Committee of Adjustment

5:19Good afternoon as this is the first hearing of the term of the committee,

5:24I'll be acting chair for the first part of the hearing until the election of the

5:27chair and vice chair positions have been completed.

5:32I'd like to call to order the January 16th, 2025 hearing of the Guelph

5:36committee of adjustment.

5:37This hearing is being held in a hybrid format with attendees appearing in

5:41person or remotely and is being live streamed and recorded.

5:45Please be advised that public hearings form part of the public record and the

5:50words, names or images of those participating will be recorded and posted

5:55online.

5:56Before I outline the hearing format, if you're watching online and wish to speak

5:59to an application that's listed on the agenda and have not submitted a request

6:03in advance of the hearing, please call the number displayed on the screen,

6:08which is 519-822-1260 extension 2524 and you will receive instructions on how

6:15to participate.

6:16For those attending the hearing in person, you will also be given a chance to

6:19address the committee.

6:20A final call for delegations will be made when each application is called.

6:25The agenda for this hearing has been posted online at guelph.ca forward slash

6:29c o f a.

6:31I will remind all committee members and staff participating in the hearing to

6:34please mute your microphones when not in use.

6:36Applicants will be unmuted when their application is called.

6:40I'd also like to share the hearing format we will be using to navigate through

6:43each application.

6:45Each application will be called by the secretary, treasure and the call in

6:48number for those wishing to speak to an application will be displayed on the

6:51screen.

6:52Afterwards, the applicant will be given an opportunity to add anything

6:55further to their application to a maximum of 10 minutes.

6:59You will hear a chime when there was 30 seconds left and another one, the 10

7:02minutes has elapsed.

7:04If you're an applicant and have nothing further to add, then you can simply say

7:08so.

7:09The committee will then be able to ask questions to the applicant or staff.

7:13After that, we will hear from members of the public who wish to comment on the

7:16application.

7:17Please note that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

7:20Please avoid repeating concerns already stated by others and focus on adding new

7:24information.

7:25Comments are less comments are limited to 10 minutes or less.

7:29You will hear a chime when there is 30 seconds left and another one, the 10

7:32minutes has elapsed for delegates that have advised staff in advance of the

7:37hearing that they wish to display a presentation.

7:39Your presentation will be displayed on the screen and a remote is available at

7:43the podium for delegates to advance the slides.

7:46Any members of the public who have submitted a request to speak prior to the

7:50hearing will be the first invited to provide comments for those watching the

7:53hearing online.

7:54If you wish to speak to an application and have not submitted a request in advance

7:58of the hearing, please call the number displayed on the screen.

8:01Now for those attending the hearing in person, you will, you will be given a

8:05chance to come forward to the podium and address the committee.

8:08Once all comments from the public have been heard, the applicant or staff will

8:12be given the opportunity to respond to comments.

8:14Finally, the chair will turn to the committee for a motion and deliberation

8:18as well as a vote on the application.

8:20When the committee is making a decision on the application, the chair will be

8:23asking the secretary of treasure to conduct the vote by roll call.

8:26The secretary of treasure will call each of the members names and each member

8:30will respond if they are in favor or opposed to the motion and the chair will

8:33announce the result of the vote.

8:36If you wish to receive a copy of the decision on an application, including

8:40information about the appeal procedure, you must submit a written request.

8:45A written request can be made by contact staff using the contact information

8:49shown on the screen.

8:50To receive a copy of the decision, please email cofa at guave.ca with your

8:56name and the file number you are interested in.

8:58Please note that owners and applicants automatically receive a copy of the

9:02decision.

9:05I'll ask member Goodfellow to provide the Indigenous Territorial

9:08Acknowledgment.

9:10Thank you.

9:11As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work

9:15in wealth, a city built over rich Indigenous histories.

9:18We are guests here and we should reflect upon the responsibility to care for

9:22this land, the people who live here today and the generations to come.

9:26If our actions today can move us forward towards reconciliation, we should

9:31take pause and make those decisions within attention and gratitude.

9:35This place we call Guelph has served as traditional lands and a place of refuge

9:39for many peoples over time, but more specifically the Attawanderank and the

9:44Hadnashoni.

9:45This land is held as the treaty lands and territory with the Mississaugas of

9:50the Credit First Nation.

9:52Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldeman tract and is part of a long

9:55established traditional hunting ground for the six nations of the Grand River.

10:00Many First Nations, Inuit and Métis people who have come from across Turtle

10:04Island call Guelph home today.

10:09Thanks, member Goodfellow.

10:11The next item is the election of the chair and vice chair.

10:16So at this time, I'd like to invite a motion from the floor to appoint a

10:20member as the 2025 chair effective immediately.

10:27Yes, member Spears.

10:28I'd like to nominate James Smith for chair.

10:31All right.

10:32Thank you.

10:32Is there a seconder for that?

10:36Member Mbrenje.

10:37Okay.

10:39Is there any other nominations?

10:44Okay.

10:44Before calling the vote, I'll ask if member Smith accepts that nomination.

10:49Yes, I do.

10:50Thank you.

10:51Perfect.

10:51Okay.

10:52And before the vote, is there any other discussion on this?

10:55We don't see any.

10:56Um, so I'll now, I'll now call the vote.

11:00Um, those in favor, please raise your hands.

11:04That's carried.

11:05All right.

11:06Member Smith has been elected chair for 2025.

11:11Um, and then lastly, I'd now like to invite a motion from the floor to

11:15appoint a member as the 2025 vice chair effective immediately.

11:21Chair Smith.

11:22I'd like to nominate member Goodfellow.

11:25All right.

11:25Is there a seconder for that?

11:29Member Balaban.

11:30Thank you.

11:31All right.

11:32Any other nominations?

11:33I don't see any.

11:35Um, so before calling the vote, I'll ask if, um, member Goodfellow accepts that

11:41nomination.

11:42I do.

11:42Thank you.

11:43All right.

11:44And any discussion on that before we proceed?

11:46Okay.

11:47I'll call the vote.

11:47Those in favor, please raise your hands.

11:50All right.

11:51That's carried.

11:52Member Goodfellow, you are vice chair for 2025.

11:56All right.

11:56So since the election is complete, I'll hand it over to chair Smith, um, for

12:00the role of the chair.

12:15Uh, thank you very much for, um, conducting that business, madam secretary

12:19treasurer do appreciate it.

12:22Um, at this point, since the, uh, official business has been put to one

12:27side in terms of nominations and greetings, I would like to ask you to, um,

12:34call the first application, if you would please.

12:40Oh, by all means, um, are there any members, uh, who wish to declare a

12:46conflict of pecuniary interest seeing none?

12:51Madam secretary treasurer.

12:53Oh, minutes.

12:56I'm on my back foot.

12:57Um, I'd like a motion to, um, accept the minutes of the, um, December 20 member

13:09Goodfellow has, um, moved that and do have a seconder member, ball of man.

13:16All those in favor.

13:19I believe that carries madam secretary treasurer.

13:27Thank you chair.

13:27Um, so the first item we do have, there is, um, one request for deferral that we

13:32have.

13:33Um, staff is recommending deferral of file a dash one slash 25 for 26 era

13:40Mosser road in order for the applicant to provide a copy of the parking

13:43agreement and confirm the requested parking rate.

13:46The agent has agreed with the request to defer and as the applicant has requested

13:51that deferral, I'll turn it over to the chair to address this deferral request.

13:57Uh, thank you.

13:58How is the applicant in attendance?

14:01You don't see the applicant present.

14:08So I will turn it over to committee committee members.

14:12Uh, what is your will?

14:18Yes.

14:19I, I move that we, uh, that we accept this request for deferral and do we have a

14:24seconder member?

14:25Good fellow.

14:27There is no discussion on a deferral motion.

14:30So I'll send it back to the secretary treasurer for a vote, please.

14:34Thank you, chair.

14:35Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to

14:39the motion, which is to defer the application chair Smith in favor,

14:43member Bob in favor, member good fellow in favor, member, member in favor and

14:50member Spears in favor.

14:52Let's carry it.

14:52Mr. Chair.

14:55Thank you.

14:55The application has been deferred to a future meeting.

15:01So I will then, I will now call on the secretary treasurer to ask for the next

15:06applicant.

15:10The next application is file B dash 46 slash 24 consent to create one new

15:15residential lot with one retained residential lot at 47 and 87 Highland

15:20road.

15:21All notes for those that are watching the hearing, um, online, if you wish to

15:26speak to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the

15:29screen, the numbers 5198221260 extension 2524.

15:35When your call is received, staff will provide you with instructions on how you

15:38can delegate remotely.

15:41Is the applicant present in the chamber?

15:44Yes, please come forward.

15:54Good afternoon.

15:55Can you state your name and your relationship to the application?

15:57Yes.

15:58My name is Brianna Miller.

15:59I am from Van Hart and surveying and I'm here on behalf of the owner, John Dunnick

16:03of John Dunnick homes.

16:05And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the planning?

16:08Yes, it was.

16:09Thank you.

16:10And have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement?

16:13Yes, we are.

16:14Well, you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

16:17Please make as much use of that time as you'd like.

16:20Perfect.

16:21So this severance application seems to re separate two parcels that were

16:25intentionally merged under the ownership of Dunn mill homes.

16:28Um, in 2013, 47 Highland road was purchased by Dunnick homes.

16:33And in 2016, both properties were transferred to the same ownership with

16:38the explicit intention of developing the front portion of 87 Highland road that

16:43fronts Glen Bernie drive.

16:45Um, the proposed severance aims to re separate these parcels, uh, but with a

16:49different configuration that better conforms to the zoning imposed upon the

16:53property.

16:54Uh, city staff has received and reviewed a draft plan of subdivision, um, for

16:59the retained property, the development of the retained property by extending Glenn

17:03Bernie drive to create two residential lots offers a great opportunity for infill

17:08development and modest densification.

17:12Um, however, this application is just for the severance of the two parcels and

17:16is the first step in the development process.

17:19It is important to note that this severance does not propose any development on

17:24the severed parcel.

17:25The intended purchasers of the severed parcel, which includes the dwelling at

17:2947 Highland and a portion of 87 Highland that is designated as a natural

17:34heritage system and tend to leave these lands in their natural state consistent

17:39with how they've been maintained for decades.

17:41This reflects the intended purchasers commitment to preserving the integrity of

17:45the natural landscape.

17:47Uh, there are concerns raised about the proximity of the rear lot line to the

17:52Woodlands on the property.

17:53Um, that concern was raised by the environmental planning staff.

17:56Uh, we have worked collaboratively with the environmental city staff and our

18:01consultants from natural resource solutions and us r I, uh, to make the

18:05adjustments to the lot line.

18:06So there is that 10 meter buffer between the rear lot line and the Woodlands.

18:11Um, and this complies directly with a section 4.1.2 of the official plan with

18:17specifically addresses the buffers around natural features.

18:21Um, the remaining environmental concerns with the property were addressed by a

18:24previous environmental impact study that was completed by NSRI.

18:28Um, in addition, the Grand River Conservation Authority has reviewed this

18:33application and has raised no objections indicating that the proposed

18:37severance aligns with the regulatory framework and does not pose any concerns

18:42for the protection of the wetland.

18:44In conclusion, uh, the severance application is a thoughtful and well

18:48planned approach to accommodate future development on the retained while

18:51upholding environmental protections on the severed.

18:54Um, the development of the end of Glenburni drive is a great opportunity

19:00for infill development and intensification while preserving the

19:03established character of the neighborhood.

19:06Uh, the adjustments to the lot lines to accommodate the 10 meter woodland

19:09buffer preservation of the wetland buffer and the commitment to leaving the

19:12severed lands in their natural state demonstrate a clear intention to

19:16prioritize the longterm health of the natural heritage systems with support of

19:20both city and environmental planning staff along with the GRCA, the severance

19:24application ensures the natural environment is preserved while allowing

19:28for the separation of the two parcels.

19:29Thank you.

19:31Thank you.

19:32If want to wait right there, my colleagues may have some questions for you.

19:35Committee members, do we have any questions of this applicant?

19:39Um, I have one question.

19:41I'm not sure if it's for you or for staff.

19:43So let me just ask the question and that is, um, this is Highland road

19:49presently the address.

19:50Um, will the, um, I guess it's the retained lot.

19:55Will that address now become on Glenburn drive?

19:59Um, I believe it would as the frontage would be along there and no longer along

20:03Highland road.

20:04You can correct me if I'm wrong though.

20:07Okay.

20:08Thank you.

20:08That, that's all I have.

20:09Um, if you want to wait right there, we'll consider your application.

20:14Um, committee members, what is your wish?

20:16Uh, do we have a motion?

20:23I did not ask if there are any delegations in the audience who wish to

20:27speak to this application.

20:31I don't see anyone in the audience who wishes to speak to this.

20:35Uh, are there any online madam secretary?

20:38Chair, I can confirm we haven't received any delegation requests at this point.

20:43I will now turn to my colleagues for a motion members peers.

20:50I move we accept this application with the conditions recommended by city staff.

20:55And we have a seconder member.

20:56Good fellow.

20:57Is there any discussion seeing none?

21:01Madam secretary, treasure, would you call the roll please committee members?

21:06Please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

21:10which is to approve the application with the recommended conditions.

21:14Chair Smith in favor, member Balaban in favor, member good fellow in favor,

21:20member, member in favor and member spears in favor.

21:24That's carried.

21:25Mr. Chair, your application has been approved.

21:28You are free to go at this point.

21:30Thank you.

21:34Madam secretary, treasure, may we have the next applicant please?

21:41The next application is file a dash 89 slash 24 variances for number of parking spaces,

21:47parking location and setbacks, angular plane, building height, dwelling unit,

21:52lot, frontage and structured parking area setback for proposed multiple attached

21:55dwelling or apartment building at five Nicholas way.

22:00I'll also note for those watching remotely, if you wish to speak to this application,

22:04you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen.

22:07That number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

22:12And when you call in staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.

22:18Is the applicant present?

22:20Yes, please come forward.

22:33Good afternoon.

22:33Can you state your name and your relationship to this application?

22:37I'm Robert Turner from Fryer Turner Architects and we are the agents for the applicant.

22:42And I have with me Alexandra Coleman, who also works with me at Fryer Turner Architects.

22:47Thank you.

22:48And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the planning?

22:51It was, yes.

22:52And have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement?

22:55Yes.

22:56OK, you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

23:00OK, thank you.

23:03Is OK if I just say slide and change the slide or do I have a button?

23:09Oh, I have a button.

23:10OK.

23:13This one.

23:15OK, thank you very much.

23:17Through you, Mr. Chair.

23:18This lot is part of the Neema Trail subdivision, which was laid out to a draft plan of subdivision

23:24some time ago.

23:25The developer, Teravue Holmes, has been working on the lower density portions of this site

23:32for some time.

23:33And we have actually been working on three high density buildings at the south end of

23:37the site, the first of which actually should have been built by now, but sadly is not.

23:42So they've turned their attentions to this lot, which is historically locked five.

23:48The lots at the bottom end of this site were all designated as higher density than the

23:53single family homes on the rest of the site.

23:56And this particular site was actually allocated as 29 on street townhouses

24:03slash multiple units.

24:05And the density was intended to be between 100 and 120 units per hectare.

24:10The developer is still wishing to work to that original draft plan of subdivision.

24:17It's a strange site.

24:18It's an unusual shape and topography.

24:21And the normal definitions of front side yards and so forth are not easily applicable.

24:26There's a drop in elevation of about four meters from Shakespeare Drive to the lot line

24:32at the rear.

24:33And one third of the total site has a very irregular perimeter formed by the long curve

24:38of Shakespeare Drive that you can actually see in the image there.

24:41And a series of short straight lines at a regular angle angles on the the northeast

24:46side, which is the right hand side.

24:49The logical position for a building on this site is as shown, the most regular portion,

24:55which is the northerly portion.

24:58And the proposed building will be located there.

25:00And most of the required parking will actually be located in a basement.

25:08So that's the site plan.

25:10And as you can see, the right hand side of the plan is very difficult to lay out with

25:16any sort of a regular building.

25:19So minor variance one is for the location of the surface parking.

25:23The encroachment actually affects only 20 percent of the the rear yard setback, and

25:28which is shown in red right at the very top there.

25:32The minimum setback is 1.74 of our requested encroachment.

25:38And it's only really affects a length of about 2.7 meters of the entire northerly boundary

25:44there.

25:45The north boundary here is actually retaining wall with a close boarded fence along the top.

25:50Looking at the side yard, the minimum setback is one meter.

25:55And that is represented by the tiny red triangle, which is right in the crook of Shakespeare

26:00Drive there.

26:02Our parking at that point will actually be three meters below the level of the sidewalk

26:07of Shakespeare Drive.

26:08So very little will be visible.

26:11Shrub planting is proposed all along the border there between the sidewalk and the parking.

26:17So we are trying very hard to provide an attractive public realm along Shakespeare Drive.

26:25The elevation of the parking area is actually approximately 1.2 meters above the NHL.

26:31The area is the highest zoned area, which is to the north of the site at the top of the page there.

26:36But it will be sufficiently isolated from that area by the retaining wall and the fence to

26:42avoid any sort of visual or acoustic disturbance to the adjacent parkland.

26:47The majority of the parking and drive up that fit well within the required setbacks, but the shape

26:54of the land and the necessity to build regular space, really regular shaped parking spaces

27:00means that we didn't really have any choice but to have some very minor incursions into those setbacks.

27:09This is the views from Shakespeare Drive looking north and towards the parking entrance.

27:15And I think we demonstrate here that little or no of that parking is visible from Shakespeare Drive itself.

27:25Second minor variance is a required number of parking spaces.

27:30The required number is 43 for the number of units that we're proposing.

27:35And due to the shape of the building, we can only fit a certain number within the building and the shape of the regular portion of the lot outside.

27:44We're able to accommodate 40.

27:46So this would provide a variance to the standard number of spaces per unit.

27:55So that we're asking for 1.3 spaces per unit, which would be a 10% reduction on the zoning requirement.

28:04The site is actually well served with alternate transport.

28:08There is local transit available within a 15 minute walk.

28:13And there is also designated long and short term parking on the site for each unit.

28:19So we believe the reduction in parking of that extent is not going to be detrimental to the building or to the surrounding area.

28:29Number three and four is encroachments on the angular plane.

28:35Compliance with the angular plane along the north side boundary would reduce the number of units possible by six.

28:43It takes a very large slice off the far end of the building.

28:48And complying with the other angular plane towards the low density housing reduces it by a further four.

28:55The building of only 20 units rather than 30 proposed will not achieve the unit density that was previously agreed for this site.

29:04And the development would actually become an economic at that point.

29:09This house is on the opposite side of Nicholas Way set back 14 and a half meters from the centre line of the road and 26 meters from the nearest point on the proposed building.

29:18So we don't feel that on the Nicholas Way side the houses directly opposite will be adversely affected due to the large separation between them.

29:27The land on the north side is actually includes a pumping station and a large storm water management pond.

29:35So the required setback angular plane rather on that side is not really going to encroach on land which is of high environmental quality.

29:46There is a pumping station and a storm water management pond on the other side of that wall.

29:51On the low density housing side there are balconies that face the low density housing.

30:00But our intention is to use translucent rather than transparent balcony so that there is no possibility of visibility of people on the balconies onto the backyards and the houses that have yet to be built along the back of the site.

30:18Building height is minor variance number five.

30:26This is under the definition in the zoning.

30:29This is a four story building but in practical terms because the lie of the land on the south and the east side of the lot views as a three story building.

30:41The parking is almost entirely below grade.

30:45Do we have the slide which actually shows where it is?

30:49Yes so here's the elevation from the east side at the top and you can see the actual grade is at what would be effectively second story level.

31:01The entrance to the parking is dropped down right on the very right hand side there and that's the part which we've already shown is barely visible if at all from the street.

31:17On the other side the grade is slightly lower but for most practical purposes this will appear as a three story building with a basement rather than a four story building.

31:28We dropped number six.

31:35What? Skip to two slides.

31:39Oh heck okay.

31:41Sorry.

31:42Lot frontage per dwelling unit.

31:44We don't have much time.

31:46Yes the lot frontage per dwelling unit for this site assumes that this will be street townhouses whereas the permitted building type which is this which multiple attached dwelling doesn't really lend itself to that definition.

32:00The street townhouses assume you have a seven point six or so meter frontage for each unit.

32:07In this case the lot frontage per unit is rather illogical because this building is not the type that that lot frontage requirement applied to.

32:19Using even the back to back townhouse typology would only permit ten units on this building and again that was not a viable development in terms of what the client needs on this.

32:37So the variance would actually be effectively one point one six meters frontage per unit along liquor's way or three point five if you take the site boundary as a whole.

32:47That's as almost finally structured parking will just say it's almost entirely underground.

32:53It is a full basement except on the top and the right hand side there.

32:58So visibility of that structured parking from outside is virtually nil.

33:06You can just see it in red there on that slide.

33:11I think that's it for us.

33:14Thank you very much.

33:17Congratulations.

33:18You just made it under the wire.

33:22If you want to wait right there.

33:24My colleagues may have some questions for you.

33:26Committee members.

33:27Do we.

33:28Yes.

33:29Member Bellamann.

33:32Hello.

33:33I have a question on the site plan.

33:36The site plan.

33:38You show.

33:41I know this isn't part of the variance but you show the garbage collection as being a curbside private garbage collection.

33:52So I'm assuming is that like it won't be city collection through you.

33:58Through you Mr. Chair.

33:59Yes.

34:00That's correct.

34:01It will be contracted collections.

34:02All right.

34:03No, it is city collection.

34:04Yes.

34:06We've been in contact.

34:07Sorry.

34:08We've been a lot of discussion with waste management.

34:10They will accept containers that are presented at the curb on collection day.

34:16There's a garbage room inside the building at the parking level.

34:22So that means there won't be big bins being tipped out onto the into a truck or like other than the city trucks.

34:30But it's the city trucks.

34:31Yes.

34:32So it's not the big BFI's or.

34:34No, that's how.

34:35Yes.

34:36It's small containers.

34:37The plastic containers.

34:38Okay.

34:39Thank you very much.

34:41Member Goodfellow.

34:43Yes.

34:44Through the chair to the applicant.

34:45I have a question about the north side of the property.

34:48You mentioned the pumping station and the stormwater pond.

34:52I understood that there was a trail that runs along that side of the property as well.

34:58Like where is it located in relation to the pumping station versus the proposed building?

35:06Through you, Mr. Chair.

35:07I believe it goes around the north side of the pumping station.

35:11It does get closer to our building once you've gotten past the pumping station.

35:15And then it runs roughly within the middle of that strip of land because the strip of land goes all the way down to Aramosa.

35:22All the houses at the back of Aramosa.

35:25So how many meters?

35:2710, 15, 20 meters away.

35:30We can provide that information if you need to know.

35:34Yes.

35:35Thank you.

35:36Through the chair because I just want to confirm that it is not at the top of the property line.

35:41Because I think from your site plan, I was unsure where it was relative to the property line and whether it was the property line.

35:51Like whether it abutted that.

35:53No.

35:54The trail itself definitely doesn't abut the property line.

35:56It's tens of meters away to the north.

36:00Okay.

36:01Thank you.

36:02Thank you.

36:04Any other questions?

36:08I do have one.

36:09There are a number of requested variances.

36:13And I'm wondering about your opinion, if we were going to have a some sort of motion that comes forward, were we to split the motion up based on each variance?

36:25Would that be something that you would consider?

36:31Obviously this project and the various discussions with municipal staff has been going for a long time.

36:41As a whole, if all of the variances are granted, then the project goes ahead.

36:47If some of them are not, then it becomes impossible to build.

36:51The most important obviously is the structured parking.

36:54There is no way that we can provide 40 spaces without having it there.

37:01But as I said, some of the variances, if not granted, split so much off the building that really it becomes, we're likely to get 20 or fewer units.

37:15And for the economics of the development, the developer won't really want to build that.

37:20It's uneconomic.

37:23So we would certainly prefer all of them.

37:26If some are split off, we may be able to make the development work, but we then go back into a cycle, which, well, I started working on this nine years ago.

37:39Understood.

37:41Thank you.

37:43Oh, yes, Member Goodfellow.

37:45Yes, with apologies.

37:46Through the chair to the applicant.

37:48I do have another question.

37:49I did notice in city staff comments that there was a suggestion or a comment about the average grade along the western elevation of the structure.

37:59And if it was, if the grade was increased, I believe, then the structure would be considered three stories in height and there would eliminate the need for one of the variances and possibly two.

38:11I don't know if you have reviewed that, but could you comment on your suggestion?

38:15Yeah, through you, Mr. Chair.

38:17The definition of average grade we were given is the average grade at four corners.

38:24Yes.

38:25Yes, it's at the four corners of the building.

38:28So this is the main reason why this is considered as a four story building is because the grading goes not naturally in the middle of the west elevation, east elevation, but that isn't actually counted as an increase in average grade because we can only take it at the four corners.

38:46There's many, many ways of measuring average grade and the simplest usually used by almost all municipalities just take the four corners of the building.

38:57And in this case, that was against us because if we'd taken an average grade in terms of height against length, this would actually have been probably been a three story building on that calculation, but that's not what we're permitted.

39:12Okay, thank you. Helpful clarification.

39:17Are there any other questions?

39:19Seeing none, thank you very much. If you want to wait to the side, we'll see if there are any delegations who would like to speak to your application and then you'd have an opportunity to respond to those questions and comments.

39:33Okay, thank you.

39:34So thank you.

39:36Are there any members of the public who would like to speak to this application? Please come forward.

39:47Good afternoon. Can you state your name for the record, please?

39:59Good afternoon. It's Jessica D'Artis.

40:02You have 10 minutes that you can make use of to address the committee.

40:07Thank you very much committee members.

40:10The reason that I'm here is I own one of the properties on Longfellow Avenue, which is behind the proposed lot in question. And I'll be rather brief.

40:22I just wanted to address for the members here, council members, excuse me, the assumption that the parking variance and I do apologize because I don't have the proper terminology, but the variance with respect to parking.

40:41The assumption that seems to be presented is that public transit is going to resolve some of that issue.

40:51I think that's a good question.

40:54Okay.

40:57I'm not sure I'm being born and raised in Guelph. I did see on the slides there was a Google maps screenshot or screen grab of it being within 15 minutes of walking distance to the nearest transit system.

41:09I would I question whether or not that is a viable solution to what the problems that are going to present itself should this variance be approved.

41:22I'm I'm unclear as to where where the parking will be. Should it be granted that this is a 40. I think they need 40 spaces.

41:35I'm not sure that the proposed lot is going to be on the road.

41:41It's a very irregular houses are very tight. It has already caused so much congestion. I've lived in that neighborhood for a year and a half now.

42:00I think that is without a doubt going to be a problem for the people who live there were about a tenth, maybe less capacity in that space right now and it's it's already been an issue time and time again in a year that I've lived there.

42:18I've had another comment but I I fear you know I'll say this with a grain of salt saying the building type and hearing those who spoke before me the building type and the lot frontages do not match.

42:31I'm not sure that's an issue before members right now. It seems to be very problematic.

42:40I'm not sure I'm going to be able to get what I do understand of it and how that's how we've sort of moved so quickly away from that. I find it very troublesome.

42:50Obviously if the building was smaller some of these variances wouldn't be an issue. I appreciate that the developer has an economic interest in what goes to the spot without a doubt that should be valued.

43:00But it's within the parameters of realities in the area and I urge council members to consider that and that's everything for me. Thank you very much.

43:09Thank you. If you want to wait right there for a moment. My colleagues may have some questions for you. Committee members. Do we have any questions of the delegate?

43:17I don't see any but thank you very much. I do sincerely appreciate your coming forward with your concerns. Thank you all. Thank you.

43:27Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak to this application? Yes, please come forward.

43:51My name is Heather Beach. I'm a resident in the next street over from the new development. Welcome. You have 10 minutes that you can make use of to address the committee.

44:01I walk my dogs twice a day on that path through the night area around the reserve, the water pond. And it's about two meters from the property line where the parking is going to be.

44:15It's not tens of meters. It's two meters. So they plan a wall with a fence on top of the wall. It's going to feel like there's this tall thing. Every time we go down that path. It's not tens of meters. It's two meters away.

44:31Okay, that's it. Thanks.

44:33Just thank you. Let me ask if any of my colleagues have a question for you. Committee members. Do we have any questions for this delegate?

44:43Oh, did you get my email too? I sent an email. I'm sorry. I sent an email with all my ideas. I believe we did get your comments. Yes. Good. Thank you very much.

44:58My colleagues don't have any questions for you, nor do I, but thank you very much for bringing this to our attention. I think it's very helpful in our discussions.

45:08Thank you. Is there anyone else in the chamber? Yes, please come forward. Good afternoon. Can you speak your name for the record, please? Good afternoon. Gary Roger.

45:33And you have 10 minutes to address the committee with your concerns. Thank you.

45:39Mr. Chair, I just wondered prior to last meeting, both Jessica and Heather wrote letters outlining the parking problem that is going to be created.

45:51And then Heather then followed up with another letter prior to this meeting. I'm just wondering what happens to those letters that are submitted?

46:02I can answer that quite succinctly, and that is that they are circulated to myself and my colleagues and that they form part of our consideration when we make our decision and ask questions, certainly.

46:18Okay. Very good. Parking is going to be an issue. Absolutely. As it was just mentioned with Jessica, we've got a parking issue now.

46:31Never mind build the rest of the subdivision and this apartment building. It's going to be a nightmare. And public transit is not even close to where we are.

46:42We are on the northeast corner of Guelph. You can't get any further east. And we are so close to Guelph Lake just to give everybody a bearing.

46:53There is no public transit in the area. So public transit is not going to be the solution currently anyways unless public transit is improved.

47:07But today, public transit is not a solution.

47:10Thank you. If you want to wait right there, there may be some questions.

47:18Thank you.

47:19Committee members, do we have any questions for this delegation? Seeing none, thank you very much for your bringing this to our attention. It's helpful.

47:27Thank you very much.

47:28Is there anyone else in the chamber who would like to address this application? Seeing none, I'm going to turn to the secretary of treasure. Do we have anyone online?

47:44Chair, I can confirm no delegation requests.

47:47Thank you. I'd like to invite the applicant back if they wish to speak to some of the positions that have been raised by members of the public.

47:59Thank you, Mr. Chair.

48:01The density and the wish to construct an apartment building here is a very historic thing. The subdivision was laid out a very long time ago.

48:16And the developer has been trying for some time to get the other higher density buildings on that site developed and built out.

48:28And in fact, one of them should have been built by now at the very south end of the site, which has a permit and everything.

48:35And circumstances have prevented that from happening. But their development has always intended to have a higher density at that end of the site.

48:481.3 spaces per unit is a reasonable provision, and it's not a huge amount less than the minimum required.

49:00The rest of the lot, as I'm aware, is single family homes, townhouses and so on.

49:09And I'm wondering how parking issues have come up when I think most of the buildings that are there have their own driveways and garages.

49:22So the situation we will have as many spaces for the residents of this apartment as they do for the single family homes.

49:34But I appreciate it's an issue in many, many places.

49:40We can provide parking spaces to either to the requirements of the city or beyond the requirements of the city.

49:49But I suspect that there will always be people who push that further and have more vehicles than maybe they need.

50:00But in this case, we believe that the provision of parking is reasonable for the type of market that this apartment is being aimed towards.

50:10So a lot of the people that will be marketed towards will be older people anyway.

50:18And the assumption is always that that group will have 1.3 or less vehicles per unit.

50:25Thank you for that.

50:28Committee members, do you have any further questions?

50:31Member Goodfellow.

50:33Yes, through the chair to the applicant.

50:35And could you just comment on the discrepancy between the distance to the trail?

50:39I think that's where I have some concerns.

50:42It's just about that angular plane on the north side and so wanting to understand that distance if possible.

50:47Yeah, apologies.

50:49So with that part of the land, we don't have accurate survey information from so we had to take our information by measuring the aerial images rather than survey information.

51:01So yes, like I said, we can we can actually give you the exact number when we get back and we will we will have it measured if necessary.

51:15Committee members, any further questions?

51:20I wonder if it would be helpful from what Member Goodfellow said if we could have the aerial photograph with the Google image back up.

51:34Is that possible?

51:35While that's happening, I do have a question and that is, can you tell me the number?

51:52I'm sure there are a variety, but are they mostly two bedroom units?

51:58One bedroom units?

52:00Is there an average?

52:04They are, I think, all two beds.

52:09That's right. Yeah.

52:27Do you find that helpful, Member Goodfellow?

52:33Yes, I do. Thank you, Chair.

52:35I'm also looking online at the Google Maps and unfortunately it still shows the site is being undeveloped and so it is difficult to see.

52:47It looks to me, though, that the first small section of the trail is almost kind of provides access to the pumping station.

52:59And in that case, the north end of the building looks like it will kind of come up to the pumping station and then the corner will be almost beyond the pumping station.

53:14And in the meantime, you're onto the trail, the more naturalized trail.

53:18It appears to me anyway that it will be kind of more facing the parking lot if I'm understanding the way that this is going to work.

53:30So, yes, I think this does help allay some of my concerns unless the applicant disagrees with my interpretation of the layout.

53:40I think you are more or less correct.

53:43The cleared area, on the point to it, the cleared area right up at the north end of the site there, I think that cleared area goes slightly further than the actual site but probably no more than a meter or so.

54:00Obviously, it has been cleared for construction and it goes a tiny bit further than the actual site boundary that we're intending.

54:11Okay.

54:12Okay.

54:13Thank you.

54:14I appreciate the time that everyone is taking to answer my question.

54:17And yes, Mr. Rumpel.

54:21If I may, through you, Mr. Chair.

54:23Yes, please.

54:24I do have some updated aerials from the city and it does appear there is a fence next to the trail.

54:29And that fence is actually a few meters in from the actual property line.

54:34So, I do think that the distance from the edge of the north edge of the building to the edge of the trail would be between 10 and 15 meters approximately.

54:45I don't have an exact number though.

54:48Okay.

54:49Through the chair to city staff, I do appreciate that additional clarification.

54:52Thank you.

54:57Are there any other questions, comments?

54:59Okay.

55:00At this point, I think it's incumbent on us for a motion.

55:05What is your wish committee member member good fellow?

55:13I move that we approve the application with the conditions recommended by city staff and that and that's inclusive of all of the minor variances.

55:30Is a through G.

55:33Thank you, member Bellavan.

55:34Okay.

55:35Thank you.

55:36We have a seconder member Bellavan.

55:41And is there any discussion on this motion before us?

55:45Don't all speak at once.

55:54I'm still a little concerned about the angular plane.

55:59I think in general, I'm not sure what that's.

56:09Is that D?

56:10Yeah.

56:16I'm still a little concerned about D.

56:18I'm not.

56:19C and D.

56:21Yes.

56:22And part of what I'm struggling with is that this is the new zoning bylaw 2023 and it specifically calls out 40 degree angular plane at a park.

56:41And this is, um, I know we're trying to do what we can to visualize this, but without, without seeing where the public access is vis-a-vis the property line, I'm struggling a little with that one.

57:00I believe all the other variances are minor in nature, but I am struggling with that one.

57:07So I'm wondering about your motion.

57:09Member Goodfellow, if you'd be prepared to, um, separate that.

57:16Yes, I would be prepared to separate it.

57:24And, and then we would, if I'm understanding your question correctly, you would then vote on that independently.

57:30Correct.

57:31Okay.

57:32Yeah, I would be willing to do that.

57:34Okay.

57:36Madam secretary treasure, I'm going to need some assistance on words missing this.

57:41Um, what would your advice be if we were to do this?

57:47Uh, member Goodfellow first.

57:51Uh, actually, because I think member Balvin and I may have the same question.

57:55Are you questioning the, um, angular plane to Nicholas and the angular plane on the north side or just the one on the north side?

58:05Okay.

58:06Yeah.

58:07Okay.

58:08That's a helpful clarification.

58:09Yes.

58:10Sorry.

58:11Um, yes.

58:12I think the other angular plane, plane issues are minor in nature.

58:14It's the north.

58:15I believe it's, um, yeah.

58:23So I guess we need a, um, a motion that would clarify that.

58:37Should we withdraw and re move this?

58:41Or, um, can we do this through an amendment?

58:44Through the chair, we did have a mover and seconder, um, for approval of all this.

58:53If, um, the mover would like to withdraw that, um, that motion, we can consider that if you're looking at voting, um, I think it's variance D.

59:04So that's for, um, building height shall not exceed an angular plane of 40 degrees from the lot line from the adjacent.

59:11Um, when adjacent to a river or park, I think that's the one variance that you were concerned about.

59:16If you want to separate that out and you would like the, or the committee would like to vote on all the rest of the variances and then vote on variance D.

59:24We could consider that.

59:26I'm not sure if, um, before you go to vote, if planning staff have any concerns with that angular plane, or if they want to provide some other input on that, but that would be my suggestion.

59:37That's good advice.

59:38Um, I would like to hear from city staff about their comment on this.

59:44Uh, through you to yourself, Mr. Chair, um, as I wrote in, in planning staff's comments for that particular variance, uh, the fence that theoretically denotes the boundary of that trail and that park is actually set in quite a bit further from the lot line, which is where the actual angular plane measurement is measured from.

1:00:06Um, so I think the more appropriate angular plane would be perhaps from the path that would actually be used rather than from the property line.

1:00:13Um, and there is several meters difference in between those, those two measurements.

1:00:18And that is the reason why, why staff were supportive of the proposed variance in this case.

1:00:24Yes, member Goodfellow through the chair to staff.

1:00:31So if I'm following that correctly, the way it's been measured currently and the, the, um, in the drawings and the, uh, application is technically the correct way.

1:00:43But in reality, the way it will feel or the, you know, the kind of how the public will interact with that angular plane is that it will be a lower angle than the 72 or 78 or whatever that number is.

1:01:01Am I kind of understanding that correctly through the chair?

1:01:04That is correct. Yes.

1:01:06I'm going to with that. Thank you staff. Um, member, member, I know, sorry, please.

1:01:16Through the chair to staff. So according to what you're saying with that angle be 40 degrees or less.

1:01:27Unfortunately, I haven't had an opportunity to go out to the trail and measure personally. So I don't know what that angle would be, but I know that the angle from the trail would be less than the 72 degrees that is proposed in the variance.

1:01:44Thank you.

1:01:47Okay. My, um, I'm going to reverse my opinion and, um, we will, um,

1:01:55My concern, I think has been alleviated by staff's comments. So, um, I'm just going to leave the motion stand as it is. And unless there's any more discussion on this, I'm going to turn it over to the secretary to call the vote, please.

1:02:13Thank you chair committee members. Please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to approve all the variances a through G with the recommended condition.

1:02:25Chair Smith in favor, member Balaban in favor, member good fellow in favor, member, member in favor and member Spears in favor. That's carried. Mr. Chair.

1:02:37Your application has been approved. Thank you. Madam secretary treasurer. May we have the next application please?

1:02:48The next application is fell a dash four slash 25 variance to permit outdoor patio on the subject property at 47 to 75 willow road for those attending remotely.

1:03:04If you wish to speak to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen. That number is 519-822-1260 extension to five to four is the applicant present.

1:03:19Yes.

1:03:22Ah, can you hear me?

1:03:25Loud and clear.

1:03:26Good.

1:03:27Can you state your name and your relationship to the application?

1:03:31Good afternoon.

1:03:33Chair Smith members of the committee. My name is Nancy shoemaker. I'm the planning consultant representing the owner of willow plaza.

1:03:42Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the planning act?

1:03:49Yes, both signs were posted.

1:03:51Thank you.

1:03:53And have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement?

1:03:58Yes, we've read the comments and yes, we're in agreement with the condition.

1:04:05Thank you. You have 10 minutes to address the committee.

1:04:08I'll be very brief. Um, the location.

1:04:14Of the outdoor patio, as you can see is, um, the reason we're here is because this property about two residential zones.

1:04:24Uh, one to the north along Dawson road and one to the west along willow road. There are two apartment buildings.

1:04:33And as you can see from the plan that the patio will be well removed from the west property line and well buffered from the, the property to the north.

1:04:46The also an apartment building along Dawson road. So, um,

1:04:52We're just seeking the committee support for this variance this evening. Um, we don't believe that the patio will pose.

1:05:04Negative impacts on the adjacent properties.

1:05:09I'd be pleased to answer any questions.

1:05:11Thank you. Um, and my colleagues may have some questions for you. Uh, committee members. Do we have any questions of the applicant?

1:05:21Members of yours through you, Mr. Chair, the applicant, what, what, I understand that that's not a big patio, but what is the intended use and who are the patrons that will use this patio?

1:05:33Um, right now the proposed tenant for the restaurant is a vegan restaurant.

1:05:40So, um, I expect it will be very similar to other patios, um, I associated with restaurant use.

1:05:54Uh, thanks. That's helpful. I just, I must just further to that. I want to be careful to understand that we're not talking out a bar that runs till one or two in the morning.

1:06:10No. Thank you.

1:06:11Thank you.

1:06:13Any other questions committee members? Um, I do have one. Um, did we not, um, was this not before us some time ago for another variance?

1:06:29Uh, through you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we were, um, before the committee in, in the fall for the, um, daycare center that's, um, to the north.

1:06:45And you can see on that plan, we were showing the playground area for the daycare center. So we're in the process now of completing that development.

1:06:58We've had to undertake a site environmental assessment in association with the ministry.

1:07:06Uh, requirements for daycare centers. So that's about to be developed at this point.

1:07:17Okay. That answers my question. Thank you. Uh, committee members, uh, pardon me, Madam Secretary, treasurer, are there any online delegations on this?

1:07:31I can confirm we haven't received any delegation requests.

1:07:34And are there any, uh, people in the audience who would like to speak to this application seeing none committee members? What is your wish members?

1:07:43Members peers, I'd be happy to move that we, uh, accept this application with the conditions recommended by city staff.

1:07:55And we have a seconder, uh, member Bellaman. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. Madam Secretary, treasurer, may I have a vote please?

1:08:08Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to approve the application with the recommended conditions. Chair Smith.

1:08:18Member Bellaman. In favor. Member Goodfellow. In favor. Member Mambrainio. In favor. And member Spears. In favor. That's carried. Mr. Chair. Thank you. Your application has been approved. Thank you.

1:08:31Thank you. Madam Secretary, treasurer, may we have the next applicant please?

1:08:42The next application is file a-5 slash 25 variance to permit increase in number of apartment dwelling units at 360 Woolwich Street. I'll note for those attending if you wish to speak to this application, you can do so, um, by calling the number displayed on the screen. That number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

1:09:04I'll also note for the committee and those attending that we did get received correspondence after the comment deadline, um, from the agent with a letter, photo and a copy of a compliance letter. Um, and that correspondence has been circulated to the committee members and staff.

1:09:22Do we have the applicant in the chamber? Please come forward. Good afternoon. Can you state your name and your relationship to this application please?

1:09:45My name is David Macaulay. I'm the applicant and the architect.

1:09:49Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the planning act?

1:09:53Yes, it was.

1:09:54And have you read the staff's comments and are you in agreement?

1:09:57I have read the staff's comments and I'm in agreement with them.

1:10:00At this point you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

1:10:03Thank you. Um, I'm not going to take very long to do this. It's very simple. Um, we, uh, we obtained a, uh, site specific, uh, by the applicant and the architect.

1:10:15We had a law for the use of this property back in 19 or 20, 2018.

1:10:20And, uh, we proceeded to construction through COVID, uh, as planned and the, uh, restrictions basically were six apartment units and one office space.

1:10:32Um, and the intention to you was that it might be used for a collaborative office space for the residents.

1:10:40Um, and as it turned out, things happened since then, uh, especially with COVID and the use for the office space is much, uh, deleted, basically, or unused.

1:10:51And, uh, we would like to change the use of that space to permit a seventh unit on the site. So fairly simply the, uh, the application application is to permit seven units instead of six residential units on the property.

1:11:05So that's all I need to say unless there's any questions.

1:11:09Thank you very much. If you want to wait right there, uh, my colleagues may have some questions for you.

1:11:14Committee members, do we have any questions of the applicant seeing none? Is there anyone in the chamber who would like to speak to this application?

1:11:23I don't see anyone leaping forward. Uh, Madam Secretary Treasurer, is there anyone online who would like to speak to this?

1:11:33Chair Smith, I can confirm no delegation requests.

1:11:37Thank you. Um, I'll turn to my committee members.

1:11:41Member Balaban.

1:11:44I move that we approve the application.

1:11:47And is there a seconder?

1:11:50Members, here is any discussion on the application or the motion seeing none. Madam Secretary Treasurer, do you mind calling the vote please?

1:12:01Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to approve the application.

1:12:08Chair Smith.

1:12:09In favor.

1:12:10Member Balaban.

1:12:11In favor.

1:12:12Member Goodfellow.

1:12:13In favor.

1:12:14Member Mambrenio.

1:12:15In favor.

1:12:16And Member Spears.

1:12:17In favor.

1:12:18That's carried, Mr. Chair.

1:12:19Your application has been approved. Thank you. Uh, Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next application please?

1:12:31The next file is a dash six slash 25 variances for reduced setbacks for proposed addition and closed front porch landing an exterior stairs at 33 Wellington Street West.

1:12:42I'll note for those attending remotely, if you wish to speak to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen that numbers 5198221260 extension 2524.

1:12:57Is the applicant present?

1:13:00Yes, we are.

1:13:02Good afternoon. Can you state your name and your relationship to the application please?

1:13:08Yes, Mr. Chair. My name is Justin Kelly. We are here from to come engineers representing the owner.

1:13:14For 33 Wellington Street in Guelph.

1:13:18And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the planning act?

1:13:24That's correct. Yeah.

1:13:26And have you read staff's comments in our UN agreement?

1:13:30Yes, I have.

1:13:32You have 10 minutes to address the committee.

1:13:35That's great. Thank you, chair. And thank you to the committee in regards to this application here. This is.

1:13:42Really at a result of not only the urban location of the property, but again, the tight location on the tight site of the property resulting in tight dimensions, both for the side and front yard.

1:13:54The enclosed front porch has been designed with the recommendations of the city and.

1:14:01To ensure that it meets the requirements of the official plan and the downtown secondary plan.

1:14:07The current front porch that is there, unfortunately.

1:14:12Is not in very good condition. This project is kind of the 1st of several steps to kind of restore not only the front porch, but the home itself.

1:14:21The it's worth noting too that the particular enclosed portion of this porch is not intended to change the size or style of the roof structure or the setbacks of their.

1:14:33Of the particular porch that's there. So the current setbacks will.

1:14:38Be unchanged to the current location.

1:14:43It's also worth noting that this porch has been designed in relation to and or replicating the 1 next to it at 35 Wellington Street.

1:14:50Just meeting the same characteristics and trying to stay within the same design as that particular street.

1:14:58Currently, that's all for us. Just a brief summary of the project. I'm happy to answer any questions.

1:15:05Thank you. If you want to wait right there, my colleagues may have some questions. Committee members. Do we have any questions of this applicant?

1:15:15I don't see any questions. I do have one.

1:15:19In staff's notes, I noticed that there's a question about the angular, pardon me, angular plane. We talked too much about that today.

1:15:29The sightline triangle is what I'm trying to say. And I'm wondering about your thought that you may have to come back to the city, depending on what the sightline triangle comes out at at time of permit.

1:15:45That would mean potentially another committee hearing and the costs that that would involve.

1:15:55So I'm curious if you've you've thought about that and if you're willing to go ahead or if you might want to seek a deferral and then come back to us with those sightline triangles mapped out.

1:16:09That's understandable. Thank you for asking that. It's based on what the city was mentioning there in their comments with the fact that there was no current site plan shown on the drawings or service.

1:16:21Sidewalk shown on the drawings and that was kind of the difficulty in measuring that triangle. Now, I've since then mapped that triangle on our site plan and gone ahead and measured those triangles and it appears that based on those requirements, we should be okay to meet the requirements of the planning act.

1:16:37So I believe we're comfortable moving forward with that and review for the planning department to review that during the current stage.

1:16:45Just want to be fair. So I'm glad that you've been able to cover that I do have another question though, and that is on the title block it talks about a secondary unit plan, but I didn't see a secondary unit.

1:17:02Could you comment on that?

1:17:04That's great. I'm glad that you brought that up. We actually did fix that as well. The initial request for this particular property was to move forward with some type of secondary unit that has since been removed from not only this application, but the project all together after chatting with the GRCA.

1:17:22We realize that that is not possible in this particular location. So this will remain a single family dwelling.

1:17:29Okay, I do appreciate the information. Thank you.

1:17:34Are there any members of the public who wish to speak to this application?

1:17:40I see none in the chamber. Are there any online Madam Secretary Treasurer?

1:17:45Mr. Chair, I can confirm no delegation requests.

1:17:49At this point then, since we don't have any delegations, I'll turn to my colleagues for emotion. Committee members, what is your wish? Member Goodfell.

1:17:59I move that we approve the application with the condition recommended by city staff.

1:18:04Thank you. And do we have a seconder? Member Mambreno.

1:18:08And is there any discussion on the motion before us?

1:18:13Seeing none. Madam Secretary Treasurer, would you mind doing the honors please?

1:18:18Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to approve the application with the recommended condition.

1:18:26Chair Smith. In favor. Member Balaban. In favor. Member Goodfellow. In favor. Member Mambreno. In favor. And Member Spears. In favor.

1:18:36That's carried, Mr. Chair. Your application has been approved and you're free to leave the meeting.

1:18:42Thank you to the chair and to the committee. Thanks.

1:18:44Thank you. Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next applicant please?

1:18:54The next application is file B-2-25 consent to create one new lot with one retained lot at 141 Elmira Road South.

1:19:05I'll note for those attending remotely, if you wish to speak to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen.

1:19:11That number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

1:19:17I'll also note for the committee and those attending that we did receive comments after the comment deadline from Metrolinx.

1:19:24And that those comments have been circulated to the committee members and the applicant.

1:19:30Is the applicant present? Yes, please come forward. Good afternoon. Can you state your name and your relationship to the application please?

1:19:54Yep, I'm Jillian Smith, senior planner at MHBC and we are the agent representing the owner today.

1:20:02Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign was posted as per the Planning Act? Yes, I was.

1:20:07And have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement? Yep.

1:20:12You have 10 minutes to address the committee. Thanks. I don't think I will need that long. It'll be about a minute.

1:20:18So this application is really to create a new lot within the city of Guelph.

1:20:24The existing property is about 26 hectares.

1:20:29A portion of it falls within the county of Wellington and a portion is within the city of Guelph.

1:20:34And we're just looking to sever the property about 6 hectares and create a new lot that would be solely within the city of Guelph for future development.

1:20:44And it would be along the municipal property boundary.

1:20:47Clear and concise. Thank you. Committee members, do we have any questions of this applicant?

1:20:56Seeing none, are there any members in the gallery who would like to speak to this?

1:21:02Seeing no members of the public who wish to speak to this.

1:21:08Madam Secretary of Treasure, do we have anyone online?

1:21:11Chair Smith, I can confirm we haven't received any delegation requests.

1:21:16Thank you. I guess it's up to the committee now. Do we have any motion? Committee members?

1:21:29A member Goodfell.

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

1:21:37And we have a seconder. Member Bala-Ban. Any discussion on the motion before us?

1:21:48Seeing none, Madam Secretary of Treasure, would you call the vote please?

1:21:53Committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favour or opposed to the motion which is to approve the application with the recommended conditions.

1:22:02Chair Smith. In favour. Member Bala-Ban. In favour. Member Goodfell. In favour. Member Mambrainio. In favour. Member Spears. In favour.

1:22:11That's carried, Mr. Chair.

1:22:13Your application has been approved. Madam Secretary of Treasure, may we have the next applicant please?

1:22:28The next and final application is file A-9-25, variances to permit increased driveway width and attached garage width for proposed renovation of existing dwelling at 45 Oak Street.

1:22:41I will note for those attending remotely, if you wish to speak to this application, you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen.

1:22:48That number is 519-822-1260-Extension 2524.

1:22:56Good afternoon. Can you state your name and relationship to the committee please?

1:23:01Jeff Buseman from Van Hurt and Surveying, representing the property owner.

1:23:05And can you tell me if the sign was posted as the planning act?

1:23:08Yes, it was.

1:23:09Thank you. And I'm going to ask if you've read staff's comments.

1:23:14Yes, I have.

1:23:15And I will let you make use of your 10 minutes, Mr. Buseman.

1:23:19Thank you. I don't know if you could put it. I have a tr—I'll hear it.

1:23:26Okay, so the application is for 45 Oak Street. This is a fairly large lot, similar to the Lawson area, that it's 21.3 metres or 70 feet wide, a request.

1:23:40We're asking for a reduction in the request. When we first put in the application, I misunderstood that the width of the garage was inside walls of garage to inside wall of garage.

1:23:52But after looking at the definitions closer in the zoning bylaw, the definition of the garage width is from the garage door frame to the garage door frame.

1:24:02And you have to include any dividers that are in between that.

1:24:06So taking a closer look at that, we need to make work. This proposed garage, we're asking for 9 metres for the width of the garage.

1:24:13And then we're suggesting a reduction in the width of the driveway we had at 9.9, but we're suggesting that the driveway line up with the edge of the garage door frames.

1:24:27So, and you can also see that we're suggesting that the driveway be 6.5 metres wide at the front part, so that's going from the curb to roughly the property line.

1:24:38And then it flair out to be 9 metres to accommodate access to the third bay on the left.

1:24:48The primary force driving this is the owner of the property who's here, as purchases property and is doing a major renovation of this house.

1:24:58It's not a new build, it's a major renovation. So they are working with the foundation as that they have, with that they have there now.

1:25:07And what's driving the need for the wider garage is the owner has some health challenges and looks like he'll be moving towards an accessible vehicle.

1:25:16And he really loved to park his accessible vehicle in the in the two bay garage portion.

1:25:22So that inside, once you have the van in, that you can open the sliding door passenger side, the ramp goes down and then within the garage you have room for ramps or landings that you need to get into the building.

1:25:36So that's probably that's the primary driving force and then the bay on the left is for the vehicle of his partner.

1:25:43That's really what's driving the desire to have this wider garage.

1:25:49I'd like to highlight that by now having the driveway and garage width at 9 metres relative to the width of the lot, it's 42.2%.

1:26:03I'll just say it's 42%. In the typical zoning of this, your minimum lot width is 15 metres.

1:26:12That's a very typical size. The minimum garage width and driveway width is six and a half metres.

1:26:18So if I take six and a half divided by 15, guess what? I get the same ratio as what we're proposing.

1:26:24In fact, that's 43%. So we're proposing 42% of the frontage be attributed to this driveway width, which is the same as what you would have as your typical 15 metre wide lot.

1:26:40Oak Street is an older part of the city. It was built with large lots at 70 feet wider or 21 metres wide.

1:26:53I took a look at the majority of the homes built in that area. They have at six and a half metre wide driveways.

1:27:00But the first homes when you come from Gordon on the north side, there are some four homes that were developed on the numbers one, three, five and seven.

1:27:11They all have widths of about seven and a half metres on the left side.

1:27:17So if you come in, there are two houses in a road, number six and number eight, and they have three-car driveways, three-car garages now, and a three-car wide driveway.

1:27:29Both those houses, their driveways are about nine, ten metres.

1:27:33So there's a bit of a mix of driveway widths already on the street. It's a little bit of the air of the homes and when they were built.

1:27:44As I mentioned, this is a renovation and we're working with the foundation and the structure and also the grade, the elevations of the house as it is to make this work for the intended use.

1:27:55Also like to mention that the intention is to have a permeable or a paver on the bay on the left to allow for storm water to go in the ground better to help deal with the storm water impact.

1:28:11Overall, the impact of the wider driveway is not significant on this large lot.

1:28:22I always worry about precedent setting and what, I mean there's a desire to minimise the size of driveways and not make it so big, but I think for this lot and any of the lots on this street, a driver of this width actually fits the character, fits the size and is a reasonable request.

1:28:43And I ask the committee to support this application.

1:28:48Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate your concise presentation.

1:28:56Committee members, do we have any questions of this applicant? Member Spears.

1:29:02Through you, Mr. Chair, to the city staff, given what the applicant has said about the change, basically changing the request that it's a meter more narrow, the ratio is different, does your opinion change?

1:29:17Do you recommend refusal? It's changed a little bit. How do you view this new idea?

1:29:31Through the Chair, members Spears. Unfortunately, staff are unable to support pretty much all driveway width increases.

1:29:39So while this certainly decreases the significance or the severity of the variance that's being requested, staff's comments remain unchanged.

1:29:47Thank you. Member Balaban.

1:29:56Through you, Mr. Chair, to the applicant, would if we were to agree to this with the reduced size rather than what you had originally applied for, would you be in favour of a condition that said that we would have a permeable pavers on the third bay of the driveway?

1:30:21Yes, that's fine.

1:30:23Okay, thank you. Member Spears. Through you, Mr. Chair, to the applicant.

1:30:29My sense is a lot of this is a design question, and it bothers me a little bit that we're discussing a design question, but the city staff basically said, in my view, why did you design it like this knowing full well that it wasn't going to meet the needs, and you had a blank slate?

1:30:47Why not design it to be within the bylaw when you had the opportunity? And that's really my question too, because I looked around there today and it seemed to me that it wasn't a major challenge to change the design to meet that requirement.

1:31:02Through the Chair, and with, I mean, the ideas to have the width for the inside for the vehicle to have unloading room and so on, right? And then the third bay for the second car, is that what you're challenging?

1:31:20What are you thinking? Can you clarify your thoughts on the design? Appreciate that.

1:31:25So two houses towards Gordon on the same side of the street, I looked at it and, sorry, I looked and said, I think that's a three car garage with a two car driveway.

1:31:35I can't say for sure that it is or it isn't, but it let me, I sat there and looked and looked and said, it certainly could be, and it doesn't seem like there's any reason why this design couldn't mirror that design.

1:31:45It doesn't need, this is just me. I'm not a designer. The requirement for the offloading of that vehicle, why does it require a driveway and a garage door? It needs space. I get that.

1:31:58But if that, if that looked like the house and not like a garage, I think it would meet everybody's desires.

1:32:05Okay. Good point. I mean, I mean, so you're thinking a two-bay door, you drive in, but inside, actually the room is like three bays wide.

1:32:17But it looks like two-bay. Right. Right. I don't know if you want to comment on that, Grant. Grant's going to talk about this in a minute if you want to talk about that further when you get a chance.

1:32:28I think Grant is speaking after me, so we'll let him speak to that and answer that question. Thanks.

1:32:34Thank you. That was informative, Members of yours. Any other questions? Seeing none, is there anyone in the gallery who would like to speak to this application? Yes, please come forward. Good afternoon. Can you state your name for the record, please?

1:33:21Just my wife of 50 years, Carol Stor.

1:33:26Congratulations. And you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

1:33:31Well, we've been residents there at Oak Street heading towards 50 years and we'd like to welcome the people that are coming. We'd like to be good neighbors and I'd like to welcome them.

1:33:44I look at what the staff recommendation is and as Mr. Spears said, I don't see any reason why they couldn't build and accommodate and stay within the bylaw of the width of the driveway.

1:34:01Coming over where they're talking, coming over, the building is going to be so close to our place. We've got a sidewalk there.

1:34:09We've got a large growth in the backyard. If you had to bring something through their tractor or anything to get fit in, they're going to build this garage just off from my sidewalk and coming across them.

1:34:22As I say, I looked at what the staff have said and think I'm looking myself.

1:34:28I don't see any reason why they couldn't build a new place and how they want to do it and we welcome that but could still stay within the dual drive the driveways that we have when you start looking at our driveways and everything on the street that I'm aware of.

1:34:42We're around 21, 22 feet and here we are looking to have a grads that's 32 feet, which really comes over and off balances.

1:34:50And for us to try and go down the side, as I said, just seems unfair that we would have to have that and now this grads coming over and the driveway, we want to welcome them but I don't see any reason why it couldn't be, the staff have looked at it.

1:35:08There's no reason you couldn't have the normal drive and normal grads and still have the building and accommodate everything they would like to have.

1:35:16So our position is we, again, we like to welcome them but I'd like to have them comply with what the city has laid out as the bylaw.

1:35:25That's how we all had to construct our homes and we all did have compied with that and I just would ask that consideration for us.

1:35:35Thank you very much for your presentation and committee members. Do we have any questions of this delegate?

1:35:41Seeing none, I want to sincerely thank you again.

1:35:46And we may have others who would wish to speak to this so thank you.

1:35:51Thank you very much for allowing us to be here and speak to it. Thank you.

1:35:56And congratulations again on 50 years of bliss.

1:35:59Thank you very much.

1:36:01Are there any other members of the audience who would like to speak to this application? Yes, good afternoon. Can you say your name for the record please?

1:36:18Yes, it's Grant Wharton.

1:36:20You have 10 minutes to address the committee.

1:36:23Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and committee members. As mentioned, my name is Grant Wharton from Wharton Homes.

1:36:30I'm here today to speak in support of the application at 45 Oak.

1:36:34I have been a local builder for the past 20 years focusing primarily on infill properties within the city.

1:36:41And I like to pride myself in trying to make these new properties and renovated properties fit within.

1:36:50For this application, we have spent a significant amount of time taking all the needs of Mr. Dikaiti and planning this renovation for his current future needs.

1:37:00A few key points I would like to ensure is understood that this is a renovation, not a new build.

1:37:07We are working with existing foundations saving a lot of waste to protect our environment and costs for Mr. Dikaiti.

1:37:14We have tried to find a balance between the city new zoning bylaws meeting the needs of Mr. Dikaiti and Oswell building within the existing area on the large 21.3 meter wide lot.

1:37:25The importance of mentioning the width of the slot is typical lots are 15 meters generally in size, which are allowed 6.5 meters.

1:37:36So as we've heard from Jeff before that the ratios are less than what the given standard is today on a 15 meter wide.

1:37:45The other point is we are 6.5 meters at the entrance of the laneway off the road and then it flares out to the garage.

1:37:57So in other cities or municipalities, it can be approached that you take the average width, not just in front of the garage.

1:38:08If that was the case, we could be looking at this as really a 7.75 meter wide driveway overall.

1:38:16To address any city staff concerns with shedding of groundwater, as Jeff mentioned, we have a permeable driveway that we proposed and if I can figure out how to work this.

1:38:46Just this photo of a permeable driveway so aesthetically it looks great and as well we're separating the driveway with pavement at the 6.5 meters

1:39:06and where it flares out for the third garage, we're proposing this permeable driveway.

1:39:11This is a key part to keeping the groundwater within the existing envelope and we've used it and it's been a great aspect to the city concerns.

1:39:22It also adding this feature of the interlock also helps break up the front facade.

1:39:34Since we're being able to have landscape kind of as it flares out on the left side, we can continue the landscaping on the right side to again give it as best curb appeal as possible.

1:39:46We've placed the front of the house proud and as well set back the third garage as a way to address the concerns of the wider garage to lot ratio.

1:40:12One of the biggest reasons behind this request is we are planning for the garage to be fully accessible.

1:40:37So one of the questions came up regarding why have the third bay.

1:40:44The accessibility vehicles are very large.

1:40:47The idea is to be able to pull the accessibility inside the garage and move around the vehicle as well having a ramp inside the garage as we've shown in the drawings.

1:41:03The third bay would then be for a passenger car.

1:41:07If Mr. Ducati had to park this vehicle out in the driveway, we are subject to four seasons, the snow, the rain.

1:41:15If he has to then mobilize out to the driveway, he would need full time care to clean the vehicle off, help get him in and out.

1:41:23And as well, the vehicles are very large. They would need to be moved in and out in order to get the passenger vehicle.

1:41:32So that is the idea behind the three cars.

1:41:34I also would like to point out that the building department has mentioned this in the letter that the place could be built with a semi-detached.

1:41:45And semi-detaches are allowed to have a maximum of five metres, both.

1:41:49So this lot potentially, if it wasn't for Mr. Ducati, could potentially have a 10-metre-wide driveway within the new zoning bylaws of the city of Guelph.

1:41:59So we are asking for nine, which is still less than the 10 metres overall if this was to become a semi-detach.

1:42:06I hope you can understand the reasoning now, as well as trying to make this a smooth transition for Mr. Ducati.

1:42:16And I would like to help him make it as smooth as possible for now and for his future. Thank you.

1:42:25Are there any questions of this? Yes, Member.

1:42:29Yes, through the chair, to the delegate. Thank you for that clarification.

1:42:34I have a couple of questions. One has to do with the optimisation of the space for the ramp and landing and the accessible ramp from the accessible vehicle.

1:42:47Was consideration given to trying to optimise that space into something smaller than a full garage bay?

1:42:53Again, we're working with existing foundations, so there was a lot of different considerations.

1:43:02But because we're trying to work with what's existing, this is kind of meeting the best of both worlds, essentially without coming to a full demolition.

1:43:13Obviously, yes, there's lots of options if we were to start from scratch. However, we're trying to save as much of the house as possible, including the foundation and working inside the foundations that we have as well as floor system.

1:43:27Okay, thank you. And through the chair for my second question, it actually is exactly getting to the existing foundation relative to the proposed footprint.

1:43:39I think when I initially heard the applicant or the representative of the applicant say that, I envisioned that it would fit into the same footprint.

1:43:49So looking at these plans, it appears to me that it's not within the same footprint. I understand that you may be optimising the foundation location, but maybe you could comment on that and help me understand when you're saying that you're working with the existing foundation,

1:44:05but it's extended beyond the footprint. Help me understand kind of how that works.

1:44:11Right, so we're working with a large portion of the existing foundation. However, we still need to change some portions as well as add on to the rear.

1:44:22I didn't design this personally. I had a designer. However, we are working with the structure components that are needed as well as cutting into some portions.

1:44:34Just this was the best option we could come up with and fit the needs of the owner.

1:44:41Okay, thank you. That clarification is helpful. I think I do still come back to, and sorry, through the chair, I do come back to the question about optimising then that space in the second bay.

1:44:55Because I think to me, there may have been an opportunity to optimise that, and again, I'm not a designer by any means, but just looking at that and then hearing the discussion and some of the concerns,

1:45:08I think I'm interested to understand how much effort was made to try and minimise the width of that second bay to kind of optimise that space for the neighbourhood.

1:45:22Through you, Chair, may I clarify what second bay would you be referring to?

1:45:27So through the chair with apologies, it is the one closest to the house, I believe. It's the one that has the ramp and has the space for the accessible ramp from the van or from the vehicle.

1:45:51So I believe that is the one that is closest to the house, at least on the trying I'm looking at.

1:45:57Okay, thank you.

1:46:01Thank you.

1:46:03Member Spears.

1:46:07Yeah, it's me again.

1:46:10What is the purpose of the driveway in front of bay number one?

1:46:14The purpose of the driveway in front of bay number one, I guess just coming from myself having driving very large vehicles, you are not going to be pulling in bay number two.

1:46:32I mean, essentially the idea is you pull in and you have plenty of room to get around the vehicle.

1:46:38So it's if you look at the front facade, it's actually a single door, wide enough so that you can pull in, offload and still be able to get around the vehicle.

1:46:50Inside.

1:46:51Inside the garage.

1:46:52That's not my question.

1:46:53Okay, sorry.

1:46:54What is the purpose of the driveway?

1:46:56I understand why you need the space inside. That makes perfect sense to me, but we're talking about driveway width.

1:47:01And yes, it flares out to meet the needs of bay number three.

1:47:05Makes sense.

1:47:06But I don't see the purpose of the driveway in front of bay number one, because you're driving into bay number two, you're offloading inside.

1:47:13And if we're talking about driveway widths, so now you have a nice little curved driveway, you don't have a width issue.

1:47:19It's a design change.

1:47:21So I really don't think it's the place to debate design here.

1:47:29But really, it's a question.

1:47:32I feel I'm getting very close to wanting to talk about deferral, to be honest.

1:47:38But maybe you could address that question.

1:47:40Member Goodfell.

1:47:49Through the chair, I am echoing members Spears question or maybe clarifying the question.

1:47:57Would the applicant be open to deferral?

1:48:00And I apologize because I understand you're not the applicant that we have heard from, but I know you are one of the representatives.

1:48:06So I think perhaps that would be my question back to the applicant at this point.

1:48:40While the delegation is having a discussion, I understand that we do have another delegate online.

1:48:49So I'm wondering if in the interest of time, if we could hear from that delegate and then come back to your question.

1:48:57Member Goodfell.

1:48:58Okay.

1:49:00Is the delegate online?

1:49:03I'm not hearing anyone.

1:49:20Are we having trouble?

1:49:31Yes.

1:49:32If you press star six to unmute, that may help.

1:49:35Are you calling Morgan Dandy?

1:49:47I'm sorry.

1:49:48I did not hear.

1:49:50Yes.

1:49:51So if you would like to state your name for the record and speak to the committee.

1:49:58Hi, yes.

1:50:01My name is Morgan Dandy and I am watching the proceedings from home.

1:50:08I am feeling very uncomfortable with where the committee conversation is currently going in that.

1:50:17I am hearing a lot of ableism happening and I am unsure.

1:50:26Just, just, I'm just going to interrupt for a moment.

1:50:30I appreciate your comment.

1:50:34What I would like to do though is have you focus on the application in front of us, please.

1:50:41I'm focusing on the application in front of us, chair, in that the ableism that I am hearing.

1:50:48I'm going to interrupt you.

1:50:50I'm sorry.

1:50:51I'm sorry.

1:50:52I'm going to cut you off.

1:50:54I am not going to tolerate name calling of my committee.

1:51:01So you either focus on the question before us or we're going to end this conversation.

1:51:09So please go ahead.

1:51:10Thank you, chair.

1:51:11Ten minutes.

1:51:12I am speaking to the fact that as an individual with a disability, it is a requirement to

1:51:20have proper access.

1:51:23And the question as to why there is a requirement to have a driveway, the full width of the

1:51:34single garage door to allow the access required for the individual who is entering into a new

1:51:42phase of his life and is doing, in my opinion, the best that he possibly can in order to

1:51:53ensure that he is able to live in the home that he has purchased.

1:51:59I applaud what has been done to date by the proponent.

1:52:07And I am fully supportive of having the revised six and a half meters in the front and allowing

1:52:21the individual to be able to access his home as is his right.

1:52:30Thank you, chair.

1:52:31That's all I have to say.

1:52:33Thank you very much for your comments.

1:52:36I'd like to ask Mr. Buseman to come back to the microphone, please, to answer some of

1:52:43the questions that have been raised.

1:52:45DeFurl is acceptable.

1:52:46That's the main question I think we have to deal with right now.

1:52:49I think so.

1:52:50So thank you.

1:52:51Committee members, do we have any other questions?

1:52:55Yes, member Bellaman.

1:52:57Through you, Mr. Chair, to the applicant.

1:53:02How, like looking at the foot print, the setback to the side yard where that additional bay

1:53:09or the third bay is shown as two and a half meters to the walkway on the neighbor's property,

1:53:19like to the side yard.

1:53:21And is that any closer than the original house, than the existing house?

1:53:28Give me one minute.

1:53:29Yeah, yeah, no problem.

1:53:31Because it seems like a, anyway.

1:53:34Got the survey.

1:53:42Okay.

1:53:43Yes, it is closer.

1:53:44Like it would be wider.

1:53:46It would be wider.

1:53:47The current side yard is about 4.8 meters.

1:53:49Okay.

1:53:50So a few meters closer because the, okay.

1:53:54Thank you.

1:53:58Do we have any other questions?

1:54:02Seeing none, I'm going to ask again if there's anyone online or in the chamber who would

1:54:09like to comment on this.

1:54:12I see no one else in the chamber.

1:54:14Is there anyone else online, Madam Secretary Treasurer?

1:54:17Chair, I can confirm no other delegation requests.

1:54:20Thank you very much.

1:54:22Before we call the question, I want to seek some guidance, Madam Secretary Treasurer.

1:54:31We've had sort of a tag team here with two delegations representing the same proposal.

1:54:38It just seems a little out of order.

1:54:42I'm not going to rule that it's out of order, but it just seems that generally speaking,

1:54:48when there are a planning consultant and an architect, for example, part of the same delegation.

1:54:56And I'm not sure that it's fair to either the committee's time or the public to tag team

1:55:04like that and essentially have a 20 minute presentation, potentially 20 minute presentation.

1:55:09Am I reading too much into this?

1:55:13To the chair, we don't have any policies regarding delegations in terms of, you know, it is a public meeting so anyone can come out and attend and speak to that application.

1:55:22We don't typically ask too many questions when people register about like what they're going to speak about.

1:55:29I believe that other, you know, council planning and other meetings sometimes there is other delegates that go to speak, but we don't particularly have a policy to fall back on there.

1:55:40That's great. That's what I wanted was a little bit of advice. I didn't want to rule on something and be seen as an ogre out of place.

1:55:50So thank you for helping me with that.

1:55:53At that point, committee members, what is your wish?

1:55:56Yes, Member Speier.

1:56:01I believe that this application be deferred.

1:56:04Do we have a seconder? Member Goodfellow, there is no discussion on a deferral request.

1:56:10So Madam Secretary Treasurer, may we have the vote please.

1:56:16Thank you, chair. And just to confirm for the deferral recommendation for some reasons behind that, if Member Speier, if you wanted to outline a few things that we can put in that decision.

1:56:28I think that I believe that the design change could meet the needs of the bylaw and the applicant.

1:56:37And I'd like a deferral to give them the opportunity to change the design to not need an application at all.

1:56:46Okay. Thank you very much.

1:56:48All right, committee members, please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is to defer the application.

1:56:55Chair Smith.

1:56:56In favor. Member Balaban.

1:56:58Opposed.

1:56:59Member Goodfellow.

1:57:00In favor.

1:57:01Member Mambrenio.

1:57:02In favor.

1:57:03And Member Speier's.

1:57:04In favor.

1:57:05That's carried, Mr. Chair.

1:57:07Your application has been deferred.

1:57:09And I might add that we're your discussions fruitful and not having to come back to committee that you can always apply for a full or a partial.

1:57:26Refund of fees.

1:57:28Thank you.

1:57:29Madam Secretary Treasurer, I think that comes to the end of our official business today.

1:57:43We have no more applications.

1:57:46Do we have any staff announcements?

1:57:48Mr. Chair, I can confirm no staff announcements.

1:57:51Okay.

1:57:53I just wanted to take a second as chair.

1:57:57I was getting a little hot under the collar and I want to apologize.

1:58:02It's just, I will not tolerate people name calling.

1:58:06And as someone who works as a designer and does accessibility design consulting and who has a spouse who has a disability.

1:58:22A mobility issue.

1:58:26I take great offense.

1:58:28So I want to apologize to the committee and to those in public.

1:58:32If I do lose my, my cool, but I don't think it's called for the name calling be acceptable in this chamber.

1:58:40And with that, I will accept a motion to adjourn.

1:58:46Member Goodfellow.

1:58:51All in favor.

1:58:53We stand adjourned.

1:58:55Thank you.