Committee of Adjustment
March 13, 2025 · 26,955 words of debate
The whole meeting, as text
Transcribed automatically from the City’s recording. Times run from the start of the recording, which begins before the meeting is called to order.
Read the full transcript (26,955 words)
1:39Good afternoon, Guelph.
1:40I'd like to call to order the March 13, 2025 hearing of the Guelph Committee of Adjustment.
1:47This hearing is being held in a hybrid format with attendees appearing in person or remotely
1:52and is being live streamed and recorded.
1:55Please be advised that public hearings form part of the public record and the words, names,
2:00or images of those participating will be recorded and posted online.
2:05I'd also like to note today that regrets have been received from member Balaban,
2:09who will not be attending today's meeting.
2:12Before I outline the hearing format, if you are watching online and wish to speak to an
2:16application that's listed on the agenda and have not submitted a request in advance of
2:21the hearing, please call the number displayed on the screen now, which is 519-822-1260
2:29extension 2524 to receive instructions on how to participate.
2:35For those attending the hearing in person, you will be given a chance to address the
2:39committee.
2:40A final call for delegations will be made when each application is called.
2:45The agenda for this hearing has been posted online at guelph.ca forward slash c-o-f-a.
2:52I will remind all committee members and staff participating in the hearing to please mute
2:57your microphones when not in use.
3:01Applicants will be unmuted when their application is called.
3:04I'd also like to share the hearing format we will be using to navigate through each application.
3:10Each application will be called by the secretary treasurer and the call in number for those
3:15wishing to speak to an application will be displayed on the screen.
3:19Afterwards, the applicant will be given an opportunity to add anything further to their
3:24application to a maximum of 10 minutes.
3:27You will hear a chime when there is 30 seconds left, sorry just to be clear there when there
3:32is 30 seconds left and another when the 10 minutes has elapsed.
3:37If you are an applicant and have nothing further to add, then you can simply say so.
3:45Following this for some files staff may provide a brief presentation.
3:49The committee will then be able to ask questions to the applicant or staff.
3:54After that we will hear from members of the public who wish to comment on the application.
3:58Please note that all comments should be addressed through the chair.
4:02Please avoid repeating concerns already stated by others and focus on adding new information.
4:08Comments are limited to 10 minutes or less.
4:10You will hear a chime when there is 30 seconds left and another when the 10 minutes has elapsed.
4:16For delegates that have advised staff in advance of the hearing they wish to display a presentation.
4:21Your presentation will be displayed on a screen and a remote control is available at the podium
4:27for in-person delegates to advance their slides.
4:31Any members of the public who have submitted a request to speak prior to the hearing will
4:35be the first invited to provide comments.
4:38For those watching the hearing online, if you wish to speak to an application and have
4:42not submitted a request in advance of the hearing, please call the number displayed on
4:47the screen now.
4:49For those attending the hearing in person you will also be given a chance to come forward
4:53to the podium and address the committee.
4:56Once all comments from the public have been heard the applicant or staff will be given
4:59the opportunity to respond to comments.
5:02Finally, the chair will turn to the committee for a motion and deliberation as well as a
5:07vote on the application.
5:09When the committee is making a decision on an application the chair will be asking the
5:14Secretary Treasurer to conduct the vote by roll call.
5:17The Secretary Treasurer will call each of the members' names and each member will respond
5:21if they are in favor or opposed to the motion and the chair will announce the result of
5:26the vote.
5:29If you wish to receive a copy of the decision on an application you must submit a written
5:34request.
5:35A written request can be made by contacting staff using the contact information shown on
5:41the screen.
5:42To receive a copy please email cofa at gulf.ca with your name and the file number you are
5:49interested in.
5:51Please note that owners and applicants automatically receive a copy of the decision.
5:56At this time I'll ask member Spears to provide the Indigenous Territorial Acknowledgement.
6:03As we gather let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work in Guelph, a
6:08city built over rich Indigenous histories.
6:10We are guests here and we should reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land,
6:14the people who live here today and the generations to come.
6:18If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation we should take pause and make those decisions
6:23with intention and gratitude.
6:26This place we call Guelph has served as traditional lands and a place of refuge for many peoples
6:30over time but more specifically the Atta Wanderonk and the Haudenosaunee.
6:36This land is held as treaty lands and the territory and territory with the Mississaugas
6:40of the Credit First Nation.
6:42Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldeman Tract and is part of a long established traditional
6:47hunting ground for the six nations of the Grand River.
6:50Many First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples who have come from across Turtle Island called
6:55Guelph home today.
6:59Thank you member Spears.
7:01Committee members are there any disclosures of pecuniary interest?
7:05If so please raise your hand.
7:07Member Spears.
7:08Yes I am involved in the two applications for 39 Paisley Road so I will recuse myself
7:14for those periods.
7:16Wonderful thank you and so once we, member Spears if you could describe your relationship
7:30to that application.
7:31I am a next door neighbor to 39 Paisley and that neighbor and myself and my wife were
7:37involved in hiring the contractor who got this whole ball rolling so I am involved.
7:45Thank you for that additional clarification.
7:47So when it comes time and we've announced the application if you could remove yourself
7:52from the room and we'll bring you back in when the next application is called.
7:56Understood.
7:59At this time we'd like to approve the minutes of the February 13th 2025 meeting.
8:06Is there a member to move and second the approval of the minutes?
8:12Member Smith to move.
8:14Member Spears to second.
8:19All those in favor please raise your hands.
8:23Motion carried.
8:27I've confirmed with the secretary treasurer that we do have a deferral request.
8:30I'll turn the meeting over to the secretary treasurer to address this request.
8:37Thank you chair.
8:38There is one application on the agenda that is recommended for deferral.
8:42Staff is recommending deferral of files B-14-25 and A-28-25 for 10 Ontario street so the applicant
8:50can address staff comments and concerns.
8:53The agent has agreed to the deferral request and will not be in attendance this evening
8:58so I'll turn it over to you chair for the deferral motion.
9:03Thank you.
9:04Committee members do we wish to make a deferral motion and if so could somebody so move?
9:12Member Membranio and a seconder member Spears.
9:17Great so I think secretary treasurer if you could call the vote please.
9:23Committee members please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion
9:26which is to defer the application.
9:29Chair Goodfellow.
9:30In favor.
9:31Member Membranio.
9:33In favor.
9:34Member Smith.
9:35In favor.
9:37And member Spears.
9:38In favor.
9:39That's carried chair.
9:41Thank you.
9:43I think at this point then we are moving into the rest of the application so Madam Secretary
9:49Treasurer if you could call the first application.
10:01The first application is file A-1-25 permission for enlargement extension of legal non-conforming
10:07use fitness center to permit addition to existing commercial building and related variances
10:12for reduced setbacks buffer strip and number of parking spaces at 26 Eremosa Road.
10:19For those watching remotely if you wish to speak to this application you can do so by
10:24calling the number displayed on the screen that numbers 519-822-1260 extension 2524
10:32and when you call in staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely.
10:39Thank you.
10:40Is the applicant present?
10:43If you could come forward to the podium please.
10:45Great.
11:02If you could state your name and your relationship to the application.
11:05My name is Matt Sanders and I'm a co-owner.
11:08Kate Mbove is the other owner.
11:11She's here too.
11:12Great thank you.
11:13Was the sign posted as per the planning act requirements?
11:16Yes.
11:17Thank you.
11:18Have you received staff comments and are you generally in agreement with their contents?
11:22Yes there are conditions that we're taking into account and working to resolve.
11:29Okay thank you and if you wish to address the committee you have 10 minutes as I outlined
11:33earlier so please take as much use of that as you would wish.
11:37Okay.
11:38So yeah so for the past 25 years our family owned business Pilates and Guelph has been
11:46a cornerstone of health wellness and movement in the Guelph community.
11:50Alongside ballroom class which has been a part of our space for the past 13 years we
11:54have brought people together through transformative Pilates and the joy of ballroom and Latin
11:58dance.
12:00We take great pride in the positive impact our business has had not only enhancing physical
12:06well-being but also in fostering a strong sense of community.
12:10Beyond our daily operations we are deeply committed to giving back to the Guelph through
12:13charitable initiatives.
12:15We proudly support adoptive family, Guelph dance, women in crisis, the humane society
12:20and a whole bunch of other little efforts for local organizations and events that make
12:27a difference in the lives of residents.
12:30Our business has always been rooted in the values of inclusivity, community engagement
12:35and supporting those in need.
12:38To better server clients we are seeking a minor variance to accommodate a much needed
12:42building expansion at 26 Eremosa Road.
12:45This project is designed not to increase the class size or business traffic but to improve
12:50the functionality of our space.
12:53The expansion will allow us to enhance accessibility, provide a proper entryway, create designated
12:57storage and improve the overall experience for our clients and staff.
13:02These improvements are essential for ensuring that we can continue to deliver high quality
13:06services in a well-organized and welcoming environment.
13:11We also recognize and respect the concerns of our neighbors regarding the proximity of
13:14the expansion to their property.
13:17We have proactively engaged with them to discuss potential impacts and have taken steps to
13:21incorporate their feedback wherever possible while ensuring that our primary business's
13:26requirements are met.
13:28We are committed to maintaining a positive relationship with those around us.
13:34Environmental responsibility is another key priority to us.
13:37To minimize the impact of construction on this surrounding area we have carefully planned
13:40an above ground expansion that avoids the need for major excavation.
13:45The approach helps us preserve existing tree roots and reduces soil disturbances, aligning
13:49our broader efforts to operate in an environmentally conscious manner.
13:54We have also taken significant measures to address parking concerns and reduce our environmental
13:58footprint.
13:59Many of our clients walk, bike or use public transit and we actively encourage sustainable
14:04transportation options through incentives.
14:07Additionally, we have secured additional offsite parking to ease any potential strain on local
14:12parking availability.
14:15We sincerely appreciate your time and are in consideration reviewing our request.
14:20It is our goal to continue to serve the community in a way that is sustainable, respectful of
14:25our neighbours and beneficial to the city as a whole.
14:30Thank you.
14:31At this time I will ask if committee members have questions for this applicant.
14:39Member Smith.
14:43Thank you, Chair.
14:45I have a question through you to this applicant.
14:50In light of some of the comments made by the neighbour, I think immediately to the north
14:56regarding snow and parking, can you speak to some of those comments?
15:05That is if you have read them.
15:06Yeah, I absolutely have.
15:09I met with Nikki yesterday too.
15:11For the snow, we did revise our, there had been some ongoing challenges with contractors
15:19and so as we have sort of worked with them to try and change how they were, where they
15:24were putting the snow.
15:26We have sort of agreed on a spot that is right in front of the building between the
15:30sidewalk and our front step as the sort of place to put the snow.
15:35So that was sort of before we have had a snow fall and we just kind of will work with our
15:41contractors to basically put the snow in that spot.
15:46So I think that is going to help with the snow a lot.
15:48The parking has been an interesting challenge.
15:51There is a lot of people used to parking in the front or doing drop offs there, even
15:56though we have requested them not to.
16:00So I have worked with Nikki and we have talked about some signage.
16:05So we are going to put some very large signing on the corner of our building to basically
16:08say no drop offs, no parking.
16:11I am also going to put signage inside the building that basically points to our primary
16:16choice of parking which is the Islamic society at the end of Mitchell Street.
16:21And then we are going to include sort of a digital signature on all our communication
16:25to involve with anyone coming to that studio that basically outlines a strict parking policy.
16:32If we cannot head off the majority of problems with that, we are going to support the city
16:43by-law coming by to give tickets.
16:46One other aspect is, and it is in the part of the city staff conditions, is to put planters
16:54in the spot.
16:55We have a little, it is actually currently listed as a parking spot off of Aramosa Road
17:02and one of the variances we are trying to do is reduce from three, that includes that
17:07spot down to a single one in the lane way in the back.
17:12To sort of enforce that, and we have already put down planters and some posts with some string on it
17:18to sort of discourage any parking there.
17:21But we are going to follow exactly what the city is suggesting which they have suggested
17:25a .8 meter high flower bed and basically just make that a non-conditional spot to park.
17:34So yeah, it is kind of a, you know, there is people parking in that spot that sort of
17:39gets close to the neighbors parking spot on the north and then there is some people who
17:45end up parking in a lane way and so we hope to nip that with, like I said, signage on
17:51the building, communication within all electronic communication that people will be attending
17:57in that building and then signs inside the building so when people leave they will be
18:01reminded to not park there.
18:04We are also going to encourage people not to park specifically on Arthur Street
18:10and ask them to prioritize parking at the Islamic Society and look for other parking
18:15if there is, if the Islamic Society is full.
18:19So we are hoping to hit that on multiple friends.
18:26Thank you. I understand that it is a challenge given the type confines so thank you for that
18:32information.
18:33The parking at the Islamic Society is very good.
18:36It is no plow for us. We think it is a great solution. We have not prioritized it to clients
18:42as like please park there first and so that is another piece of communication we are trying
18:48to change within our business to say go there first and if you need other parking go elsewhere.
18:54Mentioned in our application to we will increase the size of parking at the Islamic Society.
18:59They have agreed to that so we are hoping to use it.
19:03I guess with the preclusion of Fridays.
19:08Yes that is correct.
19:12Thank you chair. That is all my questions.
19:13You do not have classes Friday?
19:16So we have limited no classes on Friday.
19:19My partner is telling us.
19:23Thank you chair. That is my questions. I appreciate the answers.
19:28Thank you member Smith.
19:30Are there other questions from committee members?
19:33I do have one question. I think it is for city staff.
19:37I was curious about the history of this site.
19:40It is kind of an unusual location and it appears to be a legally non-conforming use
19:48in this location.
19:49Wondered if city staff could comment a little bit on some of the history and how we kind of
19:54ended up here with this business operating in this location.
19:58Yes to the chair. In 1975 there was a committee of adjustment application to permit a photo studio.
20:13The decision was made with the condition.
20:17Apparently there used to be a parking space on the other side of the building
20:23which was not a legal parking space and the condition was to not allow any more parking
20:29spaces to be created along the front.
20:33The creep did happen and that spot has been used as parking but it is not a permitted parking
20:40space at the front of the building.
20:42So that is why building services did request that condition to ensure that parking didn't
20:48happen there.
20:50So there was the photo studio and then in 1991 there was
20:57the committee of adjustment application to do a rear addition to the main floor
21:07of the photo studio for additional studio space.
21:11So that was at the rear of the building on the first the main floor I'll say.
21:19I did not locate any building permit drawings that had the lower level space but it is an
21:25open space and based on the style of the building the commercial building and I did
21:31previously put in my notes it was labeled as a residential dwelling.
21:39It wasn't permitted and building staff were out there and are satisfied as not being used as a
21:43residential dwelling.
21:47And then in 2011 it came back to permit to go from to committee of adjustment again from an
21:57artisan studio which was the photography studio to permit a commercial school for a dance company
22:05and it had the condition of maximum 12 people for the class and 40 people once a month for a
22:13special event dance event.
22:18Sorry.
22:20So that is the history as I know it.
22:23Thank you.
22:26Thank you to staff for that clarification.
22:28That was helpful.
22:30May perhaps a follow up question.
22:32So there hasn't been anything further since 2011 and I guess from your comments of understanding
22:40that when the new bylaw changes were made or implemented that the Pilates activity that kind
22:50of got rolled in with the dance studio and so that is all now part of the same category.
22:55Am I kind of following that correctly?
22:57Yeah.
22:58Sorry that is correct.
22:59So the Pilates under the old bylaw would have been also classified as a commercial school at
23:07that time but now under our new bylaw that I want to say the small class fitness style use has been
23:16recognized and is now a fitness studio sorry a fitness center use and the use has now become
23:25legal nonconforming under our new bylaw.
23:32Thank you.
23:33Again I appreciate that clarification.
23:35Okay.
23:41Have we received any requests for delegation at this stage?
23:47Chair I can confirm that we do have a registered delegate via phone.
23:52The name is Nikki North.
23:54Thank you.
23:55So to the applicant if you just want to hang tight and we will listen to the delegation and then
24:00perhaps come back to you for some follow up comments to the delegate.
24:15If you were in the meeting if you could turn on your camera or come into the meeting let us
24:19know you're here you may be muted.
24:33Can you hear me?
24:35We can.
24:35Thank you.
24:36Don't worry about the video.
24:39Gotcha.
24:40Okay this is Nikki.
24:42I'm the neighbor to the north but you were just talking about.
24:46Okay great thank you.
24:47I'm going to ask you if you could state your name for the record.
24:52Sure my name is Nikki North and I have owned the home that
24:55shares the property line with the studio for over 30 years.
24:59Thank you.
25:01So at this point I will let you know you have 10 minutes to address the committee
25:06and that your comments should be addressed through the chair.
25:09So please make as much use of that time as you'd like.
25:12Thank you.
25:14Okay thank you.
25:15Through the chair to the committee our house is an 1800th limestone duplex built by one of
25:21Guelph's first mayors.
25:23All of the main living spaces of the home face this proposed addition.
25:27Our small concrete patio is 11 feet by 8 feet and goes right to the property line.
25:33When zoning was changed to convenience commercial it caused little change to our home just a bit
25:37busier sidewalk.
25:39No one parked out front and they entered the dance studio off of Aramosa Road.
25:44When Caitlin and Matt bought it they changed the way the property was being used.
25:48They moved the entry from Aramosa Road to the side door facing our house
25:52and the pavers out front were used as a pickup drop-off and parking spot.
25:57They parked partially on our driveway and what was once a private quiet side yard is now a
26:02busy noisy entrance to a gym.
26:04These changes weren't considered when the property was given the variants to operate
26:08as commercial zoning.
26:11The setback by-laws say there must be enough space between convenience commercial and residential
26:15Pao Pao a buffer so that the business use doesn't interfere with the residential.
26:21Now this business interferes with our residential.
26:24The side door entrance brings people past your patio and windows constantly.
26:29The current path is on the ground beside their building.
26:32This plan raises that path up onto a bridge even with our living room and within a few feet of our patio.
26:4024 clients an hour will walk along that wooden bridge from Aramosa Road to the new entrance.
26:46Directly in front of our living room.
26:48No privacy fence or screening can be tall enough by code to hide our patio, our living room, kitchen
26:54or dining room windows from this noisy traffic looking in.
26:57Those clients will be about five feet from my patio table.
27:00Just imagine having dinner on your patio and over 24 people an hour pass by chatting and
27:05greeting each other on their way into a gym watching you have dinner.
27:09Or sitting on your living room couch with gym patrons at eye level in your five foot tall
27:14windows only a short distance away.
27:17Studio hours are 8 a.m. to 9 30 Monday to Thursday, 8 to 8 Friday and Saturday and 9 to 5 on Sunday.
27:25When do we get a break?
27:26It will change how we can use our property.
27:29A 1.2 meter set back erases all of the already small buffer to noise and privacy that our
27:35current entrance 20 feet away from our property line affords their home.
27:39Although city staff asked for an elevation drawing it wasn't provided.
27:44It would show the addition 29 feet five and a half inch long by 12 to 14 foot high expense
27:49of wall on still plus a 12 foot long bridge with privacy walls raised up to meet the elevation
27:56at Aramosa Road.
27:58This 42 foot long structure will be built very close to our property line and block the main
28:04windows of our home.
28:05If you look at my written submission the first photo on the back of the studio and home it
28:10shows a 30 foot long siding addition on the studio.
28:14This would be the same size as the proposed addition to be put in the small side yard
28:18showing the second picture in my written submission.
28:21At a 12 foot long bridge raised up to that you'll see this is no small addition.
28:26It will affect our current use and kill our perennial gardens and take away the privacy
28:31from our home.
28:33There are some practical issues with this site plan too.
28:36It's a busy gym.
28:37Where do paramedics and firefighters and their equipment get into the side yard or lower level
28:42studio?
28:43You can't pull an ambulance into a lane with five cars in a row so not Arthur Street.
28:48The Aramosa Road side will have a bridge with railings and a fence on our driveway so no
28:53access there.
28:53There's just no access to the side yard.
28:56Fire will jump from the proposed addition to my dining room only 12 feet away.
29:00Snow is an issue.
29:02With the addition and the wooden bridge filling up the business side yard where do you put it?
29:06Snow from a business is often cleared onto our driveway and we have to dig it out.
29:10If the problem with the studio has said for years it'll fix but it has happened for years
29:15and keeps happening.
29:17It will be worse when the side yard has even less space to put that snow.
29:23According to code the roof can encroach 0.8 meters into a 1.2 meter variance requested.
29:27That's one foot.
29:29From our property line.
29:30The massive snowstorm last month left a three foot tall blanket of snow on everyone's
29:35roofs.
29:35With a quick saw a lot of those three foot tall blankets of snow split off roofs.
29:40If this happens all of that snow from a 29 foot five and a half inch long roof will land
29:47on our concrete patio as would storm water runoff.
29:52We have a dugout basement.
29:53We run a dehumidifier 24 seven to keep the damp down.
29:57There is no way to seal it or protect it.
30:00Adding more water will be catastrophic to that 1800s home.
30:05The intent of the three meter legal setback is to ensure that drainage and runoff on the
30:10subject lands do not impact neighboring properties.
30:13One foot doesn't do this.
30:15The additions commercial use will literally spill into our yard.
30:20City staff and zoning confirmed that there's no parking in front of the studio until three
30:26weeks ago.
30:26Their instructors including Caitlin and Matt were cutting across our driveway and then
30:33parking partially on our driveway in order to leave a path open to the side stairs for
30:38their clients.
30:39Our tenants and ourselves asked them to stop parking on our driveway but it didn't stop.
30:44This is how the business has interfered with our home when they're close to the property line.
30:48Please don't bring them closer.
30:50Matt blocked off the spot as he said in front of the business three weeks ago but now their
30:54clients are fully parking and doing dropbox and pickups from our driveway.
30:58I understand they can't control where the clients park.
31:02We have four signs put up.
31:03They have none.
31:04It's interfering with our home.
31:07There is a new 12 by 30 foot studio space where the apartment was last month.
31:12There's supposed to be a maximum class size of 12 so what are the class size for the new
31:16studio space?
31:17All of these things aside I'm not sure how approval can be granted.
31:23We can't have a look at your parking agreement, the plan for the down south locations or an
31:27elevation drawing.
31:28Site plan doesn't show stairs from Arthur Street, proposed privacy fence, privacy screens on the
31:33bridge.
31:34So they could tell us all of these things are going to be built and then change their minds.
31:38Some ideas I don't think are to code like a bridge over top of utilities so they might not
31:42even be able to build what's on the site plan.
31:45And Matt with Matt yesterday and he isn't really sure of the details of what they want to do yet
31:50so it's difficult to know what's being proposed with just a partial site plan drawing
31:54and I can only speak to this one drawing today.
31:57The last section of staff comments pertaining to whether the edition is one or two stories,
32:02the proposed edition is one story from the front.
32:04It's two stories from the back and part of the side.
32:07The architect's evaluation drawing should provide the average grade and confirm if it's a
32:11one story or two story but staff comments are prepared on one story.
32:15Shouldn't we all have access to accurate information and bit more complete drawings,
32:19especially that elevation drawing in order to make decisions about whether this proposed
32:24plan will even work in this space.
32:27In conclusion, the commercial space is already impacting our residential use.
32:31There's no denying that parking and snow removal are issues that haven't been solved
32:36and will be made worse with this plan.
32:38Since making the side of the building essentially the front,
32:41it's noisy and busy in our side yard.
32:43Raising that commercial use up and bringing it even closer to my house will magnify
32:48privacy and noise issues.
32:50I just don't see how putting an entrance to a busy gym within a few feet of someone's patio
32:55and windows doesn't substantially change how they live their lives.
33:00I'm happy that they have a busy thriving business and they seem like nice people
33:04but I do think there's alternatives that could have worked better.
33:07An office could be in the lower level.
33:09Clients with accessibility issues could come through the front.
33:13We would have been happy if the plan was to build a 10 by 12 foot entrance to the front of the
33:17side yard.
33:18Taking all of that traffic and noise back out of our living spaces and returning it
33:23to how it was when the committee first decided to give the convenience commercial use variants
33:27based on a known entrance from Aramosa Road.
33:30Back then no one thought that a busy gym would essentially move the front of the building to
33:34the side facing the neighbor's yard.
33:37As the neighbor most impacted by all of these changes, we respectfully ask that you don't
33:42approve and extend the legal non-conforming use setback and buffer strip variances.
33:47As they will not meet the intent of ensuring that there is adequate separation between
33:52convenience commercial and our home.
33:54Since the convenience commercial is our ready interfering with the residential in this case,
33:59please don't allow more changes that will impact it further.
34:03Thank you very much for listening. I appreciate it.
34:08And thank you for the comments.
34:12We appreciate your time in putting those together and coming in front of us today to
34:17share your thoughts. At this time I would like to ask though if committee members have
34:23questions for this delegate.
34:26Member Smith.
34:28Thank you Madam Chair. I threw you to the delegate.
34:33I'm wondering if some of the comments that were made earlier if you heard them from the
34:39proponent.
34:41Yes I did.
34:42And do you have any comments on their reassurance?
34:49I do.
34:51I do.
34:52Well we've been talking about this for quite a while and they don't move very quickly on things.
35:00The parking is an issue. It's been an issue forever.
35:04We've even showed them where their tires are on our driveway when they tell us they're not on the
35:09driveway and then they say oh sorry about that and then it just goes on and it keeps happening and
35:15keeps happening. Now no one's allowed to park in the on the pavers on their site plan but people
35:21are still parking on our driveway and this has been going on for weeks again since they've
35:26gotten rid of the the paver spot that they were using. It's still happening and we went out right
35:32away and bought two more signs to add to the already signage that we had already. They didn't.
35:38They haven't told anyone not to park there. They haven't sort of put up a sign. They're
35:42still talking about it and we've been talking about it for a long time now. I'm worried that if
35:48you bring it closer it's going to be worse and snow. There's no room. You can look at their site plan.
35:59The area he's talking about would be about a six foot six space. Right now all of the
36:06snow that got cleared into that space is about was sorry it's probably melted now in the last week
36:12but it was about six feet tall and filled that space completely but there was also an eight foot
36:19by about ten foot pile that got dumped sort of half on our driveway and half on their pavers at the
36:26front. There's just no room for snow. We throw ours over the fence over our fence into our side
36:33yard or onto our front yard. They're throwing it over into the side yard which is also full. There's
36:38just no room if you have a walkway there. There's no room in the side yard to put snow. Where do you
36:43put the snow from the walkway? It's a tiny space. There's just no room. I'm not really sure that
36:53those things are worked out practically. If you know what I mean, you can sort of say yeah we
37:02don't want people to park there and I know they don't. I'm sure they prefer if they could just
37:06tell clients don't park there and nobody did but they do. And no one but us is doing anything
37:13physically to stop that. We talk to people when we see them politely and nicely but we're the ones
37:21putting up signs. We're the ones who are being impacted by their use. It's not happening the
37:26other way around. Same with the snow. I mean Matt knows every time there's a big snow fall it's on
37:31our driveway like that one last month all went on our driveway. It makes it hard to live next to
37:38the convenience commercial when they sort of spill over onto your property. I do have a follow-up chair.
37:49Yes please go ahead Member Smith. Thank you. Through you to the delegate. I notice on the site plan
37:57that there are two entrances that are located here. One on the southern, let's call it the
38:05southwest corner, pardon me the southeast corner, and then the second entrance would be, I think what
38:13you've been talking about would be the addition. Just in terms of the history was has it always been
38:23the entrance in that southeast corner and is or have they moved the entrance to the side
38:31between your two properties? They've moved it so it was at the front off of Aramosa road in that
38:39southeast corner. Now there's a little jet out if you see where the existing one story walk out
38:48with basement is on the site plan. There's a little jet out at the back. The door is there.
38:55So they moved it from the front where the little arrow is off of Aramosa road right to the very
39:00back corner opposite our place which is the existing two-story stone house at the top of the
39:07drawing. Okay thank you. So the new one is where the second arrow is. Yeah. Okay thank you that answers
39:15my question. I appreciate your information. No problem. Thank you Member Smith. Are there
39:23other questions for this delegate from the committee? Okay seeing none. I'm going to go back then to
39:31the applicant and ask if you wanted to have any further follow-up comments to what you've heard
39:37from the delegate. So could I ask a quick question? How do I mute so I don't bother you?
39:47We'll actually mute from our side but that's a good question. So yeah we'll take care of it on
39:51this side. Thank you. May I speak? I mean there's a lot of valid concerns here and I understand her
40:04frustration. I think we're taking it more seriously than she is maybe feels and I think there's
40:16things like the snow spot that there's you know we in the southeast corner there's a spot where we
40:22put snow there too so it's not all set up front it's just that was a lot of snow a little bit
40:28unusual and it ended up like I mentioned to contractors sort of put it in a possibly more
40:35convenient place so there's a lot of work we need to do to kind of address the things that have been
40:42brought up but we're very interested in you know solving them and I think that we have options to
40:52solve them. Regarding the side entrance and access on that side I feel that bringing the
41:05entrance closer east towards Eremosa Road will cut a significant amount of the traffic volume
41:13and time that they're in the property there and the walking path that they would take to the new
41:23entrance would be the same as what the old one is so I don't think foot traffic is going to be
41:27any closer to the property line and the amount of time that people or clients will be traversing
41:35her property will be fully halved by the the look of the drawing here. She talked about some amount of
41:46you know flexibility that we've intentioned around the design and we've waited with that partly out
41:55of trying to come try find some common ground so originally we were considering a raised front
42:01and it tapering to the back to get the sort of sun in the morning and with the concerns we're
42:06wanting to reduce the side bring the the roof down to as low as possible to the to the property
42:14border so we're still sort of trying to engineer the things we can to to minimize the impact.
42:30Anything further to add there or are you? I think I'm I think I'm good. Okay thank you.
42:42It's worth we're saying that we moved from the southeast entrance partly logistics there's no
42:51room to put people in and out of that door but the other one is the Eremosa Road is an extremely
42:57loud road and every time that door opened it impacted classes because there's trucks cars
43:04ambulances it's it's extremely disruptive and there's an amount that you know roads change
43:13cities change and we've never seen anyone sitting on the patio at the house to the north of us it's
43:22not a particularly pleasant to hang out place to hang out and I wonder how much cities evolve and
43:32change and and and sometimes adaptation needs to happen. Yes thank you thank you for those additional
43:49comments it looks like member Smith and may have some questions for you as well member Smith.
43:56Thank you chair I'll try and be brief through you to the applicant not that it's our job to
44:04come up with a design for you but my question is in terms of adding a new entrance have you
44:12looked at a an addition that would have an entrance I guess it's off arthur street to the southeast
44:20corner. We've played with designs there's about eight or nine feet from that lane way to the main
44:29floor and so you would if you do a one to twelve ratio for a ramp I can't remember what it works
44:36out to be you'd have a ramp down the entire driveway or switch backs a lot of things or a lot of
44:44stairs it's also we've had some clients and teachers mention it's a little less comforting to walk
44:51down a dark laneway and we could put some lights up back there but it's it feels safer using the
44:58front entrance off the vermos especially in the evenings so having an entrance out the back
45:05doesn't feel as welcoming or safe to kind of use and the final thing is that laneway will be marked
45:12as a single parking space we deem to use it for teachers and mobility clients mobility is
45:21challenged clients who would still need to rep around the building but we can fit five cars in
45:26that laneway and we included a picture in the applicant for that if we end up using that as a
45:32main entrance I don't think it's wide enough to accommodate cars using that laneway and people
45:38wanting to walk up and down it there's a really blind corner right on arthur so someone you know
45:45kind of talking with a friend leaving and walking down that laneway and someone driving in it just
45:52it seems like it would be we're down to one parking space we can cram it with five and we
45:59have done so regularly since you know sort of we're using that rear entranceway
46:07and the final thing is we could build so you could build below and have stairs or ramps to get up to
46:11the main floor or if we built at main level and we had stairs or a ramp down we would sort of cover
46:17over the entranceway and the the staff room window and it's just not as is nice of an idea for us
46:24just to lose the window in that staff room that looks out to the kind of corridor now thank you
46:32for that and I'm sure if I may I have one follow-up yes please go ahead I'd like to get you to address
46:44one of those things raised by the delegate and that was she was referring to the entrance
46:53the proposed entrance as a bridge and I'm not sure I understand that does she mean a ramp
47:02like an accessibility ramp is that what you're planning for yeah what we would ideally like
47:08is no elevation changes from the road into the main building and so at the moment the pavers are
47:15roughly at the height of the main floor and so we would look to basically continue from the pavers
47:22to the front door at the same level and that would maintain floor level to the main building
47:31so you know and currently we have outside of an entrance I wish I could point at it the current
47:36entrance at the back has stairs and a landing that has the same height that you know Nikki's
47:45concerned about people looking in on the building but and I understand we've changed the the primary
47:50access to that north side entrance and so people have been you know walking along the paver at
47:57the same my height that the proposed walkway will be and the and going up the stairs to the same height
48:03to the the current primary north door and so there's an amount that moving the door east
48:12and will be more but not much more than what clients are currently doing walking in off the
48:20pavers having that level of eye sight into her property and then the walking up the stairs to
48:28the platform to go in the door we're we've talked about it and I Nikki has brought up some some
48:35interesting parts of the the bylaw about a privacy screen I I keep trying to think of
48:43ways that we could do this and off the walkway I like the idea of like a green vine wall and I
48:49don't know if we could put creeper vines up so that there's a visual and audio obstruction
48:54on the side of the walkway there's some conversation around it needs to be max 1.8 meters from the
49:02the ground as a privacy screen but I'm interested and I've sort of sent her some ideas around
49:10materials that could be used to basically you know a break line of sight to her property to her
49:17windows and along the side of the walkway so I'm still interested in doing that and we talked about
49:26a general privacy fence between the the on the property line so yeah there's a there's an amount
49:37that and Nikki gave a number for what she thinks the height will be of the addition on her side
49:45of the property and I did some doodling with some pictures we went in her in her living room and I
49:51took a picture out and the privacy fence can go up to six feet or 1.8 meters and she could put vines
50:00or material or break up sort of you know make it look nicer than the side of our building and then
50:08from the top of the fence to the either the soffit or the the roof of our thing it's going to be as
50:17low as we can get it there and I don't have the exact number and I am working with our designer to
50:22get an elevation drawing to to sort of do some visualizations around what that would look like
50:28but we want to minimize that height as much as possible thank you and but I have one last question
50:37chair if I may yes please go ahead I guess it would be to you and to staff to the applicant and
50:47to staff through you chair would you be opposed to an added condition of a privacy screen to be
50:57constructed along the length of the accessible ramp is that question to me yes it is and you're
51:14asking if I would be willing to submit a variance to to install such a thing oh no my my my thought
51:22is through you chair my thought is that we would add a condition potentially it it would be in part
51:31if you're in agreement if there was a privacy screen as part of of any accessibility ramp
51:41yep I'm I'm chair if I may I'd like to turn to staff and ask for their opinion if that's
51:51something that we could add yes I think we will ask for staff's input on that
51:58through the chair to member Smith staff have no concerns with that proposed condition
52:04thank you chair that's the end of my questions thank you I guess are there any other questions
52:15then from the committee members no seeing none I just want to maybe give staff an opportunity if
52:24there were any follow-up comments or thoughts that they had before we go into committee with
52:29a motion through you madam chair I don't think we have any additional comments only that we
52:45understand the concerns raised by the delegate in our opinion the proposal with the recommended
52:51conditions strikes an appropriate balance between the commercial and the and the interplay with the
52:56commercial and the residential uses next door thank you thank you I appreciate that and I have
53:02been reminded that I did forget one step so are there any members of the public here today who
53:09would like to come forward and delegate okay seeing none then then I think we have kind of checked
53:17all of those boxes and we are now into committee and committee members what would you like to do
53:25for a motion member Smith chair I would like to move approval of this application with the
53:35recommended staff commit conditions and the addition of one further condition which would
53:41be that a privacy screen be required on the accessibility ramp on the north side between
53:48the two properties thank you do we have a seconder for that motion member spears okay sorry I'm
54:04madly reading my instructions here making sure it over is anything so then yes do we have any
54:10discussion on the motion no okay seeing none then I think I will ask the secretary treasurer to
54:18conduct the vote please committee members please indicate your vote by responding in favour or
54:24opposed to the motion which is to approve the application with the recommended conditions as
54:29well as the additional condition mentioned by member Smith chair good fellow in favour
54:36member mambraño in favour member Smith in favour and member spears in favour let's carry chair
54:46wonderful thank you to the applicant and to the delegate if they are still on the line we
54:52appreciate your time today and so at this point you're free to leave the meeting thank you at this
55:03point I will ask the secretary treasurer to call the next application the next application is file
55:10a desk 15 slash 25 variance to permit reduced side yard setback for proposed addition to existing
55:16industrial building a 385 michner road I'll note for those um watching remotely if you wish to speak
55:23to this application you can do so um by calling the number um displayed on the screen which would
55:29be displayed shortly that number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524 and when you call in staff will
55:38give you instructions and have you can um delegate by phone thank you um is the applicant present
55:47today okay thank you apparently he is in the meeting if you could turn on your video for us
55:57or unmute that would be also helpful star six will unmute yeah yeah okay there you are great
56:12so welcome today um can you state your name and relationship to the application for the record
56:17please yes my name is mike demerling and I'm the agent for the property owner and the applicant
56:27for the uh CVA great thank you and was the sign posted as per the planning act requirements
56:33yes it was yeah and have you received staff comments and are you generally in agreement
56:38with the recommended conditions yes I am okay wonderful so if you would like to address the
56:44committee you have 10 minutes yeah I really don't know anything to address um unless there's
56:51questions that uh anybody has thank you that's nice and concise um then I'll ask if committee
57:00members have any questions for the applicant oh seeing none um that's great um have we received
57:10any delegation requests sure I can confirm we haven't received any delegation requests
57:20um at this point I guess then we are um moving into uh we have to ask about in the room okay
57:27thank you so is anybody here in attendance in person and would like to make comments to this
57:33application great thank you so I think at this point we can go to committee and ask if any committee
57:46member would like to move forward with emotion yeah I would like to move that we uh uh approve this
57:56application um as presented and agreed in agreement with city staff thank you member spears is there a
58:03seconder member membranio right um madame secretary treasurer I think it is over to you to call the
58:12vote thank you chair committee members please indicate your vote by responding in favor or
58:17opposed to the motion which is to approve the application chair good fellow in favor member
58:23membranio in favor member Smith in favor and member spears in favor that's carried chair
58:32thank you and thank you to the applicant for attending today I think you're free to go if you
58:36if you would like to leave the meeting okay thank you all right madame secretary treasurer if we can
58:44call the next applicant please the next application is file a-16 slash 25 variance is to permit reduced
58:52front yard setback for proposed addition porch and stairs and variances for front porch deck setback
58:58and projection for proposed and projection for proposed triplex at 25 kent street I'll note for
59:04those attending remotely if you wish to speak to this application you can do so by calling the
59:08number displayed on the screen that number's 519-822-1260 extension 2524 and when you call in staff
59:16will give you instructions on how you can delegate remotely thank you uh is the applicant present
59:24yes please come forward to the podium welcome can you please state your name and the relationship
59:38to the application my name is Samuel Hirschhorn I am the applicant and the owner of the site
59:44thank you and was the sign posted for the planning requirements yes and have you read staff's
59:48comments and are you generally in agreement I have and I am great at this point you have 10 minutes
59:54to address the committee so you can use as much of that time as you'd like okay I'll just use this
59:59time to give a bit of background on the project and our thought process behind it so first thank
1:00:05you for considering my application my property at 25 kent is located steps from the downtown core
1:00:11and it has been a home to myself and my family and is now home to some fine members of the
1:00:15Guelph community the site has a large lot with a deep yard that is on a significant gradient
1:00:22there is an existing detached garage next to the main house that has been abandoned for many years
1:00:28and it needs to be demolished when my wife and I lived there at the property we often face problem
1:00:33with this garage including homeless people trying to live in their rodents various pests and now
1:00:40that garage is in an extremely degraded state and needs to be torn down we are proposing to
1:00:46demolish this garage and replace it with two new rental units a two-bed two-bath at grade and a
1:00:52three-bed two and a half bath main unit above it the proposed additional units would be built
1:00:59following the setbacks of the existing garage and the main house front porch which is much reduced
1:01:05from the current zoning requirement it's only about 0.13 meters from the property line and our
1:01:16proposal would be to follow this setback and and our minor variance application would permit
1:01:23this reduced setback and would allow us to feasibly build the new units setting the proposed building
1:01:29back to the act to the requested zoning bylaw simply is not feasible due to the large slope at the
1:01:36rear which you can see on the site plan that slope puts a lot of earth and there's a lot of drainage
1:01:44and pressure that is being exerted on the existing house and to the point where the back of the garage
1:01:50is actually bowing bowing out it's a significant structural issue that we need to deal with and
1:01:57we would like to deal with this in a way that improves the quality of the surrounding neighborhood
1:02:03improves the safety and the character of the street and in my opinion that's that solution is to build
1:02:11the additional two units that we are demonstrating here if we were to try and move it back we would
1:02:18have to remove a significant amount of dirt of soil of rock and debris that's held back by the
1:02:27current retaining wall it would spill over onto the neighbor's property we would have to build a
1:02:32brand new retaining wall not just on our property but on the neighbor's property side which is
1:02:39financially not feasible and and the logistics are extremely difficult to do so so the the plan
1:02:48is just to reuse the existing footprint of the garage keep that in line with the existing house
1:02:55and and you can see as the pros excuse me the proposal shows it's it would have minimal impact
1:03:05on the street because we're not changing anything so that that's kind of the the proposal in a
1:03:12nutshell I believe that this will greatly improve the safety of the area there's no longer going to
1:03:18be a dilapidated garage where kids could again into where homeless people could want to camp out
1:03:26we will be putting up security cameras lighting and and the new staircase that will lead up to
1:03:33the second unit will be built to code with a proper landing in between to to bring the staircase
1:03:41back to meet that I think it was a three meter setback that was required would need we would need
1:03:47to shrink the stairs which would no longer meet code so these were the areas that we were hoping
1:03:54to get some relief on and I thank you for the time and consideration in the matter
1:04:00and I'm looking forward to your comments and questions thank you I appreciate the the overview
1:04:07for the site I'm going to ask at this point if our committee members have any questions for the
1:04:13applicant member Smith thank you through you madam chair to the applicant thank you for your
1:04:25presentation you've answered most of the questions that I had my question is will there be underpinning
1:04:33to this new addition to address some of the issues and will that impact the neighbor
1:04:42on plan left yes there will be some underpinning on the existing house because the foundation of
1:04:50the current garage ties in directly with the existing house so demolition has to be done
1:04:56pretty carefully to remove the garage we will install bracing to support that the existing
1:05:03house structure and then we will be pouring a new foundation wall right up against the structure to
1:05:10basically pin it into into place the existing retaining wall of the or the back wall of the
1:05:17garage which is acting like a retaining wall which is unreinforced and is caving in we're
1:05:22going to have to remove that carefully and truck out a lot of dirt and once we we will then build
1:05:29a new retaining wall properly reinforced pure concrete that will hold back our backfill and
1:05:37allow for better drainage we don't anticipate there to be too much of an encroachment on the
1:05:45neighbor we will need to sign an encroachment agreement to work back there but once we have
1:05:52our structural engineer take a closer look at the existing retaining wall on the neighbor side
1:05:57we'll then be able to decide how much of that wall will need to be removed and replaced and how
1:06:02much could be braced and and kept in place thank you very much I appreciate the information
1:06:09thank you for your question any other questions from committee members
1:06:16I do have one I'm not sure if it's for the applicant or staff but I there was mention of
1:06:22the storm water and with the site as you described it with the the slope at the back I could see how
1:06:28that would be a significant concern so I think it would be helpful to hear perhaps what if any new
1:06:37effort is going to be undertaken to manage storm water especially considering some of the changes
1:06:42you're intending to make with the foundations yeah so we will be removing a significant amount of
1:06:47dirt at the back and replacing it with clear fill which will permit for a better drainage
1:06:53that will get diverted to a catch basin that we will then tie into a city sewer services
1:07:00as a so that will relieve a lot of that hydrostatic pressure that's currently being pushed
1:07:06up against the back of the garage and against the existing house thank you I guess then perhaps
1:07:12redirecting over to city staff and just checking in with you folks to make sure that what has been
1:07:19described here is consistent and consistent with your expectations for a site like this
1:07:38through you chair grating and drainage are applicable law so it would be addressed at
1:07:43building permit stage we don't have a comment right now if what was described by the applicant
1:07:49is something that is permitted or admits on terry building code but it would certainly be reviewed
1:07:53at building permit stage that was probably a better question to have asked so yes thank you
1:07:59you have answered the right question I appreciate that just a follow-up question though for city
1:08:04staff on the metro links conditions that were identified I did note that they didn't make it
1:08:09into the recommended conditions from city staff could you folks comment on perhaps why
1:08:15those weren't necessary or required to the chair I can answer that question for you
1:08:23this is a bit of an unusual situation in that we're not the city isn't required to circulate
1:08:29metro links on minor variance applications only consent applications metro links did comment
1:08:36on this minor variance application which they're you know perfectly acceptable to do so
1:08:41and considering that staff thought it would be best to forward on those comments to the applicant
1:08:49and the committee members if the committee members feel that those metro links conditions
1:08:54should be included in the decision and make them conditions of approval the committee can certainly
1:08:59do so I think at staff we were trying to be cognizant of the fact that typically
1:09:05those comments aren't there it's not necessarily the applicant can still clear those conditions and
1:09:12work with metro links it's just having them as conditions would make them mandatory so
1:09:17this is an unusual situation and we're still working with metro links to get some more
1:09:22guidance about you know how they how permits and things like that work so we were giving
1:09:27some flexibility there but ultimately up to the committee if they want to include those
1:09:32conditions they certainly can thank you that's helpful clarification um
1:09:39I guess is there a question for city staff is there a logical point in the process where
1:09:45those conditions would be considered like perhaps at the building permit stage or at
1:09:51some other stage in the process to the chair I am not going to have a straight answer for you
1:09:58I think a lot of the concerns with the metro links are it's not a shall it's a may or might be
1:10:05required nothing's concrete I did reach out to our building plans examiner staff about how it's
1:10:16integrated in the process with building permit issuance and there is a building transit faster act
1:10:25which is applicable law under the building code and
1:10:32properties within the city of Toronto which are within 30 meters of metro links
1:10:41are required to get the metro links permits through the building permit submission
1:10:47100% the city of Guelph is outside of that area and it's the city cannot hold up the issuance of a
1:10:56permit without um sorry when we don't have those metro links permits and approvals like
1:11:05it's not applicable law for us to have them before we issue the permit so I I'm that's why
1:11:14that's why I'm not sure and their conditions or it might be required it might not contact us so
1:11:22really we leave it up to the applicant to contact metro links outside of the building
1:11:28permit process to see what they need thank you that answers the question I had so I appreciate
1:11:37that I appreciate all of the clarifications on that point all right that that was my questions
1:11:43for the applicant I'm just going to ask you to hold right there and see Madam Secretary
1:11:48Treasurer do we have delegations I can confirm we don't have any delegation requests online for this
1:11:55do we have anyone in chambers who would like to come forward and speak to this application
1:12:01okay seeing none then I think um at this point then I believe we can move forward and um
1:12:09ask the committee if they would like to make a motion on this application
1:12:20yes I'd be happy to make a motion I'd like to move that we accept this application with the uh
1:12:27the uh the conditions recommended by city staff thank you member spears do we have a
1:12:36seconder for that motion member membranio seconds thank you is there any discussion on the motion
1:12:50seeing none I think then Madam Secretary Treasurer we can move forward with a vote
1:12:56thank you chair committee members please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the
1:13:00motion which is to approve the application with the recommended conditions by staff chair good
1:13:06fellow in favor member membranio in favor member smith in favor and member spears in favor that's
1:13:14carried chair thank you to the applicant um you're free to leave chambers if you uh don't want to
1:13:21wait around for the rest of the meeting thank you very much appreciate it thank you all right um
1:13:29Madam Secretary treasurer if you could call the next application please the next applications are
1:13:39file b7 slash 25 to b9 slash 25 and files a dash 17 25 to a dash 20 slash 25 consent to create three
1:13:50new residential lots with one retained residential lot and related variances for proposed attached
1:13:56garage width and projection for severed and retained lots at 36 Ridgeway Avenue I'll note for
1:14:03those attending remotely if you wish to speak to this application you can call 519 822 1260
1:14:11extension 2524 and when you call in staff will give you instructions on how you can
1:14:17delegate remotely I'll also note that staff has a brief presentation for this file after the applicant
1:14:23provides their remarks thank you and that's a helpful reminder so the order will be the we will
1:14:30ask the applicant to present we'll ask city staff to present and then the members will have the
1:14:35opportunity to ask questions of both the applicant and city staff uh is the applicant present yes
1:14:43yes state your name for the record please yeah jeff buesman from van hartin survey thank you and
1:14:48was the sign posted as per the planning act requirements yes it was and have you read staff
1:14:53comments and are you in agreement yes I've read them and I'm in agreement with them okay great thank
1:14:58you you have 10 minutes to present to the committee thank you this application is on Ridgeway
1:15:08I'm sure the committee is aware of a similar application for the property to the right when
1:15:11you face it from the plan in that the this large property is to be divided into four
1:15:19lots of semi-dash units so and with the plan is to have semi-dash units with ADUs in the rear
1:15:29yard to give background this is an older older when these these lots were developed initially
1:15:37they were developed as septic beds and as a result they had quite large lots and uh
1:15:46now that there's been services the street for a long time so now the septic bed is not needed
1:15:51and so there's lots of room for these new lots as highlighted in city staff
1:16:01comments there's lots of comments in there of how this is in conformance with the official plan
1:16:08and in conformance with the city council bylaw in the direction to provide housing and that it is
1:16:16um it's a it's a solid infill development they've provided lots of comments about considering
1:16:24that whether it's compatible and in form also in the form of building form scale height and so on
1:16:32all the city comments are supportive of the application and um as you know on the other
1:16:38one to to the right uh it was denied initially here when the OLT was approved at OLT with a lot
1:16:46of review in terms of traffic and and planning justification and so forth uh the size of these
1:16:53lots are pretty well the same margin marginally shorter uh that they're 8.9 meters wide each lot
1:17:00the one next row was 9.1 meters wide for each lot um the minor variances that are requested
1:17:10are just simply again administrative ones to due to the new bylaw so i really don't think they
1:17:16deserve too much discussion um i i know and appreciate lots of comments and concerns from
1:17:23the neighborhood but i feel like they've been they are adequately addressed with the comments from
1:17:29city staff and i look forward to their presentation on on the application as well um i think i think
1:17:43that's really you know it meets the city's city's uh guidelines it meets the city's official plan
1:17:50meets the zoning bylaw and it's been if you will this almost similar developments have been confirmed
1:17:56by OLT okay thank you thank you for the comments um at this point i'm going to ask city staff if
1:18:04they would like to make a brief presentation thank you madam chair uh so the applicant is
1:18:13proposing to sever an existing single detached lot to facilitate the creation of four semi-detached
1:18:18residential lots each of the lots would have frontage onto ridgeway avenue staff's understanding
1:18:23is that each semi-detached unit would have one adu in the main structure and there would be one adu
1:18:29in the rear yard for a total of 12 units across four lots the proposed lots conform with all the
1:18:35zoning requirements of the 2023 zoning bylaw as approved by council back in 2023 however as a number
1:18:41of the provisions in the bylaw are still under appeal uh technical variances are necessary to
1:18:46facilitate the creation of the lots and to issue or start to address some of the issues or concerns
1:18:52that have been raised regarding this proposal the proposal the proposed development provides five
1:18:58legal parking spaces per lot whereas the zoning bylaw requirements only require two parking spaces
1:19:04per lot with the proposed number of adus additionally uh engineering staff have noted in their comments
1:19:11that the city's traffic impact study guidelines outlines six conditions that would warrant a
1:19:17traffic impact study if met and in the opinion of engineering staff the proposal does not meet
1:19:24any of these six conditions necessary to warrant a traffic impact study as such one was not recommended
1:19:32additionally there was in december of this past year a four units bylaw that was passed regarding
1:19:38adus and that permits a maximum of four units for single detached lots so that would not apply
1:19:46to these lots that would be created so they would have a maximum of three units per lot
1:19:51they couldn't add a fourth one later and it conforms with that with all the requirements of that updated
1:19:58bylaw then finally staff also noted that a similar proposal adjacent to this site at 34
1:20:05Ridgeway was approved by the Ontario Land Tribunal last year the proposal for that site
1:20:10has been able to satisfy engineering and environmental planning concerns about storm
1:20:15water management grading and drainage and water balance for this reason staff are confident that
1:20:21the applicant will be able to satisfy these requirements for this site which is right next door
1:20:25however if the applicant is unable to clear these conditions for whatever reason the severances would
1:20:31would not be able to be finalized if that's the case so that being said staff recommend approval
1:20:36of the application subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report thank you for
1:20:43those comments it's helpful to hear that clarification at this point i'm going to ask if committee
1:20:49members have questions for the applicant or for city staff member membrane you sorry through the
1:20:58share to the applicant i was wondering how many bedrooms are you intended to build on any adu
1:21:07i don't know the number of bedrooms but i do know the number of adu's as as eric had suggested
1:21:14one adu in each building and then an adu in the back thank you thank you any other questions
1:21:25member smith sorry chair i'm having trouble with my my mute um i do have a couple of questions
1:21:36up through you um first to the applicant um are these uh units going to be for sale
1:21:45are they going to be rentals um what's your understanding of the ultimate use they will be
1:21:51they will be rentals thank you and can you tell me if there will be um three or more
1:21:58persons who are unrelated who would um would be able to rent in these units i i can't tell you
1:22:06what the plan is for the rentals like who who would who i i'm not sure who would come forward
1:22:12and who who the rentals would be for i can't tell you that i don't know okay no just trying to be
1:22:20thorough um we have a lot through you through the chair to the applicant you can understand
1:22:28that there are a lot of um there's a lot of interest in this file so i want to be thorough
1:22:34but i do have some questions for staff chair if you may yes certainly um
1:22:42staff thank you for the presentation it was most helpful um i do want to ask about uh frontage
1:22:51if these were single family units and would allow for uh four units um is there a minimum
1:22:59frontage that would be required in that case uh through the chair to member smith if these were
1:23:06single detached lots they would have to have a minimum frontage of 15 meters 15 meters and uh my
1:23:16quick math tells me that that would mean um potentially the severance would only be allowed
1:23:24in order to accommodate four units um the severance would uh half would only allow for
1:23:31two single family elots is that correct uh through the chair that's correct yes and uh
1:23:41just a follow-up chair on that um that would mean a total of 14 units instead of 12 is that correct
1:23:53through the chair i i think that is incorrect if there were two single detached lots with
1:23:57four units permitted each that would be a total of eight units if they went that route
1:24:01i appreciate it thank you um my mistake i misspoke um if i may chair i do have a couple of
1:24:09follow-ups for staff um in that sort of circumstance uh the side yard setbacks would that be 1.2 meters
1:24:19through the chair is that are you talking about this potential single detached option
1:24:24yes correct uh if it was a single detached structure my understanding is the side yard
1:24:28setback would be 1.5 meters would be the minimum required whereas for this proposal for semi-detached
1:24:33dwellings the minimum is 1.2 meters okay thank you so it would be somewhat greater with that the case
1:24:43in the case of four units how many parking spaces would require my reading of the by-law is it would
1:24:51be three per lot am i am i getting that correct through the chair so the way that the new adu
1:25:00by-law works is the first adu on a property does not require a parking space so if you were to have
1:25:06a lot with a main dwelling and three adus for a total of four units you would only require
1:25:11three parking spaces for a proposal where you have one main dwelling and two adus for a total
1:25:16of three units you would only be required two parking spaces awesome thank you and remind me
1:25:23these are presently accepting or proposing for five parking spots per unit is that correct
1:25:33through the chair that is correct yes there would be one in the garage and four in the
1:25:38driveway of each lot so i guess that answers my my last question for staff is that um those uh
1:25:46those lots would uh those parking spots rather on the lots are in front of the main structure
1:25:56through the chair that is correct so our zoning by-law does require the first
1:26:00required parking space on each residential lot to be behind the front wall of the house whether
1:26:04that be along the side yard or in an attached garage in this case that required parking spaces
1:26:10in the attached garage and then all the subsequent parking spaces can be in front of the building as
1:26:14proposed okay thank you uh uh chair i do have one question i did forget yes certainly go ahead
1:26:24is there a requirement for a garage in either this proposal or
1:26:31the hypothetical that i was speaking about with four units so there is no zoning by-law requirement
1:26:39requiring a garage however as i as i stated the first parking space has to be behind the front
1:26:44wall so that if they didn't have a garage there would have to be either a carport
1:26:47or just a driveway along the side yard behind the front wall of the house to accommodate that parking
1:26:52space awesome i appreciate that thank you very much i believe that's my questions but i will have
1:26:58some comments as we go forward chair thank you member smith i appreciate your questions in fact
1:27:06actually they covered off a couple that i had of my own but i do have one more to add to the pile here
1:27:12um and it comes back to the traffic study that i believe was done for the adjacent property
1:27:19and it's not explicitly stated in here but i think it bears uh asking the question to city staff
1:27:25so that traffic study that was done for the adjacent property that covered off that development
1:27:31but now we are doubling it essentially and i just wanted to i guess hear from you that if there are
1:27:38any concerns with the fundamental assumptions that were used in that traffic study and whether
1:27:44you believe that that traffic study still holds true there was the um the results of that traffic
1:27:49study recommendations are still valid to you chair um just to be clear as far as i know i don't think
1:27:57staff had the study itself i think staff have the that may or may not be correct i wasn't on that
1:28:02file um to my knowledge the study was prepared for the ol t appeal but we do have the decision
1:28:08where it clearly identifies the evidence of both sides it clearly identifies the scope of the study
1:28:16it outlines the concerns that's very similar to the concerns that are being
1:28:20brought forth as potential concerns for this application and it identifies what the recommendations
1:28:26of the study were and that the ol t preferred the information of the study to other information
1:28:35presented i think from the ol t's decision outlining what the results of the study were
1:28:40and that they sided with the study it didn't appear to be that another development of the
1:28:47similar size was going to have any influence whatsoever on the results of that it appeared to be
1:28:53clearly stated that the capacity of the road was nowhere near um at capacity at this point
1:28:59so i wouldn't expect um further study to um find different results okay thank you that's exactly
1:29:07what i was asking was that you know because it's doubling we're now doubling the numbers that would
1:29:12have been evaluated as part of that study um so i think i just wanted to hear confirmation from
1:29:19city staff that there are no concerns with the doubling of that that the results and recommendations
1:29:26in your opinion would still hold and to you chair just to um clarify just additionally
1:29:34when it comes to development applications every development application is um evaluated against
1:29:40the requirements of the traffic impact study guidelines um there is options in the traffic
1:29:47impact study guidelines for what we would call a full traffic impact study uh or a reduced scope
1:29:53traffic study um provided that certain conditions are met and those are the conditions that we would
1:29:59typically see uh tangible recommendations come out of such a study um but just to confirm this
1:30:06assumption that doubling the amount that was already studied uh does not seem to likely result in any
1:30:14difference from the previous results um we've further evaluated weighted against this particular
1:30:20development against those tis guidelines and that confirms that a tis um is not an appropriate
1:30:25recommendation from staff's perspective thank you that's very helpful i appreciate the the additional
1:30:32detail there okay that was that was my comment and question i think then are there any other
1:30:37questions member spears yes through you madam chair to city staff again i i think a lot of the
1:30:43concern that i'm reading and understanding has to do to my mind with the fact that the the roadway
1:30:50has not been i don't want to say improve but they have it hasn't come up to the state where normally
1:30:56things are in the city with curbs and sewers so we're still with a not a narrow road but made
1:31:02seemingly more narrow by the fact that has ditches is there any plan on the city's part to improve
1:31:09that roadway and and the the ones in the neighborhood to make them you know what have storm sewers and
1:31:16and curbs uh through you chair to member spears um i'm looking at the multi-year budget i first of
1:31:24all i should actually clarify too just as far as the development um application goes and reviewing
1:31:30that we're reviewing it against the requirements of the zoning bylaw and the official plan and there
1:31:36is a provision for requirements for municipal services in the zoning bylaw which includes
1:31:42sanitary storm water and includes roads and um electric hydro lines as well but the zoning
1:31:50requirements are general in nature it describes these things as concepts that are required and i
1:31:55just want to confirm um that all of those things are present there is a municipal storm uh service
1:32:04there's a municipal water main there's a municipal sanitary main as well as roads and i presume i mean
1:32:10that this isn't a this is more of a high a gulf hydro or electro requirement but i'm as i'm assuming
1:32:16that they're all on electric uh power there um as far as the history like are you inquiring
1:32:24somewhat about the history of what we are or just are there future plans to do some sort of
1:32:31modification to it's more about future plans because my what i'm understanding is that a lot of the
1:32:37a lot of the pushback on this has to do with in fact the street and and uh if the street were
1:32:44more modern it'd be a it seems to me much less concerned um you know when they're talking about
1:32:50snow removal and and and pedestrian traffic and all that kind of thing a newer street would make a
1:32:56big difference and i'm i just want to understand for for now and for the future it should we expect
1:33:02the city to make those improvements uh through the chair to members Beers again um i want to be
1:33:09careful that i'm not getting outside of my area of expertise i can provide some general information
1:33:14um i'm looking at the multi-year budget that's publicly available um anybody can search for
1:33:20capital projects on there i would be remiss to try to speak eloquently to how capital projects
1:33:27arrive at being capital projects other than the fact that we have a lot of data collection master
1:33:34plans and collision reporting and probably hundreds of other things that are capital projects and when
1:33:43i look at the multi-year budget i do not see any project identified for road construction on either
1:33:48malvern ridgeway so to answer your question i don't i don't believe there's any at least in the
1:33:54short term multi-year budget timeline um any any project um planned for those types of improvements
1:34:02that you've just described it i would presume that to mean that they've been deemed not necessary at
1:34:07this point in time but again i i want to be careful not to speak outside of uh the context of this
1:34:13application and outside of my direct expertise i think that's fair and i'm i'm thanks for the
1:34:20clarification i think that may help everyone understand what the the greater situation is
1:34:27okay thank you member spears um and i think at this point unless there are yes member smith
1:34:34sorry chair i do have um one question for staff that i neglected um if i may uh through you to staff
1:34:44if this was um if we were looking at a townhouse proposal would that and
1:34:51require a zoning plan amendment or could it be built by right through the chair to member
1:35:00smith townhouses are permitted use in the rl one zone um depending on the configuration of the
1:35:06proposal a zone amendment may or may not be required but certainly would be possible to
1:35:10build townhouse-like developments without a zone amendment thank you on street townhouses i should
1:35:16clarify okay thank you member smith uh any other questions okay uh at this point i'm going to ask
1:35:30the applicant to step back for a moment we're going to see if we have delegations so madame
1:35:34secretary treasurer have we had any registered delegates um madame chamry i can confirm we do
1:35:42have one registered delegate the name is kathy kelly and that individual is here in person i believe
1:35:48wonderful if you could come forward to the podium please welcome to the committee can you state your
1:36:05name for the record my name is kathy kelly thank you um you have 10 minutes to address the committee
1:36:11and you will get a chime when you have 30 seconds remaining thank you good afternoon committee chair
1:36:18and um i'm going to start over good afternoon committee chair and committee members i would
1:36:25like to thank you again thank you for the work that you're doing in your positions in our community
1:36:30and for listening to me and to others as we present information and concerns both in our letters
1:36:35submitted and in person here today regarding proposed changes that are negatively impacting
1:36:40the properties surrounding our homes and in our neighborhoods here in guelph it was only nine months
1:36:45ago we stood here to ask you our request to deny the application for another exact development in
1:36:51our ridgeway melbourne oakridge neighborhood at 34 ridgeway and you agreed the intensification was
1:36:56unreasonable and came back with many concerns therefore you denied the application we are asking
1:37:03you to deny this application today as well if nine months ago 40 bedrooms on one lot for what is
1:37:10essentially rooming houses was too much then most certainly allowing allowing a second development
1:37:16with the same design right beside it which should be considered absurd sadly the developer of 34
1:37:22ridgeway went further after you turned down the application and olt granted them permission to
1:37:27develop but this development this one right here at 36 ridgeway can be stopped you have the authority
1:37:35to listen to us the existing citizens who are being forced into giving up a safe street to be
1:37:40overtaken by traffic from what could be 80 tenants cars delivery trucks and noise as a reminder as to
1:37:48why my husband and i moved to ridgeway just under six years ago and that was to renovate our forever
1:37:54home we moved from another favorable neighborhood in guelph out of a larger two-story home into a
1:37:59bungalow on a decent-sized lot in a quiet neighborhood close to amenities we modified our home so that
1:38:06we could live there for many many years such as many of our neighbors have including our almost
1:38:1190 year-old neighbor look my head would be in the sand if i did not see and admit the huge housing
1:38:17crisis in our city and all around our province and country there is a shortage of safe and warm
1:38:23places to call home not only for the obvious homeless but for lower and middle-class citizens who are
1:38:29one foot in and one foot out of being homeless themselves and this housing situation does not
1:38:35exclude the lack of beds for seniors and students i get it so while we recognize the lack of housing
1:38:41on many levels and the crisis it's created it is most concerning that neighborhoods like ours
1:38:46are being over intensified with units that is mainly geared towards students ridgeway avenue is
1:38:53not the street for developers to cram in as many units as possible with as many bedrooms as they
1:38:58can fit to charge over inflated rates to students it was it was not gentle density in our last
1:39:04objection for 34 ridgeway and most definitely is not gentle in any way shape or form now for lot 36
1:39:12while building units with lots of bedrooms provides what you may as well call walk-in closets for
1:39:16students bed it is most definitely not the answer to our housing crisis bylaw does not permit
1:39:22rooming houses and this is exactly what's happening rooms at 34 ridgeway are already be marketed to
1:39:28students online at a whopping $1100 per room they're renting it per room and the ad use at the back
1:39:36they're actually putting it at 3,300 but essentially is you know the same price if you allow the
1:39:42severance of this property at 36 for the current applicant it could potentially double when is it
1:39:49going to stop this is not acceptable just a few days ago a truck pulling the trailer for the equipment
1:39:55to rip out 50 year old trees clipped my recycled bin at the end of my driveway and knocked it over
1:40:02when there's 24 more bins lying up then on collection day it could get worse the driver
1:40:07did slow down and take a look to make sure it wasn't a body but it could have been I do we do not have
1:40:13street the space on our street for two-way traffic pedestrians and the traffic of 80 tenants and their
1:40:20cars that is going to be created from uber's u-hauls amazon's friends and residents themselves
1:40:27someone is going to get hurt yet worse killed and if it's my grandchild who darts out at the end of
1:40:32my driveway because there's no sidewalk separating them from them in the traffic who is going to
1:40:37take responsibility regarding development criteria for multi-unit residential buildings and
1:40:43intensification proposals section 93114 of guals official plan states vehicular traffic
1:40:50generated from the proposed development will not have an unacceptable impact on the planned
1:40:55function of the adjacent roads and intersections if richway isn't impacted enough what about the
1:41:02exit onto arco road it is very dangerous at the melbourne intersection and is a big concern for
1:41:07casualties in addition according to guals 2017 to 2021 collision report the intersection at
1:41:14arco road and gordon street places third out of the top 10 most dangerous intersections in gual
1:41:19resulting in 17 injuries and 18 percent of those being major fatal adding vehicular traffic to
1:41:25this intersection will intensify the fatalities fatalities whether it is in by vehicle motors
1:41:32by bicycle or by foot so adjacent roads and intersections will be largely and negatively
1:41:38impacted as well as our own little street again this type of intense intensified development
1:41:44to create units fast is not a solution for an affordable housing it raises more concerns besides
1:41:50safety that i just mentioned for example what about parking section 9.3.1.1.5 of the guals
1:41:58official plan states vehicular access parking and circulation can be adequately provided and
1:42:04impacts mitigated this mandate can't be met we have no parking on our street for a reason due to
1:42:11the size of the road and the ditches without sidewalks causing safety concerns for pedestrians
1:42:15as well as the lack of space for emergency vehicles to pass there is no parking restriction on both
1:42:21sides it is unrealistic to assume most of these 40 new tenants will be walking or taking bikes and
1:42:26there will not be enough parking on their property i understand that they're suggesting five spots per
1:42:33unit for 20 and total but add blue bins and storage well we're going to reduce that aren't we because
1:42:39that's the garage taken over right there for all of those so now we're down to 16 spots for 40 people
1:42:45where is everyone going to park i'll tell you they will line up along oak ridge right behind us in
1:42:51a fair walk around or in other overpopulated neighborhoods in available parking for along
1:42:58with the overflow from lot 34 because that's how it's marketed in the rental ads available parking
1:43:04for those who do walk or cycle the intersection mentioned above will indeed be added on the
1:43:09route they're going to be going that way to go to uni university our concerns are legitimate and real
1:43:15we don't just get up here and waste time and yours to complain reachway avenue already has density
1:43:21in ways that is not gentle and acceptable but it's encouraged there is a group home there are homes
1:43:27with additions for multi-generational living we have some homes with additions and others with
1:43:32basement apartments there's one property with a tiny home all of these currently exist and fit well
1:43:38into our neighborhood design without creating unnecessary strain on infrastructure and safety
1:43:42concerns i'd also like to mention the trees that will most certainly see their end of life
1:43:4816 trees were cut down and ripped out of lot 34 even prematurely before the permit was issued i might
1:43:54add what happened with protecting trees who cares let's just flatten everything and pay a small
1:44:00fee to shove a few sticks in the ground someplace else in the city just as compensation who really
1:44:05cares about the stormwater management issues due to the loss of so much green space and the habitat
1:44:10for birds and land species or the loss of shade trees for humans as well as the earth itself
1:44:15and let's just rip out and destroy any privacy for the folks living behind on oakridge doesn't
1:44:21matter they've lived there for years and years let's just keep bulldozing and keep going down the
1:44:25street it has to stop when you make your decision about allowing the severance of 36th Ridgeway
1:44:31for the proposed development please consider how the existing families community and neighborhood
1:44:37will be affected and consider if this type of development can be deemed combat compatible
1:44:43with the existing neighborhood according to section 9.3 objective f of guals official plan
1:44:50as you see Ridgeway Avenue is not suitable for these intensified developments while i agree with
1:44:55the city and fully support the concept of gentle intensification there are many issues with the
1:45:01proposed application there that are not consistent with our neighborhood they do not meet the official
1:45:06plan on many levels and fall short when it comes to pervert preserving green space and
1:45:11maintaining safety for everyone for these reasons and many others please do not grant permission
1:45:16for the severance of 36th Ridgeway as it is proposed you have the power to do what makes sense thank you
1:45:24thank you for your comments um i appreciate the time that it must have taken to put those together
1:45:29and i appreciate your time come before us today i want to check and see if members of the committee
1:45:34have any questions for this delegate member smith thank you madam chair to the delegate
1:45:42i i do appreciate your concerns and i share a lot of them i wonder if you are i'm sure you are but
1:45:51i want to ask the question if you're aware of the ontario land tribunal decision just a couple
1:45:59months ago of that decision it was turned down here first yes it um through the chair uh the
1:46:14decision of our committee was to reject the application for 34 but it went to the ontario
1:46:21land tribunal and the ontario land tribunal has has ruled in favor of the applicant i wonder if
1:46:28you were aware of that yes and if you and if you've had a chance to read the their finding
1:46:35yes i i understand that they they agreed for the development as i as i mentioned in my comments
1:46:42this is doubling that thank you those are my questions chair okay thank you member smith
1:46:51any other questions for this delegate okay seeing none um thank you again for your time
1:46:57and um appreciate your your time today uh madam secretary treasurer do we have another
1:47:03registered delegate okay then i'm going to ask if we have anyone else in the gallery here today
1:47:09who'd like to come forward and make comments yes please come forward hi welcome um can you
1:47:28please state your name my name is shabouh do you okay thank you um and you have 10 minutes to address
1:47:34the committee please go ahead all right thank you chair and committee um so i just have some
1:47:40comments i think uh and concerns about the development 34 or and 36 richway first of all
1:47:47really you know a little disappointed the developer did not involve the community at all
1:47:52sorry the community at all in terms of development we were not approached um you know if if we're
1:47:58you know evaluating based on the best for the community i was hoping that we would have had
1:48:02conversations before coming before you um the other thing i think the committee had concerns
1:48:09about was the safety i was present on both days for the olathe hearing these traffic study that
1:48:15was done was based on the existing traffic and pedestrian that's currently in the neighborhood
1:48:23obviously this new development at 36 were not having accounted for at the time this would
1:48:30potentially mean like if there's five cars five parking spots for each one we're talking about
1:48:36like 40 vehicles across the eight new uh properties and the 34 richway one had i think
1:48:45proposal for 40 bedrooms so if we're assuming you know this new rental will also maximize
1:48:52profit it will also have similar amount of bedrooms and that's we're talking about extra 100
1:48:57pedestrians if they're all students or you know 40 cars on the on the street and it's really a
1:49:04questionable that we're not required to further study traffic on the street because of its development
1:49:11and i think that goes to my next point which was the olathe decision the developer had to prepare
1:49:19for drainage study traffic study and environmental studies and that forced them to
1:49:25actually show us their plans and show us what was actually being built and also
1:49:31sort of commit to drainage i think they had to put a few drainage ditches on the on the street
1:49:36and and also address drainage and safety concerns which i think i don't see this from the proposal
1:49:44at all for this 36 richway you know and you know my final comment would be just around affordability
1:49:54these are being built as investment properties for the rental price that they're going for
1:50:01just looking at 34 richway it's not even built yet they're not affordable they're not addressing any
1:50:08of the sort of crisis that's happening right now in the city they're just really a investment
1:50:13opportunity thank you thank you for your comments i'm just going to ask you to hold there and
1:50:20check and see if any of our committee members have questions for you could it be committee members
1:50:25any questions uh member smith go ahead please thank you madam chair i'll ask this uh delegate
1:50:32the same question i asked the first one um it sounds like you were at the olt hearing but
1:50:39i want to ask you for the record um were you aware and have you read the ruling from the
1:50:45anterior land truck you know yes i am aware and um i think to my point was that it forced the
1:50:52developer to do more due diligence to make sure the development is um at least two olt standards
1:50:58that they can approve it right now i didn't see that from this application thank you i i do have a
1:51:04follow-up madam chair um do you live on richway or um i live right across from the development
1:51:11um i had the opportunity um in february to drive in the neighborhood uh just coincidentally and
1:51:24from my perspective the snow was pretty outrageous on a lot of streets would you
1:51:29like to comment on the snow on richway if you have an opinion yeah definitely so i think we
1:51:35all experienced the snowfall this winter um on our street really it was one-way traffic
1:51:41you really couldn't um like the snow banks were high and i think the plows only go through it
1:51:49it feels like it's just one direction honestly um so yeah it gets really bad in the winter time
1:51:55and especially if you have to adding in a hundred more pedestrians potentially that's gonna that
1:52:01should be a safety concern thank you madam chair those are my questions thank you member smith
1:52:11any other questions for this delegate no okay seeing none thank you so much again for your time
1:52:17i appreciate your thoughts uh anyone else in the chamber who would like to come forward and
1:52:23have comments on this application final call okay and just to check do we have anyone online
1:52:33madame secretary treasurer no okay then i think that is uh it for the comments from the public
1:52:40could the applicant come back up to the podium and would he like to add any further comments
1:52:55thank you chair uh i appreciate eric's report he highlighted some things i had meant to mention
1:53:00that i forgot but one thing i'd like to mention though is too that the lots are 8.9 meters wide
1:53:06minimum is 7.5 for this type of zoning so they're they're fairly large in terms of at least that
1:53:12respect and that they're 500 square meters that is uh 500 square meters to the context if it was a
1:53:18single family dwelling at a 15 meters wide the minimum is 460 square meters so here we have these
1:53:24lots are big it's 500 square meters each is quite a bit i also checked with um the developer of the
1:53:32property to the to the side all the engineering and all that has been approved and and it's all
1:53:37set to go uh the engineer is going to be from our office for this new site and i checked with her
1:53:43today and she says looks good for having all the uh that the site all the requirements can be met
1:53:49and uh as uh mentioned um by staff the conditions address all the engineering and the design
1:53:57requirements that need to be met and all of them have to be met for the for the severance to
1:54:02proceed that's what i wanted to mention thanks okay thank you for that um i think then staff would
1:54:14you like to add anything final and then perhaps we can see if the committee members have any final
1:54:19questions for either group uh to you chair i could add something to that um i just want to
1:54:26make a distinction between some of the issues that are being brought up and the development
1:54:31application uh and what i mean by that for example is like the question of snow removal
1:54:37we do have separate processes for providing city services of all sorts that are are separate by
1:54:44nature from a development application and if there are concerns with any particular process
1:54:51there will surely be some sort of a process identified on a city website on how that can
1:54:56be addressed through the appropriate process like for example i'm just using snow removal as an example
1:55:03similarly to some of the concerns i've heard about um for example no sidewalk we do have programs in
1:55:09place like in this case we have the sidewalk needs assessment which is essentially like a master plan
1:55:15that evaluates um and identifies all missing linkages of sidewalk around the city um so i just
1:55:23to tie this back to the zoning requirements at this stage to have the municipal services which
1:55:27includes a road but the specifics of those services um are are sort of captured by other separate
1:55:35processes um so just especially in in um consideration for the sidewalk concerns i just wanted to
1:55:44identify that ridgeway and malvern being um streets that don't have sidewalk much like other streets
1:55:52that don't have sidewalks that program has evaluated uh sort of a scoring system on on what of a
1:55:58priority level it will be for infilling sidewalks it it's just that it ranks both of those streets
1:56:03rank at a priority level that is below the level that the city is focusing on as far as infilling
1:56:08sidewalks currently um but i just want to i just want to tie this back to the fact that a lot of
1:56:13these concerns can be addressed through separate processes thank you to city staff that's actually
1:56:21addressed as some of the comments or questions i was going to have so thank you for that
1:56:26i think at this point then unless there are any other comments from the applicant or city staff
1:56:30or we should turn it over to the members and see if anyone has questions for either of these
1:56:36two groups at this point okay seeing none um i think then we are at the point where we will go
1:56:49and ask committee members for a motion um i will make a motion um it because i if for no other
1:57:05reason i will make a motion so that we can have a conversation and we can discuss this so we need
1:57:10a basis for the discussion so i i will move that we accept this application with the conditions
1:57:16recommended by city staff thank you member spears do we have a seconder for that motion
1:57:26member membranio thank you okay then this sets up a discussion and so thank you member spears
1:57:32for recognizing that that was a necessary um step along the way so members of the committee
1:57:39are there any comments or anything you'd like to add or discuss before we move to vote
1:57:48member spears yeah i would just i would like to uh so sort of support my own motion and i think that
1:57:54the the last comments we had from city staff from engineering i i think were incredibly valuable
1:58:00because it it points out for me that this is is a process that will take time and and it it can't
1:58:08happen all at the same time and we're the city is not going to build services where there is no
1:58:14obvious and evident need and the need will be created by this development so i i don't think
1:58:20you can realistically do one before the other so i i'm in favor of the proposal and i do think that
1:58:29when the density increases the city will respond and and and do the necessary work
1:58:34to address safety and traffic and and i don't know about parking but certainly safety pedestrian
1:58:39wise and traffic wise i just think that's the the route that we have to go and and it's realistic
1:58:45for the city to go that way thank you member spears for those comments uh any other members
1:58:53would like to make a comment member smith uh thank you chair um i might be a little long
1:59:02winded in my in my comments on this um uh first of all i'd like to say uh to the many people who have
1:59:12um have written uh to the committee with their concerns about this application um i have a lot of
1:59:23sympathy and agree with a lot of what you've said i did not support the application at 34
1:59:31Ridgeway and i'm having trouble um uh supporting this uh as well the OLT decision not withstanding
1:59:41and i was especially moved by um i think it was Helen Danilic uh who wrote that uh
1:59:51they had to pay uh in 1988 $8,000 in order to connect to the city services
2:00:00the development was part of of the county and was absorbed into the city and in 88 they had to pay
2:00:13in order to do that um and it's understandable that somebody who's lived there that long
2:00:20would have difficulty accepting these kinds of changes especially in light of the decision
2:00:29at 34 Ridgeway um in terms of the OLT decision
2:00:39and the recommendations of professional staff i'm having trouble agreeing with both the decision on 34
2:00:50presented uh that was uh that came out of the OLT and i'm i'm also having difficulty agreeing with
2:00:59staff's recommendation i i i don't believe that the appearance um is that of a detached dwelling
2:01:09it has more of the feel of either a townhouse complex or um or some other kind of development it
2:01:17doesn't in my estimation doesn't fit with the uh with the character of the neighborhood
2:01:24um this week the CMHC published their their plan book for gentle densification intensification
2:01:38and um i don't believe that any of these design this design would fit with any of
2:01:45what the CMHC has recommended um i i've just it's going to change the nature of as been put
2:01:54forward by a number of the um the the people who have responded to this application it's going
2:02:02to change the neighborhood fundamentally and i i do recommend recognize that the provincial
2:02:09policy statement both the 2020 and the 2024 provincial policy statement um is is is encouraging
2:02:20developers to meet the challenge of housing and i i commend the developer for doing just that
2:02:28because in Ontario we have um we haven't met our our goals and um and this developer is uh one of
2:02:37one of them that is coming forward however i i'm i'm having trouble supporting this um
2:02:44based on the fact that it is fundamentally going to change the neighborhood especially when taken
2:02:50in tandem with the other development next door and so um i guess that's a long-winded way of saying
2:02:58that um i'm i'm not sure that i can support this uh this application thank you member smith
2:03:09any other comments or thoughts uh i think i will add my own at this point i am also challenged
2:03:17with this one i wasn't able to attend the meeting where the other application was decided
2:03:26so this is my first time uh considering uh Ridgeway Avenue and um everything that is
2:03:34planned for this neighborhood i was i had some real hesitations and concerns but like member
2:03:41Spears i think the notes from city staff were helpful to recognize that there are some other
2:03:48processes in place in the city that will allow this neighborhood to gain access to additional
2:03:53utilities and services that will address some of these concerns potentially uh longer than
2:04:00everyone would like but you know that we do have these play these processes in place um
2:04:06so i think the other thing that is weighing very much on my decision is the OLT decision
2:04:12and um the recommendations and um the the the way that they have evaluated this application
2:04:20the or sorry the application at 34 Ridgeway um i think that was very clear um and so
2:04:28they have come back and directed that this should be
2:04:32approval these kinds of applications should be approval in our city so um i think i walked
2:04:39into this meeting today with a different decision in my head but i will be supporting
2:04:43the application today so thank you very much for everyone's time as we've uh discussed this one
2:04:49oh sorry member Smith please go ahead uh i appreciate your comments chair and um i have
2:04:58considered the OLT decision um quite seriously this isn't a slip-and-decision on my part but um
2:05:06just to your point about the decision with 34 um
2:05:12each and i think staff spoke to this in their presentation that every application is an individual
2:05:20and we can't just cut and paste um a decision from one to the other and i'm just going to say that
2:05:30i believe if we take the approval of 34 in tandem with the with a potential approval of 36 that um
2:05:41it's going to fundamentally i've said this already it's going to fundamentally change the neighborhood
2:05:49yes thank you member Smith that's a that's an addition that's a good additional point
2:05:53i think to the some of the comments that i have made or have been considering
2:05:58i think the one of the concerns i've certainly had is that it's although we need to look at these
2:06:06individually um there are also cumulative effects that are starting to um kind of impact these
2:06:16neighborhoods and so trying to understand i think from city staff's perspective whether we
2:06:22have tipped over past a point i think that that that helped me kind of get more comfortable with
2:06:29this application certainly around traffic and some of these other studies but uh i do hear your
2:06:36point in respect that um you know that these do need to be evaluated on their own merits as well
2:06:43um so yes thank you for those additional clarifications and i guess those are the comments
2:06:48i would add to that whether they are helpful or not all right any further questions or comments
2:07:02okay i think at this point then i think we are ready to uh have the vote madame secretary treasurer
2:07:11committee members please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion
2:07:15which is to approve the applications with the recommended conditions chair goodfellow in favor
2:07:23member membranio in favor member smith opposed and member spears in favor that's carried chair
2:07:34thank you madame secretary treasurer and to the applicant you are free to leave the meeting
2:07:39thank you all right um at this point we are going to take a short recess um stretch our legs
2:08:11and uh i think about 20 minutes and we will intend to be back so i think that is at about
2:08:1725 after a little maybe a little even closer to half past so we'll thank everyone for this time
2:08:24and then we will be back with you in about 20 minutes thanks okay we're going to resume our
2:31:23meeting um thank you for your patience while we we took a short break um so at this point
2:31:30i'm going to ask the secretary treasurer to call the next application please the next file is file
2:31:37a dash 21 slash 25 variance to permit reduced side yard setback for proposed landing and exterior
2:31:43stairs at 86 cooling crescent for those attending remotely if you wish to speak to this application
2:31:49you can do so by calling the number displayed on the screen that number is 519 822 1260
2:31:56extension 2524 and when you call in staff will give you instructions on how you can delegate
2:32:01remotely thank you is the applicant present uh good afternoon everyone my name is okay thank you
2:32:11and can you repeat your name for the record please uh my name is phasila shake okay thank you and
2:32:19was the sign posted as per the planning act requirements yes thank you and uh did you have
2:32:26have a chance to review staff comments and are you in agreement uh yes yes okay great you have 10
2:32:33minutes to present to the committee so you can use as much of or as little of that time as you'd
2:32:39like so please go ahead uh yeah sure so we are planning to construct a basement like a additional
2:32:45dwelling unit to help ease of financial strains while also contributing housing supply and golf
2:32:52and we also submit the permit and we also want to install a side entrance with exterior landing
2:32:59this is a purpose of minor variance application uh it is for ease of access and it is like an
2:33:06additional privacy between owner and future tenant and we are also following building core
2:33:12requirements uh the size of landing cannot be reduced further so there's a reason we are seeking a
2:33:190.5 m setback when zoning by law requires a 0.6 setback and landing being constructed on
2:33:28concrete deck blocks to ensure property drainage is maintained okay thank you um i've you can just
2:33:39hold a second i will check and see if any of the committee members have questions for this applicant
2:33:44uh member smith thank you madam chair i have a question for staff if that's appropriate
2:33:55i see the applicant is using um deck supports for this
2:34:03proposal or is proposing to use deck supports for this proposal concrete deck supports um
2:34:09would this be um acceptable under the obc through the chair to member smith or um i do not have that
2:34:23information it would be reviewed at the building permit stage and if changes were required they
2:34:29would be made okay thank you thank you member smith um i also have a question um i will start with
2:34:41city staff so occasionally we see uh recommended conditions in your comments um that the development
2:34:50needs to be consistent with the the sketch that was provided i didn't see that one here is there
2:34:56can you comment on why or why not we had that something like that wasn't included here um and
2:35:03whether or not that might be appropriate to add uh is the question to me uh no sorry that this is a
2:35:17question to city staff okay sorry to the chair um we do usually include that condition for other
2:35:27applications that are much more complex and the scale is a larger for what the proposing given this
2:35:32is a relatively small porch uh 1.2 meters in length and the variance itself is only for 10 centimeters
2:35:39uh we felt it wasn't necessary in this instance thank you that clarification is helpful and and
2:35:47perhaps i will just then connect it to uh the prior clarification from um miss patser that this
2:35:55is going to be limited by ontario building code requirements anyway is that am i understanding
2:36:03that correctly yes to the chair i think that's correct what you're getting at um
2:36:18the variance would be for 0.5 meters they would need to meet that including any changes needed if
2:36:26if um what's proposed isn't or needs to be tweaked to meet code okay thank you for that
2:36:37clarification i think i'm good then um are there any other questions then from members of the committee
2:36:46no okay uh madame secretary treasurer do we have any delegations for this application
2:36:53chair i can confirm no delegation requests okay great um i think then at this point we can
2:37:01oh sorry yes are there any is there anyone in the audience who would like to come forward and
2:37:07make comments to this application no okay seeing none i think we can move forward then
2:37:14and ask the committee members if they would like to make a motion
2:37:19member membranio yes i move to approve this application as recommended by city staff
2:37:27thank you is there a seconder member smith okay any comments or discussion on the motion
2:37:37nope uh madame secretary treasurer then can you call the vote please
2:37:42committee members excuse me please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to
2:37:47motion which is to approve the application chair good fellow in favor member membranio
2:37:54in favor member smith in favor and member spears in favor let's carry chair thank you
2:38:02so to the applicant thank you very much for your time today and you're free free to leave the meeting
2:38:11okay then i think we are moving on to our next application madame secretary treasurer
2:38:19the next application is file b-10 slash 25 consent to create servicing easement for sanitary and
2:38:25water laterals in favor of 45 paisley street at 39 paisley street i'll note for those attending
2:38:32remotely if you wish to speak to this application you can do so by calling the number displayed on
2:38:36the screen that number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524 thank you and i will also note that member
2:38:46spears has stepped out of the meeting to reflect his pecuniary interest in this matter uh is the
2:38:52applicant present yes please come forward and can you state your name jeff buesman van harten survey
2:38:59and can you uh let us know if the sign was posted per the planning act requirements yes it was
2:39:05and i have you reviewed staff comments and do you have are you in agreement i have reviewed them
2:39:10and i am in agreement okay wonderful you have 10 minutes to uh provide an overview
2:39:19the situation is the house on the left there 45 paisley has service laterals that's water and
2:39:28sanitary going through 39 paisley nobody knew that it existed for over 100 years until mr spears
2:39:39identified that a fence was to be constructed along the one line when the fence was constructed
2:39:45the post hit one of the services and caused a problem so it's been much grief and frustration
2:39:53for everybody involved uh arrangers have been met to fix it and fix it uh and everybody's
2:40:00satisfied with the arrangements for fixing it the city city has asked that an easement be formalized
2:40:08for recognizing this in the future for everyone's protection and interest so it's
2:40:14we're asking for a formal easement for these services to go through 39 paisley for the benefit of 45
2:40:23paisley thank you nice and short um i'll get you to hang out right there for a second and see if
2:40:34any of the other committee members have questions no okay um then i will uh check and see if we have
2:40:44any delegations madame cherry confirm no delegation requests have been received okay is there anyone
2:40:52here in the audience who would like to come forward and have comments on this application
2:40:59no okay that's great then i think at this point we can move forward and ask the committee members
2:41:05if they'd like to make a motion member smith please go ahead madam chair i would like to
2:41:11move that we accept this application with staff recommendations is there a seconder
2:41:19member membranio that's great any discussion on the motion nope seeing none all right uh
2:41:28madame secretary treasurer if you could call the vote please committee members please indicate your
2:41:33vote on the motion which is to approve the application with the recommended conditions
2:41:38chair goodfellow in favor member membranio in favor and member smith in favor that's carried chair
2:41:48great thank you to the applicant i don't think you get to leave yet but you could if you wish
2:41:53thank you i'm up next i'll stick around okay thank you yes actually so uh we're going to
2:42:02do the fee refund for 39 paisley right now so then that will kind of clear out that file
2:42:11and we can let member spears back into the into the meeting so madame secretary treasurer if you
2:42:17could set this up for that discussion please thank you chair um so this is an application fee refund
2:42:24requests related to the consent application for 39 paisley street which the committee just heard
2:42:30the applicant has submitted correspondence requesting the committee refund the application fee
2:42:36staff comments regarding this refund request have been provided and staff is recommending
2:42:40refusal of the refund request as outlined in the report i believe the agent is in attendance
2:42:46should the committee members have any questions um do you does the applicant want to address this
2:42:57request sure i'd love to okay please go ahead um as as you got a picture this has been a bit of a
2:43:03nightmare and and a lot of frustration um i guess and and uh the recommendation was not to approve
2:43:12the refund usually because a refund is on the idea that maybe city staff made a mistake
2:43:19city staff did not make a mistake in the processing of this file um but the owners didn't make a
2:43:26mistake either you know whose mistake was it to not register an easement to have this identified
2:43:32can't really say um uh this happens more often that there are private services crossing another
2:43:39property i know that um i guess uh my client chris has been talking with some city staff from
2:43:48about this and you know the one comment from uh jane
2:43:55jane holmes was you know although we do not you know we have services we have services in
2:44:02private property throughout the city this came about through no fault of the applicant who is
2:44:07now burdened with the cost to rectify um and i think that's a valid comment and and um there's
2:44:14been a lot of grief on this one and the application fees i appreciate uh you need to cover costs but
2:44:21i think in this case it wasn't there was some processing but not a lot of processing so i
2:44:27asked for a minimum significant reduction or waiving of the fees okay thank you for those comments
2:44:39yes i guess do we have uh madame secretary treasurer do we open the floor for committee members to
2:44:46ask questions or do we go straight into a motion okay yes so committee members do we have questions
2:44:51for the applicant no okay seeing none then i do think we can move into um emotion and so i will ask
2:45:02committee members what would they like to do here member smith um sorry sorry i had a bit of a tickle
2:45:20in my throat um i would like to move that we um we accept the application or fee i from what the
2:45:30applicant has said this has been in a condition for over a hundred years and um i i will i recognize
2:45:39that staff time has been involved through no fault of their own and it it sounds like there's been
2:45:47a lot of expense uh so far i think uh it's only fair that we accept this application for fee
2:46:02sorry i had a tickle in my throat again uh i that we i'm moving that we accept the application for
2:46:11fee um refund before we move to a seconder can i just ask for clarification is it a
2:46:23motion for a full refund or a partial refund just to make sure we're nice and clear here
2:46:30full refund okay thank you is there a seconder for this motion member membrane yeah all right
2:46:41so then i think we can pass this with a show of hands so uh i guess if we could show hands if we
2:46:48are in favor of the motion that has been presented by member smith great that passes thank you very
2:46:58much yes thank you hey um madam secretary treasurer if we could call the next applicant please
2:47:24okay yes so we are just pausing here for a moment while we um ask member spears to come back into
2:47:30chambers so the next applications are files b-11 25 b-12 25 a 22 25 and a a 23 slash 25 and a 24
2:48:27slash 25 consent to create two new residential lots with one retained residential lot and multiple
2:48:33related variances for proposed severed and retained lots at 150 elma street north i'll note for
2:48:39those attending remotely if you wish to speak to this application you can call in by calling the
2:48:43number displayed on the screen that numbers 5198221260 extension 2524 great and it looks like the
2:48:53applicant is already here and can you state your name again for that jeff buesman at van harten
2:48:57surveying thank you and was the sign posted per the planning act yes it was and uh have you received
2:49:04staff comments and are you in agreement i've received the comments and i'm in agreement with them
2:49:09okay wonderful you have 10 minutes thank you chair and committee uh this this property is uh well
2:49:16unique it's on three streets uh elmester the house currently fronts on elma street has a side
2:49:22street suffix shrug and then gulf street to give context if you haven't been there yet um it uh
2:49:29suffix street rises significantly if it goes from elma to gulf uh street and um that makes a factor
2:49:38in how we laid out these lots it wasn't too practical to well we're we're really this is the way to
2:49:45lay out these lots and basically creating two new lots the one in the middle needs a variance for
2:49:53area uh 419 square meters instead of 460 um we felt this was the most practical layout
2:50:04in terms of having decent sized homes understanding the utilities as well you can see
2:50:10we have a lot of lines drawn on that sketch the biggest factor in in this is the location of the
2:50:16sanitary sewer and because of that big hill there's a man the end of the sanitary line is kind of
2:50:24in the middle of the road there and we need to have a sanitary lateral that goes a bit on a diagonal
2:50:31to connect to that we feel that in preliminary discussions with city staff we feel it's pretty
2:50:38close to the general idea of having perpendicular to the services in the street so the idea would be
2:50:44to not extend that sanitary service because that's a fairly significant uh cost and process as well
2:50:52the retained house uh the definition of frontage changes so that um because there's a corner lot
2:51:03the street side with the shortest distance in this case it will now be Suffolk Street with 19.4
2:51:09meters that will be the front um and that is right now five meters uh so that will have to be the
2:51:19variance there for that um for that front yard setback the hey oh yes the other variance is
2:51:32because the other lot a variance a uh the property uh technically by zoning bylaw fronts on the
2:51:41church street but the house will be oriented towards Suffolk Street but because the frontage is on
2:51:47Gwell Street the rear yard where you see the big a that's supposed to be seven and a half meters
2:51:53so instead uh there's uh we're asking for one and a half because of the orientation of a quarter
2:51:59lot these quarter lots are always challenging but we're asking we're having a if you will a
2:52:06functional rear yard of six meters which meet would meet the zoning bylaw definition of 20
2:52:12percent of the lot depth so in a way it's very it's a very practical way of setting up this this
2:52:19severance um i feel like it's a great use of this this parcel um and uh the other comment
2:52:29i'd like to make though in the staff's comments is they're suggesting a need for a noise study
2:52:35i'm going to challenge that a little bit because well the comment is that um i read the word here
2:52:46appears to be required sevens give me a second so the noise studies are required when um you're
2:53:06by rail corridor or you're on a collector or artillery road or near an airport in this case
2:53:14the railways like i checked it out about 400 meters away that's a long ways away alma street if if i
2:53:21am not if i looked it up today is a collector road and yeah it's it's right there on one side of the
2:53:29property um there's certainly no airport or highway nearby it says oh the second line of the paragraph
2:53:40several conditions that require a noise study per the g and cg appear to be met so that appears to
2:53:47be met i would say that i just don't think a noise study is required now the other noise factor i should
2:53:54recognize though is there's a school on gulf street and yeah there's lots of noise come from the
2:53:59children at at playground time and and that that is a factor as well i guess i find that
2:54:08these homes are going to be built with appropriate measures anyways to do with noise in terms of
2:54:15the have air conditioning and how per glazing on the windows and probably brick orientation brick
2:54:23veneer brick veneer on the homes um so i really a noise study is about $4,500 i just feel like a
2:54:31noise study really isn't needed for this that's so that's the one challenge i have to all the
2:54:35conditions otherwise i'm happy with all the conditions and i'd be happy to answer any
2:54:41questions about the development if you have any thanks thank you um that is a very helpful
2:54:50explanation um i think at this point we can ask the committee members if they have questions for
2:54:55the applicant committee members anyone yeah member smith sorry i seem to be uh growing frogs this
2:55:11afternoon my apologies um i i wanted to ask the applicant through you chair if um if they had
2:55:22considered the comments made by the neighbor about the school crossing i don't know if i can
2:55:34address it much further than i i know there's a school there and i know i'm assuming this traffic
2:55:40and so on the addition of a few cars on out of this is at least but i've learned of traffic
2:55:46stories the last several months is there is not much additional traffic coming from these these
2:55:50two new lots you know two a couple trips out a couple trips in a day in terms of the whole
2:55:56volume there it's it's a minor increase so um i'm always sensitive to safety and concern and traffic
2:56:04but i i just don't see the need for traffic study and staff have not recommended one either
2:56:12thank you very much um through the chair uh to the applicant you answered my question about
2:56:20why you couldn't comply with the lot size so that's that's great i do appreciate it um i do have a
2:56:26question uh to city staff about um what the applicant has raised about the noise study
2:56:35i know in the past we have we've had discussions um around noise study and uh i i'd like uh to hear
2:56:45from staff their opinion on um on the noise study whether or not it is required through the chair to
2:56:56uh the member um yeah in accordance with the gulf noise control guidelines um
2:57:03conditions are outlined much like we had in in previous discussions about
2:57:07traffic studies conditions are outlined in the gulf noise control guidelines that identify the
2:57:12typical scenarios that are going to result in some sort of tangible recommendation from evaluating
2:57:19the noise so the reason i say in my comments appears to as opposed to is um is because the
2:57:26noise study doesn't or the excuse me the gulf noise control guidelines don't outline specific
2:57:30distances that say at you know 200 meters uh noise is a factor but at 199 meters noise is no longer
2:57:37a factor that's not up to the municipality to make those um assumptions about what is a factor
2:57:45and what is an effector um when it comes to engineering um reports that are signed and stamped
2:57:51by a professional engineer it is always the engineer's responsibility to determine what's
2:57:57included in the scope uh what assumptions are made to remove things from the scope so that's why we
2:58:03use careful language about uh appears to as opposed to is so the reason why i'm recommending it in this
2:58:10case is in accordance with the gulf noise control guidelines specifically right at the beginning
2:58:17of the document um there's a chapter called when is a noise study required and if i can just read
2:58:24from there i think it'd be helpful so a noise study will be required for any development of a noise
2:58:29sensitive land use as defined by the city of gulf official plan and of the ontario ministry um of
2:58:36environment conservation and parks document npc 300 that's the provincial noise document that
2:58:41outlines the criteria that are within proximity to rail corridors uh provincial highways or the
2:58:48gulf airport excuse me gulf air park airport or adjacent to collector or arterial roads in
2:58:56addition noise studies will be required for new or redeveloped noise sensitive land uses
2:59:02abutting existing commercial employment industrial or institutional uses um of those potential
2:59:11mechanisms that would trigger a potential for a tangible result out of a noise study if one was
2:59:17done i see that there's four potential opportunities there one is that alma street road excuse me alma
2:59:25street north which is a collector road is adjacent to the site uh one is that there is an existing
2:59:32institutional use which is the school that was discussed the guidelines say adjacent to i am
2:59:38saying in my comments effectively adjacent to because um gulf street is intervening lands but
2:59:45they're essentially intervening lands that are vacant it's not going to stop any noise so it's
2:59:50the same effect as being adjacent to the site and the other two potential um
2:59:57features that could come into play here as um as the applicant mentioned there's the the rail
3:00:02corridor so from a transportation noise perspective there's the railway corridor and from a stationary
3:00:07noise perspective the same railway corridor has an actual rail yard so there's two different
3:00:12components there um as the applicant noted there is a distance here and staff don't have a number to
3:00:18go evaluating when when it does or doesn't become a factor only that it's in some proximity but i
3:00:25would leave it to the committee to decide if if that and i agree with the distance it's about 400
3:00:31kilometers or so um whether or not that is going to influence sound that's really up to an engineer
3:00:38to determine an acoustical engineer i'm only flagging it as a potential trigger for the study
3:00:49Member Smith i think does that answer your question it does thank you chair and i guess
3:00:55the only follow-up would be i i know we've had discussions on this on in similar instances
3:01:03whether or not we could institute a a condition to warn potential buyers that um a noise
3:01:11that there may be noise factors um but given that you've got um as you as staff has pointed out
3:01:21four potentials then perhaps perhaps this really is something for a professional engineer to
3:01:28thank you um are there other questions from members of the committee i'm
3:01:42hesitating because i don't really have a question it's more of a comment so i'll leave that to later
3:01:46i do have a question so maybe maybe this will address your question um uh i think
3:01:52maybe member smith heard something that i didn't pick up on because i think he
3:01:57his concern about the lot size was addressed and i think mine is still outstanding uh to the applicant
3:02:03can you just clarify why moving the lot line what i calculated to be about 1.5 meters would be
3:02:12difficult because it looked to me like you could meet the lot size the minimum lot size requirement
3:02:18by a shift of a lot line but i would welcome your thoughts on that so you're you're suggesting the
3:02:25line between one and two severance number one and severance number two yeah the the line that's
3:02:32under a right yes um good question good calm i'd we've batted this went around a lot before
3:02:39we brought it in so one of the things is something's a small logical thing is that there's a jog in
3:02:46the back line right now and it's just a straight production of that jog you see where it says 1.9
3:02:51meters it's a straight production forward so that's one factor the other factor was discussion with
3:02:58with uh engineering staff and they we got to be generally close to perpendicular for that sanitary
3:03:06lateral right now we're we're pushing it we're pushing it if i were to move it over 1.5 meters
3:03:14that would be that lateral would be more on a diagonal than what we're proposing and i think
3:03:20we're i'm going to say we're pushing it too far to be off of perpendicular to the road
3:03:28extending sanitary sewers is a significant cost and project uh uh add on so really
3:03:35you know i almost think we even looked at the idea of having a little diagonal cut off of that
3:03:41propellant right there just to make that thing go through that that's what was driving it
3:03:47if i look also at the width of the parcel being 16 meters the minimum is 15 so it's a little bit
3:03:53wider than the minimum uh it's it's still you know it's probably in terms of an average lot
3:04:00it's shorter on the depth and that's why the area is at 419 so 419 relative to 460 my experience has
3:04:08been for the many applications i've had at this committee and other municipalities i find 400
3:04:14square meters even 350 350 is pushing it but 400 works usually just fine for fitting in a good size
3:04:23home in this case we have 156 square meters for the ground floor that's like 600 square feet now
3:04:30i realize that includes the garage but if you added a second floor that's a big hole so the house
3:04:36envelope could certainly be smaller uh and still be a good size home so i think that a lot adequately
3:04:45that size that we're proposing adequately accommodates the house nicely in there
3:04:50okay thank you that answers my question appreciate that okay um then i think we can move on to
3:05:00delegations so madame madame secretary treasurer do we have anyone registered to delegate
3:05:06chair i can confirm no delegation requests i did want to note um i didn't mention earlier but we
3:05:11did receive correspondence after the climate deadline from sandra marshal with concerns about
3:05:17the application and that correspondence was circulated to the committee members and staff so
3:05:21just wanted to note that yes thank you uh for making uh making that note um so no registered
3:05:28delegates is there anyone here in person who would like to speak to the application no okay great
3:05:36then i think at this point we can move forward and uh see what the committee members would
3:05:43like to do about emotion so i will open the floor to the members members peers i'm happy to move that
3:05:51we accept this application with the conditions suggested by city staff removing the noise study
3:05:59i i think that uh i agree with mr buesman that it's it's unnecessary and i can add a comment after we
3:06:07get a seconder here is there a seconder no seconder okay um i think then we will need a new motion
3:06:28member membranio please go ahead i move that we accept the uh uh approve the application
3:06:36with conditions are recommended by city staff okay thank you uh is there a seconder to that motion
3:06:42member smith okay so then we can open the floor to discussion um and member spears perhaps you'd
3:06:49like to start us off i i don't want to be facetious but i i feel like i may sound this way there is an
3:06:56enormous drop from gwell street down to grade where this is the the gwell closest the house closest
3:07:04to gwell street would be and i can't imagine any noise getting in there it's just it's just
3:07:09hidden away tucked in behind a wall that's why i'm saying why do we need noise to it's just it's
3:07:16just silly there's i think it's dead silent in there just based on the topography of that of
3:07:22that site it's uh anyway that's my comment and i i will support this as it stands but i'd like to
3:07:29be sure that if maybe it's a little late late to ask is there any way that the applicant at a later
3:07:36time can get out of this noise study is it is it asking an engineer to say don't bother i think
3:07:42this is a question for city staff i realize it's late i didn't realize yeah perhaps city staff if
3:07:47you could comment to that is there a mechanism where if later in the process um it was determined that
3:07:55it was a very quiet area perhaps a noise study would no longer be required
3:08:01um through you chair i i think the only way to um know the answer is through what we call a
3:08:11detailed noise study there are two different types of noise studies two different levels
3:08:16we we haven't been recommending this but if we were um typically when we used to have
3:08:24more steps through the planning processes like a zoning bylaw and then a severance we might start
3:08:29with a feasibility noise study and we might get some um direction from their engineer through not
3:08:36a detailed study but essentially saying we don't know the exact specifics yet but this is possible
3:08:41by doing such and such at a high level and then uh have a detailed noise study that follows up at
3:08:47the final stage of development application but that's why you'll see us recommending typically
3:08:52detailed noise study i think i have it tied to the building um uh timing with the issuance of
3:08:57building permit here was just to save that step but i really think that that step the detailed
3:09:02noise study is the only one that provides the answer that decides if something needs to be done
3:09:07or nothing needs to be done or if that needs to be incorporated into the design of the building or
3:09:11into the quality of title on the registration i today answer the question i don't think there's
3:09:17a way of avoiding it personally like like sort of you're asking like a letter uh of some sort from
3:09:21an engineer qualifying that nothing is needed i i suppose i just i i just i i kind of push back at
3:09:30the thought of spending five thousand dollars to find out what everyone already knew but i've tried
3:09:37is all i can say so we can i you answered my question thank you okay thank you thank you to
3:09:45staff for the additional clarification um any other comments or thoughts on the motion okay seeing
3:09:56none then i think we are ready for the vote madame secretary treasurer committee members please
3:10:03indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion which is to approve the
3:10:08applications with the recommended staff conditions chair goodfellow in favor member membrane y'all
3:10:15in favor member smith in favor and member spears in favor that's carried madame chair thank you to
3:10:24the applicant thank you committee yes i think you were coming back to us shortly so uh yes we
3:10:31could move on to the next application madame secretary treasurer could set us up the next
3:10:37applications are files b dash 13 slash 25 a dash 25 slash 25 and a dash 26 slash 25 um consent to
3:10:47create one new residential lot with one retained residential lot and multiple related variances
3:10:51for proposed severed and retained lots at 56 to 58 glasco street south i'll note for those watching
3:10:58the hearing remotely if you wish to speak to this application you can do so by calling the number
3:11:02displayed on the screen that numbers 5198221260 extension 2524 thank you uh is the applicant
3:11:13present jeff buesman ben hartin serving thank you and and uh was the sign posted as per the planning
3:11:20act requirements yes it was uh and have you reviewed staff comments and are you in agreement i did
3:11:25receive them and i am in agreement with them okay wonderful so you have 10 minutes thank you uh
3:11:32this is uh me i'm assuming it's coming this is a much more of a downtown parcel on glasgo
3:11:48and nottingham street a fairly old uh home that's there right now and the idea is to
3:11:55demolish that home and build a semi-detached unit um you can see that the lots are relatively
3:12:04small but they still meet the zoning requirements for uh semi-detached in terms of uh lot area and
3:12:12lot width um we do need three variances one is uh you can see the a and that's for the frontage
3:12:21there uh the front front yard setback and that's to allow the house to be kind of in line with
3:12:27homes in the area uh this is an area where we have the really wide road allowances the original
3:12:34plan of plan eight register plan eight a number of these roads were set up and one and a half
3:12:40chains wide which is 99 feet which is a typical road is 66 feet or 20 meters so as a result when
3:12:49these homes were all built they are all built with houses right up to the property line they
3:12:53didn't have zoning bylaws with front yard setbacks when they were built so long story but that's why
3:13:00a is being requested for a front yard setback and then c is the same idea uh the front yard setback
3:13:08b is because of how we plan to do the porch and the door we need a certain amount of space from the
3:13:14edge of that porch to the property line 0.4 of a meter and that allows for the right size porch to
3:13:21be built in accordance with the building code um similarly e uh again a setback from the porch
3:13:30and then the last variance is to do with the uh if I got the e is for the sight line triangle
3:13:40and we did have a traffic engineer study and analyze the sight lines the sight triangle of
3:13:47nine meters by nine meters is generally intended for a safety thing but because these road allowance
3:13:52are so wide and you can see that on the sketch of the distance from the curb to the property line
3:13:58the sight lines are easily easily met as proven by the traffic study and so staff are in agreement
3:14:03with that variance as well um I think it was a great infill project uh and uh uh our couple
3:14:12over there have done a couple of these in town have done and have had some successful I think
3:14:16infill projects and this is another one that they're taking on and look for your support
3:14:24wonderful thank you for those comments um committee members do we have questions for the
3:14:28applicant or city staff at this point members here through you madam chair to the applicant
3:14:34I I I realized the lot the um the the the variances are requested because the they're so tight to the
3:14:43property line but if you were standing there on the street your perception would be that the lot
3:14:49is actually quite large because of the road allowance is am I right absolutely absolutely
3:14:54yet I'm a land surveyor as well I sometimes think maybe the city should sell some of these yards
3:15:00back to these people that you have used them for a hundred years you know but that hasn't happened
3:15:06that's not going to happen I don't think but you're right that they function they function you know
3:15:12relatively close to the the sidewalk the the yards of these these homes and um it it's as a
3:15:21surveyor even I find it you when you come to house and you say oh the survey bar is right beside the
3:15:26corner of that house there's a whole sidewalk and yard and cut lawn in front that's just the nature
3:15:31of these these old neighborhoods it's just the character we live with it's it's neat it's historic
3:15:37that's what we live with thank you thank you any other questions no okay seeing none um
3:15:49madame secretary treasurer do we have any delegations for this application I can confirm no
3:15:54delegation requests have been received okay thank you anyone in the chamber who would like to come
3:15:59forward and speak to this application seeing none um then I think we are able to move forward
3:16:06and ask committee members for a motion member Smith chair I'd like to recommend acceptance of
3:16:15this application as recommended by staff thank you member Smith is there a seconder member spheres
3:16:27great is there are there any comments or discussion on the motion in front of us
3:16:34no okay seeing none then madame secretary treasurer I think you can call the vote
3:16:40thank you chair committee members please indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to the
3:16:44motion which is to approve the application applications with the recommended conditions
3:16:50chair good fellow in favor member membrane y'all in favor member Smith in favor and member
3:16:56Spears in favor that's carried chair wonderful thank you mr. Buseman thank you for you to go
3:17:05at this point I think we are over to staff announcements so we have one more application oh
3:17:12my gosh okay I was getting ready to clear out here okay madame secretary treasurer if you could
3:17:19call the final application please the last application this evening is file a-27-25
3:17:27variances to permit increased maximum building length and reduced number of active entrances
3:17:32without equal spacing along gordon street and stone road east at 716 gordon street I'll note for
3:17:38those attending remotely if you wish to speak to this application you can do so by calling the
3:17:42number displayed on the screen the numbers 5198221260 extension 2524
3:17:50okay thank you so much is the applicant present yes you are okay can you state your name for the
3:17:55record please uh actually can you just hit the mic there you go you're on no there you go through
3:18:03the chair rachel bossy thank you um and was the sign posted per the planning act yes and have you
3:18:10received staff comments and are you in agreement yes okay wonderful you have 10 minutes then to
3:18:16address the committee so through the chair I would like to use this time to provide background on
3:18:20the previous planning approvals that explain why we are requesting these technical minor
3:18:25variances for 716 gordon street related to building length and active entrances to facilitate a 532
3:18:32unit apartment building designed for post-secondary school students so going back to 2013 an opa zba
3:18:41for student housing was approved at the OMB the OMB decision emphasized the importance of
3:18:46achieving desirable massing to accomplish this the board deliberately regulated the boat form
3:18:51through heights floor plates setbacks stepbacks and angular planes but did not limit the building
3:18:57length or require multiple buildings in 2023 an opa zba was approved by city council relating to
3:19:05parking density common amenity areas and minor setback as setback adjustments the submitted drawings
3:19:11for that application are the same as those in this minor variance request at that time amendments
3:19:17were only requested to the 1995 zoning bylaw as the 2023 zoning bylaw was not yet in effect
3:19:23while the city prepared a site specific amendment under the new zoning bylaw it did not include
3:19:28provisions relating to building length or active entrances and it was our understanding that until
3:19:33the building length and active entrance provisions were in effect that they would not be applied
3:19:38the 2023 zoning bylaw came in effect in february 2024 except for the lands and sections associated
3:19:45with the city wide appeal which includes building length and active entrance requirements given
3:19:50this it was our understanding that these provisions would not be applied during site plan approval
3:19:54until the appeal was resolved however in october of 2024 during a site plan pre consultation meeting
3:20:01staff advised that they would be applying these provisions despite the ongoing appeal
3:20:05this was unexpected as it was not communicated earlier had we been aware it would have been
3:20:09addressed through the 2023 zba since the OMB decision did not regulate building length or active
3:20:15entrances the application of these provisions in the 2023 zoning bylaw was unintended as as noted
3:20:21by staff the building was always anticipated to have two long facades and for security purposes
3:20:27limited active entrances as outlined in the cover letter the requested variances meet the
3:20:32four tests under the planning act and we respectfully request that the committee adopt the staff's
3:20:36recommendation to approve the variance as this request simply corrects an oversight and ensures
3:20:42that the site is continued is continued to develop in accordance with the 2013 OMB decision and the
3:20:482023 opa zba approved by city council thank you thank you for those comments um i think at this stage
3:20:56then i believe city staff may have a bit of a presentation for us as well so please go ahead
3:21:05thank you through the chair maybe to avoid repeating what was already discussed just now
3:21:10i'll focus on the 2023 zoning bylaw in the official plan amendment application so uh
3:21:16when we did review the application city staff had advised the applicant that the 2023 zoning bylaw
3:21:21which at the time was newly approved and still under appeal should be reviewed reviewed in full
3:21:27for additional amendments in anticipation of the 2023 bylaw coming into effect and not only
3:21:33amending the 1995 zoning bylaw so when this wasn't pursued by the applicant to assist in the
3:21:38application city staff had brought forward the equivalent 2023 zoning amendments to match what
3:21:45was already being requested under the 1995 zoning amendments but there was never any further
3:21:54review done by staff on behalf of the applicant to identify any additional
3:21:59variances or amendments down the line so in this case the billing length and active entrances variances
3:22:07before you today are new to the 2023 zoning bylaw and they weren't provisions under the 1995 zoning
3:22:13um and the applicant has since identified these two variances to bring forward um and because they
3:22:19weren't part of the 1995 zoning bylaw it was never part of the OMB decision back in 2013
3:22:25um so while the site plan is complex when you first look at it um like the applicant noted
3:22:31the bill the form shown today is what was already approved back in 2023 including the
3:22:37bill length and the entrance uh the number of entrances and the location of the entrances
3:22:45so our comments are generally in support of um what's being proposed in order to clean up these
3:22:51last two variances okay thank you uh then members of the committee do we have questions for either
3:23:01city staff or the applicant member smith uh thank you chair and um i have questions for the applicant
3:23:13first of all uh i just wanted to state that um i i climbed a glacier to reinstall your
3:23:21your blue and white blue black and white signs so you're welcome um thank you
3:23:27uh and that leads me to my question um i noticed that one of the um recommended
3:23:36entrances uh is it's a pretty aggressive uh slope there as i can attest to um can you comment on
3:23:47how that um entrance exit is going to be made use and and how people will access that based on the slope
3:23:59so through the chair sorry which entrance are you speaking about
3:24:03or more just uh it's the one closest it's the one on gordon closest to uh to uh stone
3:24:11so through the chair we're working with the civil engineer to do a detailed grading plan
3:24:15that will be submitted with the site plan application however this is a critical milestone
3:24:20to ensure that we are able to have the entrances and building length that was previously shown to
3:24:26council in 2023 so it hasn't been finalized but i know that they're working furiously and that
3:24:32will be something that's presented to staff through the site plan approval process thank you very much
3:24:36that's my extent of my questions thank you chair thank you member smith uh any other questions for
3:24:44the applicant or city staff on this file no okay seeing none then i think we can check for
3:24:51delegations my dam secretary treasurer i can confirm no delegation requests all right uh anyone
3:24:59left in the chamber no okay so then i think at this point we can go to committee and uh
3:25:07seek a motion from the group that we could then consider member membranha yes i moved to
3:25:16approve this application as recommended by staff okay thank you is there a seconder member spears
3:25:24all right so um any discussion on this motion no okay at this point then i believe we could go
3:25:35to the secretary treasurer for a vote committee members please indicate your vote by responding
3:25:41in favor or opposed to the motion which is to approve the application chair good fellow in favor
3:25:46member membranha in favor member smith in favor and member spears in favor that's carried chair
3:25:56thank you wonderful thank you at this time i believe we can go forward to staff announcements
3:26:03um i'm sure i don't have any staff announcements this evening okay thank you then i think we are able
3:26:17to adjourn for the evening so is there a member oh sorry yes i'm sorry member smith please go ahead
3:26:25uh i just want to offer congratulations on sharing your first meeting chair very well done
3:26:32uh thank you i appreciate that i now understand um the uh the challenges that you face every month
3:26:40and i have much more respect for this role so i appreciate your words of encouragement um
3:26:47all right then no staff comments and then i think we are ready for a motion to adjourn so can i have
3:26:53a motion to adjourn member smith seconded by member spears all in favor
3:27:00all right we are adjourned thank you chair thanks