Committee of Adjustment

3:22Good afternoon, Guelph. I'd like to call on to order the November 13th meeting of the,

3:28pardon me, hearing of the Guelph Committee of Adjustment. This hearing is being held in a hybrid

3:33format with attendees appearing in person and or remotely and is being live-streamed and recorded.

3:39Please be advised that public hearings form part of the public record and the words, names,

3:44and images of those participating shall be recorded and posted online.

3:48We've received regrets from members Spears today who will not be attending this meeting.

3:54Before I outline the hearing format, if you are watching online and wish to speak to an application

4:00that's listed on the agenda and have not yet submitted a written request in advance of the

4:05hearing, please call the number displayed on the screen now, which is 519-822-1260.

4:15That's 519-822-1260 and the extension is 24, pardon me, the extension is 2524.

4:24And you will receive instructions on how to participate. For those attending the hearing

4:29in person, you will also be given a chance to address our committee. A final call for delegations

4:34will be made when each application is called. The agenda for this hearing has been posted online

4:40at gulf.ca forward slash c o f a. I remind all committee members and staff participating in

4:49the hearing to please mute your microphone when not in use. Applicants will be unmuted when their

4:55application is called. I'd also like to share the hearing format we'll be using to navigate through

5:01each application. Each application will be called by the secretary-treasurer and the call-in number

5:07for those wishing to speak to an application will be displayed on the screen. Afterwards,

5:12the applicant will be given an opportunity to add anything further to their application to a

5:17maximum of 10 minutes. You will hear a chime when there are 30 seconds left and another when the

5:2410 minutes have elapsed. If you are an applicant and have nothing further to add, you can simply

5:30say so. Following this, for some files, staff may provide a brief presentation. Our committee will

5:36then be able to ask questions of the applicant or staff. After that, we will hear from members of

5:43the public who wish to comment on an application. Please note that all comments should be addressed

5:49to myself, the chair. Please avoid repeating concerns already stated by others and focus on

5:57adding new information. Comments are also limited to 10 minutes or less. You will hear a chime when

6:05there is 30 seconds left and another when the 10 minutes have elapsed. For delegates that have

6:10advised staff in advance of the hearing that they wish to display a presentation, your presentation

6:16will be displayed on the screen and a remote is available at the podium for delegates in person

6:22to advance the slides. Any member of the public who have submitted a request to speak prior to

6:28the hearing will be the first invited to speak and provide comments. For those watching the hearing

6:34online, if you wish to speak to an application and have not submitted a request in advance of the

6:40hearing, please call the number displayed on the screen now. For those attending the hearing in

6:46person, you will also be given a chance to come forward to the podium and address the committee.

6:52Once all comments from the public have been heard, the applicant or staff will be given the

6:57opportunity to respond to comments. Finally, as chair, I will turn to my committee for a motion

7:04and deliberation as well as a vote on the application. When the committee is making a decision on an

7:10application, as chair, I will be asking the secretary-treasurer to conduct the vote by roll call.

7:17The secretary-treasurer will call each of the members' names and each member will respond if

7:22they are in favor or opposed to the motion and the chair will announce the results of the vote.

7:30If you wish to receive a copy of the decision on an application, you must submit a written request.

7:36A written request may be made by contacting staff using the contact information shown on the screen.

7:43If you wish to receive a copy of the decision, please email cofaatgualf.ca with your name

7:52and the file number you're interested in. Please note that owners and applicants automatically

7:58receive a copy of the decision. At this point in our proceeding, it's time for a territorial

8:05acknowledgement and I would like to ask all of those who are able to stand while member Meir

8:12reads our territorial acknowledgement. Thanks, Mr. Chair. As we gather, let us take time to reflect

8:22on our privilege to live and work in Gualf, a city built over rich indigenous histories. We are

8:29guests here and we should reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land, the people

8:35who live here today and the generations to come. If our actions today can move us towards

8:42reconciliation, we should take pause and make those decisions with intention and gratitude.

8:49This place we call Gualf has served as traditional lands and a place of refuge for many people

8:56over time, but more specifically, specifically the Atiw and the Rock and the Haudenosaunee.

9:05This land is held as the treaty lands and territory with the Mrs. Haga's of the

9:10Credit First Nation. Gualf lies directly adjacent to the healthy man tract and is part of a long

9:18established traditional hunting ground for the six nations of the Grand River. Many first nations

9:26in Newt and Mattis peoples who have come from across Turtle Island called Gualf home today. Thanks.

9:38Thank you very much, Member Meir. Committee members, are there any

9:46pecuniary interests that Member Morosz? To the Chair, I'm declaring a conflict of interest on

9:55item B53 slash 25, 47 in 87 Highland Road. I live in the neighborhood where this application is

10:04located and I wish to avoid any appearance of bias that might occur if I were to participate in the

10:11discussion and decision on this item. Thank you, Member Morosz and we'll ask you to leave the hearing

10:22when that comes before us. Thank you. At this point, I'd also like to make a

10:34minor adjustment to our agenda for today. There is a request for a fee waiver for Gosling

10:46Gardens and I would like to move that with Committee's indulgence. I'd like to move that

10:54to after number 2.7, which is the actual hearing for Gosling Gardens.

11:01I don't see any disappointment with that, so we will change that part of the agenda.

11:12I've confirmed with the Secretary of Treasury that we don't have any deferral requests

11:15and at this point I will turn it over to our Secretary of Treasury, Madam Secretary of Treasury.

11:21Oh, yes, thank you. I'm tardy because I was not at the last meeting, so we do have to have

11:30the meeting minutes from the last meeting approved. Do I have a motion? Member Fitzpatrick,

11:37seconded by Member Ross. All those in favor? Actually, I put my hand up but I can't vote

11:46because I wasn't here, so it looks like it was that was passed. Now, Madam Secretary Treasurer,

11:54would you mind doing the honors? The first application is file A-87-24,

12:06variances to permit reduced side yard setback for exterior stairs and awning at 90 Toval Drive.

12:13I'll ask for those attending remotely if you wish to speak to this application, you can do so by

12:17calling the number displayed on the screen, that number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524,

12:25and when you call in, staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

12:31Thank you. Is the applicant here or are they online?

12:35Online. Good evening. Can you state your name for the record, please?

12:41My name is Toby Lee. And can you tell me your relationship to the application?

12:49Representing agent. Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the Planning Act?

12:56Yes, it has. Thank you. And have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement?

13:03Yes, absolutely. At this point, you have 10 minutes to address the committee. Please make as much use

13:10of that time as you wish. Mr. Treasurer, I think we might not need the time. I think it's quite

13:17straightforward. Our family is growing in size and we are looking to build an accessory apartment

13:22of which requires a separate entrance with exterior stairs and awning. And the purpose of

13:27this application is to seek various requests since those two items will be encroaching into

13:34the minimum setback. And that will be it. Well, that's concise. Thank you very much.

13:44Committee members, do we have any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, are there any members

13:53in the chamber, members of the public in the chamber who would like to speak to this application?

14:00Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, do we have anyone online? Mr. Chair, I can confirm no other

14:07delegation requests. Thank you. At this point, we'll go into committee members. What is your wish?

14:17Member Meir, and we have a seconder. Member Goodfellow, is there any discussion on this

14:29application before us? Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer, would you call the roll please?

14:37Thank you, Chair. Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or

14:41opposed to the motion, which is to approve the application. Chair Smith? In favor.

14:47Member Fitzpatrick? In favor. Member Goodfellow? In favor. Member Mambrenio? In favor.

14:54Member Meir? In favor. And Member Ross? In favor. Let's carry chair. Thank you. Your

15:00application has been approved and you're free to hang up on us if you wish.

15:10Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next applicant, please? The next application is file B

15:20dash 53 slash 25 consent to create one new residential lot with one retained residential

15:26lot at 47 and 87 Highland Road. I'll note for those attending remotely, if you wish to speak

15:33to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen that numbers 519-822-1260

15:41extension 2524. And when you call in, staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

15:46I will note before I call the applicant that Member Ross, having declared us a conflict,

15:56has left the chamber. May is the applicant present? Yes, please come forward. Good afternoon.

16:10Can you state your name for the record, please? Just turn your microphone on, please.

16:18There we go. Okay. Brianna Miller, I'm from Van Hart and surveying.

16:22And I assume that's the agent for the applicant, it is. And can you tell me if the sign was posted

16:29over the planning? Yes, it was. And have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement? Yes,

16:34and yes. As you know, you have 10 minutes to address the committee and feel free to make

16:40use of that time. Okay. Perfect. How do you set it? Yeah. Okay. Does it have to go a few times?

16:55Oh, this is... Oh, no. Oh, there we go. Okay. Summary proposal. That's fine. Okay. So

17:03I'll get things. So we're separating the existing residential lot from the portion of the property

17:07that's owned as natural heritage system. Historically, the residential lot was separate from the rest of

17:12it. It's just from a previous owner, it did merge on title and then threshold homes acquired it as

17:18part of a severance back earlier this year. The proposal we are going to note conforms with all

17:24the official plans and the zoning bylaw. We have been working with staff and our appreciative of

17:30their time to come up with a land management plan that is in line with these policies. The

17:35environmental report that was prepared by NSRI concluded that the severance will not have any

17:39negative impact on the existing natural features. So as we can see here, the red line on there is

17:47actually the existing illegally formed trails that have just been done by community members over the

17:53years, just from walking dogs, biking to the... There's a BMX bike park at the back there. So those

17:58are just mapped out using GPS. Those trails are proposed to remain. There's going to be a little

18:04cleanup that happens to them, but there's going to be no alterations as we are aware if we do do that.

18:10There would be need to be like an environmental impact study. The blue polygon there is an

18:14existing clearing on the site. It currently has an illegal burn pit that again has just been used

18:20over the years by locals. So that's kind of an area that we're looking at maybe having some gatherings,

18:27no fire, and then moving forward here. So the state of the site prior to... There was a cleanup

18:33on November 7th that was hosted by threshold homes. So there was a lot of planks put down,

18:40I'm assuming just for bikes to get through when it's muddy out. There's a lot of trash on the site

18:46less now, but previously there was. There was an illegal structure that was erected, again,

18:51just because the site's been vacant for so long. Other debris has been moved in. Some of it has

18:57been removed to date, but this is just how it was as threshold acquired it. And that's the clearing

19:02I was referring to with the illegal burn pit. And there's other burn pits just throughout the site

19:06as well just from use of being a vacant site near people. So updates to proposal from last meeting.

19:14So again, as I said, we have completed a land management plan in coordination with city planning

19:19staff. We're not proposing any temporary structures anymore as we do realize there's not enough wiggle

19:24room in the official plan for that to happen. And there was notes of concern about parking.

19:30We are cognizant. This is a street that doesn't have a lot of parking. So if there is a major

19:34event planned, which again, major being maybe 30 people, if that, there will be coordinated

19:40shuttles and drop offs so we don't completely impact the road. Programming on this site will

19:46include sharing circles in the established clearing, medicinal walks and knowledge sharing

19:51events with elders. These aren't intended to be high impact events, drawing large, large crowds.

19:56These are supposed to be small in scale. So that's kind of all I have and I'm happy to answer any

20:02questions for you. Thank you very much. And if you want to wait right there, my colleagues may

20:07have some questions for you. Committee members, do we have any questions for the applicant?

20:16I don't see any hands coming up. No. Okay. I did note the temporary structure is

20:27or the grass and log structure has been removed and it's noted on the original plan that you put up.

20:35So that wasn't done by anyone associated with cross-shoulder thresholds. That was done by

20:41trespassers. It just happens. I think the intention is to have that removed as part of the site

20:47cleanup. I'm not sure if it's been done already. I'll let Eric, who's the owner right now, speak

20:51to that. But the intention is to not have that there anymore. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much.

21:00And the committee, other than my comment and question, don't seem to have any questions.

21:06So if you want to hang back in case you want to address some comments that make them from the

21:14public, please feel free to do so. Thank you. Madam Secretary Treasurer, do we have registered

21:22delegations for this? Mr. Chair, we do. Before I do, does staff have any presentation that they

21:31want to? Ah, I see nodding of heads. So please come forward, Mr. and speak to this, Mr. Rimbol.

21:39Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. So just to go through a quick summary, the Consent Application

21:44B5325 for 4787 Highland Road proposes to sever off an existing residential dwelling unit and

21:51associated manicured yard from a large wooded and wetland area that is designated Natural

21:57Heritage System, or NHS, in the city's Official Plan and zoned as NHS in the city's Zoning By-law.

22:03So the application was previously before the committee on July 10th of this year. At that time,

22:09staff recommended deferral of the application to give time for the applicant to demonstrate compliance

22:14with the city's Official Plan policies, particularly the policies related to the

22:18Natural Heritage System. The applicant has since provided a management framework that demonstrates

22:23how the Official Plan policies will be met with respect to the management of a Natural Heritage

22:28Area by a land trust. As the proposed severance would sever off a dwelling and associated yard

22:33that has been established for over 25 years, staff consider that used to be existing,

22:38and consider the severance to conform to the Official Plan policies, provided that the retained

22:43lands, that being the larger woodland lands, are managed and protected in accordance with the

22:49Official Plan policies. Permitted uses on those retained lands include inventorying of the Natural

22:55Heritage System, forest and invasive species management, passive recreational activities,

23:01including cultural and environmental programming, and restoration work. In the future, the applicant

23:06may pursue trail expansion and have acknowledged that an environmental impact study would be required

23:12to demonstrate that city policies and requirements are satisfied if they want to

23:17go that route in the future. So at the previous meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, the proposed

23:24temporary, there were proposed temporary structures on the site, which are not permitted in the Official

23:29Plan or the zoning for the property. That has since been removed, as the applicant noted,

23:34and are no longer contemplated by the applicant, and it is not included in the land management plan

23:39that has been prepared and provided. As the contemplated use is for conservation purposes,

23:45the zoning bylaw does not have any off-street parking requirements for the retained lands,

23:50and therefore that proposal conforms with the zoning requirements. The severed lands are zoned

23:56low-density residential, or RL1, in the zoning bylaw, and in addition to permitting detached

24:03dwellings, the RL1 zone also permits a group home and supportive housing use as of right.

24:11So a permit for a group home at 47 Highland was approved in March of this year, and construction

24:16has taken place in accordance with that approved building permit. To be clear, the proposed

24:21application is for the consideration of the proposed severance only. The proposed and existing uses

24:26for both the severed and retained lands could form with the zoning requirements and are permitted

24:32regardless of the decision made by the committee on this application. If any future uses are proposed

24:38that do not conform with the zoning bylaw or OB requirements, then an additional public process

24:43and application will be required. For those reasons, staff recommend approval of the application

24:49subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report. Thank you.

24:54Thank you. Just hang tight for a second, and my colleagues may have some questions. Committee

25:00members, do we have any questions for city staff? Member Goodfellow. Yes, through the chair to city staff.

25:06I appreciated the clarity that you just summarized the application with, and but you did mention that

25:14changes may require an environmental impact assessment. Is there what, can you characterize

25:20the nature of the trigger? Like what would it be the extent of the change? I think we mentioned

25:26that new trails or expanded trails, but is there a little more clarity? Is it just

25:31new or could it be all to expanded network? Yes. Thank you. If I may answer that through the chair,

25:40it will depend on the scope of the changes. So staff would review generally what the processes

25:46staff would receive a proposal. We would take a look at it if they were proposing to, for example,

25:51bring in some fill to a wet area, a minor amount that's not changing grade or anything. We would

25:57generally not require an environmental impact statement because the scope is quite small and

26:02we don't anticipate it to have a negative impact on the feature itself. If they were looking at

26:07doing something like improving or adding stone dust, for example, to the trail throughout,

26:14then that would trigger an environmental impact study. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful.

26:24Any other questions for staff? I guess I have one, excuse me, pardon me. I do have one question

26:40and that is, this is a Siffernce application and it's, it sounds like these two lots were

26:50originally two separate lots and were merged on title because of a single ownership. Am I

26:55correct in that? Through you, Mr. Chair, that is my understanding. Yes. Okay. And so I guess

27:05this will facilitate two separate entities owning two separate lots. That would be the

27:11result of the Siffernce. That's correct. Yes. Okay. I just wanted to be clear with that. Thank you

27:17very much, Mr. Rumpel. Are there any other questions? Seeing none. Madam Secretary Treasurer,

27:24do we have any registered delegates? Mr. Chair, we do have some delegates. The first is Kristin

27:32Kearney. Good afternoon and can you state your name for the record before you get started?

27:54Yep. My name is Kristin Kearney. And you have 10 minutes to address the committee. So make as

28:01much use of that time as you wish. Great. Thank you so much and I appreciate the opportunity

28:05to be here this evening. So my name is Kristin Kearney. I'm the Executive Director at Wyndham

28:10House where you serve an organization in Guelph that supports young people with housing and

28:14homelessness and complex needs. I also tonight, you know, I'm speaking as an Executive Director,

28:19but also I was raised in this community. I live and work and raise my children in this community.

28:24And I care deeply about how we grow together and the type of future we're creating for the

28:29next generation. I'm here today to speak in support of the proposed land severance between

28:33thresholds and Crochet Lodge. In the exploration of this issue, I noticed that there's a lot of

28:38questions about why this project is happening, what's the purpose of it. And so I'm here to

28:44speak briefly tonight about my understanding of that why. So thresholds purchase this property

28:50intentionally from the beginning with a vision that extended beyond its own program needs. The

28:54goal was to create a space where people with extraordinary needs could heal and to use a

28:59portion of the land to support indigenous land-based healing through Crochet Lodge. This was not a

29:04random act. It's a deliberate and meaningful act of reconciliation. And my understanding from an

29:10indigenous perspective is that land is not just property. It's a relationship, identity, and medicine.

29:15The proposal to transfer not simply permit the use of the land recognizes the deep colonial

29:20history of dispossession that continues to shape our country and our city. Returning stewardship to

29:25an indigenous led organization is a tangible way of rebuilding trust and restoring relationship to

29:30the land itself. As a white settler and someone who's leading a local organization serving youth

29:35with complex needs, I also see the urgent need for this type of partnership. A significant minority

29:41of the young people we serve are indigenous. They are overrepresented in homelessness,

29:45in child welfare, and in mental health systems in our community. Yet access to culturally grounded

29:50land-based healing here in Guelph remains limited. This proposal helps fill that gap in a way that's

29:55ethical, community-driven, and deeply needed. Crochet Lodge is a respected registered charity

30:00that has worked with organization schools, community leaders across Waterloo Region.

30:04Their programs don't just support indigenous healing. They also help all of us learn about the

30:08history of colonization and what reconciliation looks like in practice. They invite relationship

30:14reflection and accountability for all of us. The partnership between thresholds and Crochet Lodge

30:19is exactly the kind of shared leadership we need to see more of in our community.

30:23Where established agencies use their privilege and capacity to build space for indigenous led

30:28organizations to thrive and grow capacity in our community. I recognize that it can feel

30:33uncomfortable and sometimes there's fear or misunderstanding around something new, but I

30:38believe that Guelph is capable of leading with generosity and courage. Supporting this land

30:42transfer is an opportunity for our city to say we're serious about reconciliation, not just in

30:47words but in action. I urge the committee to support the severance and to recognize it for

30:51what it truly is, an act of reconciliation, relationship building, and community healing

30:56that benefits us all. Thank you very much. If you want to hold still for a moment,

31:03my colleagues may have some questions. Committee members, do we have any questions for this

31:07delegate? Seeing none, let me thank you very much for your delegation.

31:14Madam Secretary Treasurer, do we have any other delegations?

31:17Mr. Chair, we do. The next is Julie Lobsinger. Good afternoon. Can you say your name for the

31:39record, please? Julie Lobsinger. And like the previous speaker, you have 10 minutes to address

31:46the committee. Well, good afternoon, Chair, committee members, city staff, and members of the public.

31:53As I mentioned, my name is Julie Lobsinger and I've lived at 31 Highland Road for 34 years.

31:59I spoke at the July 10th hearing regarding the original application to sever 47 and 87 Highland

32:06Road and the possible donation of 87 Highland Road to Crow Shield Lodge through a land trust.

32:12At that time, I and several neighborhood members raised concerns about how both thresholds

32:19and the potential donation of Crow Shield Lodge could affect the fabric of our community.

32:25I wish I could stand here today and say that things have improved since that meeting,

32:30but unfortunately, that is not the case. As you've already heard from fellow neighbors that have

32:35submitted their comments, they have been there have been negative impacts on our community.

32:41Today, I'd like to focus on three main areas of concern as we revisit this application.

32:48The first one being funding concerns and the redirection of funds by thresholds.

32:54The second one, the appropriateness of Crow Shield Lodge in a residential setting,

32:59and thirdly, issues with the proposed property management plan.

33:05I'd like to start with the funding concerns thresholds use of resources.

33:10Thresholds is a non-profit organization whose mission is to provide affordable housing

33:15and individualized community support for people experiencing and recovering from mental health

33:21challenges. According to thresholds most recent public filing on the Canada Revenue Agency website,

33:29the reporting period was ending March 31st, 2025. The organization's total revenue is roughly 17.23

33:39million. 13.4 million came from government funding, 3.7 million from other sources,

33:47and 28,700 from receded donations. Given that mandate and funding base, I must ask,

33:57why would thresholds purchase 4.34 hectares of protected land, protected wetland,

34:04and land that the city has preserved from development for decades, and then donated,

34:10valued at roughly 350,000 to another non-profit organization? This action appears unrelated

34:18to threshold stated purpose. Public and donor funds should go towards supportive housing,

34:25not to gifting land to another organization for its own use. This raises serious questions about

34:33financial accountability. Do government funders, clients, and donors know that their contributions

34:39are being redirected in this way? To me this appears to be a potential mismanagement of funds.

34:46I also note that the city's grant thresholds 1.5 million to build and operate 13 affordable rental

34:54units for seniors with mental illness at 14 Edinburgh Road, a project that is both commendable

35:00and necessary. I sincerely hope those funds are being carefully monitored because thresholds

35:07recent actions raise significant concerns about their fiscal responsibility. Secondly, I would

35:13like to touch base on the appropriateness of Crow Shield Lodge in a residential setting.

35:19Crow Shield Lodge currently operates from three other sites, near Dune Heritage Village,

35:25on a wooded property outside New Hamburg, and at Camp Kauaiwe near St. Clements.

35:32All of these locations are rural or secluded, not in residential neighborhoods. According to

35:39their website, Crow Shield Lodge uses land for healing practices and reconciliation,

35:44but including the erection of teepees, wall tents, teaching lodges, and sweat lodges.

35:50When I visited their site at Camp Kauaiwe, I saw these structures, as well as I saw an ATV,

35:57or a quad, being used on the property, and a porta potty on site. If similar activities take

36:04place at 87 Highland Road, where will motorized vehicles be permitted, who will monitor and

36:10manage waste and sanitation? Increased human activity will inevitably lead to noise, traffic,

36:17parking concerns, and overall disruption. Disturbing an area that is currently untouched

36:24and thriving with wildlife. The forest is home to deer, blue herons, wild turkeys, coyotes,

36:31foxes, rabbits, and many bird species. Introducing large groups, fires, and structures will alter

36:39this delicate ecosystem. We experienced this firsthand on Friday, November 7th, when Crow

36:46Shield Lodge and Threshold hosted a community land cleanup. Between 9.15 a.m. and 10 a.m.,

36:53traffic on our street increased dramatically, with cars speeding and parking along both sides.

37:00Just like to show you a couple pictures on that day, not a villa. Oh, okay. You can imagine

37:18the street. Our street's a very quiet street, but it was just abundant number of cars on both sides

37:25of the street on that day. Later that morning, I walked into the forest to see the cleanup for

37:32myself. At the main gathering area, I observed a fire pit and use with people standing around

37:40around it, having their hot chocolate. Knowing that open-air burning requires a permit in

37:45Guelph, I contacted fire chief Steven Good to confirm whether one had been issued. He later

37:52left a voicemail confirming that no permit had been granted. Here is his voicemail.

37:59City Guelph, 30 per cent, I'm calling on the 7th of November, 3.40 p.m. You can call my number

38:10for information about open-air burning, particularly, I can't disclose anything other than

38:17the City Guelph. From our perspective, I do not authorize any open-air burning. It's not permitted

38:24within the City of the Mets. There is zero tolerance to open-air burning. I believe that answers

38:31your question. Take care of the light. This is exactly the type of disruption and real bending

38:40we fear if this land is transferred to Crow Shield Lodge. Lastly, I would like to speak to the Crow

38:47Shield Lodge Property Management Plan. When I reviewed the Property Management Plan, the first

38:56thing I noticed was a factual error. It refers to 47 Highland instead of 87 Highland Road. This might

39:03seem minor, but it raises questions about how carefully the plan was prepared. It feels rushed,

39:10perhaps to meet the committee's recommendation from the July deferral. The plan also mentions

39:15collaboration with community members. Yet, when the November 7 cleanup was organized,

39:21residents were not consulted. We simply received a flyer three days before the event.

39:27Had we been asked, we could have pointed out that that date coincided with garbage and

39:32leaf pickup day, creating unnecessary congestion. Furthermore, one neighbor who introduced himself

39:39to Clare's Cachegie during the event, hoping to start a dialogue and a relationship, was dismissed.

39:46Other residents who have reached out with similar good intentions were also ignored.

39:51It's one thing to write about collaboration, it's another to practice it. Based on what we've seen,

39:57the actions do not match the words. The plan also includes tree removal and the development of new

40:04trails, both of which would require heavy equipment and would further disturb wildlife, vegetation,

40:10and the overall ecosystem. In addition, are permits not now required for tree removal?

40:19This raises a key question. Who will be responsible for ensuring that the commitments in this plan

40:25are actually carried out and monitored? In conclusion, I do not support the city staff's

40:33recommendation to approve this severance application with conditions. Before any approval is granted,

40:39the KIT committee should require evidence of the effectiveness of Crow Shield's large

40:44management practices at their other sites, an environmental impact statement assessing how

40:51their activities would affect the wetland, forest, and surrounding neighborhood, and finally,

40:57a clear accountability framework to ensure compliance with any approved management plan.

41:03Our neighborhood and this protected ecosystem deserve thoughtful consideration and due diligence,

41:11not a rushed decision that could cause lasting harm. Thank you for the opportunity to share my

41:19concerns today. Thank you very much for your presentation and if you want to wait right there,

41:27my colleagues may have some questions for you. Committee members, do we have any questions

41:31for this delegate? Seeing none, let me sincerely thank you for your thoughtful comments.

41:42Madam Secretary Treasurer, do we have another applicant or pardon me delegate?

41:47We do, Chair. The next is Adam Wright. Good afternoon. Can you state your name for the

42:09record please? You'll have to turn the microphone on. Awesome. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is

42:16Adam Wright. Ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, neighbors, and stakeholders,

42:23thank you for the privilege to speak this afternoon. As mentioned, my name is Adam Wright

42:27and I stand before you as a concerned resident and advocate for responsible land use in our

42:33community. I rise to respectfully oppose the severance application of 47 and 87 Highland Road.

42:40I believe the severance is not appropriate for the site, undermines community objectives,

42:45and carries unacceptable risk to local character, infrastructure, and environmental integrity.

42:51It brings no pleasure to oppose such a development as my neighbors, as my, and as well as myself,

42:57feel very strongly in favor of the mandate of Crochet Lodge and Threshold Homes and Supports.

43:03We respect what they are trying to do. I truly love to see the help they give society, some of

43:09society's most vulnerable people, but that is, they are commendable. In spite of those feelings,

43:15one must ask a key question. Does this severance application align with sound planning principles,

43:22municipal policy, and community expectations? I contend that it does not. Does this property

43:28meet the needs of Crochet Lodge for their proposed activities? I contend that it does not.

43:34After careful review of all the documentation supporting this application, there are some

43:38conflicts between documents that are not reconcilable. There were concerns raised at the Committee of

43:45Adjustment meeting on July 10th, 2025, by City Staff Member Jane Gurney, as well as Committee

43:50Member Jane Goodfellow, that have been ignored in the revised application. The Crochet Lodge Property

43:57Management Plan, as it is submitted, proposes on page seven to expand and improve a trail network.

44:10Page 12 of the Crochet Lodge Property Management Plan proposes activities such as medicine walks,

44:17and these activities are in direct conflict with the concerns of the Environmental Impact Study,

44:22as well as those of the mentioned Committee and staff members. City Staff Member Gurney stated

44:29on July 10th that construction of trails would generally not be permitted. Natural Resource

44:34Solutions, Inc., the environmental firm that conducted the Environmental Impact Study,

44:38has even recommended on page three of their report that a fence with no gates be installed

44:45along the northeast and southeast boundaries of 47 Highland Road to contain all residential

44:50activities within the Lodge. And I quote, the fence is recommended for the purpose of inhibiting

44:56any unauthorized entry into the adjacent natural features and to mitigate ecological disturbance,

45:02for example, trail formation and garbage deposition, end quote. The Environmental Impact Study was

45:12conducted on March 2018 for proposed residential subdivision, not for the use being proposed by

45:18this application in spite of a new study being a condition of approval. The vegetation community

45:24mapping in the study was completed on November 12th of 2013, which is over 12 years ago. The

45:31delineation and flagging of Woodland-Dripline Boundary was completed on September 5th, 2014.

45:36By recycling an old survey, which was made for a different client for a different purpose,

45:40they're not truly understanding the current state of the site and what is on it,

45:44nor respecting the requests of this committee made on July 10th. Another conflict with this

45:50application is the reduction in buffer zone. NRSI, who conducted the Environmental Impact Study,

45:56have recommended a reduction in the buffer zone provided continued residential use of Highland

46:01Road does not change. In no way does it address the proposed activities for 87 Highland Road.

46:08The submitted study specifically mentions species of amphibians, the woodthrush bird,

46:15and terrestrial crayfish as significant species. There are no protections specified for these

46:20species in the Property Management Plan, nor in the Environmental Impact Study, as it does not

46:25account for any activity whatsoever at 87 Highland. This recommendation for a reduced buffer zone

46:31was granted under false assumptions. At the Committee of Adjustment Meeting on July 10th,

46:382025, some concerns were raised about parking. These concerns are legitimate. Those concerns have been

46:48somewhat addressed at this current meeting by Brian Amiller of Van Hart and Surveys.

46:54My follow-up question, given the absolute gong show that we saw on November 7th,

47:01was from where will the shuttle go and why was that not used on November 7th?

47:07As stated by a neighbour, Julie Lobb-Singer, there was no consultation and

47:18the cars lined both sides of the street and it made our serene neighbourhood look more like

47:23the parking lot of Walmart on a Saturday morning. Had there been an emergency requiring first

47:28responder vehicles such as ambulances or fire trucks, they would have had great difficulty to

47:34make it through, as did the garbage truck that day. Our residents had to move the garbage bins to

47:41the middle of their driveways just so that in case the truck could get through to access their

47:47municipal services. To aid with the parking, the proposal is to widen the paved surface adjacent

47:59to 87 Highland Road. There's simply no way to do this without impeding on the buffer zone of the

48:04natural heritage land or impede on private property. After a short study of crochet lodge and their

48:10activities, it can be seen that all of their other sites have structures, be they permanent or temporary.

48:16Although no structures are proposed in their management plan for 87 Highland,

48:20in their application for consent, with the committee of adjustment,

48:24they claim municipally owned and operated water and sewage is to be delivered to the subject property.

48:31With no structures existing or proposed, I ask where will this water go? Why do they need water?

48:38Why do they need sewer? Sewer? Where will the pipes be installed? Who will pay for the installation?

48:44Will it be the applicant or the golf taxpayer? This property is at the bottom of a hill and to

48:50provide municipal sewage disposal at pumping station will also have to be installed. As you can

48:54see this gets very complicated very quickly. The next obvious question is where will the

49:00crochet lodge clients go to use the bathroom if there are no structures proposed as per their application?

49:06Another shortcoming of this application for consent to the committee of adjustment is the proposed

49:11use of the land in the application. The application claims the existing use and proposed use is vacant

49:19slash trees and that would be in this document here. Trees slash bush. Given the breadth of

49:26activity and number of participants proposed in the management plan, one can hardly call this

49:30consistent with the application submitted. To give consent to sever these two properties,

49:36the committee of adjustment must understand that they are setting the stage for potential human

49:39conflict between the clients of threshold homes and supports and the clients of crocheted lodge.

49:45Threshold homes and supports operates a long-term care home for individuals with

49:48severe mental health issues. One woman in particular who lives at 47 Highland suffers from

49:53schizophrenia and screams traumatic screams that can be heard from a great distance away.

49:58Given that crocheted lodge is focused on using Indigenous healing for vulnerable people,

50:02it is easy to see the two groups will conflict with their respective adjectives

50:06for the healing of their clients. All of the current residents of Highland Road purchased

50:11their homes along a street with R01 or R02 low density residential zoning. We have

50:18been forced to accept a long-term care home at 47 Highland Road which certainly pushes the

50:24boundaries of low density residential zoning. To make use of this property by such large numbers

50:29with such frequency would greatly conflict with the current zoning and intended use of this land.

50:35In spite of the large area of land at 87 Highland Road, less than a third of it would even be useful

50:41for the activities of crocheted lodge. It seems obvious that the usable land is not large enough

50:47for the proposed activities without incurring the adjoining properties. If you look on the

50:52Van Harten Survey Certificate you can see only one small corner of the land would actually be

50:58appropriate for their use. Crochet lodge can still carry out their mandate within the Guelph area

51:06that will have lower impact on the community and environment at different locations.

51:11There's suitable property available for sale at 8033 Side Road 10 which has 44.8 acres acres

51:18of field in Woodland. At 344 Maltby Road there's a nine acre hobby farm for sale that would suit

51:24their needs quite well. In summary my comments have shown that this application is incomplete and

51:30inadequate while less impactful properties are available at this time to carry out their valuable

51:36mandate. For these reasons I request a denial of the severance of this application. I respectfully

51:42ask the committee members to consider these comments when rendering their decision. I once again

51:48thank you for your thoughtful leadership in the service of our city. Thank you just under the wire.

51:55If you want to wait right there my colleagues may have some questions for you committee members. Do

52:00we have any questions for this app or delegate seeing none? I have taken a few notes so I will be

52:09following up with staff based on some of your comments so thank you very much. Thank you Mr.

52:13Chair. Do we have any additional registered delegates Madam Secretary Treasurer?

52:21Mr. Chair we have one other registered delegate the name is Dominica McPherson.

52:39Good afternoon can you state your name for the record please? Yes it is Dominica McPherson.

52:44As your neighbors have already experienced you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

52:50Wonderful hopefully I will not take that long. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you

52:55this evening. I guess it's technically still afternoon. I'm joining you today in my role with

53:01the Gwelfam Wellington Task Force for poverty elimination. A collaborative of community partners,

53:06people with lived experience of poverty from across the city and organizations working together to

53:12advance system and policy change to address the root causes of poverty. I'm here to speak in favor

53:17of approving thresholds home and supports land severance request. With the thoughtful intention

53:24and extensive consideration that has gone into this request I am confident that approving it is

53:30not only consistent with good planning practice but also grounded in care responsibility and

53:36collaboration. While I don't speak from a technical planning perspective it's clear to me that this

53:43proposal has been carefully reviewed including by conservation specialists and that the staff

53:48recommendation confirms the severance and transfer meet the necessary technical and regulatory

53:53requirements. I want to just express that I have utmost faith in the expertise of staff and those

53:59that are you know that hold the responsibility in regards to these planning processes and just

54:03want to express support for the work that went into this. This proposal reflects thoughtful planning,

54:08environmental stewardship and alignment with community benefit. This is not only a sound

54:14decision from a technical standpoint but also a decision of deep significance that you hold today.

54:21Not only for those directly involved in this initiative but for our broader community

54:26and our shared responsibilities to reconciliation and to the land. The proposal to sever and

54:32entrust the land to Crow Shield Lodge is a meaningful act of relationship and responsibility.

54:39It represents care in action providing space for effective land stewardship, ecological restoration

54:46and small-scale community activities that honor and protect the site. It will create opportunity

54:52for reconnection with nature, land-based healing and knowledge sharing not as a symbolic gesture

54:59but as a living expression of reconciliation and commitment to land stewardship. From my work in

55:07this community I know how deeply needed opportunities like this are not only in this neighborhood but

55:13across this entire city. Indigenous peoples are disproportionately impacted by poverty,

55:20a direct impact of colonization, anti-indigenous racism and dispossession from land. I hear often

55:28about the lack of accessible spaces for Indigenous-led healing, connection to land

55:33and cultural practice from so many in our community. Supporting this proposal not only helps to meet this

55:40critical community need, it also signals commitment to being a welcoming and caring community,

55:47one that values and supports Indigenous organizations and future projects rooted in healing,

55:53relationship and care for the land. This decision here today is not just about the proposal in

55:59front of us but will have implications for our ability as a community to build relationship

56:03and commit to reconciliation moving forward. Thresholds in Crow Shield Lodge bring deep

56:09experience and strong commitment to their work. Thresholds provides vital housing and

56:14supports helping people live with dignity, stability and belonging. Crow Shield Lodge

56:20offers invaluable opportunities for land-based healing and cultural connection which as I mentioned

56:25are so badly needed in our community. Together they demonstrate what it means to act with purpose.

56:34This proposal represents the connection between caring for people and caring for the land

56:39and the ways in which both are essential to a healthy thriving community.

56:45Approving this request is an opportunity to affirm our values as a community,

56:50one where we provide care for those in need, one where we honor relationships with Indigenous

56:57communities and one where we act responsibly to nurture the well-being of people and land together.

57:03I strongly encourage the committee and thank you for your time and consideration today

57:08to support this application. Thank you. Thank you and if you want to wait right there

57:16there may be some questions. Committee members do we have any questions of this delegation?

57:22Seeing none let me thank you for your delegation. Madam Secretary Treasurer do we have anyone

57:29registered online? Mr. Chair we don't have any other registered delegates but there may be some

57:35in the audience. Okay that's my next step so the first order of business is if there's anyone in

57:43the chamber who would like to speak to this application please make your way to the microphone.

58:00Speak. Good afternoon. First let me ask you to state your name for the record. My name is Laura

58:06Murr and I'm a long time you have 10 minutes to address the committee. Oh thank you. My name is Laura

58:13Murr and I'm a longtime resident of Guelph. I've been involved in a lot of city committees

58:17that have gone out to protect the nature of our city and I believe that I support this application.

58:24I believe it will be it is compatible within a natural heritage area. If you go to certain places

58:31like Preservation Park for instance it has been there's been a lot of destruction in the park

58:38because there has the city of Guelph has not been a very good steward of its natural heritage areas.

58:43So I think that I think that I mean this is to me First Nations people it's it's enshrined in their

58:52culture to take care of the natural environment and all the animals and the habitat and the trees so

58:58I think this will this is and I understand the neighborhood concerns but I think that people

59:04need nature in Japan and other places we now have forest bathing that reduces people's stress just

59:10by going out in the forest because the forest actually releases chemicals that help us calm us down. So

59:16I think the use of this land for that purpose for the residents of the home and the other people in

59:22the city is very important and therefore I support this application. Thank you very much for your

59:29delegation if you want to hold there just for a moment I'll see if my colleagues want to like

59:35to ask any questions committee members any questions for the delegate seeing none again thank you very

59:40much for your representation um yes please come forward good evening can I uh get you to state your

59:58name for the record please good afternoon mr chair my name is randy golloy and mr balton you

1:00:04have 10 minutes to address the committee thank you I will not take that much time but I appreciate

1:00:10the opportunity to address both the chair and the committee of course my phone is just gone to sleep

1:00:17when I need it that's a common complaint I'm afraid yes I just have a couple of thoughts

1:00:28comments to make about things that I've heard and things that I've read today this evening

1:00:33before you get started let me just a remind and we'll stop the clock this is just a reminder

1:00:40for yourself and for others who may want to delegate um that we really appreciate if you're adding

1:00:47new comment yes rather than treading the boards of comments that have already been made you can

1:00:53address and and contradict or argue against those other comments but I'd like to be clear that you

1:01:01you should be focused on new information yes thank you no you're welcome I am reading directly from

1:01:10the application I believe it is point four that the application can be supported if it is reasonable

1:01:18and in the best interest of the community I guess my question here is what community are we talking

1:01:27about certainly it is not the community of this particular neighborhood that this is going to be

1:01:33in the best interest of it is a much far farther reaching community which I can understand but it

1:01:41is not the best interest of this particular community that we live in and call home

1:01:49just briefly again I believe the delegate from van harten stated that they will be having these

1:01:58things 30 40 people and that shuttles will be brought in as my neighbor has so diverse have

1:02:07so put already the traffic that this congestion caused for the cleanup I would just like to mention

1:02:15that this also involved students from a local school as part of their community service their

1:02:21volunteer work buses were brought in to bring those students in and yet our street was still

1:02:28solid both sides of the road with parked cars so while a shuttle may alleviate some of the traffic

1:02:37I do not see it eliminating all of it as we all know that you can't make it to the shuttle in time

1:02:44you're going to be driving or just for convenience sake you're going to be driving

1:02:48so again a shuttle may be helpful but I do not see it completely eliminating the need

1:02:55for parking on the side of the road definitely creating a danger as there are children to play

1:03:02here and darting out in front of or between parked cars now they're on a street with a lot of extra

1:03:10traffic running up and down the road and that is all I have thank you no thank you and if you want

1:03:18to hold tight for a second I'll ask my colleagues if they have any questions committee members any

1:03:25questions seeing none again thank you very much for your presentation are there any other members

1:03:35of the gallery who would like to speak yes please come forward good evening can you state your name

1:03:49for the record Scott Jameson and I'm at 42 Highland we moved in April the second and into a very

1:03:58quiet street we thought I just some housekeeping you have 10 minutes to address the committee I

1:04:03won't take that long okay I just uh since we we've moved there we've noticed the traffic is really

1:04:09increased uh you know what I've got nothing against what the accroshield is trying to do but it's

1:04:14definitely the wrong place if I can ask if any of you council members have ever been down Highland

1:04:21you should at your earliest convenience and have a wee look and see if this makes sense to you I'm

1:04:2878 years old I don't need all the stress I'm getting from this I feel like a mushroom I've been kept in

1:04:35the dark and fed a lot of fertilizer it's it's getting to the point where we don't know what

1:04:40they're doing they're giving us little dribs and drabs oh tomorrow this is going to change

1:04:45or we're going to add something else I don't know what they're doing they'd probably get along a lot

1:04:50better if they actually said what they're doing so anyway that's basically all that I want to say

1:04:55it's just uh it's not the right place there's lots of farms around here they could use help

1:05:00and they have the space to contend with buses and everything else we we've never heard any stories

1:05:05about how many people are going to be arriving we're going to have greyhound buses pulling in every

1:05:09five minutes every weekend it's it's just not the place the animals are already disappearing from

1:05:14down there I haven't seen any wild turkeys since we moved in now I don't know if they're gone or

1:05:20what's going on down there but mother nature is the best arbiter of of of the earth than anybody

1:05:26don't know people are as good as the mother nature anyway thank you very much for allowing me to have

1:05:31my little short comments here oh you're welcome just stand by for a moment committee members do we

1:05:37have any questions for the delegate seeing none um thank you again for your thank you consider

1:05:43opinion is there anyone else in the gallery who would like to speak to this application

1:05:51yes please come forward good evening can i ask you to state your name for the record please

1:06:01yes my name is Sydney Keeball and um as your neighbors have um heard you have 10 minutes to

1:06:09address the committee thank you very much um first i want to um address or uh introduce myself as we do

1:06:17um my name is Sydney Keeball I am of English and Métis ancestry and I am coming here today

1:06:25um as a member of Crochialed Lodge and um not only that as a member uh I do work at Crochialed Lodge

1:06:33however they have been supporting our community uh for uh approximately five years before I had

1:06:40started my journey and um part of why I would like to come up here today is to um well for one to say

1:06:51that I think that there is some misunderstanding um that could be cleared up by some communication

1:06:59as my co-workers know that is my favorite word um but I would also like to speak from my experience

1:07:05as working at our main site uh where we work out of in Victoria Park it is just outside Victoria Park

1:07:12in Kitchener and that is also a residential area that we work out of um in that location we are

1:07:19working out of a very old century home and in the backyard we have placed a shabbat one and um we

1:07:28have had no issues with our neighbors and actually have been making improvements to that piece of

1:07:34land um and that we do not own and I think um out of the things that have changed out of Crochialed

1:07:42Lodge recently we are more um have been doing more work with uh outreach and community members as

1:07:49like thresholds um we have a recent partnership with CMHA uh that has a dual role working with

1:07:59Crochialed Lodge but also with CMHA who works in Kitchener Waterloo and in Guelph and Wellington

1:08:05and with that position um one thing that we've identified very quickly is that there are not

1:08:11there are not places to go um not just to have large ceremonies but for community members to

1:08:18go and be uh on the land and uh this I know that it is a change it is different for people um who

1:08:29don't understand and that is what I'm trying to say is that that is what Crochialed does we

1:08:36invite everyone in we call them in we don't we don't call them out as Clarence would like to say

1:08:42and um I would encourage people to to come and to sit with us on that land and do it in a respectful

1:08:49way the way that we wish to use this land um and we uh we aren't going to change this overnight

1:08:57it's not something that is going to immediately happen we're going to keep people out and I think

1:09:03that if people really had the chance and the openness to have that experience with us that you'll see

1:09:10that um it's the same for us as walking in a park or having access to an area that this is so so

1:09:17crucial to our healing to our being and to our relationships with the land and um yes that some

1:09:26of our sites we do have different types of structures we have um ATVs and those types of things those um

1:09:36all of those sites are actually partnerships none of those none of those uh other sites that

1:09:40people have mentioned like in New Hamburg um they are not owned by us we are guests on that land

1:09:48land that would traditionally be the people of this area um our New Hamburg site as another

1:09:55person mentioned is uh actually situated on a farm with a residential house on it as well

1:10:02and we throughout the years have created a very strong and beautiful relationship with that family

1:10:08and honestly seldom have issues um they have been so generous and welcoming to us and um to that we've

1:10:19been reciprocal and um honestly I do feel that um we would have the opportunity and not every not

1:10:29every site is treated the same um not every piece of land is treated the same and um yeah we would

1:10:37like I would like to speak on behalf of us and say that the the thought the plan that has gone into

1:10:45this um may seem rushed to some and I can understand that however um we we spend a lot of time a lot of

1:10:54time um caring for our sites being mindful of what is there um and I hear a lot of feedback from

1:11:04the neighbors is that um the land is fine the way it is the analyst can store the land and I was there

1:11:13for that cleanup and yes there was a lot of people however there was a lot more garbage

1:11:19than what I even anticipated as you could see um and it was really it was really sad and disappointing

1:11:26to see some of the comments that were made that um the land was you know pristine it was stewarded

1:11:33the way it is and ultimately the goal of putting this into a land trust is to preserve this land

1:11:39for future generations and the city will continue to change no matter where you are congestion will

1:11:46happen and things will continue to grow and change um however putting this into a land trust

1:11:53preserves this piece of land and allows it um to be there for not only you know our kids

1:12:01but our children's as well and um to us that's very important so um yeah I just uh I thank you for

1:12:09all of your time and I hope that there can continue to be respectful and honest conversations

1:12:15about this piece of land because um we are very much looking forward to continue to see it thrive

1:12:23thank you very much and um committee members do we have any questions for this delegate

1:12:29seeing none thank you again thank you appreciate your time good evening can you state your name

1:12:49for the record please it's jack um I live at 35 Highland road basically since 1972 when my father

1:12:57sorry I didn't catch your name Francis jack thank you and you have 10 minutes to address the committee

1:13:03yes I'd like to address the committee um 1972 my father built the house at 35 Highland road

1:13:10so I've been there on and off for a long time we have a lot of wildlife we have a lot of deers

1:13:16I've seen the turkey vultures they come in their seasons I guess everybody here that lived on

1:13:23Highland road knows that the street has become don't like to say a racetrack but speed is a

1:13:30problem also like to say that our street is basically the last one to be cleaned for snow

1:13:36removal it becomes an ice hill so if you don't know the neighborhood you're going to get to

1:13:43know the neighborhood with the ice hill that farms in the winter so I'm I love this neighborhood

1:13:51I don't want to see it disrupted children come and they do the bicycle field and the hills and

1:13:58the ramps and whatever and that's all I want to say it's just it's a racetrack well thank you very

1:14:05much and just hold still for a second committee members do we have any questions of this delegate

1:14:12seeing none let me again thank you for your thoughts on this are there any other members

1:14:19of the chamber who would like to speak to this application

1:14:25seeing none madam secretary treasurer are there any online or by a phone who would like to speak

1:14:32to this mr chair I can confirm no other delegates thank you very much at this point I will ask the

1:14:41the applicant if um have any comments based on some of the

1:14:48the issues that were raised by the members of the public um yeah I can do that uh so there's a

1:14:55couple comments that were I'm not sure where they came from uh road winding we're not proposing that

1:15:00at all there was a road winding taken in front of the property as part is the last severance

1:15:06but there's no intention to widen the road as part of this application

1:15:10for services we're not proposing an extension of city services to the site you know either water

1:15:15or sewage um and that's kind of all I have for that thank you um just hold still and see if

1:15:26my colleagues have any questions committee members do we have any follow-up questions

1:15:31uh seeing none um you addressed one of the issues that I I had here which was um

1:15:41the sewer and water issue so thank you for that um yeah the other question was a shuttle

1:15:52and I understand that that's proposed as an ongoing as programs dictate and so um

1:16:01I wonder if you could speak to that a little bit yeah absolutely so as has been brought up quite a

1:16:06few times tonight the street is a dead end it's smaller um a lot of people use the parking on

1:16:10either side like I've been to the site a few times so we're trying to not create more issues there

1:16:16and bring in the shuttle just to drop people off pick people up one of the events done we're not

1:16:20looking at intense programming um like they're very small events they're not going to be huge in nature

1:16:26understood thank you and uh one of the questions that was raised regarding the stop shuttle is

1:16:33where would you shuffle from um perhaps the yeah so probably like a larger parking lot like a

1:16:38municipal lot um or like a main area that has the parking to accommodate those cars and then

1:16:43they would just come drop them off come back when the event's done okay that's awesome thank you very

1:16:48much um yes member good fellow yes actually I do have a couple of questions I've been sitting here

1:16:53figuring out how to summarize them up um so through the chair I think to the applicant first

1:16:59there were some comments about you know the programming may not be suitable for a residential

1:17:04neighborhood uh can you just comment on maybe the variability or the differences in programming

1:17:11that you're offering that your client is offering at their different locations and how it varies

1:17:16based on the location yeah so as they were kind of spoke to uh there are structures at the other

1:17:21locations where they do have uh sweat lodges and other accommodations for different programs these

1:17:27are designed to be low impact because the nature of the policies and the nature of the site uh so

1:17:32these are supposed to be hikes basically it's the very simple term I can use um and guided hikes at

1:17:38that or sitting around in a circle and talking about uh different topics as is a sharing circle

1:17:44so they're not meant to be intensive like those other properties are okay thank you that's helpful

1:17:51and if I have some additional questions um I think there's also been uh some comment about

1:18:00development of the land and I had an earlier question for city staff to that in that vein

1:18:06my reading of the site development plan or sorry site management plan suggests that those are

1:18:13future activities those are not intended for immediate terms um and that my reading of it is that

1:18:21those would be done in collaboration with the city and that appropriate permits would be obtained

1:18:26if needed and impact studies etc so I just I just wanted to confirm that that is also uh I am reading

1:18:33that correctly and that that is the true intent that is correct we are leaving the site as is we

1:18:39will work with city staff for future expansions if it's required or warranted okay thank you um and

1:18:46to the chair I do have a couple of questions for staff if it would be appropriate now this is

1:18:50probably a good time to ask city staff yeah okay uh so through the chair to staff um lots of

1:18:57questions and comments about parking uh not surprising considering the quiet nature of the

1:19:03neighborhood um and that you your team had put together some comments about parking I was wondering

1:19:10if we could pull up an image or the figure and could I get a clarification from you on the I think

1:19:17there was a reference to a narrowed section of roadway that was not appropriate for double sided

1:19:23parking but perhaps an area of the street where parking may be a little um easier to facilitate

1:19:31and I just have a couple of questions on that um if if we could just pull up a figure there

1:19:53yes thank you appreciate this um so your comments about the narrow section can you help me locate

1:20:01that on a figure so I kind of understand when because there was an earlier photo shown by one of the

1:20:08delegations of parking on both sides of the street and um just trying to understand where

1:20:14that picture was taken relative to the staff comments about parking in the narrowed section

1:20:21certainly um uh through the chair to remember good fellow the the section of the road that I was

1:20:27referring to in my comments just speaking to the narrow part of the road um if you can see in front

1:20:32of the um the piece of the subject property that is the existing dwelling at 47 Highland

1:20:38right in front of that is approximately um I'll call it to the west of there is a what I would

1:20:44consider to be a standard road design with full curb and it's anticipated for parking there I believe

1:20:50in front of 47 Highland it appears to transition just for the frontage of that

1:20:55lot only to sort of what I'll call a semi urbanized road design so it looks to be about the same

1:21:02width of asphalt but then suddenly the curb curb no longer is there and then at the limit that is

1:21:10proposed for the severance between 47 and 87 Highland so I guess it would be right to the left

1:21:14of the capital H for Highland Road in the road there um it's still technically on on paper it

1:21:21looks like part of a right-of-way but it's not designed and built as a road that's commonly used

1:21:27it looks more functionally almost like a driveway I believe it provides um a connection to the

1:21:34entrance to the property I think it's number 66 at the top of the page to the northwest

1:21:40of Highland Road so it sort of functions more of a driveway to get to that property and I just

1:21:46noticed and that's why I mentioned it in my comments although parking isn't really part of the

1:21:50severance application per se I noticed that in the lane management plan I think it had suggested

1:21:55potential parking here and there but in that little section of land approximately where the word

1:22:01Highland Road is it's probably doesn't have enough physical room for parking although from a quick

1:22:08review of the traffic bylaw I do believe that parking as far as I can tell um Highland Road is

1:22:14not included in schedule Y which is the no parking zone so I believe as far as I understand it the

1:22:20rest of the road does permit it but I would suggest that people follow the signages that are available

1:22:25on site just to be sure okay thank you um and through the chair you went kind of where I was

1:22:31headed which is uh so with the different uh road widths and construction like what are the rules in

1:22:39place in on Highland or parking is it parking permitted on both sides of the street only on

1:22:46one side of the street and I apologize if you don't know but I'm just trying to help understand

1:22:51that for myself certainly again to member a good fellow through the chair um I just want to preface

1:22:57that I'm not a traffic expert per se but I've done a little bit of reviews because I understand it

1:23:01was a topic of interest here I believe that the traffic bylaw is structured um in terms of

1:23:09restricted parking areas time restricted parking areas and parking on one side of the road

1:23:13I don't see any of those restrictions in here again I want to emphasize that I'm not an expert

1:23:18and I haven't visited the site so I haven't observed the signages for myself but from what I've seen

1:23:24in the traffic bylaw I believe that it's open to parking on both sides at least that's my

1:23:29understanding on a quick review okay thank you that was really helpful I appreciate it I think I'm good

1:23:36thank you um member Fitzpatrick through you chair to staff um I recall this file from

1:23:44the from the July meeting and we had deferred it because there was going to be conversations

1:23:48about the temporary structures and coming up with a more manageable plan for how the land was going

1:23:55to be used are you all satisfied that that's that's been met? The chair to member Fitzpatrick so our

1:24:09environmental planning staff have had uh or discussions with the applicant uh and they

1:24:14have gotten to a point where planning staff are satisfied that the proposal meets the official

1:24:19plan policies of the natural heritage system designation and for that reason staff are are

1:24:25satisfied in that regard yes okay thank you and follow up through you mr chair to the applicant

1:24:34so it are the lands to be retained that are being severed off the 4.34 hectares are they currently

1:24:42being used for the function and for the the services that are being proposed in this this

1:24:48application? No they are not currently being used although they could be without the severance but

1:24:54it's not like the path that we're going for is reconciliation which is why the servants is proposed

1:25:04any follow up? No okay um I guess the only question I have for staff is in regards to zoning and um

1:25:24my understanding is that the zoning in play is in place for both uses am I up to lunch there?

1:25:35To the chair if you're speaking of the group home use on the one property yes that is a permitted

1:25:40use in both the rl1 and rl2 zones in addition to supportive housing is permitted in all of our

1:25:48residential zones and um the um other property sorry I don't have the exact zoning upgrade

1:25:58this moment but yes like passive recreation type uses hiking thank you okay thank you and um

1:26:10um just as a follow up um one of the delegates asked um pointed out is this in the best interest

1:26:19of the community and so it's something that we always have to balance on committee of adjustment

1:26:24is that very topic um and professional staff have have given their uh their opinion um is there any

1:26:33further um and is there any further um comment that staff would like to make regarding that point of

1:26:43view? Sure thank you Mr. Chair so I think I'd like to remind the committee that this application

1:26:50is specifically for the severance that's being proposed as you've noted and as as Kelly noted the

1:26:55use that is existing at 47th Highland where the dwelling is is permitted as of right and the use

1:27:01as proposed in the land management plan for the uh retained parcel the woodland wetland parcel

1:27:06is also permitted as of right so what is here to be discussed today is the severance itself not the

1:27:12uses that are proposed or existing on the site so when staff evaluate those four points including the

1:27:18is it in the best interest of community of the community point we're looking at it

1:27:22from the perspective of the severance itself not the uses that are proposed or existing on that site

1:27:28and when we look at it from that perspective there's nothing new that is proposed to be built

1:27:32as a result of that severance um and it does meet all of our zoning and official plan policies so

1:27:38for that reason we don't see any reason to not support such a proposal and um I guess I'd just

1:27:47like to point out that there is no minor variance attached to this this is just a consent agenda

1:27:57after you mr chair that is correct yes okay thank you um any other questions or comments

1:28:05we spent a lot of time on this and I know there's a lot of community interest

1:28:10so um before we move into committee I'm going to ask one more time if there's anyone either online

1:28:15or in the chamber who would like to speak to this application yes please I believe you've

1:28:23had an opportunity sir I'm sorry that's not that's not how the the committee works I'm afraid

1:28:31if there was anyone else who would like to speak I'd like to have their

1:28:36two cents I'd give them the opportunity um yes please come forward um please state your name

1:28:58for the record please my name is uh Steve Wilson and it'll allow 10 minutes so please go ahead

1:29:06good afternoon committee and chair I had nothing planned really to say other than the fact that

1:29:13that being a resident of uh Pylon Road for the last seven or eight years I think this comes down

1:29:20to an issue of not whether Crow Shield or or the threshold group what they're planning to do or

1:29:31what they want to do in society is to be commended what the issue is here in a nutshell is basically

1:29:38that our community is going to be disrupted and that's what we're concerned about is the disruption

1:29:46of this group coming in and as it's already been uh pointed out we've already seen that in the last

1:29:53few months since threshold took possession of the home at 47 Pylon Road so really this is about

1:30:02disruption there's no concern about what the intentions of these groups are in our in our

1:30:09community that's not a question here what is in question is the disruption that's going to do to

1:30:16a quiet community that is a peaceful community that's used to to having privacy we've already seen

1:30:29members of this group or residents of this group home in our community creating disruption

1:30:38I have personally I'm I'm sorry I'm going to interrupt you a little bit here okay um

1:30:43our purpose here our rules are pretty strict and part of what we're discussing discussing today is

1:30:52not use the uses that are in place are granted we're discussing and I discussed it with Mr.

1:31:00Rumpel that we are discussing a consent agenda to sever the law so if you could focus your comments

1:31:07on that please continue okay I will severing the lot will lead to the occupancy of uh Crow Shields

1:31:17groups and performances whatever you want to call it on our street that will disrupt the community

1:31:25I'm 74 years old I've been around a few years it will disrupt us it already has I don't really care

1:31:32about the severance I know that that's what you're here to do is to decide on the severance

1:31:37the most important part of this is how it's going to affect our community we have nothing against

1:31:42the agendas of these groups what we're saying is this is an inappropriate place to have this happen

1:31:48you've got tons of land in this in this city that's more applicable for their use I know it's not

1:31:55about severance but think about the OR lands provincially governed in this town how much room

1:32:00there is to give I'm sorry I'm I'm going to stop you at that point sir thank you very much thank you

1:32:06I've been I've been quite tolerant in and looking for um this community to express their opinion

1:32:16is there anyone else who would like to speak to this seeing none um I'm going to unless

1:32:24uh committee members have any questions of the applicant or staff I'm going to go into committee

1:32:29um committee members what is your wish member good fellow I move we approve the application

1:32:41with the conditions recommended by city staff okay do we have a seconder member membrano

1:32:48is there any discussion on the application yes member good fellow yes uh to you chair um

1:32:57and I feel compelled to add a note here just because I think my name was mentioned as one of the

1:33:02members who had some concerns that were raised from the prior meeting I did review this application

1:33:08again unfortunately my memory is not so good and so I did go back through this application very thoroughly

1:33:15and so with that view I felt that this application was quite complete and had addressed any of the

1:33:21concerns that I had um from the July meeting I felt that the site management program that was

1:33:28proposed seemed respectful it seemed to address these concerns that were raised in July and

1:33:33certainly my concerns as well so I just wanted to add that note to uh to my uh comments here

1:33:41thank you um any other discussion um we have a we have a motion we have a a seconder as well

1:33:53um if there's no more comment madam secretary treasurer I'll ask you to call the vote

1:34:00thank you chair committee members please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to

1:34:04the motion which is to approve the application with the five recommended conditions chair smith

1:34:10in favor member fits patrick in favor member good fellow in favor member membranio in favor

1:34:18and member mir in favor that's carried mr chair thank you your application has been approved

1:34:39I'm just going to there seem to be a number of people leaving I'm just going to pause for a moment

1:34:43before we call the next application please actually um perhaps this is a good time for a five minute

1:34:51balance break okay we stand adjourned for five minutes I'd like to uh call the November 13th

1:40:51committee of adjustment meeting back into session madam secretary treasurer may we have the next

1:40:56application please the next application is file a dash 83 slash 25 variance to permit location of

1:41:06required parking space at 62 victoria row north all note for those attending remotely if you wish

1:41:12to speak to this application uh you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen that

1:41:17numbers 519 822 1260 extension 2524 is the applicant in the chamber yes please come forward

1:41:34good evening can you state your name for the record please yes my name is ken beekendam from

1:41:39king holmes inc and i'm the agent and um me I need to ask you if the sign was posted as for the

1:41:47planning act uh yes it was and have you read staff's comments yes we have okay and are you in

1:41:54agreement with staff's comments respectfully we're not okay I thought that might be the case you have

1:42:0110 minutes to address the committee please make as much use of that time as you'd like okay so the

1:42:06variance that is before committee is for a reduced setback from the parking space to the street line

1:42:13and then also the location of a parking space so right now the intent of this application is to

1:42:20convert a small underutilized garage into another dwelling unit at this property we don't require

1:42:29any reduction in parking two parking spaces are required currently it's a double wide driveway

1:42:38and the driveway is actually quite long so from the building face to the city sidewalk we have 46

1:42:47feet now from the building face to the actual lot line is about 25 feet 7.66 meters right now as a

1:42:58property currently operates there's already two cars that park in front of the house the garage

1:43:06is not used like so many garages it's full of junk and is not used for actual parking space it is

1:43:14better used for more living space and that's what we're proposing our thoughts are that the

1:43:21provision of a six meter setback and one of those parking spaces be behind the front wall

1:43:28of the dwelling is increasingly becoming an outdated zoning provision in our cover letter we did

1:43:35specify three other local municipalities here that do not have that provision I could expand that

1:43:41list to probably over a hundred municipalities in this province if not more that do not have that

1:43:46requirement so although we respect staff's comments we do respectfully disagree with them just because

1:43:54we don't feel like it's in line with current trends within the province we don't feel like it's

1:44:00meeting provincial policy like the city's current bylaw because it goes against the intent of trying

1:44:09to actually create more housing in the city this is a very low hanging fruit opportunity when it

1:44:15comes to adding another unit it won't take much work to actually install the unit in the garage

1:44:23and it will meet all the requirements of the interior of the interior building code so it will

1:44:27be safe and habitable and when you drive past the house now and when you drive past the house

1:44:34once this project is complete the only difference you'll see on the front is instead of a garage door

1:44:40you'll see a nice window everything else you're going to remain the same the driveway size is not

1:44:46changing there's two cars parked in front of the garage right now that's not changing nothing is going

1:44:52to change as far as the look and feel and so staff's comments here as to why they're denying the

1:44:59application was basically and I'll say what they said so the general intent and purpose of the

1:45:08zoning bylaw in a restricting parking space location within the front yard is to allow for a

1:45:13consistent streetscape that is not dominated by parking spaces and garages and to ensure parking

1:45:20stalls do not negatively impact the public realm and so with our application we're not changing

1:45:29anything about the look of the current property like when you drive past it it's going to look the

1:45:35exact same so this is where we argue that we're not making we're not negatively impacting the

1:45:41streetscape whatsoever and they're saying that the proposed off-street parking spaces would dominate

1:45:48the front landscape of the existing dwelling the current situations we have two cars up parked

1:45:53there now and the situation after we're done is going to be the exact same so we don't feel like

1:46:00we're going to be dominating the streetscape with cars we're not adding any more cars to the property

1:46:07so that's basically our presentation we feel like it should be pretty routine straightforward

1:46:13minor variance however you know we do respect staff's comments but we just respectfully disagree

1:46:20thank you very much if you want to wait right there my colleagues may have some questions

1:46:24committee members do we have any questions of this applicant member Fitzpatrick through you

1:46:31mr chair the the garage as it stands now you say is full of junk and stuff is is that the tenant

1:46:39stuff or is the landlord stuff for how is it used now i can't comment on that i i don't know um i don't

1:46:49know uh any follow-up sorry i'm no i'll wait till staff um any other questions for this applicant

1:47:06seeing none thank you um but if you want to wait in the wings here uh we'll see if there are any

1:47:13delegations who would like to uh comment on this application um is there anyone in the chamber who

1:47:20would like to speak to this application seeing none madam secretary treasurer do we have any

1:47:27registered delegations or anyone online mr chair i can confirm no other delegation requests okay um

1:47:37i i guess there's no point in calling the applicant back since there is nothing to refute other than

1:47:43what was uh part of his presentation um does staff have any um presentation that they wanted to bring

1:47:51forward uh to you mr chair members of the committee staff do have a presentation for this application

1:48:00please go ahead to you mr chair members of the committee the application before you today is for

1:48:06requested variance at 62 victoria road north as the applicant mentioned in their presentation

1:48:11they're proposing to permit one required parking space to be located a minimum distance of 0.84 meters

1:48:17from the street line and to the front of the front wall of the dwelling the applicant is

1:48:22proposing to confirm the existing garage in the dwelling to an adu and two legal parking spaces

1:48:29would be required for the proposed adu and the existing dwelling the zoning bylaw requires

1:48:35that one required parking space shall be located a minimum distance of six meters from the street

1:48:41line and to the rear of the front wall of the main building and as the applicant mentioned

1:48:46the in general intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw in restricting parking space location within

1:48:51the front yard is to allow for that consistent streetscape and additionally to ensure that

1:48:58adequate space is provided for access and maintenance on the public wide right of way

1:49:03while staff believe that the proposed adu is sorry it would facilitate gentle intensification

1:49:10and is permitted in the existing zone the proposed off-street parking spaces would

1:49:17dominate the front landscape of the existing dwelling and while the requested variance is

1:49:23desirable for the appropriate development of the lands it does not meet the general and purpose

1:49:29and intent of the zoning bylaw and is not minor in nature therefore staff recommend refusal of

1:49:35application a dash 83 slash 25 however should the committee wish to approve this application

1:49:43staff have no conditions to provide at this time okay thank you I do have a question

1:49:52but I'll just ask my colleagues if they have any questions to follow up committee members

1:49:59any questions of staff yes member Fitzpatrick through you mr chair so if I heard correctly

1:50:06if that was an existing adu application and there was space behind the front wall whether it was

1:50:14the side yard there'd be no question about allowing that through the chair to member

1:50:21Fitzpatrick that's correct okay thank you and subsequently through you mr chair um

1:50:28if this property did not have an existing garage what would that what would that ruling be look like

1:50:37or what would this request look like through the chair to member Fitzpatrick I believe in

1:50:44that situation uh the one of the one uh sorry one of the legal parking spaces would

1:50:52still be required to be behind the to the rear of the front wall of the building

1:51:03so for clarification if if this was an existing structure that did not have a garage

1:51:12and they wanted to put a second unit in there they would be required to find a way to put

1:51:17a spot behind the front wall is that is that my correct understanding through the chair to member

1:51:26Fitzpatrick um houses I want to say since the 70s in our zoning bylaw minimum I don't know exactly

1:51:33how long it has had that regulation to have the first legal parking space behind the front

1:51:39wall of the house that's either within a garage at the side of the house there are many properties

1:51:45built 100 years ago in our older downtown area where um there's a parking space in front of the house

1:51:54or the driveway is really narrow maybe 2.5 meters and cars don't utilize that where there's no legal

1:52:02parking space for an existing house I do preface it almost always in the older older downtown area

1:52:12therefore no parking spaces are actually required so ad use that's to allow ad use in our older

1:52:18downtown area as well where a house doesn't have a legal parking space thank you thank you member

1:52:29Fitzpatrick any other questions of staff member Ross through you mr chair to staff so if I understand

1:52:39it correctly then the zoning bylaw section that's referred to in the staff report is not uh does not

1:52:46apply to the entire municipality then there are certain areas where uh this requirement to be behind

1:52:56the front wall is not in the zoning bylaw through the chair to member Ross it is in the zoning bylaw

1:53:05for every property it's for existing properties where there's a caveat to that requirement to the

1:53:12requirement of having legal parking space it's for existing properties where a legal parking space

1:53:18was never built then we allow no parking required for the ad use thank you any other questions

1:53:31member good fellow uh yes through the chair to city staff um I think in your comments you noted that

1:53:38you know of our four tests here for a minor variance um it was desirable it met the intent

1:53:45of the zoning bylaw and the intent of the official plan if I'm following correctly but that there was

1:53:51the the concern was around whether it was minor in nature through the chair to member good fellow

1:53:59that is incorrect the it does it does meet the uh test for the for desire as being desirable for

1:54:07the appropriate development of lands and it does meet the general purpose intent of the

1:54:11official plan but it does not meet the purpose and intent of the zoning bylaw and is not minor in

1:54:17nature okay so it meets two of the four tests it's two of the four tests okay I appreciate that thank

1:54:23you um when it comes to sorry if I may follow up yes so through the chair um the the minor in nature

1:54:33I guess I'm interested to understand your perspective on why this may not be minor in nature and I

1:54:40and I know we've been kind of talking about some of the details of this and you may have

1:54:44already answered the question but if you could just put it in the context of why in your opinion

1:54:50this is not minor I think that might help me out through the chair to member good fellow

1:54:57as the zoning bylaw requires that setback of six meters and the applicant is proposing a setback

1:55:04of only 0.84 meters seems like quite the deviation from what the zoning bylaw requires and that

1:55:10is where our justification comes from in terms of it not meeting the general intent and purpose of

1:55:15the zoning bylaw and um as I mentioned the intent of that provision is to ensure the adequate sorry

1:55:23adequate space is provided for access and maintenance on the public right of way and that is why uh the

1:55:31zoning bylaw has the provision in place for six meters okay thank you um and maybe just a follow

1:55:38up here let me just think for a sec if I can um so the access you know there are already two

1:55:46parking spaces at the front it sounds to me like they are permitted under the current

1:55:53zoning bylaw for there to be the two spaces at the front as it currently stands so

1:55:59is there how does that fit with the need for access like if there are already two spaces there

1:56:05and those are legally permitted I'm just struggling to understand how we are talking about a change

1:56:12here from the access compared to what is already in place through the chair to member good fellow

1:56:26so the the provision in question here is the one that requires at least one parking space or the

1:56:31first legal parking space to be behind the front wall of the dwelling there is no um debate about

1:56:36whether or not this meets the minimum requirement for parking spaces that that isn't an issue in

1:56:44this case it's specifically for the location of that first parking space and when it comes to the

1:56:50intent of the zoning bylaw as passed by council there was a thorough review of the zoning bylaw

1:56:55that took place over the course of many years and resulted in the 2023 zoning bylaw that was passed

1:57:00in April of 2023 um council at that time had an opportunity to remove that provision if that's

1:57:07something that they decided was an outdated provision or it wasn't necessary any longer

1:57:11and they opted to keep that provision in if that was important to keep uh to keep at least one

1:57:16parking space behind the front wall of the dwelling and for that reason it's it's difficult for staff

1:57:21to see this as a situation where it meets the intent of the zoning bylaw and ultimately that's

1:57:26what we're here to to discuss is those four tests and whether it meets the intent of the

1:57:29zoning bylaw specifically okay yes thank you and maybe just to follow up if I can uh that

1:57:36clarification is helpful um I think my question perhaps is more around um the the access comment

1:57:44and if the space is behind the front wall to permit access for maintenance and I believe access for

1:57:51emergency vehicles I'm just kind of interpreting here I'm just I'm again I'm just trying to understand

1:57:59if I'm just I'm still a bit confused how the two vehicles in the front already parking

1:58:08versus having one of those vehicles back in behind the front wall plus two vehicles out of the front

1:58:13I don't understand I guess how there is a change in access uh that would be a concern here

1:58:22maybe I'm just not understanding the access component of this

1:58:32through the chair to member good fellow uh so if I'm understanding the application correctly

1:58:38the existing garage is essentially being used for storage right now but that it in its current

1:58:45use could be used as a legal parking space which if it were to be used sorry so essentially the way

1:58:56the zoning bylaw is written in the way the property is in the existing it is permitted the way the

1:59:02parking is the parking situation is configured but by removing the use of an attached garage as a

1:59:11legal parking space and converting it to an ad u that is that is where we have now both

1:59:17both vehicles and or both legal parking spaces in front of the front wall of the building and

1:59:23that's where it doesn't be the general intent of the zoning bylaw so even though now in the current

1:59:28state we see both vehicles being used in the front yard technically one of those parking spaces is

1:59:36is um illegal I guess you could say or legal not conforming okay so I think thank you that's the

1:59:44aha I did not realize that I understood that both of those current two parking spaces that I can

1:59:50visually see when I drive by that those were both legally permitted but what I'm hearing now is that

1:59:55maybe not that one of them should be in the garage and the other one should be in the front

2:00:00okay big not okay thank you appreciate your time to sort this out no it's all good um any other

2:00:10questions of staff um I have one and I I don't want to uh mow this lawn a whole lot of times

2:00:20but given that there are two parking spaces presently um does that fall within the um

2:00:31the maximum driveway width as constituted or would that have to be another um request

2:00:43to the chair I believe the um there wouldn't be need to be an additional variance or anything of

2:00:49the sort for uh to extend the width of the driveway I believe there is sufficient space

2:00:56based on the site plan for two legal parking spaces okay thank you any other questions

2:01:06seeing none um I'm going to ask I've already asked for delegates we didn't have any delegates

2:01:15we've had the staff's presentation I'd like to ask the um applicant to return to the microphone

2:01:21if he has any uh comments uh based on the discussion we've had uh yes so again we just

2:01:35respectfully disagree with the fact that you know that parking spot should be in that garage

2:01:43when we know full well across this entire city many people don't park in their garages they park

2:01:49in front of their homes and they have two cars side by side and we're not asking for anything

2:01:55extravagant here we and the minor part of that 0.8 meter setback from the from the property line

2:02:04we also have an additional 6.48 meters until we hit the municipal sidewalk another 20 21 feet so

2:02:12there's plenty of room for you know municipal service providers to access the street to access

2:02:19to right of way we are not asking for any more cars just the two that are currently there

2:02:25there's still plenty of space for any work to be done if needed in the city right of way so we

2:02:31still feel like this is incredibly minor in nature and like I said you drive past this house you

2:02:36won't even know what's what's going on it's it'd be very simple project that's it thank you

2:02:44no thank you and I would like to follow up on your comment just now with staff and that is um

2:02:52given the comment that uh it sounds like there's uh there's ample there's ample

2:02:59effective space between the city sidewalk and the front of the of the building we've seen similar

2:03:08applications that have been granted and conceivably most of those are in the older part of the city

2:03:16but does that in staff's view make this actually minor in nature the the effective

2:03:26driveway width sorry I said width I meant length to you Mr. Chair um that is a strong argument in

2:03:35the sense that there is quite a bit of space provided um from where the lot line currently

2:03:42sits on the property to the municipal sidewalk um essentially what what planning staff um have

2:03:50determined is that it doesn't meet the that that intent of the zoning bylaw and

2:03:57for minor variance applications they must meet the uh four tests per section 45 of the planning act and

2:04:04that's uh what we're arguing today is that while it one could argue that it could meet the test for

2:04:10being minor in nature given that ample space it would only be meeting three of the four tests

2:04:15as staff still remain the opinion that it when it does not meet the intent and purpose of the

2:04:21zoning bylaw thank you very much for that qualification oh yeah sorry go ahead thank you

2:04:28chair if I if I may add to that just um again coming back to the traffic bylaw that we're

2:04:31speaking about earlier I just wanted to clarify in case it wasn't known um that parking within

2:04:37the public property whether it be on what visually looks like an extra long driveway

2:04:43it's actually against the traffic bylaw the space where the widening has taken place is

2:04:48actually reserved for potential future widening of the road so at some point in the time the

2:04:52road design might change and that space may be occupied for a wider road and and it would no

2:04:58longer be there for parking in so if that's a question there isn't like space for a third

2:05:03parking space if that's what you were asking thanks very much for that qualification I do

2:05:09appreciate it um at this point committee members what is your wish I sense brooding

2:05:29member Ross um I'd like to move to um support staff's uh refusal of the application

2:05:38and can you um elucidate us on which one of the four tests you believe so uh based on the argument

2:05:47that staff has made regarding uh the intent of the zoning bylaw and that it doesn't meet

2:05:53that as one of the tests for approval and I think they were also saying it's not minor in nature

2:06:00is that your intent okay um we'll need a seconder for that a refusal remember mirror um do we have

2:06:09any discussion on this member Fitzpatrick through you mr chair I guess my struggle is that you know

2:06:22we're in a day and age where we're looking for additional living space and we're questioning

2:06:30whether you know we've already if there's three units if there's two units already in that property

2:06:36there's two cars parking there the third unit wouldn't require a third space and I had acknowledged

2:06:48that that legal space has to be behind the front wall but I'm going to argue it's unenforceable

2:06:57I mean is is the city going to instruct zoning bylaw enforcement on starting to count the

2:07:08number of cars in a driveway and say you you know you've got a garage you've got to use it so I'm

2:07:14struggling with I'm I get the you know the intent of that but I'm struggling with that and I I don't

2:07:21know that I can support a refusal of that thank you for that um any member Ross

2:07:31uh so I'm uh definitely see uh arguments on both sides of this application um and on balance uh I

2:07:43am going to support the motion uh that I've made uh to to support staff's recommendation to refuse

2:07:51based on the following so um council had an opportunity in 2023 as I understand it from

2:07:58staff they reviewed the zoning bylaw and they had an opportunity to make this change and they chose

2:08:04not to um secondly uh one of one of the staff has made the comment that um we really don't know what

2:08:13the future holds I'm paraphrasing this is not exactly what was said but my understanding is that

2:08:19we don't really know what the future holds in terms of the widening of Victoria Street

2:08:24so we'll at the end of the day this be an awkward situation if and when Victoria was widened I don't

2:08:34know the answer to that but on the based on an abundance of caution I guess I'm looking at it

2:08:40through that lens on the other side I understand completely the argument that it uh it fulfills

2:08:48other three tests and that this is the direction that uh the city is going the province is going in

2:08:54in terms of additional units for existing housing um I'm also thinking that this is this is Victoria

2:09:02Street which is uh a busy thoroughfare and is the argument that staff makes that uh it's important

2:09:12to provide a consistent street streetscape not dominated by parking space is that really as

2:09:18important here as it might be in other parts of the city so I definitely uh see both sides of the

2:09:26argument but um at any rate I put the motion on the table for discussion so that we could

2:09:33try to reach some conclusion on this one any other comment discussion um yes

2:09:45member good fellow um yes I am also struggling with this one um because for similar reasons

2:09:53to member Fitzpatrick's and I think I have uh satisfied myself that I think this is minor

2:10:00in nature relative to um many of the other applications that we have reviewed um and and

2:10:08but yes the intent of the zoning bylaw now has me very thoughtful and so member Ross your comments

2:10:13are very helpful I think in balance though I come down slightly on the other side

2:10:19I think this is a 4951 split um but I am not I I'm not able to support the motion as it has been

2:10:28presented at this point thank you any other comment um member Mir yeah I will support what Ross has

2:10:36already elaborated that is why I second it okay and um I I struggle with this as well um thinking

2:10:48well especially the effective driveway is minor in nature in in my opinion however I do um aside

2:10:59with staff and saying um potentially it might not be in the future and the city has a reason for

2:11:10putting that together um additionally as member Ross has said um city had the opportunity in 23

2:11:19to address this and so I will be supporting the motion if there's oh yeah go ahead remember

2:11:26right now I agree with your comments I think I'll support the motion I think the the council

2:11:34had the opportunity to review all these so yes well I think we've had a good discussion on this

2:11:43unless there's any uh furious other comments I'm going to ask our secretary treasurer to call the

2:11:49vote please thank you chair committee members please indicate your vote by responding in favour or

2:11:55opposed to the motion which is to refuse the application based on the comments made in the staff

2:12:01report um being the um application not meeting the two tests of the zoning bylaw the intent of the

2:12:09zoning bylaw and the minor in nature chair Smith in favour member Fitzpatrick opposed

2:12:17member good fellow opposed member membrane in favour member meir in favour

2:12:25and member Ross in favour that's carried mr chair um your application has been refused

2:12:39madam secretary treasurer may we have the next applicant please the next application is val a

2:12:46dash 82 slash 25 variances to permit increased front and exterior side yard setbacks and

2:12:53building height reduced parking spaces and permit location of loading spaces for proposed warehouse

2:12:58expansion at 345 handling creek boulevard I'll note for those attending remotely if you wish to speak

2:13:05to this application you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen that number is 519

2:13:10822 1260 extension 2524 and lastly I'll also note for the committee's benefit that correspondence

2:13:17was received after the comment deadline from Laura Muir with concerns about the application and that

2:13:23correspondence has been circulated to staff and the committee members I see the applicant

2:13:30online is that correct that's correct mr chair jerry chisler here from mhbc planning agent for the

2:13:37welcome welcome can and you've stated your name and your and your relationship to this application

2:13:43so thank you can you tell me if the sign was posted as for the planning act yes it was mr chair

2:13:50thank you and uh have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement we have read the comments

2:13:56and we are in agreement um with that housekeeping out of the way you have 10 minutes to address the

2:14:02committee thank you mr chair i'll be quite brief um I I didn't see the correspondence that was

2:14:09submitted so I may have more comments once uh once uh I understand what the concerns might be

2:14:15I do think staff have described the project well in the report and we agree with its conclusions

2:14:21so I don't have too much to add on on that regard but I do have one request of committee

2:14:26um the front yard variance currently before the committee is for a 94 meter front yard setback

2:14:33whereas the project actually requires a 95 meter front yard setback unfortunately the error uh was

2:14:40made um prior to the application being submitted and it was simply a rounding error to round the setback

2:14:47down to 94 as opposed to up to 95 um once we had noticed the error we did contact staff to flag the

2:14:54issue um my understanding and staff uh perhaps staff can confirm this but my understanding was

2:15:00that there's generally no concern with increasing the setback um and it's it's also my opinion that

2:15:06the revised circulation notice isn't required in this case given how minor the change is going from

2:15:1294 to 95 something that would be basically imperceptible from the street especially at that great distance

2:15:20um and uh so our request would be at this meeting to to have that variance modified to a 95

2:15:27meter setback that's all Mr. Chair. Thank you um committee members do we have any

2:15:37questions for the applicant member Fitzpatrick. Through you Mr. Chair um and this may not be a

2:15:47I guess a fair question at this point if you haven't seen the comments but there was the

2:15:53one comment that was circulated was about the the berm separating them from the this property

2:15:58from the residential has that been addressed or have you addressed that? Um I through the chair I

2:16:08did not see the comments uh what I can say is that there is a berm currently along teal teal drive

2:16:14that will block that blocks the existing um warehouse building and loading docks and it'll

2:16:20block most of the um proposed loading dock as well um and on top in addition to that there's also a

2:16:27landscape buffer provided along that uh along that frontage um and I'm not sure from which sort of

2:16:35angle the concern is coming from I'm going to guess it's sort of from the potential the residential

2:16:39community to the north uh I guess it's to the northwest of the property um and if so there are

2:16:46a number of additional berms on the adjacent property um or sort of the intervening property

2:16:52between this one and that community. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions for this applicant?

2:17:06I'm surprised, remember good fellow, that you don't have a question.

2:17:15If there aren't any other questions of the applicant I'm going to ask staff if they have

2:17:21a uh a report. Yes, member Rumpel. Through you Mr. Chair I don't have a presentation per se

2:17:31but I will note that this application or this proposal has already been to the site plan

2:17:37committee and that's where these variances were originally identified. No decision has

2:17:42been made at that site plan meeting but in the drawings provided for that that application it

2:17:48is noted that the berm is proposed to be extended um further south I think it is to block the uh

2:17:55the proposed addition as well and I do note that the uh the comments received um bring up some

2:18:02concerns about an OMB settlement for this property a few years back and two of the concerns that I

2:18:08believe were brought up were one concerning concerning the berm and the other one was infiltration

2:18:14rates for uh like water landing on the on the subject property and this is something that will

2:18:20be reviewed during the site plan review process so far the comments that have been provided by

2:18:25engineering staff haven't indicated any concern about the this proposal's ability to meet that

2:18:30requirement but uh but site plan approval has not yet been granted and I will make sure to

2:18:36reach out to engineering staff to make sure that they are aware of that OMB settlement

2:18:41and take that into consideration before they finalize any of their comments for that process.

2:18:47Thank you and may I ask a housekeeping question um it's noted that there is a minor um

2:18:56discrepancy between what's being asked for and and um if we do approve motion I'm wondering how

2:19:03that gets captured. Mr Chair I can answer that question um for you we have talked to um the

2:19:12applicant about this situation unfortunately it was um um rounding error made there if the committee

2:19:19satisfied that no further public notice is needed for the 90 maximum 94 meter front yard setback

2:19:26versus the 95 meter setback then the committee could consider um going ahead and we would note that

2:19:32if this application is um approved that 94 meter um setback request.

2:19:39Okay thank you for that and um as I guess at this point if there's no more questions of the

2:19:47applicant um I turn to the gallery and see if anyone wishes to comment on this application.

2:19:55Yes please come forward welcome can you state your name for the record please.

2:20:09You're going to have to turn the microphone on sorry about that there you go it's on

2:20:13up now you turned it off. Okay on okay sorry about that. We're good okay sorry can you

2:20:18restate your name for the record please. Rest is Laura Mer and um you have 10 minutes.

2:20:23Thank you um I'm here tonight because I was a my late husband and I were signatories on the

2:20:30Ontario Municipal Board settlement agreement which was a long and very expensive process for everyone

2:20:37involved including my husband and I who contributed $50,000 into this into protecting the natural

2:20:44heritage on the site and I guess my concerns are is that is I'm losing my training I'm getting my

2:20:52senior moment here anyway um I think what's important to me and to us is that the settlement

2:20:59agreement is honored and the settlement agreement the most important things to us were the protection

2:21:04of the Downey Road well from polluting industries to the maintenance of recharge for the natural areas

2:21:12and also for the tributary A of the Hanlon Creek which I think is still cold water and with Brook

2:21:17Trout and also the protection of our neighborhood um so I did in my comments which I'm sorry that

2:21:27the consultant didn't see my question was whether the berm will remain which they said will but the

2:21:34berm only extends partway to from Teal Drive and doesn't go all the way to uh bet court so I would

2:21:40like to see the the berm extended if possible okay and condition condition eight that was condition

2:21:50six of our hearing but condition eight speaks to the post-development recharge infiltration rates

2:21:56that set were set on a block by block braces in the in the Hanlon Business Creek Park uh the

2:22:03environmental implementation report and set an impervious cover of 85 percent I'm not sure if that

2:22:10part condition has been met if this application is approved so that was one of my questions I submitted

2:22:18because it was designed and because the EIR set out stormwater management techniques designed to

2:22:25lessen the impact of development on the downstream Hanlon Creek tributary through quality and quantity

2:22:30control of the stormwater recharge so I want to know how the expansion of the building size

2:22:35and what's happening with the parking lot will meet this EIR target infiltration rate for quality

2:22:41and quality set out and did the for instance did the stormwater design for block 35 account for any

2:22:49new expansion that would that would take into account this increase in pervious spaces and if it did

2:22:56maybe there's nothing more to be done I don't know and so there's other things it could be oh the

2:23:03building the height of the building isn't we did set there are a set building height this is going

2:23:08to be higher than the conditions but that I mean I don't think that's going to be a problem for me

2:23:16anyway and the other thing is is how are how are they going to handle the reach all the the

2:23:22the stormwater that's going to come off the building are they going to be doing rooftop

2:23:27info info use the rooftop to do infiltration so those are my concerns you know we had we spent

2:23:35our money and I would like to see the reasons why we did this to be honored in any future

2:23:42any future new building or conditions on the sites in the business park

2:23:49thank you for bringing those important points forward I've made note of a couple of them so

2:23:56if you want to stand by my colleagues may have some questions can you members any questions of

2:24:02this uh delegate yeah okay thank you again very thank you for letting me speak and sorry I came in

2:24:08late in the process but I wasn't notified of this prior to the meeting except when the meeting came

2:24:13out so thank you um can I just ask a question about that um is it because you were outside of

2:24:19the notification area is that probably but you know I mean I thought I would have thought as

2:24:24being a signatory on a hearing that we would have on the on the uh agreement that we would be getting

2:24:31notification of any kind of adjustments to any properties on the on the site thank you any more

2:24:41questions uh doesn't appear to be so thank you very much um is there anyone else in the chamber

2:24:49who would like to speak to this application I'm seeing none madam secretary treasurer is there

2:24:56any one online uh mr chair I can confirm no other delegation reports okay um and so um hearing from

2:25:04a member of the public I'm going to invite the the applicant if they have any comment

2:25:11based on what they've heard thank you mr chair yeah I think I can respond to to the concerns

2:25:18brought up by the the resident I noted four items so I'm hoping I'm covering everything off the first

2:25:24question was about the berm so the berm is indeed being extended as noted by staff so it's going to

2:25:30cover um you know I'm looking at the plans here basically like let's say 90 of teal drive so it'll

2:25:36it'll cover it'll be in front of the extension of the building so only from a very small portion of

2:25:43teal drive might you be able to sort of look diagonally and see the loading docks um so that

2:25:49that is being extended and it's being landscaped which will be reviewed and approved by by staff

2:25:54through the site plan process um there's a question about impervious cover and infiltration

2:26:01again that's a matter that will be dealt with at the site plan process through a storm water

2:26:05management report there will be certain targets for this site that have to be met for the developer

2:26:09to go through and I will note that just looking through the site statistics we have about 41

2:26:18percent of the site remaining as landscape open space so the variety of planting or just

2:26:23a grassed area so the impervious cover despite the the increase in building footprint is going to be

2:26:30quite continue to remain quite high there was a question about the building height so we're

2:26:38requesting a variance for building height from eight meters to 12.2 but that is actually the

2:26:43height of the existing warehouse building on site so we're just extending that over with this new

2:26:49addition um and I think the last concern was just about storm water management generally and

2:26:56ensuring that it doesn't impact some of the natural areas around the site so um as I mentioned earlier

2:27:03the site is being reviewed through the site plan process which is a detailed review of the of the

2:27:07engineering requirements for development and it would be reviewed against the the applicable

2:27:12engineering standards by uh set up by the city. Oh thank you for that I I you have anticipated

2:27:22my question so thank you I do appreciate it um committee members any questions of the applicant

2:27:29member Fitzpatrick. Through you Mr. Chair to staff just for clarity from for my sake

2:27:37um if we approve these minor variances and then site plan review um says

2:27:46they can't we can't meet some of these conditions that were part of the original agreement

2:27:55what's the what's what's the how's how's that how's that impact this this decision that we make

2:28:03Through the chair to member Fitzpatrick the the decision on this variance wouldn't override the

2:28:08the um result of that OMB hearing um so those conditions would still have to be adhered to

2:28:17Great thank you. Member Goodfellin. Yes I do have a question as it turns out

2:28:24so through the chair I think to city staff um there was a comment about a noise study and

2:28:30whether a new noise study would need to be completed for this property um we're talking

2:28:36about extending the berm that all sounds like it is going to address potential for additional noise

2:28:43but is there a process as part of site plan approval where the noise would be assessed

2:28:48I mean I do understand that there's some provincial requirements for industrial facilities but just

2:28:53wondering how that whether that needs to be captured here or considered here or is that

2:29:00going to be part of another process to member Goodfellin through the chair um you're at the

2:29:07site plan process itself will address that I don't know offhand if the site plan application

2:29:13has proceeded enough where submission requirements have been defined uh or if that has been done if

2:29:19that includes a noise study but we do review all development applications whether it be site plan

2:29:23or zone change or severances for the potential for noise studies as required submissions um which

2:29:31the situations that must be present for us to request a noise study are outlined in the Guelph

2:29:38noise control guidelines so that process would be followed through site plan and it's not necessary

2:29:43for us to consider that through this application here. Thank you it's great clarification.

2:29:49Thank you any other questions for staff?

2:29:55Seeing none um I'm wondering what your intent is committee members member Fitzpatrick.

2:30:03I would motion that we accept this application as per staff recommendations as well as including

2:30:12the corrected 94 meters versus 95. Thank you and um do I have a seconder member Goodfellin?

2:30:29Excuse me um at this point uh is there any discussion on the motion before us?

2:30:35Seeing none um I think at this point I can turn it over to the secretary treasurer for a vote.

2:30:42Thank you chair committee members please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the

2:30:48motion which is to approve the application um noting the 95 meters um front yard setback request.

2:30:56Chair Smith? In favor. Member Fitzpatrick? In favor. Member Goodfellow? In favor. Member Mambrenio? In

2:31:04favor. Member Meir? In favor. And member Ross? In favor. That's caring Mr. Chair.

2:31:10Your application has been approved and so you're free to leave the meeting. Thank you.

2:31:19Another housekeeping matter um we're going to given the extent of this uh this agenda this

2:31:28evening I'm going to move that we have a 20 minute recess and that would bring us back at um

2:31:37it looks like uh just 10 to the hour at this point we stand adjourned.

2:37:22Good evening I'd like to call back to order the November 13th meeting of the committee of adjustment.

2:53:00Um I um would like to do a little bit of housekeeping and that seems to be my role this evening

2:53:11more than often but um given the public interest in the Monticello Crescent application I'd like

2:53:20to move that one um to um our next item of agenda if uh if that's uh if that's good with the my

2:53:31committee members um I'll tell you what um I'm hearing a little bit of a buzz and I'm thinking

2:53:43maybe after the next so it would be item number 2.6 as opposed to 2.10 so we will um

2:53:56I guess Madam Secretary Treasurer begin back with um item 2.5. The next application is fellow

2:54:08a-85 slash 25 variances to permit reduced front yard setbacks for proposed covered porch and second

2:54:15story uncovered porch with stairs at 81 Farquhar Street. I'll note for those attending remotely if

2:54:21you wish to speak to this application you can do so but excuse me calling the number displayed on

2:54:26the screen the number's 519-822-1260 extension 2524 and when you call in staff we'll give you

2:54:33instructions on how you can delegate remotely and lastly I'll note for the committee's benefit that

2:54:39correspondence was received after the commenting deadline from Heritage staff

2:54:43and those comments have been circulated to the committee members. Thank you good evening and

2:54:49welcome can you state your name for the record please in your relationship to the application?

2:54:54Thank you yes Lloyd Grinam Grinam architects and I'm agent for the application. Thank you and can

2:54:59you tell me if the sign was posted as per the planning act? Yes they were. And have you read

2:55:04staff's comments and are you in agreement? Yes we have and yes we are. With those items out of the

2:55:12way you have 10 minutes to address the committee as you wish. Okay thanks I won't take 10 minutes

2:55:18we'll keep this moving along for you. I just just very very briefly because you know really this is

2:55:26just about the sort of setback requirements reductions on setbacks for the front porch but

2:55:31I noticed that there was a piece of correspondence that just came through today from Heritage

2:55:35Wealth which was timely so I'm assuming everybody saw it but basically I just wanted to kind of

2:55:41mention that the whole premise here is that the property owners Jeff and Susan have owned a number

2:55:47of historic properties in the city for a number of years done a lot of work to rest of restoration

2:55:52work maintenance that type of thing and that's really the impetus for this project that Jeff

2:55:59wanted to there we he got some historic photos there was a lot of conversations as noted in

2:56:05that letter with Heritage Wealth we've been in discussions with them for a couple of years probably

2:56:10now and the intent is really just to take a step back and actually restore a historic image of this

2:56:18building not not necessarily the 1840 version because there's no photographs to go from but late 1800s

2:56:27appearance to the building which has been kind of sadly modified over the time in the 19th century

2:56:3320th century so that that's really what this is about so it is kind of a nice simple project of

2:56:39kind of recreating from those photographs as truthfully as we can a historic heritage construction

2:56:47of this two-story porch based on those photos based on consultation with Heritage Wealth

2:56:52and some other restoration work on the windows and facades as well but if you're wondering why we're

2:56:58trying to do this little skinny little porch at the front in in a tiny little five foot front yard

2:57:03that's there that's the rationale to try and bring the building back to a little closer to its

2:57:08heritage appearance so thanks very much and committee members do we have any questions for the applicant

2:57:18seeing none did staff have any comment i noted that um as mr. Grisham as mentioned we did have

2:57:28comment from Heritage Planning staff do staff present have any comment

2:57:38do you mr. chair just wanted to state for the record that staff are the opinion that the requested

2:57:44variances maintain the purpose and intent of the zoning bylaw are desirable for the development of

2:57:49the lands our minor in nature and also meet the purpose and intent of the official plan

2:57:57thank you very much um is there anyone in the gallery who would like to speak to this application

2:58:03um seeing none madam secretary treasurer are there any online mr. chair i can confirm no

2:58:11delegation requests thank you um i was glad to see heritage staff comment on this because

2:58:19was going to be one of my questions is this is perhaps one of the oldest buildings in guelph

2:58:23sounds correct um at this point then if there's no further discussion i would like to entertain

2:58:32a motion what is your wish committee members member member i will add to move to approve the

2:58:41application as recommended by staff thank you and do we have a seconder member mere

2:58:49is there any discussion seeing none um madam secretary treasurer would you call the vote please

2:58:59thank you chair committee members please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to

2:59:03the motion which is to approve the application chair smith in favor member fits patrick in favor

2:59:11member good fellow in favor member membranio in favor member mere in favor and member ross

2:59:19in favor that's carried mr chair thank you your application has been approved thank you very

2:59:24much you're welcome as mentioned we have made a a change to our agenda and um at this point i'm

2:59:44going to ask for item 2.10 to now take um its place uh so um madam secretary treasurer can you call the

2:59:59applicant the next applications are files b-70 slash 25 b-71 slash 25 and b-72 slash 25 consent

3:00:11to create three new residential lots with one retained residential lot nine monticello crescent

3:00:18i'll note for those attending remotely if you wish to speak to these applications you can do so

3:00:23by calling the number displayed on the screen that numbers 519-822-1260 extension 2524 and when

3:00:31you call in staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely lastly i'll also

3:00:36note for the committee's benefit that correspondence was received after the commenting deadline from

3:00:41pennie richardson and dr john richardson what concerns about the applications and that correspondence

3:00:46has been circulated to the committee thank you is the applicant present good evening once again

3:01:02can you state your name for the record please and your relationship to the application my name is

3:01:06brianne miller i'm from van harten surveying and i represent the applicant tonight and can you tell

3:01:11me if the sign was posted as per the planning act it was yes thank you and have you read staff's

3:01:16comments and are you in agreement yes and yes with that out of the way um you have 10 minutes to

3:01:22address the committee okay perfect um so this is a really big lot um in an area that's close to a

3:01:27lot of amenities it's fully serviced uh grocery stores and everything are very close by um lots

3:01:33like these they're being repurposed all over the city for this type of development it's just a

3:01:38transition phase out of these historic homes um from these big lots to more condensed to allow

3:01:43for more densification uh we are very grateful for staff's comments of uh uh exuberant approval

3:01:50um we think this is an excellent use of the land it's intensifying gently um we are going to perform

3:01:56a tree protection and inventory so that will be part of the conditions outlined we understand there

3:02:02are concerns about garbage and storage um i did see the photos from another neighboring lot and

3:02:07that is unfortunate however this property is not going to be left to its own whims it is going to

3:02:13manage with the property management company that will be responsible for snow lawn and garbage

3:02:18uh it won't be left up to the tenants whoever they may be um and uh finally though we did note

3:02:25that there are no traffic or parking concerns from staff as this does meet the parking requirements

3:02:30as outlined in the zoning bylaw thank you um committee members do we have any questions for

3:02:37this applicant um seeing none i will turn to staff and see if there is a a presentation or comment

3:02:48that they'd like to make through you mr chair and to the committee uh given the number of written

3:02:56comments received i'd like to maybe proactively touch on some of the concerns that uh committee

3:03:00might have about the application uh mostly relating to parking compatibility and intensification of the

3:03:06site um so maybe i can just briefly go through each one um but regarding parking uh every zoning

3:03:12use is required to provide parking appropriate and number in design for the use on the property itself

3:03:17not the street um the proposal provides more parking than is required in the zoning bylaw

3:03:23for a semi-touch unit and two internal ad us uh so in this case the requirement would be a minimum

3:03:28of two parking spaces whereas they can fit three parking spaces uh with the driveway

3:03:33and internal garage per lot um and in respect for the driveways uh as shown at at four four

3:03:40point five meters this is within the maximum permitted driveway width of 60 of a lot frontage

3:03:47regarding compatibility um we consider compatible development uh that can can coexist with the

3:03:55surrounding area without adverse impact so in a land use context this typically means harm or

3:04:02material discomfort or impairment of the safety of any person loss of enjoyment of the normal use

3:04:07of the property or impact on neighboring properties that would impact their use uh or ability to use

3:04:13their property so generally speaking uh matters of compatibility are addressed through the requirements

3:04:19of the zoning bylaw uh so you see this through permitted uses setback requirements and required

3:04:23parking um the proposal as presented is in conformity with the zoning bylaw and as shown

3:04:29there's no variances that are requested to make the sufferings happen thank you very much um

3:04:36um any questions of staff committee members um at this point then i will ask if there is anyone

3:04:45in the chamber who would like to speak to this application yes please come forward good evening

3:05:09can you state your name for the record please it's jennifer mcnally you have 10 minutes to address

3:05:14the committee thank you uh good evening chair members of the committee as i said my name is

3:05:19jennifer mcnally and i live on monticello crescent um thank you for allowing me to speak today

3:05:26i'm here as a concerned resident and homeowner to respectfully oppose the proposal to sever

3:05:31nine monticello crescent into four new high density lots i want to begin by speaking about

3:05:38our neighborhood context uh monticello crescent is a quiet well-established residential street

3:05:45it is characterized by large tree lots as has already been stated and we have a very close

3:05:50knit community while it was not initially designed for it it is also a very busy pedestrian route

3:05:58which is used daily by residents as well as many students from the nearby university

3:06:04this fact is important to emphasize because our streets have no sidewalks and they have no street

3:06:11lights meaning that pedestrians using our streets as well as vehicles share the winding roadways

3:06:18and often this happens at night this proposal would bring a level of activity and density

3:06:26that our streets simply weren't designed for and when we consider the cumulative effect

3:06:30of the development that's already been approved on evergreen just 190 meters away from this one

3:06:36these risks grow exponentially i want to stress that safety is my foremost concern here

3:06:44it is my understanding that each of the proposed dwellings for the new lots at nine monticello

3:06:49will contain three apartment suites each with multiple bedrooms this means that there could be

3:06:54an additional 24 to 36 residents possibly more if bedrooms are shared parking for these units

3:07:02is proposed within the garage and single file along each driveway in practice that's extremely

3:07:10difficult to manage garages maybe need need to be used to house garbage bins for these units

3:07:16the proposed parking means that residents residing in different units will have their cars

3:07:22blocked in by other tenants and most likely will end up parking on the street or on the lawns as has

3:07:29been noted on evergreen recently this will cause sight lines to be further impeded and greatly

3:07:36increase the risk to pedestrian safety especially due to the close proximity of this property to the

3:07:42highly used gordon street exit parking on the street seems like it will be inevitable with the

3:07:49design that has been proposed yet street parking is prohibited in our neighborhood between the hours

3:07:54of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. that means that overflow vehicles will either be parking illegally on the

3:08:00street or spill on to neighboring lawns and driveways creating additional congestion and

3:08:06reducing our sight lines further again this impacts safety because there are no street lights there are

3:08:13no sidewalks at night visibility is poor and pedestrians are often walking in complete darkness

3:08:21cutting across monticello from evergreen while other neighborhoods in gualph may have opposed

3:08:27this type of development for similar reasons i need to remind the committee that our neighborhood is

3:08:33unique given the lack of street lights and the high volume of pedestrian traffic from the university

3:08:41i want to emphasize that i'm not just speaking as a neighbor but also as a parent and an educator

3:08:47i have two children who are students at the university of gualph and i'm a post-secondary

3:08:52educator myself i do understand the nature of this age group they walk in groups often distracted

3:09:00wearing headphones and commonly this occurs in the evening they're active they're social and almost

3:09:07always dressed entirely in black all of which increases their vulnerability on streets like ours

3:09:14that weren't designed for this i'm here to advocate not just for my neighbors but for these

3:09:21students as well when dozens of additional vehicles and tenants are introduced to an area

3:09:27without proper pedestrian infrastructure the risk of a serious accident becomes very real

3:09:34when we consider the cumulative effect of multiple high occupancy developments like this one and the

3:09:40one recently approved at six evergreen the dangers are compounded even further this is something

3:09:47that causes me deep concern i just want to mention that this morning i actually have an example of

3:09:54this happening i returned home in the morning i turned off of gordon onto monticello and just

3:09:59one house down from the house in question there are students walking in the middle of the road

3:10:04completely oblivious to my presence they continue to walk distractedly in the middle of the road

3:10:11unaware that i was behind them if i wasn't driving and it were safe to do so i would have taken a

3:10:18video just to emphasize my point here today but what happens when we increase the number of vehicles

3:10:25and pedestrians on this small stretch of roadway possibly with less experienced drivers who will

3:10:32be held responsible if there is a collision next i want to speak on our environmental stewardship

3:10:41and protecting the groundwater in our city as we all know guelph relies entirely on groundwater

3:10:47as its source for drinking water every large green lot in our neighborhood helps to naturally

3:10:54absorb and filter that rainwater replenishing the aquifer this brings a value to these types

3:11:01of properties that is often overlooked in the long term think of how the redevelopment of them

3:11:06will have a lasting impact when these lots are divided and redeveloped we lose permeable surfaces

3:11:12replacing them with roofs asphalt and concrete that direct storm water into drains instead of

3:11:19into the soil it may seem like a small change on one property but the cumulative effect of

3:11:26several such developments across a neighborhood can significantly reduce groundwater recharge over

3:11:31time and i believe this runs directly counter to the environmental priorities outlined in guelph's

3:11:37official plan finally i want to reiterate the precedent and cumulative impact of this type

3:11:44of redevelopment this concern isn't hypothetical as we know just 190 meters away a similar multi-unit

3:11:51development was recently approved despite concerns raised by the neighborhood if this

3:11:57severance is approved it signals that this neighborhood despite its lack of sidewalks

3:12:02streetlights and modern storm water systems is open for continued intensification that's how

3:12:08cumulative impact happens one approval at a time until the original design safety and environmental

3:12:15balance of the area is gone this neighborhood was never intended for this level of density

3:12:22and the precedent being set will make it nearly impossible to preserve what remains of the

3:12:26neighborhood safety and environmental value our large tree covered lots aren't just attractive

3:12:33they're part of guelph's environmental identity they provide shade wildlife habitat and very

3:12:39importantly groundwater filtration replacing them with tightly packed triplexes and long

3:12:45driveways changes that permanently and it removes their value to the groundwater system we rely on

3:12:53the cumulative effect of these losses will not just alter the look of our community but how it

3:12:57functions more cars more pedestrians less green space and a steady erosion of the safe environment

3:13:04that residents hear value in closing i urge the committee to consider not just this one application

3:13:11but its broader cumulative impact on our community and our city this proposal could introduce up to

3:13:1836 new residents and their vehicles onto a street that has no sidewalks no street lighting and no

3:13:24daytime parking it would add to existing safety risks remove green space that protects our groundwater

3:13:31and set a precedent for further high density infill in an area unequipped to handle it this

3:13:38point proven by the recent approval of six evergreen as both a parent of university of guelph

3:13:44students and a post-secondary educator i understand the habits and mobility of this age group and i

3:13:51worry deeply for their safety as well as for all those who share our streets it is for these very

3:13:57important reasons that i respectfully ask the committee to consider denying this severance

3:14:01application thank you for your time and for your ongoing commitment to thoughtful responsible

3:14:07decision-making on behalf of our neighborhood and those of the city of guelph thank you very much

3:14:14for your considered opinion and i'd like to ask you to wait there for a moment and uh

3:14:21pull my colleagues to see if there are any questions committee members do we have questions

3:14:25of this applicant seeing none thank you again for your respectful comments thank you um are there

3:14:35any other members of the gallery who would like to speak to this yes please come forward

3:14:51good evening can you speak state your name for the record please you're going to have to turn

3:14:56your microphone on and ask you to do it again please valeri romanello thank you and you have

3:15:0310 minutes to address the committee okay hello chair and committee members thank you for the

3:15:08opportunity to speak today regarding the applications for nine monticello my husband and i have lived

3:15:14in this neighborhood for 24 years i was born and raised in guelph and raised my two children here

3:15:20myself and some of our neighbors here are here again as we were on september 4th for six evergreen

3:15:27and we still disagree with this recommend this similar recommendation uh to go ahead and we

3:15:33ask that the um committee reject this application as my neighbor jen has just discussed we have

3:15:39serious concerns with safety and parking here are some images reflecting what we're dealing with and

3:15:45what we'll only get continue this was just today this first slide here just one of many examples

3:15:52because we don't have stride sidewalks and street lights pedestrians are continuing to walk in the

3:15:58middle of the road here today they're picking up the leaves dump trucks who people are not going

3:16:05to see as they're walking down the middle road add the cars that come down next slide oh sorry

3:16:14okay perfect um in terms of her talking about parking um here we have um student or student cars

3:16:30in front of some of the rental places on evergreen as an example interesting enough the one on the

3:16:35left i took on the way to this meeting on september 4th at four o'clock and you're not allowed to

3:16:40park there between eight and six p.m. on a monday to friday the middle one same thing november 6

3:16:45same thing um we'll can we we'll start calling all the bylaws because this is continuing to

3:16:51happen more and more and more um on the right on the night two days later of september 6 there was

3:16:57a party at six evergreen that just got approved for severance but has rental in there there was a

3:17:04huge party that took up the whole street of cars um and um the bylaw officers had to get called

3:17:12and that wasn't enough the cops had to come and this was a whole street of evergreen

3:17:18lined both sides with cars and interesting enough these are students with all these cars

3:17:23who apparently do drive and have cars so where are these cars going same issue we have here

3:17:30in terms of garbage i appreciated uh as our neighborhood did um a member a good fellow

3:17:37the last time asked about garbage the city relies i'm going to interrupt you there for a moment please

3:17:43and if we could pause the timer um this is the second time a member of the public has um used

3:17:52one of the members specifically by name okay and i would appreciate if people would refrain from

3:17:58doing that okay no problem thank you yep um the city relies on homeowners and renters to responsibly

3:18:05sort their garbage every week and put it out to the curb in their appropriate bins allowing four

3:18:11lots on the subject property could result in 12 housing units would mean that 24 bins would be at

3:18:17the curb every week jockeying for position beside the cars that will fill each of the four driveways

3:18:22even if they fit this will cause problems for city staff responsible for collecting the garbage

3:18:28particularly during the winter months when snow banks and yet to be plowed streets make placing

3:18:33the bins more challenging garbage bins are supposed to be stored out of sight for the rest of the week

3:18:38unfortunately this is often not the case with such rental properties case in point here um at six

3:18:47evergreen again this is the garbage bins um in the garbage that accumulated the morning after the party

3:18:53all over the property um and this continues to happen with their garbage bins um that we see often

3:19:01on september 4th the committee adjustment as i mentioned um approved this six evergreen and

3:19:07that we had dealt with this massive party as i mentioned this um the parties didn't even stop

3:19:15after the landlord got involved and said this was the last first and last time no more parties

3:19:21happened this is only going to intensify the at the property of nine monticello um from a single home

3:19:27to 12 units carrying these issues further into the neighborhood to reiterate from jen mayfield park

3:19:38community is a quiet stable low density residential neighborhood all of our homes are one to two stories

3:19:44detached houses sitting on heavily treed lots there are no sidewalks or streetlights this application

3:19:50if if approved will result in a property that is profoundly incompatible with the character of our

3:19:54neighborhood and would destabilize the area i heard streetscape earlier in an application here

3:20:00interesting it is hugely important um as to what this is going to do to this neighborhood

3:20:07the question of compatibility often comes up in these meetings as residents attempt to

3:20:12impress upon the qualitative aspects of compatibility to city staff and the committee

3:20:17compatibility can be defined in quantitative and qualitative aspects unfortunately it's easier to

3:20:23measure the quantitative aspects with the new definition of low density the application may

3:20:30may from a very technical perspective be considered compatible but what about the qualitative

3:20:36aspects they are also very important according to section 8.5 of the official plan however new

3:20:43buildings proposed within older established areas of the city are encouraged to be designed to

3:20:48complement the visual character and architectural building material elements found in those areas

3:20:54knowing that some design elements will only be revealed in a burnt building permit

3:20:59we think this recommendation should be uh should not be undermined or forgotten

3:21:04we note that the definition of compatibility in the official plan is intentionally vague

3:21:10that allows us as neighbors to consider an alternative interpretation relative to the

3:21:14developer and to staff in essence compatibility of the application with the neighborhood

3:21:20is at the heart of why we are here i'd like to highlight some other context based i'm focusing

3:21:27on concerns with pertaining to two of the 11 development criteria and why this application

3:21:32should be rejected the first criteria is about building form scale height setbacks massing appearance

3:21:38and siting staff is stating with the applications generally compatible with the official plan

3:21:43and sodas van harten but in our opinion up to 12 units is not compatible with either the

3:21:50three bedroom house they replace or the neighborhood there are no three-story homes in our neighborhood

3:21:56there are no semi-detached either uh other than i guess what's coming for six evergreen

3:22:01and none masked in such narrow lots we also note that since the height and appearance have not yet

3:22:08been specified it is impossible to conclude that the proposed buildings are compatible with the

3:22:13neighborhood based on what we know they undermine and ignore section 8.5 the second criteria

3:22:19states that infill units are to be compatible with the frontage of nearby lots this is a problem

3:22:26i cannot imagine how the proposed widths of 7.6 meters can be considered compatible

3:22:33with surrounding lots at around 33 meters or at least three times wider i know that you may not

3:22:40have a chance to come to our neighborhood but you could uh we welcome you to do that in the in the

3:22:45event that you can't and you're not going to do it tonight please um do not approve applications

3:22:52because it's the easiest thing to do it's not the right thing to do just for a quick review of

3:22:58here's monticello street and the existing houses number five monticello two houses down from the

3:23:04proposed site across the street from five monticello on the corner of evergreen and monticello

3:23:11seven monticello which is right beside the proposed property nine monticello is the subject

3:23:18property 15 monticello is on the other side of the proposed property two mayfield which is across on

3:23:28across from the proposed property on the corner oh no sorry this is corner evergreen and monticello

3:23:3515 monticello um sorry this is two mayfield across from 15 monticello 16 monticello

3:23:4717 monticello 18 monticello and again here we are at nine monticello um in terms of uh intensification

3:24:00yes more and affordable housing is needed in guelph the areas near the intersection of gordon

3:24:07stone and south on gordon um are known in the official plan as strategic growth areas there

3:24:18are numerous properties in this strategic growth area already approved in progress for redevelopment

3:24:25including 17 gordon street so so this is the strategic growth areas i'm sure you're familiar

3:24:32with this site here at 17 gordon street's been approved we spent $50 000 as a neighborhood fighting

3:24:38this at the omb and instead of it being 18 stories was reduced to 11 we see that as a win it's not

3:24:46it's still supposed to be built but it's still sitting there those are where the intensifications

3:24:50are supposed to go also on the corner of um harvard and gordon the days in what used to be um was

3:24:56also approved these things aren't being built but they're approved these are the corridors that should

3:25:01be um intensified which has been identified by the city but not beyond with approving these

3:25:08applications in our neighborhood what we you are essentially saying is let's just get rid of all

3:25:12the single dwelling homes in this neighborhood they're not important let's just knock them down

3:25:17and sever them into four lots what does this really benefit it doesn't benefit the neighbors

3:25:23the neighborhood it's not benefiting the city because this is not creating affordable housing

3:25:29if it was about needing more housing why are the developers not moving forward with the properties

3:25:35that are already approved in the strategic growth areas with that with what is already approved in

3:25:41these areas there's plenty of housing that can be built in the appropriate areas those areas are

3:25:46also close to the university wealth without having to destroy this neighborhood in closing these

3:25:53applications for nai matichello will have a very negative impact for the mayfield park neighborhood

3:25:59we respectfully urge the committee to reject the applications and direct the growth where it is

3:26:05intended intensive development such as what has been submitted should be kept to more appropriate

3:26:10locations along the arterial roads or on land space where proper planning can be done that is

3:26:16compatible in both quantitative and qualitative terms the issues we've identified identified are

3:26:23realities and they're only growing they are not speculative and they do nothing to improve

3:26:29access to affordable housing for students or other renters thank you very much thank you

3:26:38very thoughtful presentation if you want to wait right there my colleagues may have some questions

3:26:44committee members do we have any questions of this applicant

3:26:49seeing none thank you once again for your presentation excuse me this meeting seems to be going on a

3:27:00little longer and it's impacting my voice so please excuse my clearing my throat

3:27:07are there any other members of the public who'd like to uh yes please come forward

3:27:32um good evening just touch that

3:27:37bar around need a green light there there we go can you state your name for the record

3:27:44penny richardson thank you and uh you have 10 minutes to address the committee i uh well fortunately

3:27:51or unfortunately i don't need the 10 minutes because what has been said before um has covered

3:27:59what i was going to say um i'm going to stop you right there and the timer and just say thank you

3:28:07we want to keep this to new information so i really appreciate you editing your comments

3:28:14may i just say the only thing that i am absolutely adamant about is the trees that are on the property

3:28:23next door to us that are going to be eliminated and um they will obviously not be able to plant

3:28:31more trees based on the coverage of the townhomes um so that is the only thing probably that i can add

3:28:44oh okay concise and to the point thank you very well it was going to be much longer if you want

3:28:52right there um my colleagues may have some questions for you

3:28:57no thank you once again thank you do we have any other members of the gallery who'd like to speak

3:29:05yes please come forward good afternoon can you state your name for the record please yeah you've

3:29:27got it there uh neil mcdally um you have 10 minutes to address the committee thank you uh i live at

3:29:3522 monticello i've been there for six months i'm still trying to learn whether or not it's monticello

3:29:40or monticello um i have a actually more of a question and i know i think it was van harten

3:29:47pointed out that this could be three units um in which case i i'm guessing there has to be

3:29:53parking for three cars probably one in the garage two on the street i think one of the members have

3:29:58pointed out there's more than enough parking and i was just trying to do some math and i was wondering

3:30:03if you count me most cars are about 4.5 meters long and you can fit two cars in the driveway

3:30:11because i believe the driveway is 11 meters so you have a little extra there right and i know a

3:30:16lot of the concern was you know uh residents or people walking we don't have sidewalks we don't

3:30:22have streetlights if the city was to impose or to um put inside walks well then wouldn't that reduce

3:30:30one of the parking spots because now i think one of the vehicles would end up straddling the the

3:30:35sidewalk and that would impede traffic or pedestrian walking through would it not um because i believe

3:30:46sorry i believe in a previous case that was one of the arguments for the one individual you said well

3:30:52if the city comes in and puts a sidewalk in then that inflicts on the the area right um it's not

3:31:00so much a discussion here it's we're here to listen to your comments but let me just qualify that by

3:31:05saying i have taken note of exactly what you were saying from a couple of other comments so please

3:31:12perfect yeah that that was actually it was just a question or less so and i hope you guys consider

3:31:17that if the city does come in and put sidewalks in that you reduce one spot so just wait right there

3:31:24my colleagues may have some questions uh committee members do we have any questions of this delegate

3:31:30seeing none thank you very much for your presentation thanks for your time

3:31:36are there any other members of the gallery who'd like to speak to this application

3:31:56good evening can you state your name for the record please yeah it's mark j and you have

3:32:0010 minutes to address the committee thanks um i understand that this uh committee of adjustment

3:32:05is really here to talk about the severability of um of this particular lot and uh i i'm concerned with

3:32:13uh this approach to take one lot and server to four um for a number of reasons and all were

3:32:20really well articulated by uh by my neighbors here uh but when it comes down to the infrastructure

3:32:26that this neighborhood neighborhoods about 65 70 years old the the infrastructure for water mains

3:32:34sewer sewage all of that has was built on the premise of these homes built at these at this

3:32:41size at this spacing with a problem probably average occupancy of three and a half to four people

3:32:49um now we're looking at up to 36 people with four lots the burden on the infrastructure

3:32:55really concerns me because in the nine nine and a half years that i've lived here the number of

3:33:02water mains or valves or i again i'm not i'm not that tuned into exactly what's happening under

3:33:09the ground but the number of things that have faltered that have affected our water pressure

3:33:14have affected um the general um services to our own homes is already stressed at the age of the of the

3:33:22of the um of this this neighborhood so i guess it's it's partly me expressing my concern but

3:33:30i'm curious as you make this you made this decision in july of 2023 to rezone um a neighborhood like

3:33:38ours is there planned investment for the infrastructure to support such a change because

3:33:45i think just dumping uh four new homes that have three units each that's going to house 36 people

3:33:52versus 3.6 people is a real real concern so um has there been a study done on the capacity of our

3:34:02infrastructure um if there has been has been published uh i really hope that the committee

3:34:09and and the city as a whole is taking this under full consideration thank you let me see if uh

3:34:19my colleagues have any questions committee members do you have any questions of this applicant

3:34:24or delegate seeing none thank you for raising i've taken note of some of your comments so

3:34:31we'll raise it with city staff thanks again can is there and the ability to have an answer has

3:34:38there been a study on the infrastructure um this isn't a question and answer period but i have taken

3:34:43some of your comments down and we'll um get some information from staff that should answer some of

3:34:50your question okay are there any other members of the public who would like to speak to this in the

3:35:02gallery seeing none madam secretary treasurer are there any any registered delegations online

3:35:13mr chair we haven't received any other delegation requests okay at this point i'm going to ask for

3:35:21the applicant to return to the podium and perhaps answer some of the issues that have been raised

3:35:29by members of the public okay um so in terms of the servicing so part of the conditions we have

3:35:38is to provide a servicing report showing that these units can be adequately serviced so that's

3:35:44part of the approval process um yeah so as far as intensification in this neighborhood this neighborhood

3:35:50is close to two main arterial roads it's close to amenities as i mentioned and it is close to the

3:35:56university um densification in this area is just good planning practice uh it's a transition period

3:36:02for this neighborhood i understand that change can be hard especially when they've had bumps in the

3:36:07road with the evergreen application um the nice thing is i know there was concerns of well there's

3:36:12these buildings that have been approved and they aren't getting built uh the property owner of this

3:36:16place they get things built so this one will get built there will be new housing and it'll be going

3:36:21towards the 18 000 units they need by 2030 okay um perhaps my colleagues would have some questions

3:36:31committee members do we have any questions of the delegate um based on that comment

3:36:39no please go ahead uh yeah so through the chair to the applicant um early on in uh either your

3:36:49presentation or another there was discussion about a property manager being in place for this facility

3:36:55or for this uh the site can you just talk a little bit about what their responsibilities would be and

3:37:00how that interfaces with some of the maybe the questions that were raised by the community

3:37:05absolutely um so after the houses are built they are put under a property management so

3:37:11they're responsible for the lawn cutting garbage removal and snow so it isn't going to be on the

3:37:16onus of the tenants to upkeep the out exterior of the property um as i know with a lot of rentals

3:37:21especially in student heavy neighborhoods lawns can be unkept and as we saw like the garbage can be

3:37:25left there um with the property management company that won't be the case in this uh development

3:37:33okay thank you that's helpful any other questions of the applicant

3:37:44um seeing none i do have a couple of questions that um were touched on by some of the uh the

3:37:52delegates um and i i'm afraid most of this um is going to be directed to staff so bear with me

3:38:00um the first one that was raised was sidewalks um having visited um this site on a couple of occasions

3:38:07that's the first thing that jumps out at you is the lack of sidewalks and um as one of the delegates

3:38:14pointed out uh when i visited recently um i had a similar experience with pedestrians walking down

3:38:20the middle of the street in front of me um i guess the first question is um is there any

3:38:26long-term plan to um to build sidewalks in this neighborhood to you chair um yes as part of my

3:38:36review here um we did consider what the op talks about in regards to sidewalks um as well as i

3:38:42reviewed um in in gulf we do have what's called the sidewalk needs assessment it's a citywide

3:38:47study to determine all of the missing link segments of sidewalks on one side of the road

3:38:52on both sides of the road either or everywhere in gulf whether or not um sidewalk is planned there it

3:38:59just it's a list of all of the missing link sidewalks and then a separate part of the

3:39:04sidewalk needs assessment i think it's called appendix b it's the um highest 100 ranking

3:39:10missing link segments it takes those missing link segments and it ranks them of the highest 100 and

3:39:16it assigns a point score so the highest score being 51 um monicella does not register on that

3:39:23highest 100 link um missing link segments which means it's low enough of a score that it hasn't

3:39:30been included in the list the city gulf does have a sidewalk infilling program um where we are currently

3:39:36working on infilling um sidewalks around different parts of the city but my understanding is that

3:39:42we're currently working on scores somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 so i we know that this score

3:39:47doesn't come anywhere near that so the short answer is uh not really at at at the present time one of

3:39:56the um other comments was raised about um uh based on in the future were sidewalks to be added um

3:40:06would that impact driveway length to you chair um no because they quoted distance for the parking

3:40:14space available was only on private property and if a sidewalk were to be added in the future that

3:40:20would be on the right of way but those are two separate spaces okay thank you um i guess this

3:40:28is a general question and it speaks to um it it speaks to the built form here and that is that we

3:40:36have um if we were not here for a severance but a building permit application um what's the

3:40:47the maximum number of units that could be built on on this site to the chair it is three units per

3:40:57semi-detached dwelling so it would be 12 units in total over the four properties um i guess i was

3:41:05speaking um hypothetically about the existing property would that allow for four units um

3:41:13to the chair yes the max amount of units on one property is four units and in terms of the built

3:41:20form is it two or three stories that's allowed by right it is three stories as a bright so if i've

3:41:30got this straight um if we weren't discussing a severance this property owner could go with a

3:41:39building permit and build out as far as they want with four units three stories high have i got that

3:41:46correct yes that's correct thank you um and um i think the applicant touched on this but i'd like

3:41:59to hear staff is their opinion on this um that servicing is uh is is based on on the number of

3:42:11units proposed and that that would come um forward in a building permit application have i got that

3:42:17correct that to you chair there's a couple of things happening here actually so one of the

3:42:22conditions that um engineering department has recommended if the committee sees fit to approve

3:42:27the application is a um what's called a functional servicing report it's usually done as combined

3:42:33with the stormwater management report so what that does is that tells us how much water demand the new

3:42:39development requires as well as how much wastewater capacity the new development requires in the

3:42:44wastewater capacity system and i did hear one of the delegates touch upon um the concerns about

3:42:51the infrastructure in general is it built to handle those new things and has anyone done a study

3:42:56and the answer is yes in the city of welf we do have the water and water and wastewater

3:43:02master plan which was done in 2023 and what that is is a citywide study of both the water

3:43:07infrastructure system um and the sanitary infrastructure system citywide and it assesses all

3:43:13of our um you know sizing our ages our life cycles for all of the mains and water mains around the

3:43:20city and as part of my review for sevens applications like this one and all others um i have to review

3:43:27the information available in the master plan and determine if there's any concern like for sanitary

3:43:34for example between the site and the wastewater treatment plant where there would be surcharging

3:43:38or anything else and if i noticed any concerns based on the information available in the master plan

3:43:43i would then assign or recommend a condition rather that would ask them to do an additional

3:43:48step of engineering to do more engineering and more study to prove that there is not an

3:43:53issue with water pressure or prove that there is not an issue with um surcharging in the sanitary

3:43:58system so that is something that does get studied and that we do look at thank you for that thorough

3:44:05explanation that's very helpful and i guess um my last question is is more of a general zoning

3:44:12question and it was raised by a couple of delegates that um they thought that the the lot width was

3:44:22was too narrow um i followed um the zoning bylaw changes quite carefully when they were proposed

3:44:32and they've gone and been approved by council i know it's been appealed but um it's essentially

3:44:39under it's it's essentially the zoning bylaw that we're we're using and um the lot size is the lot

3:44:49size that's being proposed here is is was there any um any discussion um about that appropriateness

3:45:02of width of lot in this kind of a zone neighborhood to the chair it wasn't done um the lot widths

3:45:15weren't done on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis um to determine what's appropriate the zoning bylaw

3:45:23doesn't have specific regulations for different neighborhoods with the exception of the older

3:45:29downtown neighborhood um with average front yard setbacks and such um so the answer is no

3:45:40i i know there was some discussion at the time uh some city counselors used the example of other

3:45:47cities with university high university student populations and uh i just was curious if there if

3:45:56if that was through it was certainly thoroughly vetted and i know it was discussed but um we have

3:46:01arrived as a city um at these uh these lot widths and so it's this is um an acceptable lot width

3:46:13within this particularly zoned neighborhood if i'm correct it is a permitted lot width

3:46:22lot width for a semi-detached dwelling which is permitted now in this residential zone

3:46:30thank you that's very helpful um member ross uh through you chair to staff i have two questions

3:46:40both of them related to um streetlights and uh sidewalks so does the city have um a similar

3:46:49process for assessing streetlight needs in a community that it has for sidewalks and then

3:46:56secondly what are um can you describe some of the parameters that are used for assessing the needs

3:47:02for sidewalks and and streetlights to member ross through the chair i don't know of a specific

3:47:10study that identifies where there aren't streetlights in the city um what i can say is that this

3:47:18subdivision in general appears to be established through a proper planning process

3:47:22looks like a subdivision approval i believe it's called college village um so

3:47:32originally approved by the township of puss lynch um but the city does have you know after the

3:47:39original approval of a road design at whatever point in time that happened does have a program to

3:47:45assess when we need to go and do capital infrastructure projects so i don't know much

3:47:50about capital infrastructure design but my understanding is that there's um an ea process

3:47:55where they determine and reviewing the master plans that i've referred to earlier and they

3:48:00determine what's an appropriate design um but to to your question i don't think there's a specific

3:48:07study like i mentioned for the sidewalk needs assessment study that is specifically related

3:48:11to street lighting um through the chair thank you and my second question was related to um for the

3:48:23sidewalk piece that you'd referred to earlier what kind of parameters are used to determine need

3:48:32and to member ross through the chair i couldn't speak to specific parameters i can tell you that

3:48:37there is a scoring system that's outlined in the sidewalk needs assessment i assume that there's some

3:48:42sort of studying and measurements taken about foot traffic and where everybody's going and where

3:48:48there's high intensity areas and where there's employment areas but that would be only a bit

3:48:51of a guess on my part um but through that sidewalk needs assessment that's studied citywide where

3:48:57there's missing link segments and where there's a need for sidewalk there has been scores assigned

3:49:03what i do know about this particular area is that it doesn't rank in that top 100 and i believe the

3:49:08lowest scoring uh site that i've seen that's included in that top 100 is 13.5 out of a possible

3:49:1751 so i believe that this side the the need for a sidewalk in here has been considered

3:49:23lower than 13.5 and as i mentioned earlier um the city does have an infilling program

3:49:29but we're currently working at a level of about 25 so there's a there's a big gap between

3:49:35what appears to be the actual need here versus other needs in the city. Just to follow up a comment

3:49:46i guess um so this is the second application before us for intensification for this community

3:49:54and i understand the city has a process for determining when where communities rank in

3:50:03terms of the need for a sidewalk installation i guess the comment would be that uh uh

3:50:12or i guess some reassurance that as we proceed with um consideration of these intensification

3:50:19projects in communities like the one we're talking about this evening that there's a

3:50:25parallel process to kind of catch up with with what the real on the ground experiences

3:50:31once these applications are built uh and occupied and the pedestrian traffic ensues

3:50:38so there will always be a gap um and the idea would be that at a certain point the city then

3:50:46reassesses a community based upon the level of activity of approvals such as the one we're

3:50:52considering tonight i hope i made myself uh clear enough uh that you're able to make comment to that

3:51:01through the share to you member ross and yes you have certainly made yourself clear enough

3:51:05and i can provide you some assurance there um recognizing that there was a previous severance

3:51:10conditionally approved nearby recognizing that it's possible that multiple develop developments in a

3:51:16close proximity can have um either a real or a perceived stacking effect when it comes to

3:51:22things like traffic assessment and whether or not we need to study for this or whether or not we

3:51:25need to study for that part of my review process here um was reaching out to three different members

3:51:32of our traffic and our transportation demand management team including a traffic safety

3:51:36specialist who has a a special interest in sidewalks here and i got three responses from

3:51:42three different people in traffic from different perspectives of traffic one that confirmed that

3:51:47there is no transportation to management demand management need to do anything additional here

3:51:53the OP doesn't call for it um that's more specifically for things like if a sidewalk was

3:52:00needed as a direct result of a approval of this development um the other was that there wasn't

3:52:05a need for a transportation or a traffic impact study so reviewing our uh transportation impact

3:52:13study guidelines that tells us when it's appropriate for us to ask for a transportation study to decide

3:52:19if the road configuration needs to be redesigned as an effect of the development approval and that

3:52:26was confirmed that this does not meet any of the conditions present to do for their transportation

3:52:31study and the last conversation i had was with the traffic safety specialist who confirmed that

3:52:37as recently as a few weeks ago he had had conversations with um i believe he said several

3:52:42members of this community i don't understand those processes specifically i don't know what

3:52:48how frequently they are having conversations but he did indicate that some concerns were raised

3:52:53they were talked about and that when he asked if that should be translated into somewhat of a request

3:52:59for would you like to for the city to consider adding sidewalk here the response that he received

3:53:04was no um so just to answer your question it seems to be an ongoing process and there seems to be

3:53:12staff always involved with these types of discussions thank you member good fellow yes uh so uh thanks

3:53:23first to member ross she asked many of the questions i was going to ask myself so great um and but i do

3:53:30have a follow-up so through the chair to city staff um so all of the discussion about what happens

3:53:36next is super helpful and i appreciate all of the the discussion and additional information here

3:53:43the one of the questions i have though and i think you touched on it briefly

3:53:46is the cumulative impacts on the community so when these applications are being reviewed

3:53:53like how quickly are you able to account for the development on evergreen for example

3:53:59which was just approved a couple of months ago and now here we are approving potentially a second one

3:54:04is are you accounting for that is city staff accounting for those additive effects of some

3:54:13of the prior uh approvals that may have been put in place very recently like in the past couple of

3:54:19months to member good fellow through the chair um yeah um specifically with respect are you asking

3:54:28with respect to the traffic the vehicular traffic side of things or the sidewalk side of things are

3:54:33both um all of the above i would say wastewater as well and servicing and all of those kinds of

3:54:41elements that we've just been talking about here i think my question is kind of more general

3:54:46for all of that long list of things how quickly are you incorporating some of the other approvals

3:54:51that may have been made recently certainly to you member good fellows through the chair again

3:54:57um there's a little bit of a different answer for each but we are doing our best and i believe we are

3:55:03doing it in real time uh when it comes to traffic the whether or not a study needs to be done is

3:55:09based on the tis guidelines the traffic impact study guidelines and it has to do primarily with

3:55:15the peak vehicular inbound and outbound trips generated now that's rather easy in this case

3:55:21because whether or not you've built the other application we're talking about that was recently

3:55:25approved i can look at the number of uh units that have been declared as part of that proposal

3:55:31and the number of units that we understand as part of this proposal and it's easy to take those

3:55:35all together and calculate how many inbound and outbound trips we get from that and if you're

3:55:40below that threshold no need according to the guidelines to do further study and if you're

3:55:45above it then you would do the study uh with sidewalk the op has some verbiage about where we

3:55:53encourage intensive where we encourage sidewalk connections and it has nothing to do with um specific

3:55:59number of units or whether or not houses are built the op is more of a high level excuse me

3:56:04high level view and it says we want to connect uh employment areas and intensification areas in

3:56:09particular where there's um public transportation planned and things like that so none of those um

3:56:17conditions are changing as a result of the development application and when it comes to servicing um

3:56:23when it specifically i refer back to that water waste water servicing master plan

3:56:29looking at the water side of things from that master plan i can tell if it's in a

3:56:33pressure area of concern or a fire flow area of concern i don't expect that too many changes

3:56:38have happened between the time that study was done in 2023 and today as a result of um a low

3:56:45number of units and and severances that we tend to see in front of this committee are going to be

3:56:50like it's not subdivision size developments so they're not likely to change a particular quadrant

3:56:57of the city to suddenly a low pressure zone or anything like that and as far as the sanitary

3:57:03wastewater capacity goes we have an actual real-time model that we can run at the city of gulf that i

3:57:10can run personally and we can input flows and we can decide if there's any surcharging happening

3:57:15between the subject site and the wastewater treatment facility and i'm confident that i did not need

3:57:22to add a or recommend a condition to do additional studies in this particular case for for any of

3:57:26those things once again thank you for your thorough answer but that does answer my question so thank you

3:57:38any other questions of staff yes member fits through you chair to staff so i understand

3:57:46this process that if all the requirements are met the owner of the land is entitled to that

3:57:53severance and as we get into neighborhoods like this and we've talked about how do we plan for

3:58:02this in the future where is the control to manage the the level of growth or how quickly

3:58:09this kind of intensification happens uh through the chair to member fits patrick i don't know if i

3:58:22have a particularly satisfied factory answer for you um but the style of infill development is

3:58:29something that is relatively new to the city of gualph that was kind of spurred on by the passing

3:58:33of the 2023 zoning bylaw and a lot of our guidelines and policies were designed for

3:58:40subdivision scale developments or for a much smaller scale individual properties at a time

3:58:46whereas as many people here tonight have noted there are some kind of cumulative impacts that

3:58:52might be felt from several applications of of this nature in a smaller area or in a single

3:58:59neighborhood so that is something the city is actively looking at and having conversations about

3:59:03how to approach this style of development but again due to the conditions that engineering staff

3:59:10require about infrastructure and road capacity and things like that that is something that is

3:59:14actively being looked at with each application and if it is something that seems to be intolerable

3:59:19based on the capacity that that is available then that's something that staff would note and would

3:59:25either put appropriate conditions to ensure that that capacity is increased or recommend

3:59:30a refusal of an application if it seems to be intolerable based on those measures thank you

3:59:40thank you um any other questions for staff seeing none um thank you very much for coming back to

3:59:50the podium and at this point I think we will go into committee committee members what is your wish

3:59:57member Fitzpatrick to you Mr Chairman I very clearly remember the conversations and the

4:00:10yanks that we had amongst this committee with the other application on evergreen and a lot of

4:00:20those have not been dispelled still but I don't feel that we have the the ability to to say no to

4:00:32an application that meets all the requirements of the bylaw so I'll reluctantly propose that we

4:00:42we accept the the application as indicated by the the city with the appropriate conditions in place

4:00:52okay do we have a seconder so I'll entertain any further discussion I know we've had a very

4:01:09fulsome discussion this evening about this comments discussion maybe I'll start it off and say that

4:01:22I'm going to echo exactly what you've said member Fitzpatrick I have a certain reluctance

4:01:32baked into the fact that we have a role to play and if it if something meets those

4:01:44qualifications then I believe that's incumbent upon us to to approve an application such as this

4:01:53as reluctant as I might be um the city council ultimately has set the rules through advice from

4:02:03professional staff in the zoning bylaw and those changes have been in some cases brought on by the

4:02:12current housing situation and changes in the political climate at Queen's Park so um

4:02:21this this is where we find ourselves right now so I I will be supporting your with those

4:02:27qualifications I will be supporting your your motion member Ross I'd guess in a best-case scenario

4:02:39intensification applications would be located where the infrastructure already exists to support

4:02:46it so that's kind of self-evident and in most cases that that's the situation that we find ourselves

4:02:53in here though we have a community that has some of the infrastructure so there's major roads adjacent

4:03:01to this neighborhood there's a university next door but not all of the infrastructure that would

4:03:08support intensification namely sidewalks and street lights as have has been identified and

4:03:14discussed earlier in our meeting so this is the dilemma that the committee is faced with but

4:03:23it's also a dilemma I think for city staff and others to consider as well that where we have a

4:03:33a straightforward enough process to follow here there are other elements to intensification that

4:03:42I think we're all mindful of and here tonight we've listened to members of a community that

4:03:49are struggling with the situation that they're confronted with and trying to make the best of a

4:03:56of a situation that's sort of been foisted on them by provincial policy in terms of intensification

4:04:05of particularly large lots communities and yet their community isn't really ready to to receive

4:04:13or to provide ideal infrastructure to support intensification so it's a conundrum at at the

4:04:22same time I will be supporting approval of staff recommendations but my comment is that indeed

4:04:32there are other things to consider when we're looking at these applications and other things I'm

4:04:38sure staff are well aware of and have spoken about this evening in terms of tracking in real time as

4:04:44was referred to by one staff person what is actually happening on the ground as as these

4:04:49applications are approved and built and the volume of activity that increases in a community and how

4:04:59that's monitored and how we keep up with that and plan effectively for for the safety of all the

4:05:06people who eventually live in this neighborhood. Any other comment? Yes so I've been really

4:05:21thoughtful about this one again I think there was a lot of great discussion the last time around

4:05:26and certainly again this evening I think my you know point of view has been that you know

4:05:36compatibility also includes the limitation of or you know avoiding impacts to nearby residents on

4:05:44their ability to use their property and I think member Ross did a very good job just now of

4:05:49explaining that conundrum as she said and I really feel that I feel that very strongly

4:05:55in this role I do take a lot of comfort though in the process that the city staff laid out in the

4:06:02consideration that they take in when they provide comments to us to consider and how they add

4:06:09conditions and the fact that they are watching these cumulative effects I also heard that

4:06:14there are there's a recognition that some of these policies that we've had in place for a long time

4:06:20maybe are still catching up with some of the development that's happening some of the changes

4:06:25in our zoning bylaw so for a lot of reasons I will be supporting this motion this evening.

4:06:37Okay at this point I believe it's time to turn over to our secretary treasurer for a vote.

4:06:47Thank you chair committee members please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the

4:06:52motion which is to approve the applications with the recommended conditions. Chair Smith.

4:06:58In favor. Member Fitzpatrick. In favor. Member Goodfellow. In favor. Member Mambraño. In

4:07:05favor. Member Meir. In favor. And member Ross. In favor. That's Kerry Chair.

4:07:12Your application has been approved. We'll have order in the chamber I know I know that you can

4:07:28have disagreements but I'm going to have order in this meeting. Madam secretary treasurer

4:07:34can we have the next application please. The next application is file B-67-25 consent for

4:07:46extension of long-term lease at 19 Northumberland Street and 28 Norfolk Street for those attending

4:07:52remotely if you wish to speak to this application you can do so by calling the number displayed

4:07:56on the screen that numbers 519-822-1260 extension 2524. Is the applicant present or are they online?

4:08:14Good evening. Hi. Can you state your name and your relationship to the application please.

4:08:19Yep I'm Jillian Smith and I'm from MHBC the agent. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as

4:08:28per the planning act? Yes it was. And have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement?

4:08:34Yeah. You have 10 minutes to address the committee. Thanks I'll be pretty quick I don't want to take

4:08:41up any more time. The planning act allows leases to occur for a maximum of 21 years. If you want to

4:08:51go past that 21 year lease you need to obtain a consent from the municipality which is why we're

4:08:56here today. The application in front of you is to extend the lease of the lands where the John Bosco

4:09:05Catholic School is. So the property is 29 Northumberland Street. It's owned by the Roman Church.

4:09:14It is the lands where the Basilica is located which we are all very familiar with.

4:09:19And the Wellington District the Wellington Catholic District School Board leases a portion of that

4:09:25site to operate this Catholic school on. That 21 year lease term is now coming to an end and we are

4:09:33obtaining a consent to extend that lease past the 21 year time frame. As part of our submission we

4:09:40provided a plan and on that plan it highlights the parts that are part of that lease extension.

4:09:48So on top of the site where the school is located there are also access easements that are part of

4:09:54that lease as well. So all I have for you right now.

4:09:59Thank you very much. Committee members do we have any questions for the applicant?

4:10:05Seeing none are there any members of the public present who would like to speak to this application?

4:10:12I don't see anyone. Madam Secretary Treasurer do we have anyone online?

4:10:18Mr. Chair can confirm no other delegation requests.

4:10:21Thank you. I miss staff. Did staff want to comment or have a presentation about this?

4:10:28I'm seeing shaking of heads. Okay.

4:10:32Committee members what is your wish? Do we have a member? Good fellow.

4:10:36I move we approve this application with the conditions recommended by city staff.

4:10:41And do we have a seconder? Member Meir. Is there any discussion?

4:10:48Seeing none. Madam Secretary Treasurer would you call the vote please?

4:10:53Thank you Chair. Committee members please indicate your vote by responding in favor or

4:10:57opposed to the motion which is to approve the application with the recommended conditions.

4:11:01Chair Smith. In favor.

4:11:03Member Fitzpatrick. In favor.

4:11:05Member Goodfellow. In favor.

4:11:06Member Mambrenio. In favor.

4:11:08Member Meir. In favor.

4:11:10And member Ross. In favor.

4:11:12That's carried chair.

4:11:13Your application has been approved and we'll see you in 21 years.

4:11:24Madam Secretary Treasurer may we have the next applicant please?

4:11:28The next application is file B-68-25 consent for technical severance to re-establish

4:11:36original lot lines at 137 and 139 Gosling Gardens. I'll note for those attending remotely if you

4:11:42wish to speak to this application you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen.

4:11:47That's 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

4:11:56Is the, oh yes the applicant please come forward. Good evening. Can you state your

4:12:05name and your relationship to the application please?

4:12:08Good evening. My name is Jasmine. I'm an Autikling student at SV Lowengwelf and I'm

4:12:13appearing on behalf of our client with regards to 139 and 137 Gosling Gardens.

4:12:19Thank you and can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the planning act?

4:12:25It was yes.

4:12:26And have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement?

4:12:29Yes to both.

4:12:31You have 10 minutes to address the committee.

4:12:33Okay I will keep this as brief as I can. We do agree with the comments and as staff have

4:12:41acknowledged this is a relatively routine and technical merger to unwind.

4:12:46I pretty much have nothing further to add to staff's comments except to note our client's

4:12:51request regarding the fee reduction and I'd like to thank you for moving that up to

4:12:57so that I can address them together. The other thing I'd note is that there is a pending sale

4:13:03for 137 Gosling Gardens and that is highlighted in red on the map and the closing has been

4:13:15extended from September to December so we're still pretty tight with the timing there

4:13:22and our client is relatively eager to proceed so having said that we will be providing the

4:13:29secretary treasurer with the consent certificates during the 20-day appeal period to ensure that

4:13:34the process is completed as expeditiously as possible and if you're okay with it I would

4:13:44be happy to address the fee waiver request.

4:13:47Okay well we'll handle one issue at a time and if you want to wait right there.

4:13:54Committee members do we have any questions of the applicant?

4:13:59No seeing none. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak to this application?

4:14:05And do city staff have any questions or comments they'd like to make?

4:14:11Seeing none is there anyone online who would like to speak to this application?

4:14:16Mr. Chair can confirm no delegation requests.

4:14:19Thank you and so committee members what is your wish?

4:14:32Through you Mr. Chair I have a just a clarification question.

4:14:40So when there are separate properties and they are purchased by one owner

4:14:48is it common for a merger to automatically occur? Is that what usually happens?

4:14:56Through you Mr. Chair to member Ross.

4:15:00I cannot say whether it is common or not. This is actually the second time I'm here on this

4:15:05on the same sort of application. The lawyers that conduct there is a role for the lawyer to play

4:15:15and there is a butting land search that should be conducted. This is not supposed to happen.

4:15:21No so it is a mistake and this is why I'm here and why it is a technical merger.

4:15:27So we're just unwinding what shouldn't have happened in 2016 and it was only discovered

4:15:34recently because now the owner wants to sell the property. So whether it's common or not

4:15:42is not entirely clear to me but there is a role to play that the lawyer should have done a search.

4:15:49The lawyer that the client went to previously and that was not that didn't happen.

4:15:55So then am I correct in concluding that it happens from time to time but it's not the

4:16:02regular course of events? No it's not. It is actually a contravention of the planning act

4:16:08for something like this to happen. So we're unwinding it for that reason as well.

4:16:17Okay. Member Fitzpatrick. I move that we accept this

4:16:25past this application with the conditions as but. Okay. Do we have a seconder? Member Meir.

4:16:35Okay. So we have a mover and a seconder and is there any discussion?

4:16:41Seeing none. Madam Secretary Treasurer would you call the roll please?

4:16:47Thank you Chair. Committee members please indicate your vote by responding in favor or post to the

4:16:51motion which is to approve the application with the recommended conditions. Chair Smith.

4:16:56In favor. Member Fitzpatrick. In favor. Member Goodfellow. In favor. Member Mambrenio. In

4:17:01favor. Member Meir. In favor. And member Ross. In favor. That's Kerry Chair.

4:17:07Your application has been approved. Thank you. You're welcome and at this point

4:17:16as I mentioned earlier we're going to consider the fee waiver for the same property so I'm going to

4:17:22ask you again some housekeeping questions and the first is to just state your name and your

4:17:31relationship to the application. Thank you Mr. Chet. My name is Jasmine Vangu. I'm here as an

4:17:37iCling student from SV Law on behalf of our client with regards to 137 and 139 Gosling-Goddens.

4:17:45Thank you and if you have 10 minutes to make your request. Thank you. Should not take

4:17:52more than a couple minutes. With regards to the fee waiver request while our client will be paying

4:17:59the full amount of the severance application fee we've just requested that the committee consider

4:18:04as part of their decision today to waive the administration fee for new lots and we do acknowledge

4:18:10and appreciate that staff have applied the lesser of the two administrative fees in this scenario.

4:18:17However we continue to believe that the work required post-hearing is significantly less

4:18:23than what would be involved in a typical non-new lot consent such as an easement or a long-term lease.

4:18:31Both an easement and a long-term lease would require a new reference plan. In this case the

4:18:36reference plan for 137 and 139 Gosling-Goddens already exists and the legal descriptions have

4:18:44also been provided and as I mentioned earlier we do plan to provide the consent certificates to the

4:18:50secretary-treasurer during the 20-day appeal period as our client has a pending sale and we

4:18:56acknowledge that staff time is involved and is important. However the level of review typically

4:19:03required for a reference plan does not exist in this case or apply in this case and as a staff

4:19:10effort is considerably less we believe that a fee waiver would be appropriate but I do understand

4:19:16that I'm in your hands. Thank you. Thank you committee members. Do we have any questions?

4:19:26Member Fitzpatrick. Through you Mr Chairman and I probably asked this question the last time and

4:19:32I'm trying to recall the answer but this was a mistake on the part of the the lawyer that closed

4:19:38the deal years ago. Through you Mr Chair to member Fitzpatrick. I cannot say whether it was a mistake

4:19:46or not I don't know what happened between the client and the previous lawyer however we're at

4:19:53a position now where the properties are merged and they shouldn't have been and we're just sort

4:19:59of unwinding them to put them back into the position that they should be and if I do recall

4:20:07myself you asked about an insurance and that is not available in this case and those are options we

4:20:16would have probably looked at with our client. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant?

4:20:28So committee members what is your wish? Member Goodfellow. I motion we refuse the application

4:20:41as recommended by city staff. Do we have a seconder member Ross and do we have any discussion on this?

4:20:59I have a question of the mover and that is would we consider a partial?

4:21:10A very good question Mr Chair. I actually did think about maybe some other options like that

4:21:18but I did note that the fee is $286 which I think if we tried to do a partial to starts to make the

4:21:29effort to negotiate that more significant than the costs that I think we would arrive at reducing it

4:21:38so that's why I felt that perhaps we just go with the straight refusal but open to other suggestions.

4:21:45Asked an answer. Okay thank you. Any other discussion? No I agree with you I think it's already reduced

4:21:51the staff was clear with their explanation and I think it's fair. Okay if there's no further

4:22:02discussion Madam Secretary Treasurer would you call the vote please? Thank you Chair. Committee

4:22:08members please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion which is to

4:22:12refuse the administration fee waiver request. Chair Smith. In favor. Member Fitzpatrick. In

4:22:20favor. Member Goodfellow. In favor. Member Mambrenio. In favor. Member Meir. In favor. And member Ross.

4:22:27In favor. That's carried Mr Chair. And regrettably your request has been denied.

4:22:34Madam Secretary Treasurer may we have the next application please?

4:22:40The next application is file a-87-25 variances to permit reduced front yard setback for existing

4:22:47front porch and stairs and permit porch within driveway sightline triangle for 68 Albert Street.

4:22:53I'll note for those attending remotely if you wish to speak to this application you can call

4:22:57the number displayed on the screen that number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524 and when you call

4:23:05in staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely. Is the applicant present?

4:23:17Okay we can that usually takes a minute or two longer. Yeah. If you star six to unmute

4:23:58that might be helpful. We can't hear anyone yet.

4:24:06Can you hear me now? We can indeed. Thank you. Okay thank you. Can you state your name for the

4:24:12record and your relationship to the application please? Yeah Josh Hilborn and with SENTEX engineering

4:24:19and we do permit drawings for residential clients and we're working with Melanie in this regard.

4:24:29And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the planning act?

4:24:33It was. And have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement with them?

4:24:40Yep and we have read them yet more in agreement.

4:24:43Well at this point you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

4:24:49Okay so basically the point of our drawing set is that we are front porches built on the property

4:24:59line or built on the property and where the stairs are is they're actually going to be encroaching

4:25:05through onto the city steps or the city property line and also there's a site triangle infringement

4:25:14but it's not by a great deal so the variance is to allow for the

4:25:21an encroachment agreement and to have the minor variance for the site triangle

4:25:29and we've submitted all of our drawings through and then there'll be a building permit

4:25:33application after but I think right now it's just for the plan view or the plan site plan approval.

4:25:43Okay thank you very much. Committee members do we have any questions of the applicant?

4:25:51Seeing none. Do staff have any comment? No comment from staff. Are there any members of the public

4:26:01in the gallery who would like to speak to this application? Seeing none. Madam Secretary-Treaser

4:26:07do we have anyone online who has wishes to delegate? Mr. Chair I can confirm no delegation requests.

4:26:14Thank you. At this point then committee members what is your wish? I move the motion to approve

4:26:22as recommended by the staff. That was member Meir. Do we have a seconder? Remember Fitzpatrick?

4:26:28Do we have any discussion on this motion before us? Seeing none. Madam Secretary-Treaser would you

4:26:34do honor the honors please? Thank you Chair. Committee members please indicate your vote

4:26:39by responding in favor or opposed to the motion which is to approve the application with the

4:26:45recommended condition. Chair Smith? In favor. Member Fitzpatrick? In favor. Member Goodfellow?

4:26:52In favor. Member Mambrinho? In favor. Member Meir? In favor. And member Ross? In favor. Let's carry

4:26:58chair. Thank you. Your application has been approved and you're free to hang up on us. Thank you very

4:27:06much for your time. You're welcome. Madam Secretary-Treaser may we have the which I believe is the last

4:27:14application? The last application we have for this evening is files b-69-25 and a-86-25 consent to

4:27:26create one new residential lot with one retained residential lot and related variances to permit

4:27:32reduced exterior side yard setback and parking within sightline triangle for proposed severed

4:27:37parcel at 267 Arthur Street North. I'll note for those attending remotely if you wish to speak to

4:27:45this application you can call 519-822-1260 extension 2524 if you'd like to speak to this application.

4:27:55Is the applicant here? Welcome back. You're working almost as hard as we are this evening.

4:28:10You're saying your name for the record please? Absolutely it's Brianna Miller. I'm from Van

4:28:14Hart and serving and I am representing the owner of the property today. And can you tell me if the

4:28:18sign was posted as per the planning act? It was. And can you tell me if you have read staff's comments

4:28:24and are you in agreement? Yes we are. You have 10 minutes. Excellent. So I know the reduction for

4:28:29the minor variance on the exterior street on Spring Street seems like a lot because it is by 50%.

4:28:35However this is a dead end street. There's only one house on there so it's not utilized very much

4:28:41which is why we're asking for it. The proposal is to tear down the current house which has already

4:28:47burnt down so it's just like the shell remaining so cleaning that up and putting on to one semi-detached

4:28:54house which will not be rentals. They're going to be privately owned units. For the parking in

4:29:00the daylight triangle the reason we didn't center the driveways is there are some beautiful old trees

4:29:06in the front of where we're proposing the house and if we did that we would have to cut those trees

4:29:10down. So in the sake of preserving those trees we separated the driveways which did put the one in

4:29:16the sight line triangle. However as I know there's only one house that really uses that road and

4:29:23there's a bunch of kind of like scrubby hedge that's there that would be removed actually improving

4:29:27that visibility and improving kind of that sight line in that area and everything else is met with

4:29:35the applications just those two variances. Thank you. Committee members do you have any questions of

4:29:41the applicant? Seeing none are there any members of the city staff who have any comment on this?

4:29:50Seeing no nodding of heads are there any members of the gallery who would like to speak to this?

4:29:55I don't see anyone rushing forward to the microphone. Madam Secretary Treasurer do we have any delegations online?

4:30:03Mr. Chair we actually do have a delegate and they're appearing via video. The name is Melody

4:30:10Incledon. Yeah if you want to turn your video and microphone on because we can't see or hear you.

4:30:28Hi I'm hello. Hi can you say your name for the record please? My name is Brian LeBlanc. I am

4:30:39Melody Incledon's partner. Melody's ill right now she's actually going to bed. She has the food.

4:30:46And our only concern the house of ours is right next door 261. Our concern is the retention of the

4:30:56trees that are between our property. And that's all and I think it's covered in the staff recommendations

4:31:02if I'm not mistaken. So other than that I think everything's fine. No real objections.

4:31:11Thank you for that. I think the applicant mentioned that in their site plan that they

4:31:19want to retain the trees. Right I'm talking about they're talking about the trees on the lot that's

4:31:23over the corner near spring. I'm talking about there's a series of large cedar trees between

4:31:31the property that I don't know if they meet the minimum by to to correspond with the bylaw

4:31:39for tree retention. But there's a whole bunch of trees all along that line that

4:31:44given how close to 261 the proposed new building is there's some concern that those trees

4:31:53won't be retained. And if they're not retained what they'll be replanted or whatever. I think that's our concern.

4:32:06So what we're going to do is I'm going to let you stay on unless you have anything else to say.

4:32:14I'm going to let you stay on or I'm going to encourage you to stay on as I believe the owner

4:32:20and the applicant's agent is going to to answer some of your concerns. So thank you.

4:32:28You're welcome. So with that please if you want to state your name for the record and answer the

4:32:37question of the delegate. Yes it's Grant Wharton owner of Wharton Homes the owner of the property.

4:32:44And just to answer the question is yes the the I've been working with an arborist already

4:32:51to try and eliminate any potential damage to the trees along the property line as well as the tree

4:32:58in the center of the lot. And part of the the ask for reduced minor variance side yard was to

4:33:06achieve the 2.7 meter side yard on the on the south south side of the property sorry in order to

4:33:16give additional clearances for the root system as well as we're actually further past than some

4:33:23of the garage that's already existing there so that there's already an established root stop.

4:33:30Thank you very much for that. Committee members do you have any questions of this delegate?

4:33:38Okay at this point then I'm going to turn to my colleagues in committee for a motion.

4:33:46Member Membrano. I move to approve the application with the conditions as recommended by staff.

4:33:54Thank you and do we have a seconder member good fellow do we have any discussion on this motion?

4:34:00Seeing none. Madam Secretary Treasurer would you mind calling the vote please?

4:34:06Thank you chair. Committee members please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the

4:34:10motion which is to approve the applications with the recommended conditions. Chair Smith.

4:34:16In favor. Member Fitzpatrick. In favor. Member Goodfellow. In favor. Member Membrano. In favor.

4:34:22Member Meir. In favor. And member Ross. In favor. Let's carry Mr. Chair. Your application has been approved.

4:34:29I believe that brings us to the end of our agenda. Are there any staff announcements?

4:34:44Mr. Chair I can confirm no staff announcements tonight. Okay and with that I'm going to first

4:34:51thank staff for staying late and my colleagues for their attention and I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

4:34:58Member Fitzpatrick all those in favor. Oh sorry member Goodfellow seconded it.

4:35:09We stand adjourned. Thank you committee.