Committee of Adjustment

0:00received any deferral or withdrawal requests.

0:03So I'll turn it over to the secretary treasurer

0:06to announce the first application.

0:18The first application is file A-6-24,

0:23variance to permit reduced number of visitor parking spaces

0:27for the total site at 1888 Gordon Street.

0:31If you wish to speak to this application,

0:33please call the number displayed on the screen.

0:36That number is 519-822-1260,

0:40extension 2524.

0:42When your call is received,

0:42staff will provide instructions

0:44on how you can delegate remotely by phone.

0:46And this is the final opportunity to call in

0:49regarding this application.

0:51I'll also note for the committee members

0:52as well as those attending

0:54that we did receive correspondence

0:55after the comment deadline from Gary Horvath,

0:59Rebecca Fieldler and Jim Canner

1:02with concerns about the application.

1:03And that correspondence has been circulated

1:06to the committee members as well as staff.

1:10And in addition, there is revised wording

1:12recommended for condition number two.

1:17And that correspondence or that revised condition wording

1:20has been circulated to the applicant

1:23and the committee members as well.

1:25And we're welcome to show that wording on the screen

1:29when it comes to voting time.

1:35Okay, thank you.

1:36I'd now like to ask if the applicant is present.

1:40Okay, if you'd like to come forward, please.

1:51Okay, and if you could state your name

1:53and your relationship to the application.

1:57My name is Martha Palut and I'm an intermediate planner

2:00with Monteith Brown Planning Consultants

2:01and we are the agent for Tri-Card Developments.

2:04Thank you.

2:05And was the sign posted

2:08in accordance with Planning Act requirements?

2:10Yes, sir.

2:11Thank you.

2:11And have you received staff comments

2:14and are you in agreement with the recommended conditions?

2:18Yes, we have received the comments

2:19and we are in agreement.

2:20Okay, thank you.

2:22But at this time, I'd like to ask

2:23if you would like to address the committee

2:25and add anything further or in addition to your application

2:29for a maximum of 10 minutes.

2:31Yes, so we do have a presentation prepared today

2:33to speak to this application.

2:35Okay, thank you.

2:38So this is for the minor variance

2:39for 1888 Gordon Street on behalf of Tri-Card Developments.

2:44Next slide, please.

2:47So this is an air review of the subject lands.

2:49So the subject lands are located

2:50in the west part of the city of Guelph.

2:53They front onto Gordon Street

2:55and are located south of Poppy Drive East.

2:58They are also an approximately in size 3.4 hectares.

3:06The existing conditions on the site,

3:08so this development was initially site plan approved

3:11to include four residential buildings

3:13and one commercial building.

3:15Building 3.4, which is currently under construction

3:17on the site was originally two separate buildings

3:20but has now been merged into one building to be constructed.

3:23And there's currently two residential towers

3:25that are constructed and occupied.

3:27So that's buildings one and two

3:28and the commercial building is also constructed

3:31and partially occupied.

3:38So the minor variance request today

3:40that we're speaking to relates solely

3:42to the visitor parking for buildings three and four

3:45and also to the surface parking, visitor parking

3:48and the commercial parking for the entirety of the site.

3:51So Tri-Cars original proposal for the variance

3:54was to propose 96 visitor parking spaces in total

3:57for the site.

3:58So that was a 14.2 provision,

4:00whereas 135 visitor parking minimum spaces

4:04would have been required for the site,

4:05which is the 20% provision.

4:10So the rationale for this minor variance request

4:12is Tri-Cars, the developer has over 25 years

4:16of experience building and operating towers

4:19throughout Ontario.

4:21So they have realized over the years

4:23that there's generally an underutilization

4:26of visitor parking spaces in every instance

4:28in their buildings.

4:30And just to be clear for this minor variance ask,

4:33Tri-Cars is not proposing to reduce

4:35the overall number of parking spaces on the site.

4:38They are simply asking to reduce the number

4:40of parking spaces that need to be signed for visitors.

4:46So Tri-Cars has reviewed staff's comments

4:48and agrees to the below conditions

4:49slash modifications outlined by the city,

4:52as well as the city's recommended provision

4:54of a total of 107 visitor parking spaces

4:57for the entirety of the site.

4:59So the recommended conditions are as below

5:02so that the current 29 visitor surface parking spaces

5:06are not altered or reassigned,

5:08that 39 commercial parking spaces

5:11are to be remaining on the site

5:13and that a minimum of 26 visitor parking spaces

5:17are allocated in the underground garage

5:19for building 34.

5:23So this is a site plan of the current site.

5:26So as you can see buildings one and two,

5:28those are the buildings

5:29that are currently constructed and occupied.

5:31In the orange building 34,

5:33that is the building that is currently under construction

5:36and building five in the green

5:37is the commercial building of the site.

5:40So on the site, the configuration of spaces.

5:43So 29 visitor parking spaces are allocated on the surface,

5:47which is in line with condition number one from the city.

5:50And Tri-Cart is proposing to have 28 commercial parking spaces

5:54also on the surface as well.

5:59This is the level one parking and building 34.

6:02So as per city conditions,

6:04Tri-Cart is going to be providing

6:06the 26 visitor parking spaces below grade.

6:09And in addition,

6:09Tri-Cart is going to be providing

6:1111 commercial spaces underground as well

6:13to total for the 39 commercial parking spaces

6:17for the entirety of the site.

6:21So in conclusion,

6:22the requested minor variance

6:24maintains the general intent and purpose

6:26of the city of golf's official plan

6:27as well as the zoning bylaws

6:29and is desirable for the appropriate orderly development

6:31and use of the land

6:33and is genuinely minor in nature.

6:38I did want to also address the comments

6:41that we did receive today from the public.

6:43So we just recently received these before we left our office.

6:46So I want to provide some responses

6:49to those comments that we had received

6:53that we had clarified with Tri-Cart as well.

6:56So our client advises that there actually is currently

7:00an abuse of the visitor parking

7:03that is currently on the site,

7:04both from members or the public

7:07that lives across the street

7:08and from current residents that don't want to pay

7:10for additional resident parking.

7:14The condo board is responsible

7:17and can call the city to find all the people

7:19that are parking where they're not,

7:21where they should not be in the visitor spaces.

7:24So we wanted to mention that as well.

7:27And the boards of buildings one and two

7:30were actually consulted in the process

7:33of this minor variance and did recommend

7:36keeping the 26th visitor parking spaces

7:39in the garage for building three, four.

7:42And they also recommended leaving the commercial count

7:45of parking spaces at 39 for the entirety of the site.

7:51Thank you.

7:56Thank you.

8:09Good fellow.

8:11I asked through the chair to the applicant

8:15was looking through all of the different drawings

8:19and trying to count up the parking spaces.

8:21And I understand that things have changed

8:23a number of times over the years.

8:25So forgive me if I'm not following along entirely,

8:28but I did wonder about how many of those 96 spaces

8:34with residents have not residents, visitors have access to

8:38and kind of how are they categorized?

8:40I did notice for example that several of them

8:43are categorized as handicapped, which of course is appropriate,

8:46but there are a number of spaces

8:49that could be delivery short term,

8:52maximum 30 minutes, unloading zones, that kind of thing.

8:54So can you comment on how those 96 spaces

8:57are kind of broken down?

9:02Yes, certainly.

9:03Thank you for your question.

9:04So to clarify, the city has recommended 107

9:08visitor parking spaces for the site.

9:09So Tri-Car will be providing the 107.

9:12The initial request was for 96,

9:14but they will be accepting the condition to provide 107.

9:17And in terms of the breakdown of those parking spaces,

9:21I know Tri-Car on site has loading spaces identified

9:24on their sites as well.

9:25So for those uses, but in terms of the breakdown any further,

9:30I'm not sure of the kind of logistics of the breakdown,

9:33but yeah.

9:38Thank you.

9:39And back through the chair, just to clarify,

9:42the number of, I guess, delivery or unloading spaces,

9:48is that included in the 107?

9:50Or is that in addition to the 107?

9:55So from my understanding,

9:56that's included in the 107 spaces.

10:01Sorry, if I may.

10:02Jim McGuffin, Vice President,

10:05Principal Planner Montee, Brown Planning Insultants.

10:07I'm a company mispolluted this afternoon.

10:10The zoning by-law, I would anticipate,

10:13has a requirement for loading spaces.

10:15And loading spaces would have to be met

10:17as a separate element of a parking regime.

10:21I could be corrected by staff if that is not the case,

10:25but typically a visitor parking space

10:27in a residential complex

10:28is assigned for residential purposes.

10:34Thank you both.

10:34That clarification is helpful.

10:38Member Spears.

10:39Yeah, through you, Mr. Chair.

10:40I'd like just to follow up on that comment right now.

10:44I don't know if we need to go back to the drawing.

10:46Can you show us which ones are,

10:52you're marked for delivery, for moving,

10:54that won't impinge on those visitor spots?

10:56Because in fact, if they are the same place,

10:58then I think they aren't visitor spots anymore.

11:01If it's people coming making deliveries,

11:04people with moving vans,

11:06that certainly doesn't sound like visitors to me.

11:10Through you, Mr. Chair.

11:11For clarification, when we're talking about deliveries,

11:15what I mentioned was loading zone requirements.

11:17So that would be anybody

11:18who's providing a loading perspective.

11:21So people who are moving,

11:22people who are having a refrigerator delivered,

11:25things of that nature.

11:27When I'm talking about visitors

11:29that truly is visitors to the site,

11:32a visitor to the site would include somebody

11:34who is doing a drop off, perhaps,

11:37as a skip the dishes.

11:39That would in fact be a visitor arriving to the site

11:41if there was a loading space available,

11:44and they could make themselves available to that,

11:45that would work.

11:46But the visitor parking is specifically designed

11:49to deal with short-term parking

11:51by people visiting the property.

11:55And so we're not talking about a reduction

11:56in loading spaces, it's really the crux of that.

12:00Thank you.

12:06Member Smith.

12:09Thank you, Chair.

12:11Through you to the applicant.

12:14I'm trying to find the note

12:19from one of the correspondents

12:21who identified themselves as a member

12:23or a former member of a condo board

12:25and said they weren't informed.

12:28And I believe in your submission,

12:30you said the condo board was informed.

12:33So could you just clarify that for my benefit?

12:37Yes, sir.

12:38Our client has advised us

12:39that they had consultations with both boards

12:43with regard to this and that both boards endorsed

12:46the conditions that are proposed by the city

12:48in terms of the retention of the commercial spaces

12:51and the various visitor spaces that were identified

12:54that resulted in the reduced number

12:56that was agreed to by our client.

12:59Thank you for that.

13:00And through you, Chair, to staff,

13:04in an application like this,

13:06would the residents of the complex

13:09have been given individual notice

13:11or would that be something handled by the condo board?

13:27Through the chair, maybe that's something

13:30that the secretary-treasurer might be able to answer.

13:33To my knowledge, it should be posted by the owner

13:40and then they should be notified through that,

13:44through the owner, but I may be incorrect.

13:48To the chair, I can clarify that.

13:50So we did mail notification to property owners

13:54in the area as well as the condo board was notified as well.

13:58There was a sign posted and as there's greater

14:02than seven units, the owner is to post a copy

14:05of the notice in a public spot for the tenants

14:09or the residents that live in those buildings.

14:11So that circulation was completed.

14:18Through the chair, thank you, staff, for that information.

14:20I just note that one of the correspondence

14:24was a little concerned about the lack of notifications.

14:27So I wanted to be thorough

14:29that residents did have an opportunity

14:33and it sounds like they have.

14:39Okay, thank you.

14:40I'd like to ask if the committee

14:42have any questions for staff.

14:49Doesn't appear so.

14:51So just before we move to delegations,

14:55I just wondered if we should put up

14:57the amended condition number two on screen

15:00for the applicant to make any comments on.

15:02The staff have had some further revisions made to it.

15:11Maybe I'll give you a moment to review that

15:14and see if you have any comments on it.

15:19No, no comments from us.

15:21We had previously been coordinating with planning staff

15:24to actually change this condition.

15:26Okay, thank you.

15:33Thank you for your submissions.

15:37And maybe if you could just turn the mic off.

15:39Thanks.

15:41Now ask the secretary,

15:42treasurer if we have received any delegations.

15:47Vice chair, Sarah, I can confirm

15:49that we haven't received any calls,

15:50but we do have some delegation delegation request in person.

15:54And the name is Gary Horvath.

16:00Mr. Horvath, hello, if you'd like to come forward.

16:17Chair and committee, thank you very much

16:19for an opportunity to voice my opinion

16:22and make a few comments here.

16:25I attended the meeting in January

16:28to look at this request by the Tri-Card people.

16:32I am currently a resident and owner in tower one,

16:36have been one of the original owners in that building.

16:40So I've got a couple of years behind me

16:41of watching what goes on around the area.

16:44And when I first reviewed this submission,

16:49I was taken aback quite a bit.

16:51I found that the first submission was pretty all over the place

16:54and I was happy to see that it got pulled

16:56to be revised and resubmitted.

17:00And I did submit some numbers in my request and my thinking.

17:05And my original intention when I first came here

17:08was to turn around and request

17:09that the committee of adjustment reject this motion

17:12of adjustment through more work and discussion

17:16and discussions with various people within our group.

17:20You know, I've got a kind of a half and half position on it

17:22where I think that, you know,

17:24possibly there's a meeting of the minds coming out of this thing

17:27and the 26 spots might work.

17:31I was hoping for a little bit more.

17:33Some of the things that have been talked about

17:35by some of the other tenants in the building

17:38in terms of congestion, in terms of,

17:41I would just call it a log jam.

17:44It's going to be a very, very tightly packed area

17:47when that next building gets full.

17:51We do not have easy access for loading.

17:55We have a surface level position beside Tower One.

17:59We have a surface level position beside Tower Two.

18:02I'm not sure where it's going to be on Tower Three just yet.

18:06But when you put a truck in there,

18:08you're encroaching upon the pathway

18:10and the roadway and through there.

18:13We as well also have probably several hundred deliveries

18:18a day of parcels from Amazon and UPS and FedEx

18:22and PuraLator and everything like that.

18:25The delivery guys bring carts into our building

18:29and go floor by floor making deliveries.

18:31So when those trucks pull up,

18:34there's days they can get a visitor parking spot.

18:36There's days they don't and they pull up on the sidewalk.

18:40That is only going to get worse.

18:42So I have a great concern about the congestion in the area.

18:46Reducing the number of visitor parking spots,

18:49I think is only going to create a tougher position.

18:54When I was crunching numbers and I put together

18:56this little spreadsheet chart here, as you can see,

19:00I pulled all these numbers off of the drawings

19:02that I pulled off the website here in the submission documents

19:06from the drawings and stuff like that

19:08and went through and counted up spots and tenant spots

19:11and visitor spots and tried to come up with an idea

19:14because in understanding the bylaw and the way the bylaw works,

19:19I understand the first 20 units, 1.5,

19:23and how you come to that number and I'm okay with all that.

19:26But what it looks like to me or what became pretty apparent

19:29was that when Tower 3 and 4 got merged together,

19:34the number of visitor spots that were originally in the spa

19:38got overlooked and there's an excessive number

19:41of visitor spots in that submission

19:43and this is obviously the driving force

19:45behind the variance request.

19:48What the right number is, I don't know, 26, 27,

19:53maybe right, maybe close.

19:54I was looking up in around 30 or 32, something like that.

19:59One thing I would like to point out,

20:02commercial parking spots in Tower 1, none.

20:06Vans can't get into the entrance point

20:08because you have to come down and come underneath it to drop.

20:11So anything above a pickup truck cannot enter the building.

20:15I believe the same condition exists in Tower 2.

20:19Tower 3 has a little bit more of a level access point,

20:22but why they're going to put 11 commercial spots in that building?

20:26I'm scratching my head a little bit.

20:29The other thing is, is that in none of the parking layouts

20:35does do they account for where are all our garbage bins going?

20:40We've lost four visitor parking spots on Level 1 and Tower 1.

20:46Four storage of internal garbage

20:48because the City of Guelph has asked us to bring our garbage

20:51inside and store it inside until its collection day.

20:54So I don't know, I think last count,

20:57I think we're up to probably about a dozen or maybe 12,

21:0113 bins that have to come out every week

21:05and they have to be stored somewhere.

21:06And so they've crept into visitor parking spots,

21:11which again just reduces where we're going there.

21:14So I do know in discussion with President of our Board,

21:20the Condo Board President today,

21:23that today she was advised of the agreement of the 26.

21:29So there's not a lot of timeline in between

21:31what is kind of sort of being discussed and where we are today.

21:35They're happy about that.

21:37They're thinking it's not a bad win.

21:39As a resident, I'm thinking it could be pushed a little bit higher.

21:42So it's like that to be taken into consideration.

21:48OK, thank you for your other than that.

21:49Thank you. Yeah.

21:50Thank you for your comments.

21:52Now, if you would just like to hold on and we'll ask

21:55if committee members have any questions for you.

21:58Sure. Yes.

22:03Through you, Mr. Chair, to the delegate,

22:06you mentioned that it was it was your I'm going to call it impression

22:10that when they were designing a commercial space,

22:15I'm not did you say spa?

22:16I think you said spa.

22:18Oh, OK, sorry.

22:19I misunderstood that they failed to account for some spots

22:24when they amalgamated the two buildings and that this is an effort to rectify that.

22:28Is that that's your suspicion?

22:30OK, why would you have 57 visitor spaces in a building with 181 units

22:41when you have 25 and 27 in towers one and two

22:45that have 174 and 171 units?

22:48So it's out of proportion.

22:50There's there's there's numbers that don't match up, you know,

22:54mathematically in terms of that.

22:55So that's my suspicion is that this is what's happened because originally

23:00they were in and I don't have access to the original layouts of what three

23:03and four we're going to look like.

23:05But I'm guessing that maybe this is what's happened.

23:07And the other side of it is that's not forget

23:11if you take 33 parking spaces away and and the corporation gets to sell those units

23:19four years ago, a parking spot sold for seven thousand dollars.

23:22So you're talking about a quarter of a million dollar windfall for selling off parking spaces.

23:27And that building belongs to Tricard at the moment.

23:29So they would be the recipient of that, not the condo board down the road.

23:33So tax wise, if I'm a resident and I own it, or if I'm the condo board

23:39and they own it, you guys are going to get your taxes on it one way or another.

23:42So there's no financial gain for the city one way or another.

23:46But there's a gain for Tricard, certainly in this thing.

23:48So that's another motivational thing to thank you for that clarification.

23:57Any other questions for the applicant?

24:02Well, thanks very much for your submissions.

24:03OK, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

24:10I'd now like to ask the applicant if they have any

24:15or would wish to comment on on the submissions received.

24:23Sorry, sorry, sorry.

24:25Sorry, before that, just like to ask if there's anyone else in the audience.

24:28Here today who wish to speak to this application.

24:33OK, not seeing anyone.

24:35Yeah, please come ahead.

24:43Through you, Mr. Chair, we have no further comment.

24:50Thank you. Oh, we have one question for you from committee member.

24:59Through the chair to the applicant, just to follow up on something

25:04the delegate has just mentioned, it occurred to me that with the, I guess.

25:11Shifting of all of the numbers.

25:14Is there is it the case that if somebody was coming to visit someone

25:18in building three and four and there were no more visitor spots in building three or four,

25:22they would be able to have access to visitor spots in building one or two?

25:31Through you, Mr. Chair, it is my understanding

25:33that the buildings are operated from the parking perspective as a complex.

25:38So right now, I understand that there is access

25:41to the various parking spaces across the site for visitors.

25:47OK, thank you. Through the chair back to you.

25:49I just want to make sure I understand that.

25:51So it is a site wide, even though there are separate condo boards for each building,

25:58the visitor parking spots are managed across the site.

26:01So we're talking about reconciling all of the number of spaces across the entire site.

26:06That also means that visitors would be able to access

26:10visitor parking spots across the site.

26:14I apologize, Mr. Chair.

26:15That is my assumption based on discussions that we've had.

26:18We were not the consultants involved with the original site plan approvals.

26:23I'm wondering if staff may be better able to specifically respond to that question

26:27than ourselves. I'd rather have a specific answer than a speculative one.

26:36Yes, thank you.

26:36I guess through the chair, if we could ask city staff,

26:40if they could add any clarification to my question, I would appreciate that.

26:45Through the chair at this time, we are not.

26:49We are not aware of the true answer to that question.

26:54My apologies. Thank you.

27:01Thank you. Member Spears.

27:06Through you, Mr. Chair, to the applicant,

27:10it may be unfair to ask, but is it your impression or is it the fact that the

27:16reason to shift the spaces the way we're talking about a reduced number of

27:20visitor spaces is in fact to increase revenue to the developer?

27:26That is not in fact anything I've ever heard of.

27:29The particular issue that is at hand today is the percentage that the city of Guelph

27:35requires in his bylaw being 20%.

27:39I work across the province and 20% is a significantly high provision of visitors

27:45parking. I've never come across another municipality with as high a provision.

27:50I would say a standard provision provincially has been 10%.

27:55And in recent years, many municipalities are going through parking

28:00reexaminations as part of their measures and to deal with affordable housing.

28:06And we're seeing municipalities now, such as the city of London, the city of

28:10Hamilton and other jurisdictions going down to 0.5% or less or sorry,

28:175% or less, not 0.5% or less.

28:20So we're seeing a real reduction in the numbers.

28:24And when we look at the fact that what is being proposed represents a 15%

28:31provision on the site that is still a 5% over provision of what we're seeing

28:35traditionally in municipalities across the province.

28:39And my understanding was that these visitor spots were being accessed by and to

28:46be available for visitors of all buildings.

28:50From an access control perspective, visitors wouldn't have any gate key or

28:56car key or anything to let them into a restricted area.

29:01And so if a sign is demarcated as visitor, it needs to be open to the general

29:05public from a free access perspective.

29:08Ergo, all of the spaces that have been provided are being identified.

29:13It was my understanding that the bulk of the spaces of the remaining visitor

29:17were transferred to the third building through the construction process and not

29:22by any desire to benefit from any financial purposes.

29:28Thank you for that clarification.

29:30Thank you.

29:31Member Balibin.

29:33Through you, Mr. Chair.

29:35Yeah, I had the same question.

29:38I don't understand how visitors to building one could go into building three or

29:44four without, you know, having someone from building one, let them into building

29:51three or four doesn't make any sense to me, especially if they're going into the

29:55underground visitor parking.

29:58You know, there'd have to be someone letting them in like, you know, a key card

30:01or something to let them in.

30:04And that, so if they're going into the, I can see the surface parking being

30:07shared, but not the underground.

30:11Through you, Mr. Chair, I said, sorry, member Balibin.

30:18What I said was all visitor parking needs to be publicly accessible.

30:25So there wouldn't be a key card requirement for a visitor parking space.

30:28If I were going to go visit a family member in a permit building, I wouldn't

30:33have a key card to utilize a parking space above ground or underground.

30:38All of these buildings provide accessible visitor parking spaces underground.

30:43And how do they do, like, do they have, do they have like a locked area beyond

30:50the visitor parking?

30:53I'm not aware of there being any restriction or access control on the parking spaces.

31:00Thank you.

31:05This is any further questions.

31:07Thanks you for your submissions.

31:09Yeah.

31:12And Mr. Horvath, I see you raising your hand, but typically we, our process, we

31:17receive submissions and then give the applicant a chance to respond.

31:20So I'll ask the committee if they are open to having further comments from

31:34Mr.

31:37Mr. Horvath.

31:41Yeah, please come ahead.

31:53Thank you for this opportunity again.

31:56The parking scenario in tower one and tower two that I think I can speak pretty

32:01surely about is controlled access.

32:04They have doors with key fobs that are given to the tenants when you acquire

32:09your unit.

32:11And that's the only way in the building.

32:13It's the only way into the parking.

32:15And it's the only way out of the parking visitor access to both towers one and

32:20two presently.

32:22We as a tenant have to go down and meet our visitor at the door, key fob, the

32:27door open to allow them in and go down, key fob them to go out.

32:32So those visitor parking spots are not accessible to quote unquote the public.

32:42Okay.

32:42Any, any questions?

32:46Okay.

32:46Thank you.

32:47Thank you.

32:51Member Smith.

32:55Thank you, chair.

32:56Through you to staff.

33:00The, the, the delegate has just raised is a, is a bit of concern to me.

33:06I don't know how we can approve something as minor if visitor parking is, is

33:12restricted in such a way.

33:16Is there any sort of precedent in other sites throughout the city?

33:25Through the chair, it is my understanding that what may or may not be occurring with

33:31regarding access to the visitor parking spaces underground is something that the

33:38condo, the condos themselves might have orchestrated and or organize themselves.

33:45So it definitely warrants city staff to need to review in reality what's going on.

33:56I haven't to my knowledge seen this happen before.

34:02Thank you for that.

34:04Through the chair, a bit of a follow up would this sort of goes beyond our role as

34:12committee of adjustment, but I'm concerned whether or not this would have been

34:16addressed at the site plan review.

34:23Through the chair condo registration is a different process.

34:28It happens after site plan approval.

34:31So it would not have been addressed during the site plan.

34:37Okay.

34:37Thank you for that.

34:40Member Palovan.

34:42Through you, Mr. Chair, I live in a condo and we, we have controlled access as well.

34:49We have a button that people have to call up to get access in if they're a visitor and,

34:55and they come into our visitor parking.

34:57It is for security for the building because if, if you can just drive in to an

35:03underground and have access to, to the building without any kind of security, then

35:13people have access to everything in your building.

35:15So it is a security measure.

35:17In the case of this site, though, a lot of these parking spaces are for commercial

35:22purposes too.

35:23So it's not just, I mean, there are a bunch of surface sites that we're talking about,

35:28not just underground.

35:31So, and there's a whole lot of new parking spaces being provided in this, in this new

35:40set of, or building three, four combination that seem to outnumber a lot that are provided

35:49in the other two buildings.

35:50So, you know, it's, it's a little bit concerning that there are three, four are getting a lot

35:58of visitor parking where the other two buildings didn't get a lot of parking.

36:03Yeah.

36:04There's a lot of surface parking, which anyone can access.

36:06Like they were, like the gentleman was saying from across the street and from anywhere, they

36:11can just come on the site and park because it's like a commercial parking lot.

36:15And no one can stop that unless you put up some sort of a gate at the entrance to the

36:20site, which you wouldn't want to do because there's a commercial use on the site.

36:24So it is kind of a conundrum when we look at this kind of a site, it's a real mixed use,

36:30but allowing people just into the garage, we can't, you know, think that that would be a

36:37normal thing without some sort of a key fob or a fob, somebody coming down and letting them in.

36:44Just as a comment, I mean, you know, so it's really just going to be the surface ones we're

36:49talking about that would be for public consumption.

36:52And the other ones are going to be led in by people who live in the building.

36:57And the ones who live in building three, four are really lucky.

37:00They have a lot of visitor parking spots.

37:07Hey, at this time, I think I'll ask if committee members would like to make a motion.

37:27Through you, Mr. Chair, I would move that the committee reject this application.

37:34Any, any seconder for that?

37:42Thank you.

37:43So we have a motion and I'd like to ask the secretary treasurer to conduct the vote.

37:53Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair.

37:54And before we go ahead, I'll just ask some clarification from members Spears.

37:59Usually with a refusal motion, we ask for some rationale pertaining to the four tests

38:05of why you're recommending refusal.

38:07So if you could outline that for the decision, that would be appreciated.

38:11Sure.

38:12I think with, I could go through the four tests, I suppose, but I feel like there's,

38:17there's, there is enough, a lack of understanding on my part, too much of a,

38:23of a lack of understanding in order to say yes to this.

38:27It, I'm, I'm hearing so-called truth coming from two places.

38:33It's not aligned.

38:34I just can't, I just simply can't get behind it for that reason.

38:40Member Goodfellow?

38:43Yeah.

38:43If I could add a comment on that, because I, I think from my perspective,

38:50the, one of the tests that it fails for me is the desirability for the appropriate development

38:56of the lands in question.

38:58I think the, the idea that there are commercial parking spots underground that wouldn't be

39:03immediately available and accessible to delivery vehicles, the fact that we're being asked to

39:09reconcile parking spots across three, three plus buildings.

39:14And some of them wouldn't be accessible and available.

39:17I just think it's going to create a lot of headaches.

39:20And I don't feel that's an appropriate development then for the lands.

39:24So that, that's my perspective.

39:25Thank you.

39:27Thank you.

39:27Member Smith?

39:30Yes.

39:31I'd just like to add my comment and that is, I'll be supporting this and my rationale is that I

39:37don't believe that it's minor in nature, given the numbers may be appropriate, but given the access

39:45and the controversy that's been stirred up by the lack of clarity on how these visitor spaces will be

39:56accessed, I don't think it's minor in nature.

39:59And I also support

40:00the notion that it's not desirable.

40:06Okay, thank you.

40:09Secretary Treasurer, if you could call the vote.

40:13Thank you, Chair.

40:14Committee members, if you can please indicate

40:16your vote on the motion,

40:18which is to refuse the application.

40:21Vice Chair Serra.

40:23In favor.

40:25Member Balaban.

40:27In favor.

40:28Member Goodfellow.

40:30In favor.

40:31Member Smith.

40:33In favor.

40:35And Member Spears.

40:36In favor.

40:37That's carried, Chair.

40:41Thank you.

40:43So the application has been refused

40:47and you're free to leave the hearing if you wish.

40:50Thank you.

40:56I'll ask the Secretary Treasurer for the next application.

41:12The next application is file A-8-24,

41:15variances to permit reduced side yard setbacks

41:18for proposed new detached dwelling

41:20and increased rear yard projection

41:22for proposed exterior stairs at 93 Hayes Avenue.

41:26For those watching the hearing remotely,

41:29and if you wish to speak to this application,

41:31you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen.

41:34That number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

41:40And when you call in,

41:41staff will give you instructions

41:42on how you can delegate remotely via phone.

41:45I'll also note for committee members

41:47as well as those attending

41:49that there was an additional condition

41:51recommended by planning staff

41:53regarding the protection of city trees

41:56and that wording of that condition

41:57has been circulated to the committee members

41:59and the applicant.

42:03Thank you.

42:04And I'm gonna ask if the applicant is present,

42:08but here you are.

42:09So if you could just state your name

42:10and your relationship to the applicant.

42:12I'm Bill Birdsell.

42:13I'm an architect for the project

42:16and agent for the application.

42:18Okay.

42:19Thank you.

42:19And can you confirm if the sign was posted

42:23in accordance with planning act requirements?

42:25Yes.

42:26And have you received the staff comments

42:29and are you in agreement with the recommended conditions?

42:32Yes, and yes.

42:34And as the secretary treasurer noted,

42:37there is one updated condition,

42:44or an added condition on tree plans.

42:46Are you in agreement with that?

42:48I spoke with the forestry technician today

42:51and center our arborist report.

42:54And yes, I'm in agreement with the condition.

42:56Okay. Thank you.

42:58So at this time, I'd like to ask

43:01if you'd like to address the committee on the application

43:04and you have up to 10 minutes to do so.

43:07Well, thank you.

43:09The house is modest, but quality

43:12and for a town that needs housing.

43:15And so we're adding a house to a vacant lot.

43:19And we're also proposing that the house

43:21will have an accessory apartment.

43:24So we'll be adding two units.

43:28The lot is quite narrow.

43:30And as a result, we need the variance

43:34for the side yard setbacks.

43:37I've worked with city staff

43:39and they support the application.

43:42And we require the rear access to the basement

43:47to support the accessory apartment,

43:50to give it a private access.

43:53Thank you.

43:54Okay. Thank you.

43:55And at this time, I'd like to ask

43:58if any of the committee members have any questions for you.

44:06Chair Smith.

44:10Thank you, Chair.

44:11Through you, I'm pretty clear about the variance request

44:17for the rear access.

44:19This is for more in terms of the side yard setbacks.

44:26And if I look at the elevations,

44:28there seems to be unprotected openings on both sides.

44:35I guess this would be addressed at building permit,

44:37but I'm curious why it's coming to us

44:40if I'm not sure that it would pass building permit.

44:45I'd like the applicant to talk about unprotected openings

44:51vis-a-vis the variance request on the side yard setbacks.

44:58Yes.

45:00There are no unprotected openings

45:02on the garage side of the property looking at the neighbor.

45:05There are windows facing the vacant lot owned by the city.

45:10And we will work through that at building permit.

45:13If required, there is a provision

45:16where we can move the setback line onto the city property.

45:20But most likely what we'll do is we'll put shutters

45:25on the window that'll drop in the case of a fire.

45:31I appreciate that.

45:31Thank you.

45:32That answers my question.

45:35I do have a question for staff,

45:37but I'll wait until the rest of the committee has spoken.

45:44Any other questions for the applicant?

45:47Okay.

45:48Chair Smith, please proceed with your question to staff.

45:51Thank you, Chair.

45:52This is for staff regarding the front elevation.

45:59I noticed that the proposed parking is in the driveway,

46:05and it seems to be in advance of the front of the house.

46:10So I'd like staff to comment on that.

46:13My understanding was that parking provisions

46:17had to be behind the front face of the dwelling.

46:22Am I off base here?

46:27Through the chair to member Smith.

46:28So they're in both the 1995 and 2023 zoning bylaws.

46:32One space has to be behind the front wall of the house,

46:35and that would be the space located in the garage.

46:38And then the second space for the additional dwelling unit

46:42would be located in the driveway.

46:44Additionally, in the 2023 bylaw,

46:46there is a provision that does not permit garages

46:49to extend beyond the front wall of the habitable space,

46:54but there is an exception for cases like this

46:57where there is a porch off the front of the dwelling.

47:00So there is no compliance issues in that regard.

47:02Thank you.

47:03You preempted my other question,

47:06which was precisely that.

47:09I guess my other question for staff,

47:14if you will, is with the entrance and exit

47:21through the back areaway,

47:26does that mean that this now qualifies as a duplex

47:30or is it still considered an accessory unit?

47:36Through the chair,

47:37this would still be considered an accessory unit

47:39and would have to comply with all of the zoning bylaw provisions

47:42that are required of accessory units.

47:46Thank you.

47:47That's my question.

47:51Member Goodfellow.

47:52Yes, through the chair to city staff.

47:54I have a question about,

47:57I guess the process, once this leaves us,

48:01will there be a review of grading,

48:03site grading for stormwater concerns?

48:06You know, it's an infill site.

48:07There's going to be less permeable area on the site.

48:12And so just trying to understand if that is something

48:15that we should be considering here

48:16or if that will be captured at a later stage

48:19of the building process.

48:23Yes, thank you.

48:26Through the chair to the member,

48:27grading would be reviewed

48:29during the building permit process.

48:31It is my understanding that it is typical

48:34for development applications,

48:36site plan zone change, that kind of thing,

48:39that stormwater criteria is looked at to a greater degree.

48:45And my understanding is that there probably wouldn't be

48:49a requirement for a stormwater report

48:52as part of an infill building permit only.

49:00Okay, thank you.

49:02Thank you.

49:04Any other questions for the applicant or staff?

49:06I just had one question for the applicant.

49:08We had received a couple of pieces of late correspondence

49:12and I just wondered if you'd had an opportunity

49:14to see those and had any comments on them.

49:17Yes, I've read them.

49:21I don't really have any comment.

49:23I recognize the lot has been sitting there for decades

49:27and people get used to it being empty.

49:30And so it seems that we're building a house.

49:38With regards to the comment about the chicken coop,

49:41I don't know what to say about that

49:44because there's a neighbor with a chicken coop.

49:48Okay, thank you.

49:55I'd like to ask the secretary treasurer

49:56if we've received any delegations.

50:01Mr. Chair, we haven't received any delegation

50:03requests via phone.

50:06Okay, and are there any members of the

50:11in attendance who would like to speak to this application?

50:17Okay, not seeing any.

50:19I just had a couple of questions for staff.

50:22I had asked staff if they could review the correspondence

50:28in particular from Ms. Eterna

50:33and if they had any comments on any of the points

50:36that were raised in her correspondence.

50:41Through you, Mr. Chair.

50:44I did review those comments from Mrs. Atema.

50:47So her first point in her comment

50:50regards to the dimensions of the property

50:52and the lot coverage.

50:54So those measurements are roughly correct,

50:56but there is no zoning requirement

50:59or maximum for lot coverage.

51:02Her second point, she raises some concerns

51:04about the rear yard setback,

51:05speculating that it is 3.5 meters.

51:08I'm not sure where that number was received from,

51:11but the proposed rear yard setback for this property

51:14is 6.35 meters, which does correspond

51:17or which does comply with the zoning bylaw requirement.

51:22Then she also raised the concern of the city tree

51:24on the neighboring property.

51:25So that is why the additional condition

51:29regarding the tree inventory and preservation plan

51:31was recommended.

51:33And finally, she had some questions

51:35about her chicken coop in her backyard.

51:37And I did confirm with staff

51:39that the only requirement for chicken coops at this time

51:42is just that it meets the required 0.6 meter setback

51:46to the lot line.

51:47Formerly there was a regulation similar

51:50to minimum distance separation

51:52that the coop must be setback a certain distance

51:55from any nearby dwellings,

51:58but that vision is no longer in effect.

52:00So this would not impact the chicken coop at all.

52:04Okay, thanks for your attention to those questions.

52:14I'd now like to ask the committee members

52:16if they would like to make a motion.

52:19Chair Smith.

52:23Thank you, chair.

52:24I would like to move approval with the listed conditions,

52:27including the new condition regarding the tree.

52:32Seconded by member Goodfellow.

52:35So I'd ask the secretary treasurer to call a vote.

52:42Thank you, Mr. Chair.

52:43Committee members, please indicate your vote on the motion,

52:46which is to approve the application

52:48with the three recommended conditions,

52:51including the additional condition

52:53that was recommended from planning staff.

52:56Vice chair, Sarah.

52:57In favor.

52:59Member Balaban.

53:01In favor.

53:02Member Goodfellow.

53:04In favor.

53:05Member Smith.

53:06In favor.

53:08And member Spears.

53:09In favor.

53:10That's carried, Mr. Chair.

53:13Your application has been approved.

53:15So thank you for your submissions.

53:24Now ask the secretary treasurer

53:26to bring forward the next application.

53:33The next application is file A-3 slash 24,

53:36variance to permit increased number of bedrooms

53:40and additional residential unit at 49 Amsterdam Crescent.

53:45For those watching remotely,

53:46if you wish to speak to this application,

53:48you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen.

53:51That number is 519-822-1260, extension 2524.

53:56And when you call in staff,

53:57we'll give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

54:06And we have an applicant present for this.

54:13I think it appeared the,

54:17maybe an agent appearing by video.

54:24Chair, Sarah, I can confirm that the agent is online.

54:28They just need to turn their video on.

54:30Thank you.

54:31Sorry about that.

54:32I was calling in the number starting video.

54:38Do you hear me?

54:40Yes, we can hear you.

54:41Thank you.

54:42So I mean, I don't have a lot to add.

54:46Staff have recommended approval.

54:49I mean, we support that.

54:50Of course, the recommendations are that

54:53a current building permit that is issued be canceled

54:58before the other building permit is pursued.

55:00And we agree with that.

55:03I mean, really we're just,

55:05I mean, the house is quite large.

55:07It's a 2000 square foot bungalow.

55:09We've dug out the basement to essentially make it

55:12a two-story building.

55:14And so with considering it's a 4000 square foot house,

55:18we have a house on the ground floor,

55:21a bungalow with the accessory dwelling unit in the basement.

55:24I think three bedrooms is quite suitable for that.

55:27So, that's where we're going for the additional bedroom.

55:33Okay, thank you.

55:34I just wanted to go back a little and ask

55:38if you could just confirm your name

55:40and relationship to the application.

55:42Steve Burrows, I'm the architect of the project.

55:46Thank you.

55:46And was the sign posted in accordance

55:49with planning act requirements?

55:51We've communicated with the neighbors as well.

55:53Okay, thank you.

55:54And as you've commented,

55:57appears you've reviewed staff comments

55:59and our agreement with them.

56:01Thank you.

56:02Okay, well, necessarily you have any further comments.

56:07I would just ask committee members

56:09if they have any questions for this applicant.

56:13Okay, not seeing any,

56:15committee members have any questions for staff?

56:20Okay, not seeing any.

56:23I'll just ask the secretary treasurer

56:25if we've received any delegations on this matter.

56:29Chair, sir, I can confirm we haven't received

56:31any delegation requests online.

56:33Okay, thank you.

56:38I guess at this point,

56:38I'll just ask if any committee member

56:40has a motion on this matter.

56:44Member Goodfellow.

56:46I move we approve this application

56:48with condition as provided by city staff.

57:00I will just confirm any members of the public

57:02have any comments?

57:05Okay, thank you.

57:07Any seconded by member Balibin.

57:11So if we could have a vote, secretary treasurer.

57:17Thank you, chair, committee members,

57:18please indicate your vote on the motion,

57:20which is to approve the application

57:23with the one recommended condition.

57:27Vice chair, sir.

57:28In favor.

57:30Member Balibin.

57:31In favor.

57:32Member Goodfellow.

57:33In favor.

57:34Member Smith.

57:35In favor.

57:37And member Spears.

57:38In favor.

57:39That's carried, chair.

57:41Your application has been approved.

57:43Thank you.

57:51I'll just ask secretary treasurer

57:54for our next application, please.

57:59The next applications file A-9-24,

58:02variance to permit increased driveway width

58:06at 19 West Mount Road.

58:09I'll also note that correspondence was received

58:11after the comment deadline from Dr. Christine Vogel

58:14in support of the application.

58:16And that correspondence has been circulated

58:18to the committee members as well as staff.

58:21And for those attending remotely,

58:22if you wish to speak to this application,

58:24you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen.

58:27That number's 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

58:34Okay, thank you.

58:36Just ask the applicant to come forward, please.

58:42And if you could state your name

58:44and your relationship to the application.

58:47And I hear my name is Rob Sekunovic

58:49and I'm representing the owners of 19 West Mount Road.

58:53Thank you.

58:53And was the sign posted in accordance

58:57with planning actor requirements?

58:59It was.

58:59Thank you.

59:01So just like to ask if you received staff comments

59:04and are in agreement with those comments.

59:08Yes, I have and yes.

59:12And are you in agreement with them or?

59:15Yes, other than the refusal.

59:17Okay, so you're not in agreement with the refusal.

59:20Okay, thank you.

59:22So yeah, at this point, I'd just like to ask

59:24if you would like to make any comments

59:26to the committee on the application

59:28and you have 10 minutes to do so.

59:30Thank you, chair.

59:32Good afternoon council members.

59:33My name is Rob Sekunovic.

59:35I'm here representing the owners at 19 West Mount Road.

59:39Vassili and Maria have lived at their home for 50 years now.

59:43They raise their children there

59:44and now enjoy their grandchildren visiting them

59:47at their home.

59:49Unfortunately, over the years,

59:51Vassili's health has deteriorated

59:52and no longer has a mobility once had.

59:55The house is a split level

59:57and bedrooms are located on the upper floor.

59:59This makes it very difficult for him to access this area.

1:00:03Also, the bathroom is not oriented

1:00:05to suit his condition as well.

1:00:08We're proposing to add an additional unit in the garage

1:00:10that has access from ground level

1:00:12making it the perfect option.

1:00:14It allows him access the dwelling very easily

1:00:18and also allows a design of the washroom and shower

1:00:21which will assist with his mobility issues.

1:00:24Maria and Vassili can now enjoy the house as they once did

1:00:27and have added benefit of additional income

1:00:29coming from rental, renting the original house.

1:00:32This also benefits the city of Guelph

1:00:35with an additional rental unit for a new family.

1:00:38Intense find the area without modifying the house.

1:00:42Plan in front of you,

1:00:43propose a parking space beside the existing garage.

1:00:47However, the owners would prefer to have the existing

1:00:52driveway remain as is.

1:00:55However, they are willing to make changes

1:00:58to the driveway in order to suit the new dwelling.

1:01:06The garage door will remain

1:01:08in order to keep the original look of the house.

1:01:11We just ask that council please consider this slight change

1:01:13in order to provide additional benefits across the board.

1:01:17Thank you.

1:01:19Thank you.

1:01:20I just asked if you could stay there

1:01:21while we see if any committee members

1:01:23have any questions for you.

1:01:30Chair Smith.

1:01:33I don't wanna step on your toes

1:01:34but do we have any members of the committee

1:01:37of the community who'd like to speak to this?

1:01:47Well, I was gonna ask for delegations

1:01:49after we had asked the applicant if he had any questions.

1:01:54Okay, I do have a question for this delegate

1:01:58through you, Chair.

1:02:01I'm a little bit confused by your presentation

1:02:04in that you said the,

1:02:08my understanding is that this variance

1:02:12is for the driveway width

1:02:14and that's the only variance that's a question.

1:02:16And if your clients are willing to amend that

1:02:20then perhaps we don't need to consider this variance.

1:02:29So the issue is that the driveway as is

1:02:35will not provide a parking space beside the garage.

1:02:39That was their intent,

1:02:40was not to modify the site at all,

1:02:43just leave it as is,

1:02:45leave the two lane parking driveway to the garage as is.

1:02:51Cause there is enough room

1:02:52for like four parking spaces there.

1:02:56Through you, Chair, I appreciate that.

1:03:00And that's why we're here is talking about

1:03:02the additional space to swoop around to the backside.

1:03:05But from staff's comments,

1:03:08it sounds like if the driveway was amended

1:03:14to essentially be a lazy ass,

1:03:19there would be no reason for a variance.

1:03:23So I'm wondering if your clients would be,

1:03:26you've seemed that you were thinking

1:03:29that they would be amenable to that.

1:03:31So am I misinterpreting what you're saying?

1:03:35So they would like to keep the driveway as is

1:03:38and not put the ass and reduce the width of the driveway,

1:03:41just to leave it as is.

1:03:42So we would still need a minor variance in order

1:03:45to not allow a parking space behind the building face.

1:03:51Thank you.

1:03:52Those are my questions.

1:03:55Thank you.

1:03:58Member Balavan.

1:04:00Through you, Mr. Chair.

1:04:01So would the driveway width then still exceed

1:04:06the bylaw requirements or maximum?

1:04:12No, it would be under the six point,

1:04:16I think it's six point three meters.

1:04:18Six point five or whatever it is.

1:04:19Six point five meters, yeah.

1:04:20It's under that existing condition,

1:04:25the way it is, it would still meet that.

1:04:27It would just, we would need a minor variance

1:04:29in order to not allow or to permit a parking space

1:04:33behind the building line.

1:04:34Beside the garage.

1:04:36Okay, thank you.

1:04:42Just a little follow up.

1:04:44Would the drawing still be the same

1:04:46that you submitted with the application?

1:04:50So it'd be slightly different.

1:04:51It would just basically remain exactly like this.

1:04:58So we wouldn't be changing anything at all.

1:04:59We would just keep the existing driveway as is.

1:05:18Yeah, we just wanted to confirm with you,

1:05:23like the variance, can you just confirm

1:05:27what variance you're asking for here?

1:05:29So we would prefer to have the driveway remain as is.

1:05:37That was the owner.

1:05:39Is there a way that I can put this up?

1:05:42I think getting it on screen.

1:05:55That's the original variance,

1:05:58which they would at the worst case scenario,

1:06:03they would accept that.

1:06:05However, the last moment they said

1:06:08that they would prefer not to change the driveway

1:06:11and just leave it as is.

1:06:12That's, they would be willing to entertain that as well.

1:06:20Secretary Treasurer.

1:06:22Chair Serra, I'll just provide some clarification.

1:06:25So the variance that the applicant applied for

1:06:29is to seek relief from the requirements of both bylaws

1:06:32to permit a maximum driveway width of 9.144 meters

1:06:38for the required parking space.

1:06:42I understand that the applicant,

1:06:44their desire is to not have that parking space

1:06:47behind the front wall yet.

1:06:48That's the variance that they applied for.

1:06:52And that's what the committee is considering,

1:06:53the variance that the notice was sent out for,

1:06:56as shown on the drawing here,

1:06:59not for another type of variance,

1:07:02just to provide some extra clarification there.

1:07:18I think, I think.

1:07:30I remember through you, Mr. Chair,

1:07:32I'm still confused about what we're talking,

1:07:35I really don't understand what we're talking about.

1:07:36I understood the original drawing,

1:07:38that made sense to me.

1:07:39In fact, when I visited the site,

1:07:40I thought, does it make sense?

1:07:41I could see why you would need that room to move around

1:07:44to get into the side of the house in order to park there.

1:07:47But that's not what I'm hearing that we're talking about.

1:07:50So that's why I'm confused.

1:07:52Do we need a new sketch?

1:07:54So essentially, I originally came through

1:07:57within application and when I spoke with staff,

1:08:00they were told me that it probably wouldn't be supported

1:08:04by staff if we were to just leave the driveway as is.

1:08:08They did recommend that I do the S-curve.

1:08:10So I did that without really notifying the client,

1:08:14my client, and therefore they came back at the last minute

1:08:18after they saw the application and said that,

1:08:20they would prefer to keep the driveway as is,

1:08:23but they are willing to keep,

1:08:27to change the driveway in order to accommodate

1:08:29this application.

1:08:32Through you again, Minister Chair,

1:08:35when you say leave it as is,

1:08:37do you mean this is where I'm confused?

1:08:39Do you mean do nothing or follow the drawing

1:08:43and put a parking space beside the house?

1:08:45Follow the drawing, yes.

1:08:46So that's not do nothing.

1:08:48That's go forward with the requested variance.

1:08:50Exactly, sorry.

1:08:53I understand from the Secretary-Treasurer

1:08:55that the planner may be here to speak to this also.

1:09:02Through you, Mr. Chair,

1:09:04if I can maybe elaborate a little bit.

1:09:06So the proposal that's before you is essentially

1:09:09to enable the owner of the property

1:09:12to convert their existing attached garage

1:09:14into living space.

1:09:16The problem that that raises is the zoning by-law

1:09:19requires at least one parking space

1:09:21be located behind the front wall of the house.

1:09:24And if the garage is converted,

1:09:26that space will no longer exist.

1:09:28So there's kind of two ways to approach this.

1:09:30One could ask for a variance to eliminate the need

1:09:33for that one space behind the front wall,

1:09:36or one could provide that space behind the front wall

1:09:39through widening the driveway.

1:09:41So the application or the version that was circulated

1:09:46to the public was for the increased driveway width

1:09:49and not to eliminate the space

1:09:52behind the front wall of the house.

1:09:54So if they did, if the committee did wish to go that route,

1:09:57I think the Secretary-Treasurer can correct me if I'm wrong,

1:10:00but my understanding is there would need to be a recirculation

1:10:03if they wanted to go that route.

1:10:04Alternatively, what's before us today

1:10:07is specifically for the increased driveway width.

1:10:09So that way a space can be provided

1:10:11behind the front wall of the house.

1:10:14Member Ballabong.

1:10:15Through you, Mr. Chair.

1:10:17So we can't just say we would do a variance

1:10:22to eliminate the need for the parking spot

1:10:26beyond the front wall of the house as the variance today.

1:10:32And I'm asking that to the Secretary-Treasurer.

1:10:35We have to recirculate.

1:10:39Through the chair to Member Ballabong.

1:10:41So what the applicant applied for was to have the parking

1:10:46space be to the side of the dwelling there.

1:10:50That's what the committee would be considering.

1:10:52If the applicant wishes to pursue another option,

1:10:56I'd recommend that the committee defer it

1:10:58so we can recirculate so the neighbors and the public

1:11:01are aware of actually what's being proposed here.

1:11:06Thank you.

1:11:08Chair Smith.

1:11:11Sorry, I was just going to suggest that this sounds

1:11:15like a candidate for deferral.

1:11:22Okay, I'll just ask at this point,

1:11:23thank you for your submissions.

1:11:24Are there any members of the public

1:11:28who would like to speak to this matter?

1:11:32And do we have any delegations?

1:11:35Chair, I can confirm that we haven't received

1:11:37any delegation requests.

1:11:39Thank you.

1:11:40At this point, I'd like to ask for a motion

1:11:42from the members, Member Ballabong.

1:11:48Through you, Mr. Chair, I move that we defer

1:11:51this application until a revised application is submitted.

1:11:55Okay, that's seconded by Chair Smith.

1:11:58Ask for a vote at this point.

1:12:03Thank you, Chair, committee members.

1:12:04Please indicate your vote by responding in favor

1:12:07or opposed to the motion, which is to defer the application.

1:12:11Vice Chair Seher.

1:12:12In favor.

1:12:13Member Ballabong.

1:12:14In favor.

1:12:15Member Goodfellow.

1:12:16In favor.

1:12:17Member Smith.

1:12:18In favor.

1:12:20And Member Spears.

1:12:21In favor.

1:12:22That's carried, Mr. Chair.

1:12:24Thank you.

1:12:25Your application has been deferred to another meeting,

1:12:28so you'll have more of an opportunity to review with staff

1:12:31and clarify this.

1:12:32Thank you.

1:12:38Hey, at this point, I'd ask the secretary,

1:12:40Treasurer, for the next application.

1:12:48The next application is file 8-10-24,

1:12:51variances to permit increased total floor area

1:12:54and location in exterior side yard

1:12:56for proposed accessory building at three Renfrew Place.

1:13:00I'll note for those attending remotely,

1:13:01if you wish to speak to this application,

1:13:03you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen.

1:13:06That number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

1:13:12And when you call in, staff will give you instructions

1:13:14on how you can delegate remotely.

1:13:19And do we have an applicant present for this matter?

1:13:25Yes.

1:13:25Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

1:13:26This is Matthew Frederick-Hangley, agent of the owner.

1:13:31Thank you.

1:13:32Thanks for attending.

1:13:33And I'd just like to ask if the sign was posted

1:13:36in accordance with Planning Act requirements.

1:13:38Yes, Mr. Chair.

1:13:39Thank you.

1:13:40And have you received staff comments?

1:13:43And are you in agreement with any recommended conditions?

1:13:47And it doesn't appear there are any conditions in this one.

1:13:50That's right.

1:13:50There were no conditions.

1:13:51And yes, we are in agreement that this is generally

1:13:54a minor application in nature.

1:13:56And we are meeting with four tests.

1:13:58OK, thank you.

1:13:59So at this point, I'd just like to ask

1:14:01if you wanted to address the committee on the application,

1:14:05make any further comments.

1:14:06And you have up to 10 minutes to do so.

1:14:08I mean, in the interest of time for the committee members

1:14:11and you, Mr. Chair, I think it's a fairly straightforward

1:14:14application, not much to add other than our proposed

1:14:17building is only slightly above the requirement

1:14:21of 70 square meters.

1:14:22It's the total area that's actually contributing

1:14:25to the floor area variance.

1:14:28All the buildings are well-spaced with well-sized lot

1:14:33for good drainage.

1:14:34There's no engineering concern for drainage.

1:14:37The exterior side setback, we do feel as minor.

1:14:42We tried our best to meet as much as we could.

1:14:44Obviously, the pool is a constraint.

1:14:46We need to work around.

1:14:48The owners did want the structure in the exterior

1:14:51side yard for safety of their children

1:14:53for navigating the pool deck and easier access

1:14:56for winter storage block wins to help with pool care.

1:15:01So that is why it's in the exterior yard.

1:15:05There's the fence and the screening as the planning staff

1:15:08has noted that the tree and the fence provides screening.

1:15:11We don't think we're providing much of an impact

1:15:13to any of the neighbors or any traffic sight line.

1:15:15So not much to add, but if the committee has any questions,

1:15:18I'd be happy to answer them.

1:15:21Thank you.

1:15:22At this point, I'll just ask any committee members

1:15:24have any questions for the applicant?

1:15:28Okay, not seeing any questions for staff from any members.

1:15:34Okay, not seeing any again.

1:15:37So at this point, I'll just ask for a motion.

1:15:43Right, are there any public comments on this matter?

1:15:50And any delegations?

1:15:52Chair, I can confirm we haven't received

1:15:54any delegation requests online.

1:15:57Thank you.

1:15:58So I'll just ask for a motion at this point.

1:16:02Member Spears.

1:16:03I move that we accept this application as stated.

1:16:09Seconded by member Goodfellow.

1:16:12So I'd like to ask for a vote at this point.

1:16:16Committee members, please indicate your vote

1:16:18by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

1:16:21which is to approve the application.

1:16:23Vice Chair, Sarah.

1:16:25In favor.

1:16:26Member Balaban.

1:16:27In favor.

1:16:28Member Goodfellow.

1:16:29In favor.

1:16:29Member Smith.

1:16:31In favor.

1:16:32And Member Spears.

1:16:33In favor.

1:16:34That's carried, Chair.

1:16:36So your application has been approved.

1:16:38Thank you, Committee members and Mr. Chair.

1:16:39Have a great night.

1:16:41You too, thank you.

1:16:47So at this point, Secretary Treasurer,

1:16:50if we could bring the next application forward, please.

1:16:55The next application is file A-11 slash 24,

1:16:59bariances to permit increased total floor area

1:17:01and increased height for proposed detached garage

1:17:04at 19 Linwood Place.

1:17:06Also note for those attending remotely,

1:17:07if you wish to speak to this application,

1:17:09you can do so by calling the number displayed

1:17:11on the screen, that number is 519-822-1260,

1:17:16extension 2524.

1:17:20Thank you.

1:17:21At this point, I'd like to ask if the applicant is present

1:17:25if they could come forward.

1:17:40Good afternoon.

1:17:41Could you state your name and relationship

1:17:44to the applicant, please?

1:17:45Good afternoon, Chair and Committee.

1:17:48My name is Rob Nixon.

1:17:49I am the applicant and homeowner at the address.

1:17:51Okay, thank you.

1:17:52And was the sign posted in accordance

1:17:55with Planning Act requirements?

1:17:56Yes, it was.

1:17:57Thank you.

1:17:58And have you received staff comments

1:18:01and had a chance to review them?

1:18:03And are you in agreement with the conditions?

1:18:08To be honest, Mr. Chair,

1:18:09I did receive correspondence from the city.

1:18:11I'm not aware that there were any specific comments

1:18:13on that communication,

1:18:16but I've not received anything

1:18:17and that would question my application.

1:18:22Okay.

1:18:24Yeah, but maybe I'll just,

1:18:25I'll just indicate the conditions

1:18:27that were recommended by Planning Services

1:18:29with the proposed garage be constructed

1:18:32in general accordance with the public notice sketch

1:18:35and that the sheds not showing on the public notice sketch

1:18:38be removed to ensure compliance

1:18:40with the maximum access re-structure lot coverage

1:18:44of 104 square meters.

1:18:46I can speak to that in a minute.

1:18:48Thank you.

1:18:49So at this point, if you'd like to just speak

1:18:52to the committee and on your application,

1:18:54you have up to 10 minutes to do so.

1:18:57Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee.

1:18:59Just like to make two comments to start with,

1:19:02I had some rather significant abdominal surgery

1:19:05two weeks ago on Friday.

1:19:07And although the stitches were supposed

1:19:09to be removed yesterday, that was deferred to today.

1:19:12And now it's been deferred to Monday.

1:19:14If I'm a little fidgety,

1:19:15it's because I've got all these staples in my abdomen.

1:19:18So it has nothing to do with this application.

1:19:22Secondly, although I'm trained as a veterinarian,

1:19:26I've spent most of my career in regulatory affairs.

1:19:29So I'm quite familiar with the issues of legislation

1:19:33and by-laws and compliance requirements.

1:19:36And I'm also aware that if you're familiar with the process,

1:19:42it's fairly straightforward.

1:19:43If you're not familiar, it can be rather confusing.

1:19:48So throughout my career, I've spent many hours

1:19:50mentoring those that were confused.

1:19:53And I just like to bring that up and acknowledge

1:19:55the support of the city staff.

1:19:58This process is not straightforward.

1:20:00at least for me and the staff has been more than supportive

1:20:05and more than candor with me.

1:20:06So I just like to acknowledge that.

1:20:10This application has been sort of pending

1:20:12in my mind for some time.

1:20:14I did build the shed under a permit

1:20:17that was issued by the city prior to COVID

1:20:20and I had at the time intent to build the garage adjacent

1:20:24as designed and as shown in the drawings.

1:20:27And I had the drawings done, the blueprints,

1:20:32and then the city changed to accommodate,

1:20:36changed the bylaws to accommodate

1:20:37an accessory apartment or accessory buildings.

1:20:41And so I said, that's a good idea.

1:20:44I have a large lot, I'm close to the university,

1:20:48and I think it would be of value

1:20:49to provide accessory apartment space.

1:20:53So I had new drawings made and I made an application

1:20:56and I think actually there's a point of confusion

1:20:58in the drawings that I've submitted for the garage

1:21:00because one of them does make reference to garage

1:21:04with an accessory apartment.

1:21:07In fairness, there were any number of non-variance,

1:21:11non-compliance issues associated with that application.

1:21:15And after a lengthy discussion with city staff,

1:21:18I withdrew that application and asked it to be modified

1:21:21to simply a single-story double garage

1:21:25with a essentially six-foot shop down the side

1:21:28for some of the projects I'd like to work on in retirement.

1:21:32So we've kind of gone the gamut of garage to a garage

1:21:35with an accessory apartment to now back to a garage.

1:21:39So the garage itself exceeds the 70 square meters

1:21:47allowed for yard coverage of an accessory building

1:21:52because I'd like to build a six-foot space

1:21:56within the garage, which I can use as a shot

1:22:00for some of my retirement projects,

1:22:02as well as a veranda adjacent to that area

1:22:05where I can step out into the yard and sit on the veranda

1:22:09and go back and forth.

1:22:11So that adds that extra 12 feet.

1:22:14And so that's sort of the rationale behind asking

1:22:20for more square footage.

1:22:23As you can see in the drawing that's before you,

1:22:27I have the, well, one of the things that attracted me

1:22:31to the property was it's one of these old North huge lots.

1:22:37So I'm blessed in that way.

1:22:39This total proposal here is approximately 15%

1:22:44of the total yard area, which is significantly

1:22:47below the allowed amount.

1:22:50With regards to height, the architect

1:22:56or the engineer, I should say, at the trust company,

1:22:58which is trust and components,

1:23:00which used to be out in Rockwood,

1:23:01and I think they're up north of the city now,

1:23:05has proposed that they use a 612 pitch rather

1:23:08than a 412 pitch because of the 28 foot span.

1:23:12There would be more aesthetic appeal from the street.

1:23:14And I'm not averse to that.

1:23:16There's a slight increase in cost,

1:23:18but I do have a permit pending with the city

1:23:25to put a gable end on the porch in front of the house.

1:23:28And my plan is to match the gable end on the new porch

1:23:32with the gable end on the garage

1:23:33so that there's some aesthetic connection

1:23:35between the house and the garage.

1:23:37So the height requirement then with the 612 pitch

1:23:41pushes the total height approximately 20 inches above

1:23:46or I think it's 0.45 something of a meter

1:23:50above the requirement.

1:23:53So those are the two issues under consideration this afternoon.

1:23:57I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

1:24:01Thank you.

1:24:02So at this point, I'll ask the committee

1:24:03if they have any questions for you.

1:24:09Member Balaban.

1:24:11Through you, Mr. Chair,

1:24:12and you would be happy

1:24:16to be able to remove the other sheds

1:24:21in accordance with this requirement

1:24:24that staff had suggested in their conditions.

1:24:30Yes, through the chair to the committee member.

1:24:33Yeah, it was sort of a somewhat a comical comment

1:24:37that came back from the city to that effect

1:24:39because the shed in the back that's in question

1:24:43has been referred to for a few years as the squirrel house

1:24:46because the only people occupying it are the squirrels.

1:24:49And it currently is being, I have my bikes in there

1:24:54and they'll be moved into the garage

1:24:56and that is certainly destined for demolition.

1:24:59The second little shed is a 10 by 10 tin shed

1:25:03that came at the property

1:25:05and it too will be removed

1:25:07in conjunction with the completion of the project.

1:25:10Yep, thank you for the question.

1:25:14Thank you.

1:25:18Barring any further questions.

1:25:19Are there any questions for staff on this matter?

1:25:21I have one more question.

1:25:23Go ahead.

1:25:24Through you, Mr. Chair, for the applicant.

1:25:26I'm not 100% clear because it seems

1:25:29that maybe you didn't see the comments

1:25:30but the two conditions the city is recommending

1:25:34is that the new structure be built

1:25:36in general accordance with the public notice sketch.

1:25:40And that's number one

1:25:41and number two is the removal of the buildings.

1:25:43So if we go ahead and approve this,

1:25:45it will be with those conditions

1:25:47that the city recommended.

1:25:49Are you okay with that?

1:25:53Yes, through the chair.

1:25:54I think I've just commented

1:25:56that those two buildings will be removed.

1:25:58Those two.

1:25:59I'm thinking of item number one.

1:26:01Okay.

1:26:02And can you clarify exactly what the issue is?

1:26:03That the proposed garage be constructed

1:26:05in general accordance with the public notice sketch.

1:26:09And I can't explain that.

1:26:10I would think we'd have to move on.

1:26:11I'm not sure what the public notice sketch is

1:26:14and if it differs from my proposed drawings.

1:26:19Through the chair, that's just to ensure

1:26:21that the provisions that are granted

1:26:24don't then go apply to some other project

1:26:26that wasn't circulated to the general public.

1:26:29So it will perfectly allow this proposed project

1:26:32to go forward.

1:26:33It's just if there are significant alterations

1:26:36to the proposal, then this variance wouldn't apply to that.

1:26:47So with that clarification, my question is still there.

1:26:51If that's the condition, are you okay with that?

1:26:53If we approve it and say with these two conditions,

1:26:55we approve the application.

1:26:58Yeah, through the chair with the explanation provided.

1:27:02Yes, I can accept both the conditions recommended

1:27:06by the city.

1:27:07Thank you.

1:27:10Thank you.

1:27:12So at this point, are there any members of the public

1:27:16who wish to comment on this matter?

1:27:18I'm not seeing anyone.

1:27:20Any delegations, Secretary Treasurer?

1:27:24Mr. Chair, I can confirm no delegation requests

1:27:27have been received.

1:27:28Thank you.

1:27:30At this point, I'd like to ask committee members

1:27:32if they have a motion.

1:27:38Member Goodfellow.

1:27:40Yes, I move approval of this application

1:27:43with the two conditions as stated

1:27:45or noted by city staff.

1:27:49Seconded by member Spears.

1:27:51So I'd ask for a vote, Secretary Treasurer.

1:27:57Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:27:58Committee members, please indicate your vote

1:27:59by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

1:28:01which is to approve the application

1:28:03with the two recommended conditions.

1:28:06Vice Chair Serra.

1:28:08In favor.

1:28:09Member Balaban.

1:28:10In favor.

1:28:11Member Goodfellow.

1:28:12In favor.

1:28:13Member Smith.

1:28:14In favor.

1:28:15Member Spears.

1:28:17In favor.

1:28:18Let's carry, Chair.

1:28:20So your application is approved, so thank you.

1:28:23And thanks for your patience in waiting

1:28:26for your turn today.

1:28:28Well, there's, I just, I can comment that there's some value

1:28:32in going last as a learning exercise.

1:28:34So thanks, thank you for the opportunity.

1:28:37Thank you.

1:28:42So Secretary Treasurer, I'd now like to ask for the next,

1:28:47and it looks like the last application.

1:28:51The last application is file A-12-24,

1:28:55variants to permit reduced buffer strip width

1:28:58for retained lot at 280 Speedbill Avenue West.

1:29:02For those watching the hearing online,

1:29:05if you wish to speak to this application,

1:29:06you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen.

1:29:09That number's 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

1:29:17Thank you.

1:29:18And it looks like the applicant is present by video.

1:29:23If you'd like to state your name

1:29:24and relationship to the applicant.

1:29:27Can you hear me all right?

1:29:29Yep.

1:29:30Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

1:29:32My name is Eileen Costello.

1:29:33I'm a solicitor at Erad Berles LLP.

1:29:36I'm here on behalf of Linnamar Corporation,

1:29:38which is the registered owner of the lands

1:29:40at 280 Speedbill Avenue.

1:29:46Thank you.

1:29:48And can you confirm if the sign was posted

1:29:50in accordance with planning act requirements?

1:29:53It was sir, and Mr. Everton,

1:29:54a Linus planner in our office confirmed that with city staff.

1:29:58Thank you.

1:29:58And have you had an opportunity to receive staff comments?

1:30:02Are you agreement with the recommended conditions?

1:30:05Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

1:30:07Through you, we have reviewed the staff report

1:30:11on this matter and the recommendation and those conditions.

1:30:15And we are satisfied, Mr. Chairman, with those conditions.

1:30:19I would note there should be in front of the committee

1:30:21a revised language to the condition,

1:30:24which we've agreed to with staff.

1:30:26And it's that condition in that language

1:30:27that our client consents to, sir.

1:30:30Thank you.

1:30:31Thanks, yes, we do have that in front of us.

1:30:33Okay, thank you.

1:30:34So at this point, I would like to ask,

1:30:36and it's on the screen now.

1:30:39So at this point, I would just like to ask

1:30:40if you would like to address the committee on this application

1:30:44and do you have up to 10 minutes to do so?

1:30:48Mr. Chairman, I'll keep it very brief.

1:30:50We were before this committee earlier this year

1:30:53in respect of a severance application for these same lands.

1:30:56It was brought to our attention

1:30:57that while this severance application was making its way

1:31:00through the process, the city of Guelph, of course,

1:31:02adopted its new comprehensive zoning bylaw.

1:31:05And so this is a circumstance whereby a variance was triggered,

1:31:08which would not have been triggered

1:31:10had the severance been considered last year.

1:31:13So we worked with staff to identify that variance

1:31:16as it relates to an existing deficient landscape

1:31:19to buffer strip for the retained lot

1:31:22on the existing parking lot for the Linnemar Corporation.

1:31:25And that's the condition which you see

1:31:28in front of the committee today,

1:31:29which addresses the requirement

1:31:30that that buffer strip be maintained

1:31:33and that in the event that the site comes forward

1:31:35for redevelopment in the future,

1:31:36of course, that minor variance would not run

1:31:40with the property, but indeed would have to be reconsidered.

1:31:44So Mr. Chairman, this is simply implementing

1:31:46the severance application and the technical variance

1:31:50which arose as a result of the new bylaw.

1:31:52We're very thankful to staff for working through this with us.

1:31:56And we otherwise agree entirely

1:31:58with the assessment put forward to you

1:32:00by City of Guelph staff with respect to the four tests

1:32:03under section 45 of the Planning Act.

1:32:06Thank you, sir.

1:32:07Okay, thank you for your comments.

1:32:09I would just like to ask if any committee members

1:32:11have any questions for the applicant at this point.

1:32:16Okay, not seeing any questions for staff

1:32:20from committee members, doesn't appear.

1:32:24So I'd like to ask if there are any members of the public

1:32:32there doesn't appear to be and any delegations online.

1:32:38Mr. Chair, I can confirm no delegation requests.

1:32:41Okay, thank you.

1:32:43So at this point, I'd just like to ask for a motion

1:32:47from committee members Spears.

1:32:53Yes, I move that we approve this request

1:32:55with the amended condition.

1:33:01And seconded by member Goodfellow.

1:33:03So I'd like to ask for a vote at this time.

1:33:07Thank you, Chair.

1:33:08Committee members, please indicate your vote

1:33:09by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

1:33:12which is to approve the application

1:33:13with the one revised condition.

1:33:16Vice Chair Seher.

1:33:18In favor.

1:33:20Member Balaban.

1:33:21In favor.

1:33:22Member Goodfellow.

1:33:23In favor.

1:33:24Member Smith.

1:33:25In favor.

1:33:26And member Spears.

1:33:28In favor.

1:33:29That's carried, Chair.

1:33:31Your application has been approved.

1:33:33Thank you.

1:33:34I thanks to the committee.

1:33:35Have a good evening.

1:33:36Thank you too.

1:33:37Bye.

1:33:42So that appears to be the end of our applications.

1:33:45So I'd just like to ask,

1:33:48don't have any chair announcements.

1:33:50Any staff announcements?

1:33:53Thank you, Chair.

1:33:54There is one item listed under staff announcements

1:33:56regarding our fee refund policy.

1:34:00I'll keep this brief as most of the details

1:34:02are outlined in the report that was attached to the agenda.

1:34:06But the purpose of these updates

1:34:07is to address two types of applications.

1:34:10One regarding waiving deferral fees

1:34:13when applications are deferred following a tie vote.

1:34:16And two, providing no refund

1:34:17when previously deferred applications are withdrawn.

1:34:21The two-part recommendation for the committee

1:34:24to approve these updates is listed on the agenda.

1:34:27But I'm happy to answer any questions

1:34:29that the committee might have.

1:34:35Okay, any questions for the Secretary-Treasurer

1:34:38from the committee?

1:34:40That seemed to be pretty straightforward.

1:34:43Okay, thank you.

1:34:46So at this point, it appears we're done the meeting.

1:34:49Oh, okay, don't have it in front of me.

1:35:01Mr. Chair, I can read out the recommendation for you

1:35:04if that would be helpful for the committee.

1:35:06So the first one is that the proposed updates

1:35:09to the committee of adjustment fee refund policy

1:35:12related to waiver of deferral fees related to tie votes

1:35:16included as attachment one dated February 8th, 2024

1:35:20be approved.

1:35:21And second, that the proposed updates

1:35:22to the committee of adjustment fee refund policy

1:35:25related to refund requests for previously deferred applications

1:35:28that are withdrawn included as attachment one dated February

1:35:328th, 2024 be approved.

1:35:34And those are the two recommendations, Mr. Chair.

1:35:37Okay, thank you.

1:35:39I'd like to ask for a motion for the committee on that.

1:35:43Member Balibin.

1:35:53Through you, Mr. Chair, I move that we accept

1:35:56the recommendations and approve the changes to the bylaw

1:36:02as recommended by staff.

1:36:06Thank you.

1:36:07And a seconder, seconded by member Goodfellow.

1:36:12We do this by a show of hands.

1:36:14Yeah, so I'll just ask for a show of hands in favor.

1:36:18All in favor, thank you.

1:36:21So I guess now we can adjourn.

1:36:23So I would just like to ask for a motion

1:36:27to adjourn the meeting.

1:36:29Member Spears.

1:36:31I move that we adjourn this meeting.

1:36:33Thank you.

1:36:34Seconded by member Balibin.

1:36:39All in favor.

1:36:41Thank you.

1:36:44And thanks staff for staying late.