would the impacts

2:04:40be of these this type of what is labeled as gentle intensification in Guelph's

2:04:46neighborhoods there has been a lot of background research prior to that coming

2:04:52into effect and that is available publicly online and then in terms of you

2:04:56know cumulative impacts on things like infrastructure right like roads and

2:05:02services that's something that that engineering staff look at when these

2:05:07applications come in and in like overall guiding documents I don't mean to be

2:05:12speaking on behalf of our engineer here but that is something that that staff

2:05:17do keep in mind yes and there are conditions for the servants applications

2:05:21to ensure that there is adequate services absolutely and I see that in the

2:05:26the way the staff reports are being written out there they seem a little

2:05:30bit different and very very clear I must add I quite I quite like the formats

2:05:35that you've been that you've been following now they're very clear as to how

2:05:40you are going through things which I do appreciate so thank you for that answer

2:05:45thank you clarifies things any other questions before we move on I do have

2:05:52one question for staff and that is sorry if this is eight possibly 24 units of

2:06:02the townhouse complex would that come to us or would that be a rezoning application

2:06:10through you Mr. Chair that would totally depend on the configuration of the

2:06:15townhouse proposal so a similar proposal to this depending on the site context

2:06:25of that property could be a reasonable amount of money and that would be a

2:06:30so a similar proposal to this depending on the site context of that property

2:06:36could potentially warrant a zoning bylaw amendment in this case all the

2:06:41variances that are being requested are just technical variances so the proposal

2:06:45conforms with the R01 zoning and for that reason it's in the opinion of staff

2:06:51it's more appropriate to be dealt with at the committee level but giving the

2:06:55existing zoning a townhouse complex would be would be a question of rezoning

2:07:01would it not that is correct yes so if it's you know three on-street towns

2:07:08would be permitted as a right without having to go through a rezoning but if

2:07:11you wanted to rezone to an RM six or RM four zone or RM five zone my apologies

2:07:16for a townhouse complex then a rezoning would be required yes and and it would

2:07:21require a like public meeting everything that goes along with a rezoning application

2:07:27is that correct that's correct yes and in this case I do know that the applicant

2:07:34has reached out to the old University neighborhood and has done a traffic

2:07:39study and and I think that that goes a long way but there is no requirement for

2:07:46a public meeting that would allay some of the concerns that has have been raised

2:07:51by one of the delegations and some of the letters we received through you Mr.

2:07:57Chair there wouldn't be a requirement for like outside of this meeting a

2:08:02neighborhood meeting I think that's your trying to get to yes so there would be

2:08:07no requirement for such a neighborhood public meeting staff don't have the

2:08:10ability to require such a meeting so even for rezoning applications that is

2:08:15something that we highly recommend but it's not something that that is

2:08:18required okay thanks very much for that information I thought it important that

2:08:24some of the public understand that committee members what is your wish

2:08:29members Spears I propose that we approve this this application with the

2:08:44conditions recommended by city staff and do we have a seconder member Bellamann

2:08:49is there any discussion on this yes member good fellow yes so I'm no

2:08:59surprise I will be opposed to the motion I do feel that the traffic intensity in

2:09:05this area is already pretty high and that this is going to add to it I did note

2:09:11and reviewed the language around gentle density let me just pull that up as I

2:09:17was consulting or considering what my decision would be here that vehicular

2:09:23traffic generated for the proposed development will not have an unacceptable

2:09:26impact on the plan function of the adjacent roads and intersections my

2:09:31opinion is that I don't believe the delegation or the applicant has

2:09:34demonstrated that I understand that there was a letter written but there was no

2:09:39numerical basis for the assertion so I do feel like it hasn't been proven yet

2:09:44that this would not have an impact and for that reason I will be opposed to the

2:09:48motion thank you any other comments on the motion before us

2:09:57like member good fellow I've been struggling a little bit with this I I do

2:10:01note that this a number of these things wouldn't be coming forward to us if the

2:10:092023 zoning bylaw was not under appeal that we'd be looking at this simply as

2:10:15as as right kind of application however we're where we're at where we're at and

2:10:24struggling with whether or not this is this is minor in nature and so

2:10:30reluctantly I'm not going to be supporting this motion either so with

2:10:35that unless there are any other comments Madam Secretary treasurer may we have

2:10:38the vote thank you chair committee members please indicate your vote on the

2:10:44motion which is to approve the consent and minor variance applications subject

2:10:49to the recommended conditions chair Smith opposed member Balaban in favor

2:10:56member good fellow opposed member mambrenio in favor member ser opposed and

2:11:05member Spears in favor that's a just let me check here we have chair Smith

2:11:13you're opposed member good fellow you're opposed member ser you're opposed as

2:11:18well and member Balaban member mambrenio and member Spears are in favor

2:11:23that's a tie Mr. Chair so my understanding of our rules and regulations is a

2:11:31tie is a defeat for that motion so your motion has been refused go ahead sorry

2:11:40Mr. Chair so we'll just we'll need a new motion there so that motion's been

2:11:45defeated so the committee would like to propose a motion correct thank you or

2:11:50defer yeah so with that in mind I'll turn to the applicant would you like to

2:11:58have a deferral to answer some of the questions that have been raised very

2:12:20angiorically again yes we'd be happy to defer to answer the questions we would

2:12:24just like to request what those are other than the full traffic study okay

2:12:32thank you commitment members what is your wish you've heard the applicant is

2:12:37willing to seek a deferral member Balaban did you want to raise that put

2:12:45that forward a motion to defer yes and do we have a seconder member mambrenio

2:12:57there is no discussion on a deferral madam secretary treasurer may have the

2:13:02vote please thank you chair committee members please indicate your vote on the

2:13:07deferral motion chair Smith in favor member Balaban in favor member good

2:13:12fellow in favor member mambrenio in favor member serr in favor and member Spears

2:13:18in favor that's carried mr. chair your application has been deferred thank you

2:13:23madam secretary treasurer may we have the next application please the next

2:13:36application is file a-104 slash 24 variance to permit reduced side yard

2:13:42setback for proposed attached garage at 41 Stewart Street I'll note for those

2:13:48attending the hearing remotely if you wish to speak to this application you

2:13:51can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen that number is 5198221260

2:13:58extension 2524 good afternoon and welcome can you state your name and your

2:14:05relationship to the application can you turn your microphone on there we go

2:14:10it's on it's on okay thank you chair my name is Petra Shanna and I am the owner

2:14:17of the property with along with my husband Christopher Davidson and can you

2:14:22tell me if the sign was posted as per the planning act yes the sign was posted

2:14:26the photo was sent into the city and we received confirmation thank you and have

2:14:32you read staff's comments and are you in agreement yes we are thank you you have

2:14:3710 minutes to address the committee okay thank you so much good afternoon committee

2:14:42we are looking as you know for a seeking relief for to permit aside a minimum

2:14:49side left setback of 1.2 meters we recognize that one of our neighbors

2:14:56has some concerns regarding to maple trees that are on the property line we've

2:15:02had a few conversations with them over the past several months starting this

2:15:06summer we've engaged a certified arborist to support the project

2:15:11throughout construction and we've provided the committee with the tree risk

2:15:16assessment report we recognize that Stewart Street is a very unique street

2:15:25in that it has a lot of old growth trees and are very committed to ensuring that

2:15:30we manage that properly we've received the city's staff comments in our

2:15:36agreement with the recommendation and we're committed to maintaining and being

2:15:40compliant with the submitted site plan and happy to answer any questions thank

2:15:46you if you want to wait right there committee members do we have any

2:15:49questions of this applicant member good fellow yes through the chair to the

2:15:56applicant I did appreciate the arborist letter and I thought that very thorough

2:16:02they made a number of recommendations in that letter and wondered if you could

2:16:08comment on whether the the owner was in agreement with the recommendations for

2:16:15the construction period and apologies if I have asked a question that you've

2:16:19already clarified but it'd be just helpful if you could answer that I'm the

2:16:23owner of the tree the Cummings next story sorry the owner of the property as

2:16:30they are doing construction if they were in agreement with the recommendations

2:16:35for the from the arborist we we requested the the report we had spoken with

2:16:41them generally about it but we have not provided the report because it just

2:16:45came in yesterday okay so through the chair perhaps follow-up question then

2:16:52hypothetically speaking yes if there was a condition included in the approval

2:17:00something to the effect of you know taking into account the arborist's

2:17:05recommendations for the construction project would something like that be

2:17:09acceptable to the owner I am assuming but I think we would need to ask them

2:17:16right no totally fair right that's the reason that we went to the arborist is

2:17:21because they brought forward concerns there are two trees there that are in

2:17:26question one of them is already in is a vulnerable treats and fairly bad

2:17:31condition the other one is in much better condition it's in good condition

2:17:36and so we had indicated along with our contractor that we were going to engage

2:17:42an arborist and they would work with us through that process thank you I think

2:17:49that clarifies and helps thank you any other questions of this applicant seeing

2:17:57none if you want to break right there we'll see if there are any delegations

2:18:00is there anyone in the chamber who would like to speak to this application I

2:18:05don't see anyone madam secretary treasure do we have anyone online mr. chair I

2:18:12confirm we haven't received any delegation requests I will note that the

2:18:16agent for the application Tyler Harrison is available via video if the

2:18:20committee has any questions okay I don't think we have any other questions so at

2:18:31this point we'll go into committee and I'll entertain a motion sure I will move

2:18:47that we accept this application with the additional condition suggested by by

2:18:55member good fellow that the arborist recommendation be followed as part of the

2:19:00construction okay and do we have a seconder for that well before I do is is

2:19:09that acceptable to the applicant it is for us there are two recommendations in

2:19:17that letter or in that report and so I could confirm that we will be using an

2:19:22arborist to ensure that when we do any of that work that they're on site for

2:19:27root management all of those good activities and ensuring that we're

2:19:31using best practice obviously but one of it is also that the other tree that is

2:19:37more than 60% dead they've indicated regardless of construction that it be

2:19:43removed so that's nothing we can't really comment on that that's the owner's

2:19:48decision right so but on our half of it we definitely will use the arborist

2:19:53during the construction process and ensure that we're following good practice

2:19:58okay thank you I'm wondering if we need to tighten that that condition up a

2:20:06little bit member good fellow yes so through the chair to my colleague

2:20:11member Spears I appreciated the language that you use there I wondered if we

2:20:16might want to change it to construction in consultation with the arborist so it

2:20:23was more that the arborist would be on site and supporting the work but not

2:20:28necessarily tying everybody to the recommendations that the arborist had

2:20:34already written if I would be happy to withdraw my motion if you would like to

2:20:40make a new motion with your words because they're better consider it room

2:20:46my motion reversed okay yes if we can do that I would be happy to suggest

2:20:53alternative language and then you can somebody else can help me craft and

2:20:57refine it but I move we approve the application with the city staff's

2:21:04recommendation for and one condition and add a condition that the construction

2:21:11will proceed in consultation with an arborist that seems relatively clear do

2:21:17we have a seconder member Spears and do we have any discussion on this motion

2:21:24seeing none madam secretary treasurer would you call the vote committee members

2:21:32please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion which

2:21:35is to approve the application with the recommended condition by staff as well

2:21:42as that additional condition mentioned my member good fellow chair Smith in

2:21:46favor member Balavan in favor member good fellow in favor member mambrain yo me

2:21:52in favor members air in favor and members Spears in favor that's carried

2:21:57mr. chair your application has been approved that's fantastic thank you

2:22:01madam secretary treasurer I think that concludes our the main part of our

2:22:15agenda today however I do note we have a few housekeeping matters including two

2:22:22requests for fee waivers is that correct yes that's correct mr. chair I can

2:22:28outline the first request yes please okay so yes we do have to fee refund

2:22:35slash waiver requests on the agenda the first is a fee waiver for a future

2:22:40consent application for 40 for 51 53 and 55 manitoba street the owners have

2:22:47submitted correspondence requesting the committee waive the requirement to pay

2:22:51the consent application fee and administration fee staff comments

2:22:56regarding this waiver request have been provided and staff is recommending

2:22:59refusal of the waiver request as outlined in the report I do believe that the

2:23:04agent Kevin Thompson is in attendance should the committee have any questions

2:23:08and is the applicant here yes please come forward hello can you state your

2:23:21name and your relationship to this application good evening mr. chair my

2:23:24name is Kevin Thompson I am the lawyer for the property owner welcome and as

2:23:29with all our delegations you have 10 minutes to address the committee thank

2:23:33you chair as mentioned I am the lawyer for the property owner miss you'll end up

2:23:38a coley miss McCollie is 82 years old and a widow she's in the process of

2:23:43starting to dispose of these properties for estate planning purposes and it was

2:23:49through this process that her daughters one of whom is a judge actually

2:23:52discovered that these properties had merged and this happened back in 2006 and

2:23:59and I set out the history in my letter which I hope this committee had a

2:24:02chance to review but this was done inadvertently in 2006 and it's come to

2:24:07come to light in 2024 a couple of ways that this can be resolved one of which

2:24:13of course is coming before this committee and seeking a severance of these

2:24:17properties to unwind this transaction the other way to resolve this type of

2:24:21situation is to apply to superior court and seek what's called a rectification

2:24:25order and that's essentially allows the court to impose an order that unwinds

2:24:32something on within the land title system so there's sort of two approaches

2:24:36and we have done both in the past when we have applied to court the city

2:24:41invariably shows up to protest going that route suggesting we should come to

2:24:45the committee instead so we're trying to take the collaborative approach of

2:24:50coming to this committee to resolve this as opposed to the adversarial court

2:24:53process which is costly for everyone involved but the fees in this case we

2:24:58suggest working in justice because well I appreciate staff's position that you

2:25:03know fees are there cost recovery mechanism to cover staff time for

2:25:07processing time there are inherently staff costs associated with this

2:25:11committee it's administration and with the staff review I would suggest to you

2:25:15that most of that is not applicable in this scenario in a typical severance

2:25:20application planning staff will review for official plan conformity for

2:25:25consistency with the provincial planning statement they will have engineering

2:25:28staff review in terms of servicing considerations for a new lot whether

2:25:32there are servicing constraints for traffic issues of course building staff

2:25:38will look at what the future building proposed is and whether there are any

2:25:41issues or conditions that they would seek to have imposed park staff will

2:25:46look at parkland dedication issues environmental staff will look at trees

2:25:50anything else that might be impacted by lot creation none of those are relevant

2:25:54here this lot already exists separate and apart it has a within the land title

2:26:01system it is still separated there's no consolidation of those pins it is

2:26:05merged only by the abstract rules of the common law that says if you own a

2:26:09budding parcels it merges together they're still separately rolled into the

2:26:13tax tax roll system separately addressed literally they are already separated

2:26:19other than this obscure common law rule that they merge and so we're here to

2:26:24unwind that we're here to seek a consent but it's not like a typical consent we

2:26:29are really rectifying a mistake and yes there will be some minor staff time

2:26:35involved your secretary treasurer will have to process the application and

2:26:39post it to an agenda there will be some of those routine administrative matters

2:26:42but the vast majority of the staff time that would typically go into reviewing a

2:26:46consent application will not apply here and so that's sort of the bulk of that

2:26:50$4,100 fee for a typical consent application is the staff review time

2:26:55there's also this thing called the administration fee for lot creation and

2:26:58$630 and that covers things like setting up the tax roll having staff review

2:27:05the reference plan to ensure that it matches the approval of this committee

2:27:09now there will be no reference plan in this case the lot's already separate

2:27:13it's legally describable and separately conveyable today but for this you know

2:27:17common law merger we have that $630 fee covers things like creating the

2:27:22address entering into the city system for garbage collection purposes all of

2:27:26the things that are associated with a new lot being created that's what that

2:27:29administration fee covers and again none of that's applicable here because

2:27:33these lots already are separate in the city systems and the city would not have

2:27:37even known that these lots had merged a common law had we not brought this

2:27:42application forward and so I'm here today to request a fee waiver because I

2:27:47think that is the most efficient way of correcting this mistake and I'll also

2:27:53note that you know under the fee structure for this committee there's

2:27:56something called a validation certificate which is a significantly reduced

2:27:59rate and that cover situations where there was a historical planning act

2:28:05violation and someone sort of seeks to come before the committee to rectify

2:28:08that historical issue sometimes it's happened decades prior and it's only

2:28:12come to light now and to allow the property to be sold or mortgaged they

2:28:15have to seek a validation certificate from a committee of adjustment and so

2:28:18that fee is a significantly reduced fee in light of the fact that you know you

2:28:22don't have the same level of staff review for a validation certificate and I'd

2:28:27suggest in this case we'd have it even in the lower level of staff involvement

2:28:31in a validation certificate but if you are inclined to find some middle ground

2:28:37here I would at least suggest that we should be looking at that validation

2:28:40certificate level of fees for this application not the full bore of four

2:28:44thousand one hundred and seventy dollar application fee and regardless that six

2:28:49hundred and thirty administration fee simply does not apply here everything

2:28:52that covers is irrelevant in this scenario there will not be the need to

2:28:57set up a tax roll garbage collection anything else administratively within

2:29:01the city systems for a new lot it exists today so with that I will stand down and

2:29:06ask if there are any questions thank you thank you very much appreciate your

2:29:10elucidation on this and committee members do we have any questions of

2:29:15the applicant member Spears through you Mr. Chair to the applicant one of the

2:29:22questions that the city staff raises in their comment is that the root of this

2:29:29issue it primarily is a failure of the legal opinion or the legal

2:29:35staff at the time that this was taking place why is it not their

2:29:39responsibility to to pay this fee and rectify this problem following normal

2:29:45process thank you for the question and through the chair yes it was it was no

2:29:49doubt a legal error and not legal staff it was the the owner's lawyer at the time

2:29:54in 2006 that made the mistake and didn't recognize the the result of of his actions

2:29:59at the time his long since retired the ability to have any sort of rectification

2:30:06through him is long gone I don't disagree that the city should not be

2:30:14responsible for the mistake of that lawyer but what I am suggesting is that the

2:30:19fees are intended to be a cost recovery mechanism for the staff time involved

2:30:23and that staff time will for this application will be nowhere near a

2:30:27typical consent application thank you for that any other questions of the

2:30:38applicant at this point and or city staff seeing none I'm going to ask if

2:30:51there any members of the audience would like to speak to this seeing none is

2:30:57there any one online madam secretary treasurer chair Smith I can confirm we

2:31:03haven't received any other delegation requests just in that moment I had a a

2:31:12bit of a thought and I'm wondering this hasn't come before us yet so I'm

2:31:18wondering would it make sense to have you go through the process and then

2:31:25request a fee reversal thank you chair for the question and we did discuss

2:31:34various options with mr. Lulo and with mr. Rempel in terms of what the process

2:31:39is and it was recommended to us that we come before you to seek the fee waiver

2:31:43and then based on the result my client would be able to elect whether to

2:31:47proceed with this or otherwise so they both both those options were discussed

2:31:51back in august with with staff and it was actually their recommendation that

2:31:56they would want to see this request come before you and then move forward with

2:32:00the merits application based on the result okay and I guess the other

2:32:05question would be it always comes down to filthy lucre so I'm wondering what

2:32:13your proposal would be you said that there may be some middle ground what

2:32:17would that fee look like the alternative suggestion that I am proposing if

2:32:23staff this committee is concerned about a full fee reduction would be to impose

2:32:30the validation certificate fee of $1,700 which is already contemplated in the

2:32:35fee schedule and a validation certificate is essentially asking for

2:32:38forgiveness rather than permission and we're here asking permission to do

2:32:42essentially what a validation certificate does so my my sort of second

2:32:46prong if there's if there's hesitancy for a full fee waiver would be the $1,700

2:32:51validation certificate fee but still waiving that $630 administration fee

2:32:56for the sort of back end of the law creation okay thank you my colleague

2:33:01might want to use some of that in their consideration in an in a motion committee

2:33:07members do you have any other questions before I entertain a motion seeing

2:33:13none what is your wish committee member yeah members I move that we following

2:33:31the recommendation of staff refused this application and do we have a

2:33:35seconder at this point we have silence seconder so if that is the question I'm

2:33:48going to ask the question again do we have a seconder for this motion member

2:33:55no and so is there any discussion on this member stairs yeah I wouldn't

2:34:07support that motion I I think it'd be reasonable to to apply the validation

2:34:14fee and and also waive that administration fee so just apply for

2:34:19or just apply the validation fee that was mentioned so you won't be support

2:34:25supporting this member Bellaman yeah I won't be supporting it either I'm in

2:34:31agreement there with member say or that maybe the validation fee and eliminating

2:34:38the others the other fee would be more appropriate in this case okay and member

2:34:45good fellow yeah I'm in the same boat so just to add to the add to the list of

2:34:50folks who would be opposed to this motion I am on there too okay with that

2:34:58Madam Secretary treasurer may I ask you to call the roll yes before you have a

2:35:05question of order here can I withdraw my motion and ask for one that's more

2:35:10appropriate here the mover if you would like to withdraw your motion here's to

2:35:14want in the first place but nobody chose to make that motion so I would like to

2:35:18withdraw my motion for refusal and allow the committee to make a better

2:35:23proposal okay yes Madam Secretary try to chair Smith I probably would recommend

2:35:31since there was a mover and seconder and it is on the floor that we should

2:35:34right so we have to yeah pending the outcome go from there right okay we did

2:35:40get a seconder my my bad okay Madam Secretary treasurer would you call the

2:35:45roll please thank you Mr. Chair committee members can you please indicate

2:35:50your vote on the recommendation to refuse that fee waiver request chair

2:35:57Smith opposed member Balaban opposed member good fellow opposed member

2:36:04mambraño in favor member ser opposed member member Spears opposed that

2:36:14doesn't pass pardon it that doesn't carry there that does not carry okay so I'm

2:36:20going to turn back to committee and find out if we have a motion that we'd like

2:36:25to go forward with members there I'd move that we we have the city apply the

2:36:38validation certificate fee and that would be the only fee so the any other

2:36:44fees including the 630 dollar administration fee would be waived and do

2:36:51we have a seconder for that member Balaban is there any discussion on that

2:36:57motion seeing none madam secretary treasurer can we do it all over again

2:37:03please and I'll just clarify the validation certificate fee is $1,200

2:37:09just to clarify that chair Smith in favor member Balaban in favor member good

2:37:16fellow in favor member mambraño in favor member ser in favor and member Spears

2:37:22that's carried mr. chair half of your request has been granted so still very

2:37:29much appreciate it thank you thank you madam secretary treasurer I think we

2:37:35have one more piece of business mr. chair we do have one other fee refund

2:37:42request the second request is a fee refund for a previous minor variance

2:37:47application for 63 arkel road the owner has submitted correspondence

2:37:51requesting the committee refund the minor variance application fee staff

2:37:55comments regarding this refund request have been provided and staff is

2:37:59recommending refusal of the refund request as outlined in the report I

2:38:02believe representative for the owner Jake branch is in attendance should the

2:38:07committee have any questions welcome can you state your name for the record

2:38:11please yes my name is Jake branch I'm an agent for my mother Mary rife thank you

2:38:16and there was no I was about to ask the sign was posted there was no sign a

2:38:23month ago there was a sign and I will give you 10 minutes to address the

2:38:30committee oh one question you have read staff's comments so have you yes okay

2:38:35please go ahead mr. chairman and committee I'm here tonight representing my

2:38:41mother but more importantly I'm representing the grandmothers in Africa

2:38:45that would have been helped by the money that paid for that variance at the

2:38:49last committee meeting we heard how the Stephen Lewis Foundation was giving a

2:38:53young lady in Africa carpentry training and tools that she could build caskets

2:38:58for all the people babies included that are dying from the AIDS epidemic over

2:39:02there that is a third world solution to a third world problem here in the first

2:39:08world we would just pay for some expensive drugs and everyone would live

2:39:12this illustrates the difference between the first world and the third world

2:39:17I'm asking today that the money that was intended for the work of the Stephen Lewis

2:39:21Foundation in Africa be returned to the Stephen Lewis Foundation the staff has

2:39:26recommended that you don't give any refund they say that the city has provided a

2:39:31service and that needs to be paid for I would argue this whole thing could have

2:39:36been avoided the city inspector could have come and seen what was going on

2:39:41found out that it's been going on for a very long time he or she could have asked

2:39:45themselves if anyone was being hurt or if the property values were going down

2:39:50if there was no harm being done they could have grandfathered her business on the

2:39:54spot and moved on no cost to the city and no lost donation to this charity

2:39:59instead that inspector chose to follow the the letter of the law and not the spirit

2:40:03that it was intended in that decision is what's costing us all I'm arguing tonight

2:40:10that this complaint is a first world problem that we have given a first world solution to

2:40:15in the first world we find a problem we throw lots of money at it make it go away

2:40:21if only first world world people were involved that would be fine

2:40:25except this time the money wasn't first world money it was money that was destined for the third

2:40:30world money that could have made the difference between life and death for someone is the city

2:40:36of Guelph so poor that our budget outweighs the basic needs of someone in Africa the young lady

2:40:43that the Stephen Lewis Foundation provided woodworking tools and training to has taught others

2:40:48in her community and they now have a thriving business building all sorts of things and they

2:40:53are self-supporting the Stephen Lewis Foundation is a grassroots charity the people in Africa

2:40:58put in a proposal for whatever that community needs and they say who is going to run it and

2:41:03how much funds they will need they can come up with some very innovative ideas one community was

2:41:10asked for a brick making machine because they noticed the houses in the community were deteriorating

2:41:16they were able to not only fix their own community but sold bricks to other communities

2:41:21to become self-supporting here in our own community my mother Mary has taken on many volunteers over

2:41:27the years taught them valuable mechanical skills I would like to think that some of those people

2:41:33have used those skills to better themselves and become taxpayers and valuable members of the community

2:41:42most charities work the other way around they tell the community that they're serving that hey you

2:41:47need a school let's get it built and then once it's built they realize there's no money for teachers

2:41:52or supplies and it all turns out to be a waste of money so I'm asking are we telling my mother that

2:41:59she's that she suddenly needed a $1,900 variance for something that she's been doing for years with

2:42:05tons of community support or should we more be asking what we can do to support her in continuing

2:42:11to make her community better speaking of community if you're wondering if the taxpayers of Guelph

2:42:17would support this refund just look at the 120 letters that were sent into the city and support

2:42:25of her variance when you read through all those letters you will see that most of the letters

2:42:29mentioned giving Mary the refund when has the committee of adjustment ever seen 120 letters

2:42:38of support for any variance the taxpayers of Guelph have spoken and they support what she is doing

2:42:47I hope that the festive season that we are entering will put the committee into a charitable mood

2:42:53and that they will grant either a full or partial refund my great thanks to you Mr. Chairman

2:42:59and the other members of the committee for taking your time to hear my thoughts

2:43:03thank you very much and if you want to wait right there committee members do we have any

2:43:07questions of this applicant seeing none other I don't see any other bodies in the chamber so

2:43:16I'm going to assume there's no one here who would like to speak to this

2:43:20Madam Secretary Treasurer is there anyone online I can confirm no delegation requests

2:43:27thank you and we don't have any questions of this applicant do we yes member ballaban okay I

2:43:37have a question of city staff something that was brought up by the delegate and that was that the

2:43:45once a an inquiry was made for a zoning inspector bylaw inspector to go out and check on this

2:43:56did a bylaw inspector have any discretionary power or is their power is their role merely objective

2:44:10to the chair a zoning inspector would go inspect when a complaint is received and

2:44:16zoning inspectors either work with the owner to bring the property into compliance

2:44:22or offer the minor variance option it's not just it's not just something that they can ignore

2:44:34they can't cut the baby in half in other words so that answers my question thank you

2:44:42committee members um yeah please through you mr. chair to staff again there was a mention

2:44:50somewhere in the documentation that the the the complainant had they removed or or or withdrawn

2:44:59their complaint it would change the shape of this and it would seem more reasonable to give

2:45:04to give a refund at that point in this process is there is there an opportunity and an encouragement

2:45:10for a complainant to in fact withdraw because it seems like that would have been the simplest way

2:45:15to make this all go away I don't know if there's if there's really an answer to that yeah through

2:45:23the chair to member Spears once someone from the public does make a complaint it's entered into the

2:45:28system and then we don't reach out back to them if they wish to withdraw withdraw their

2:45:36complaint thanks that's that's what I want to thank you committee members um what is your wish

2:45:49member bellaman I move that we uh approve the application to refund the fees

2:45:59okay and do we have a seconder for your member sayers is there any discussion

2:46:10I'll just say that I was moved by your your your presentation and perhaps it's the

2:46:20the spirit of the holidays that will make me support this and um as I say I will be supporting

2:46:28this perhaps we should consider it the city of golf's gift to the Stephen Lewis Foundation

2:46:35at that Madam Secretary treasurer can you call the vote please thank you chair committee members

2:46:42please indicate your vote on the motion which is to approve the refund request chair Smith

2:46:47in favor member ballaban in favor member good fellow in favor member membrane yo in favor

2:46:54member serre in favor and member Spears in favor that's carried Mr chair your application has been

2:47:00approved one slight request when I put in the application I indicated that the check be mailed

2:47:07with the current strike I don't think that's appropriate anymore is is is it okay to amend that

2:47:14to be and picked up here at the the city uh yes it it appears I see nodding heads so

2:47:21well that seems to be that seems to be appropriate and then my great thanks to the committee and

2:47:27happy holidays to everyone and to you and your family I believe Madam Secretary treasurer that

2:47:36that concludes most of our business other than staff announcements chair I do have some staff

2:47:49announcements first is the Ontario land tribunal has issued a decision regarding the appeal of consent

2:47:57and minor variance files for 34 Ridgeway Avenue that's files b-26 20 slash 24 to b-28 slash 24

2:48:06and files a-36 slash 24 to a-39 slash 24 these files were refused by the committee at the June

2:48:1427th 2024 hearing the tribunal has allowed the appeal and authorized the consent and minor variance

2:48:20applications subject to conditions and a copy of that well t decision has been forwarded to the

2:48:26committee members next I'll note that I wanted to remind the committee that chair and vice chair

2:48:32elections will be conducted at the next hearing on January 16th 2025 and lastly the last announcement

2:48:40is today is member Sayers last hearing with the committee as he has submitted his resignation

2:48:46so this is an opportunity for us all to take a moment to recognize him for his dedication to

2:48:50the committee over the last two years including sitting as vice chair from May 2023 to today

2:48:57as a token of our appreciation for your service the chair has a recognition certificate to provide

2:49:01to you and we are sending our best wishes to you as this has created additional vacancy staff will

2:49:08work with the clerk's office to determine next steps to fill the vacancy and that's all the

2:49:12announcements I have Mr. Chair thank you very much Madam Secretary Treasurer and I just want to add

2:49:20my many thanks to member Sayers for his his consent his role and support as as vice chair so thank

2:49:28you and the best of luck going forward Hamilton's loss is pardon me our loss is Hamilton's gain

2:49:38so thank you again yeah thanks very much I really enjoyed being on the committee and it's it's been

2:49:44a good experience and the only reason I'm leaving is because I'm moving to Hamilton so but anyway

2:49:51I've really enjoyed it so thank you that's awesome under chair announcement I I just wanted to

2:50:02uh I I wanted a moment for two things just reflecting on the OLT

2:50:10decision that it is incumbent on all of us if we are going to refuse an application to

2:50:18do our homework and to provide sound reasons why we're why we're not approving an application

2:50:27because otherwise this is the result and then on a personal note I I have been standing as chair for

2:50:36a little bit and I would be honored to seek reelection in January in terms of replacing

2:50:46our secretary or pardon me not our secretary treasurer God help us our vice chair I note that

2:50:54member goodfellow has offered to seek that position so with that unless anyone else has anything else

2:51:02I'd entertain a motion to adjourn member Spears so moved and a seconder member goodfellow all in

2:51:12favor we stand adjourned thank you ladies and gentlemen and best of the holidays to you and your family