Council Planning

13:07All right, good morning everyone.

13:08It is March the 20th, 2024.

13:11And I'm gonna call our planning meeting to order.

13:14Hope everyone's doing okay.

13:16Right off the top, we have an agenda item

13:20looking for us to consider to move into closed session.

13:23It's under acquisition of property

13:26for new paramedic station, section 239,

13:31to see a proposed or pending acquisition

13:34or disposition of land by the municipality

13:37or local board before I call the vote on that.

13:40Is there any disclosure of pecuniary interest

13:42or any general nature thereof for that item

13:44before we moved into closed?

13:47Hearing and seeing none,

13:48is there someone would be willing to move that?

13:50Councillor Goller and Councillor Cossum will second.

13:52Thank you.

13:54And I'll call the vote.

13:55Is there anyone against moving into closed on that item?

14:00Hearing and seeing none, that's unanimous.

14:02So we will move into a closed session on that item

14:05and I will give a high level summary when I return.

14:07Thank you.

38:24Okay, I'll just call the meeting back to order

38:26in the open session.

38:28Although our official open session doesn't start till 11,

38:32I'm gonna do the closed summary right now.

38:36So we went into closed as was stated under section 239,

38:41to see a proposed or pending acquisition

38:43or disposition of land by the municipality or local board

38:46with the title acquisition of property

38:48for new paramedic station.

38:51And so council received a lot of information from staff

38:54in regards to that item.

38:56And at the end of that conversation,

38:58we gave direction to staff.

39:01Okay, so that's the summary on that.

39:04So as I said, our actual,

39:10just one second everyone,

39:10I'm just confirming with the clerk, I'm sorry.

39:20Yes, my apologies.

39:22We actually have it ready to come.

39:23We have the motion to come up on the screen now.

39:27So I'll ask councillor Goller to please move that

39:31and read it out for us.

39:32Through your worship, I move that the mayor

39:34and city clerk be directed to execute the agreement

39:37of purchase and sale for the acquisition of property

39:39as included in the acquisition of property

39:42for new paramedic station close report dated March 20th, 2024.

39:49Great, and it's your award meet.

39:50Councillor Klosson will second that.

39:53And so there is the direction.

39:56I told you there is direction, there it is.

39:58So I'll look to see if there's anything further on this

40:01before I call the vote.

40:03No, okay, I'll call the vote is anyone against?

40:08And no one, and so that's unanimous.

40:10So now that item is officially done and finished

40:15and we'll move on to the open session at 11 a.m.

40:19because that's when the open session starts.

40:20So it's basically 10 30 right now.

40:23So we'll see everybody back here

40:25to continue in a half an hour.

40:26Thank you.

1:18:48All right, good morning again, everyone.

1:18:50It is 11 o'clock and just after 11

1:18:54and I'm gonna call the planning meeting back

1:18:56to order for the open session.

1:18:58And so to start, I'd like to ask everyone to please rise

1:19:01if you're able as we acknowledge our national anthem.

1:20:33Great, thank you.

1:20:34And just as we continue a moment of silent reflection

1:20:45and now for our indigenous territorial acknowledgement

1:20:48as we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege

1:20:51to live and work in Guelph,

1:20:53a city built over rich indigenous histories.

1:20:56We're guests here and we should reflect upon

1:20:58the responsibility to care for this land,

1:21:00the people who live here today and the generations to come.

1:21:04If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation,

1:21:07we should take pause and make those decisions

1:21:10with intention and gratitude.

1:21:12This place we call Guelph has served as traditional lands

1:21:14and a place of refuge for many peoples over time,

1:21:17but more specifically, the Aniwanderach and the Honaishoni.

1:21:21This land is held as the treaty lands and territory

1:21:25with the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

1:21:28And Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldeman track

1:21:31and is part of a long-established traditional hunting grounds

1:21:34for the six nations of the Grand River.

1:21:37Many First Nations, Inuit and Métis people

1:21:40who have come from across Turtle Island

1:21:42call Guelph home today.

1:21:45Thank you.

1:21:47And as we continue, is there any disclosure

1:21:49of pecuniary interest or any general nature

1:21:51thereof of the items in front of us?

1:21:56Don't hear or see any, so consider that matter closed.

1:22:00And we have the consent item of the development fee review.

1:22:03It looks pretty straightforward there.

1:22:06Is there any one that needs that pulled

1:22:09or doesn't look like it?

1:22:11So can I have someone move that consent item for me?

1:22:15Councillor Allt and Galler will second that.

1:22:18Anything further?

1:22:20No, okay, I'll call the vote is anyone against that?

1:22:25Hearing and seeing none, that's unanimous

1:22:27on the development fee review.

1:22:29So thank you, that passes.

1:22:31We're going now to the item for discussion,

1:22:33which is the demolition control bylaw review.

1:22:37We're gonna have Lucas Malame.

1:22:40Am I saying your last name correctly?

1:22:42Malami. Malami, okay, thank you.

1:22:45And thank you, Lucas, for being here.

1:22:47Lucas is one of our policy planners

1:22:49and this is the demolition control bylaw.

1:22:51As I said, we're gonna have a presentation from Lucas.

1:22:54Then we have a delegation from Susan Watson

1:22:57and then it's back over to us.

1:22:59So Lucas, over to you first, go right ahead.

1:23:03Good morning, Mayor and members of council.

1:23:05I'm here to present information on and recommendation for

1:23:08staff's review of the city's demolition control bylaw.

1:23:49In Ontario, demolition control is a provincially

1:23:52legislated process that regulates what municipalities can

1:23:56and cannot do and can and cannot ask for

1:23:59as part of a demolition permit application.

1:24:02Under section 33 of the planning act,

1:24:04municipalities can designate all or an area of municipality

1:24:08as an area subject to the control of demolition.

1:24:11This gives municipalities an opportunity

1:24:14to obtain necessary information from an applicant

1:24:17and conduct a full review to ensure

1:24:19that the demolition is following appropriate provisions.

1:24:25There are two definitions from section 33 of the planning act

1:24:28that dictate what kinds of buildings are subject

1:24:30to demolition control.

1:24:32The first definition is dwelling unit,

1:24:34which is defined as any property that is used

1:24:37or designed for use as a domestic establishment

1:24:41in which one or more persons may sleep

1:24:43and prepare and serve meals.

1:24:45The second definition is residential property,

1:24:48which is defined as a building that contains

1:24:50one or more dwelling units,

1:24:52but does not include subordinate or accessory buildings,

1:24:55the use of which is incidental

1:24:57to the use of the main building.

1:24:59Demolition control only applies to properties

1:25:02that fit this definition.

1:25:03Demolition control does not apply

1:25:05to commercial or industrial buildings,

1:25:07as well it does not apply to accessory structures

1:25:09such as sheds.

1:25:13Guelph's current demolition control by-law

1:25:15came into force and effect on July 18th, 1988,

1:25:19and it conforms to the planning act 1983.

1:25:22Demolition control has not significantly changed

1:25:25in the planning act to 1990,

1:25:27except that the offense fine was raised

1:25:29from $20,000 to $50,000.

1:25:32Council delegated authority to approve demolition permits

1:25:35with the general manager of planning

1:25:37and building services in 2017.

1:25:39Since that delegation, 116 demolition permits

1:25:43have been approved.

1:25:46Through staff input, common questions from the public

1:25:49and direction from council,

1:25:51we have identified six common issues

1:25:53surrounding demolition control.

1:25:55Staff have also prepared a discussion paper

1:25:57included as attachment one to the staff report

1:25:59that presents information and findings in full detail.

1:26:03These issues shape what we can and cannot do

1:26:06under demolition control,

1:26:07as well as the recommended by-law for council today.

1:26:13The first area of discussion is notice

1:26:15and how the public can be informed

1:26:17of a demolition happening near them.

1:26:19When a demolition permit application

1:26:21is received by the city,

1:26:23building services staff post a demolition application

1:26:26notice sign on the applicable property

1:26:28within five days of receivable.

1:26:30The notice sign contains the property address,

1:26:33the file number at the city,

1:26:35and the contact number for building services.

1:26:37Ward counselors are also circulated

1:26:39with a demolition application.

1:26:41Section 33 of the planning act

1:26:43does not require or mandate public notice.

1:26:46Demolition control is not considered a public process

1:26:49like an official plan amendment

1:26:51or a zoning by-law amendment application.

1:26:53Only the property owner can appeal

1:26:55a demolition permit decision.

1:26:57Due to the small number of demolition permit applications

1:27:00that the city of Guelph receives in a year,

1:27:02staff continue to recommend a staff-led approach

1:27:04to providing public notice.

1:27:06Staff are recommending that the contact number

1:27:08for the builder or contractor now be included

1:27:11in the demolition permit notice sign.

1:27:13This will help direct potential concerns

1:27:15from the impacted neighbors to the appropriate party.

1:27:20The second issue is heritage and demolition.

1:27:23If a property is listed on the municipal register

1:27:25of cultural heritage properties

1:27:27or is designated under either part four

1:27:30or part five of the Ontario Heritage Act,

1:27:33then the Ontario Heritage Act

1:27:34takes precedent over the planning act.

1:27:37Owners of non-designated properties

1:27:39listed on the municipal register

1:27:41must provide the city written notice 60 days

1:27:44prior to the intention to demolish

1:27:46so that the city may appropriately consider designation.

1:27:50When a listed or designated property

1:27:52has applied for a demolition permit,

1:27:54council is the required decision-making authority

1:27:57and this authority cannot be delegated.

1:27:59Outside of a demolition permit application,

1:28:01a notice of intention to designate

1:28:03may be issued for a non-listed property,

1:28:06but the Ontario Heritage Act cannot be used to delay

1:28:09or prevent demolitions of non-listed properties.

1:28:14In order to have a demolition control by-law,

1:28:17the planning act requires a property standards by-law

1:28:20that prescribes standards of maintenance and occupancy

1:28:23for property in a municipality.

1:28:25Sqeolf's property standards by-law

1:28:27sets out structural standards

1:28:29whereby every part of a building

1:28:30shall be maintained in a sound condition.

1:28:33Structural members or materials that have damaged

1:28:36or indicate evidence of deterioration

1:28:39shall be repaired and replaced.

1:28:41The city's property standards by-law

1:28:43is enforced by property standards inspectors

1:28:45on a complaint basis.

1:28:46When the property standards inspector receives a complaint,

1:28:49the inspector will do a site inspection

1:28:51and issue an order where required.

1:28:53If the property owner wishes to challenge that order,

1:28:56they can do so at the property standards committee meeting.

1:28:59Under section 15.1 of the Building Code Act,

1:29:02municipalities can require property

1:29:04that does not conform with these standards

1:29:06to either be repaired and maintained for this or

1:29:10for the site to be cleared of all buildings,

1:29:12structures, debris or refuse,

1:29:15and left in a graded and leveled condition.

1:29:17Orders must always include an option

1:29:20to demolish the property.

1:29:22City staff are currently preparing an amendment

1:29:24to the property standards by-law

1:29:26to permit property standards inspectors

1:29:28to prepare orders to repair for designated heritage attributes

1:29:31in accordance with heritage designation by-laws.

1:29:34Staff are also exploring a more proactive approach

1:29:37to property standards,

1:29:38including mapping for known vacant structures,

1:29:41more frequent inspections and a watch list.

1:29:46Subsection seven of section 33 of the Planning Act

1:29:49states that when a demolition permit application

1:29:52is received in tandem

1:29:53with a replacement building permit,

1:29:56a municipality can require the applicant

1:29:58to construct and substantially complete the new building

1:30:02by at least two years from the date of the demolition

1:30:05of the existing residential property has commenced.

1:30:08That two-year timeframe is a minimum.

1:30:11Failure to comply with this condition

1:30:12means that the city clerk can apply a lien

1:30:15or charge to the property up to the sum of $20,000

1:30:19for each dwelling unit on the residential property

1:30:21that was demolished.

1:30:23If the applicant considers it not possible

1:30:25to complete that new building within the time specified

1:30:28or if they believe construction

1:30:30is no longer economically feasible,

1:30:32they can apply to council for relief of that timeframe

1:30:35or appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

1:30:38This is the only prescribed condition

1:30:40that the Planning Act includes.

1:30:42In other provinces, municipalities can mandate processes

1:30:44like deconstruction.

1:30:46Staff, especially our heritage staff,

1:30:48continue to recommend and encourage applicants

1:30:50to explore deconstruction as a viable

1:30:53and effective means of harvesting reusable building materials,

1:30:56especially as building material costs increase.

1:30:59Staff also have real-world examples

1:31:01of the possibilities of deconstruction

1:31:04through work done by the Circular Opportunity Innovation

1:31:06Launchpad and the Deconstruction Pilot.

1:31:09The city is also limited in the conditions it can mandate

1:31:12to what happens inside of a building

1:31:13through the demolition process.

1:31:15For example, if a residential property is purchased

1:31:18to be demolished and redeveloped in the future,

1:31:20the city through demolition control

1:31:22cannot require that that residential property

1:31:24be rented or lived in.

1:31:27Staff do note that demolition

1:31:29versus a substantial renovation

1:31:31may not be immediately cost effective,

1:31:32especially if the residential property

1:31:34is part of a larger development proposal.

1:31:39Next is the Private Tree Protection Bylaw.

1:31:41The city of Guelph's current Private Tree Protection Bylaw

1:31:44applies to regulated trees,

1:31:46at least 10 centimeters in diameter,

1:31:47on regulated properties greater than 0.2 hectares.

1:31:51Please note that the Private Tree Protection Bylaw

1:31:53is still under final review.

1:31:55When a demolition permit application is submitted,

1:31:57city of Guelph staff are responsible for flagging

1:32:00if there are any potential concerns

1:32:01regarding the Private Tree Protection Bylaw.

1:32:04The city of Guelph's landscape planning

1:32:05and environmental planning staff review the application

1:32:08and determine if a tree permit is needed.

1:32:11If the property is not regulated

1:32:13by the Private Tree Protection Bylaw,

1:32:16city of Guelph staff still encourage the applicant

1:32:18to protect as many trees as possible,

1:32:21as required by the city's official plan

1:32:22and our urban forest policies.

1:32:24If the demolition permit is near

1:32:26the city's natural heritage system,

1:32:27environmental planning staff will review

1:32:29and assess potential impacts and concerns.

1:32:32If a tree is on city of Guelph property,

1:32:34the city is responsible for maintenance,

1:32:36which includes conducting inspections, pruning,

1:32:38and when necessary, removals.

1:32:41When city staff receive a request for tree maintenance,

1:32:44they will visit the property

1:32:45to assess potential risks or hazards.

1:32:48If the trunk of a tree sits on the boundary

1:32:50between two property ownerships,

1:32:52it is a shared tree or a boundary tree.

1:32:55There's a shared ownership and responsibility,

1:32:57such as requiring written consent

1:32:59from adjacent landowners when damage

1:33:01to boundary trees is possible or anticipated.

1:33:04The city of Guelph cannot hold up or deny the tree permit

1:33:06based on the status of the demolition permit

1:33:08and vice versa.

1:33:09If a regulated tree is impacted

1:33:11through the demolition process

1:33:13without an appropriate tree permit,

1:33:15the city of Guelph can put in a stop or order.

1:33:19The intent of demolition control

1:33:21in the Planning Act is to prevent the premature loss

1:33:23of existing housing stock and municipality.

1:33:26City of Guelph staff support a consistent approach

1:33:28to the replacement of dwelling units

1:33:30that at least maintains the existing dwelling unit mix.

1:33:33By preventing the loss of dwelling units

1:33:35during redevelopment, especially rental units,

1:33:38the city of Guelph can assist in maintaining

1:33:39a steady vacancy rate in existing affordability levels.

1:33:43Other municipalities reviewed

1:33:45do have demolition control bylaws

1:33:47that require a replacement site plan application

1:33:50to be submitted for a demolition control permit

1:33:53over a certain number of existing dwelling units,

1:33:55typically six or more.

1:33:57However, with changes made to the Planning Act

1:34:00through Bill 23, site plan approval is no longer required

1:34:04for 10 units or less and the Planning Act prevails.

1:34:10Since 2002, 328 single detached dwellings,

1:34:14seven apartment units and four semi-detached dwellings

1:34:18have been demolished for a total of 337 dwellings.

1:34:22Early in that reporting period,

1:34:24the majority of the demolitions resulted

1:34:26in single replacement units.

1:34:28However, towards the latter part of the period,

1:34:31many of the demolitions were to make way

1:34:33for the construction of townhouses

1:34:35and apartment developments.

1:34:37In 2022, the 20 approved residential demolitions

1:34:41resulted in the creation of 240 residential units.

1:34:45Three of these demolitions are proposed

1:34:48to result in multiple unit dwellings

1:34:50within 110 units, seniors apartment resident,

1:34:53a 98 unit apartment building,

1:34:55and an 18 unit townhouse development.

1:34:58Five new single detached units will result

1:35:00from the demolition of two proposed severances

1:35:03and nine of the approved demolitions

1:35:05will result in single replacement units.

1:35:07Four demolitions along Hanlon Road

1:35:10are necessary to allow for the future Hanlon Parkway

1:35:13interchange at Stone Road West

1:35:15and will not result in a change of clock on your iPhone.

1:35:21And will not result in a change.

1:35:24Hey, Councillor Allt.

1:35:28Yeah, could you please mute?

1:35:30We can hear you talking to your iPhone there.

1:35:32Thank you, my friend.

1:35:34Okay, go ahead.

1:35:35The remaining two demolitions of single detached dwellings

1:35:38were either not used for residential purposes

1:35:40or there are currently no future development plans.

1:35:43Overall, demolition is leading to an increase

1:35:46of the city's housing supply through redevelopment.

1:35:51So given these issues,

1:35:52staff are recommending a repeal and replacement

1:35:55of the demolition control bylaw with a few key changes.

1:35:58First, staff are recommending new definitions

1:36:01for the terms demolition and renovation

1:36:03as part of the bylaw.

1:36:04These definitions are linked to each other

1:36:07through either the removal or maintaining

1:36:09of the main floor assembly respectively.

1:36:11The removal of the main floor assembly

1:36:13has been city of Guelph policy for a significant period.

1:36:16So it will now be captured as part of the bylaw.

1:36:19Second, the recommended bylaw will update the offense charge

1:36:22to the maximum allowable at $50,000 per dwelling unit

1:36:26in the residential property to be demolished.

1:36:29Third, staff are recommending the addition of a condition

1:36:31that will require the preparation and submission

1:36:35of building permit plans for a new building

1:36:37on the same site for any demolition permit application.

1:36:40Staff are recommending this condition

1:36:42so that housing stock is not lost prematurely

1:36:45without an efficient redevelopment plan.

1:36:48This is also aligned with the goals and objectives

1:36:50of the city of Guelph's property standards bylaw,

1:36:52which seeks to maintain appropriate standards

1:36:54for the maintenance and occupancy of property,

1:36:57including provisions related to property conditions.

1:37:00Fourth, staff are recommending the inclusion

1:37:02of several exemptions when demolition control will not apply.

1:37:05These exemptions include if the building

1:37:07has been deemed unsafe,

1:37:08if the residential property is required

1:37:10for the implementation of a capital works project

1:37:12and other health and safety matters.

1:37:14Finally, staff recommend that the approval

1:37:16of demolition permits continue to be delegated

1:37:19to the general manager of planning and building services.

1:37:21Through delegated authority,

1:37:23staff can process demolition permit applications

1:37:25without requiring a council meeting.

1:37:27This allows council to focus on more substantive issues

1:37:30while allowing staff to provide efficient service delivery.

1:37:34And these are the recommendations before council

1:37:36and happy to take any questions when appropriate.

1:37:39Thank you so much.

1:37:40We do have a delegation.

1:37:41So yeah, take a seat.

1:37:43And if there's any questions after the delegation,

1:37:45we can go back to you.

1:37:47Susan Watson, come on up.

1:37:49And you have, I'm so sorry.

1:37:52Is this a five or 10 minute one?

1:37:54Five minutes.

1:37:55And I would just ask that your comments

1:37:58are at the, pointed to the issue at hand,

1:38:01which is the demolition control bylaw update.

1:38:05So over to you.

1:38:07Mayor Guthrie and members of council,

1:38:08I'm glad to see that this bylaw is being updated.

1:38:11And I'm glad to see that the fines for demolitions

1:38:13without a permit are being raised to 50,000

1:38:16from $20,000.

1:38:18The staff backgrounder says,

1:38:20the intent of demolition control in the planning act

1:38:23is to prevent the premature loss

1:38:25of existing housing stock in a municipality.

1:38:28An updated demolition control bylaw

1:38:30can be an effective tool,

1:38:31especially as the city of Guelph tackles challenges

1:38:34with maintaining availability of ownership

1:38:37and purpose built rental housing.

1:38:39I think the main point I wanna make today

1:38:41is from the perspective of someone

1:38:43who is looking for a home to rent or buy,

1:38:45what is actually the difference between a house

1:38:47that is demolished or a house that is vacant?

1:38:51On a practical level,

1:38:52housing that is sitting vacant

1:38:53is no longer functional housing stock.

1:38:58It clearly seems to be worth everyone's time

1:39:00to update a demolition control bylaw

1:39:02that sees an average of 16 demolitions in the city annually,

1:39:08but not to implement a vacancy tax.

1:39:11I could give you a tour of 16 houses today

1:39:15that are currently sitting vacant, some for decades.

1:39:18Eight of them are within walking distance

1:39:20of this building, five on Fountain Street alone,

1:39:23and another six or seven are all clustered

1:39:25on one street in the ward, Oliver Street.

1:39:28What this demolition control bylaw does not address

1:39:31is demolition by neglect.

1:39:34And there's an example in the photos I submitted

1:39:36with my written material, number 33 Wellington Street,

1:39:39and the window in number 33 has been open for weeks

1:39:42so rain and rodents can enter freely.

1:39:45Number 33 is clearly vacant, it has no porch,

1:39:48and it appears that number five is also.

1:39:50And given the location of these houses,

1:39:52my guess is that the properties have been acquired

1:39:54as part of speculative land assembly.

1:39:58So what developer in their right mind

1:40:00would demolish without a permit

1:40:02or demolish and put pressure on themselves

1:40:05to rebuild within that two-year constrained timeline

1:40:08when they can just leave a building vacant

1:40:11and let nature take its course.

1:40:14In the material you received from staff,

1:40:16it states both the demolition control bylaw

1:40:18and the property standards bylaw are designed

1:40:21to work in tandem with one another.

1:40:23In the city of Guelph, the property standards bylaw

1:40:25is enforced by inspectors on a complaint's basis.

1:40:29I would say that those bylaws

1:40:30are currently not working together.

1:40:33And in order for them to have some teeth,

1:40:35you need a vacancy tax,

1:40:37and you need a vacant property register.

1:40:40In the city of Hamilton, owners of vacant properties

1:40:43are required to register their buildings

1:40:46at an initial cost of $314,

1:40:49and then pay a yearly inspection fee of $786 plus HFT.

1:40:55And that registration initiates quarterly exterior inspections,

1:40:59inspections of the vacant building by the city.

1:41:02Failure to comply with that bylaw

1:41:04can bring fines of 10,000 for an individual,

1:41:0750,000 for a corporation.

1:41:09So if you're really serious

1:41:11about protecting housing stock in this city,

1:41:13you also need to protect it from demolition by neglect

1:41:17via proactive inspections paid for by the property owner.

1:41:21Just do it.

1:41:23Lastly, the material states,

1:41:25the city is also limited in the conditions

1:41:28it can mandate to what happens with a residential property

1:41:31as the demolition process unfolds.

1:41:33For example, if a residential property

1:41:35is purchased to be demolished and redeveloped in the future,

1:41:38the city cannot require that it be rented

1:41:41or lived in during this period.

1:41:43But your staff person failed to mention,

1:41:45the city may only incentivize or disincentivize

1:41:49vacant home retention.

1:41:52That's a vacancy tax.

1:41:53Why isn't that happening?

1:41:56The staff report also references

1:41:58the municipal tax advisory group report

1:42:00you received several months ago.

1:42:02I have to say that that was probably

1:42:05the most pathetic consultant report

1:42:07I have ever read in the entire time

1:42:10that I've lived in Guelph.

1:42:11That report failed to apply triple bottom line accounting.

1:42:16It made conclusions and assertions with zero data

1:42:19or evidence to back them up.

1:42:21And it failed to account for money saved

1:42:25when we don't have to build new housing on green fields.

1:42:29I am still mystified why there continues to be

1:42:32such a bizarre blind spot when it comes

1:42:35to the cost of growth.

1:42:37You only have to bring 10 houses back onto the market

1:42:40to save anywhere from 800,000 to a million dollars

1:42:44in infrastructure costs for 10 houses.

1:42:47So don't tell me that it isn't worth it

1:42:51to do a vacancy tax.

1:42:52And we really need to have a public airing of that issue

1:42:55because it just came as an information report

1:42:57that there's been no debate about that consultant's report.

1:43:02The water conservation program we had,

1:43:04it cost $10.2 million.

1:43:07It saved $40.6 million.

1:43:10That's why it was a success.

1:43:11No, because of the monitor.

1:43:12Okay, thank you.

1:43:13That's your time.

1:43:13I'll stop you there.

1:43:14Thank you so much.

1:43:15Is there any questions as a follow up?

1:43:16Councillor Downer, please.

1:43:19Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

1:43:22So Ms. Watson, the one in Hamilton,

1:43:25so they had a registered vacancy.

1:43:29You had to register.

1:43:30So there's a vacancy tax and there's the vacant.

1:43:32That was my question.

1:43:33And there's a separate vacant house.

1:43:35So it's in conjunction.

1:43:37I think the one came first.

1:43:39I think they had like a vacant home registry

1:43:42that they created,

1:43:43which then made it super easy probably to transition

1:43:46because then everything was documented already.

1:43:49Yeah.

1:43:50Great, thanks.

1:43:52Great seeing nothing further.

1:43:53Thank you very much.

1:43:57Okay, so it is back to us.

1:43:59Councillor Orwark, you mentioned that you'd be willing

1:44:01to move the staff recommendations.

1:44:03Thank you.

1:44:04And Councillor Allt,

1:44:05would you be willing to second the staff recommendations?

1:44:08Thank you.

1:44:09Is there any further follow-up questions?

1:44:12I'll go with that Councillor Caron and then Ault, please.

1:44:16Great, thank you.

1:44:17And I'm really glad this is coming forward.

1:44:18We have definitely struggled with issues

1:44:21that have been identified by the staff presentation.

1:44:25I still, I'm looking at page,

1:44:29the first page of the new bylaw,

1:44:33where we have the definitions.

1:44:36Under definitions two,

1:44:39A, I think it should be B,

1:44:44needs to be renumbered there

1:44:46because chief building official and demolish

1:44:48are under the same definition.

1:44:52It means the removal of the whole

1:44:55of the residential property.

1:44:57And I know we've had some issues with this in the past.

1:45:00So we've had houses that have been renovated

1:45:06from the inside out or the outside in

1:45:09where the new dwelling unit is 99.9% brand new,

1:45:15where the footprint may not have changed,

1:45:18but really it was a demolition

1:45:20from the outside in or the inside out.

1:45:24This bylaw doesn't address those situations

1:45:27because it appears as though the new definition is 100%.

1:45:33So you could do 99.9%

1:45:38and it still wouldn't fall under the demolition control bylaw.

1:45:40The reason I ask this is for neighbors

1:45:43and developers who have done this

1:45:47or homeowners who purchase a property

1:45:51but don't wanna go through the demolition process.

1:45:54It's an issue.

1:45:55We haven't solved that here, have we?

1:45:58I'm reading the definition wrong.

1:46:05Through the marriage of the counselor,

1:46:08for us we've made it very clear what's a demolition

1:46:10and what's it's not.

1:46:11And I can certainly say that our definition

1:46:15is more strict than others.

1:46:17And we've made it clear on what's a demolition and not.

1:46:20So for certainly for planning staff,

1:46:24me signing demolitions and for the building department,

1:46:26we have clarity on demolition through this definition.

1:46:30Okay, so the definition as I'm reading it

1:46:32is the removal of the whole of a residential property,

1:46:35including the main floor assembly

1:46:37but does not include a renovation

1:46:39but a renovation is just a removal of a portion

1:46:42at a residential property.

1:46:44So I could purchase a home, got the whole thing,

1:46:50build a new envelope around it

1:46:53and then demolish from the inside.

1:46:55That would not be considered a demolition.

1:46:58Maybe I'm just, I need a real live example.

1:47:01Yeah, through the mayor, that is correct.

1:47:03So a renovation, you can basically take down

1:47:08the four outside walls

1:47:10but if you have the main floor assembly,

1:47:11that is a renovation and that's how it's been defined.

1:47:16Okay.

1:47:19We'll probably get some more of those types

1:47:22of interior demolitions that transform a building

1:47:25under the new definition

1:47:26but I understand the reasons why.

1:47:28So I'll leave that.

1:47:31The demolition by neglect,

1:47:32the delegate has made a significant point here

1:47:37that there is no fine for letting your building deteriorate.

1:47:42If you demolish without a permit, it's $50,000

1:47:47but if you leave your building

1:47:49until you have an order to demolish, it's zero.

1:47:53Is there a way or have we got a mechanism

1:47:58or a definition where if you allow your building

1:48:02to deteriorate to the point where an order is issued,

1:48:04there's also a $50,000 fine

1:48:07or is the purpose of strengthening

1:48:08our property standards bylaw,

1:48:10which we're going to be doing

1:48:12in a different bylaw review process

1:48:15is once we've strengthened the property standards bylaw

1:48:19that those disincentives, those financial impacts,

1:48:21those fines and orders

1:48:24are gonna solve that problem for us.

1:48:26So are we kind of in an in-between stage now

1:48:28where we've got this strengthened bylaw

1:48:29which I totally support

1:48:31but we don't have the strength

1:48:33of the property standards quite yet.

1:48:35I think we really need to make sure

1:48:37that that behavior is disincentivized

1:48:40by our property owners

1:48:42who are not following our property standards.

1:48:47Yeah, through the counselor

1:48:48and I may have some feedback by the deputy CEO as well.

1:48:53But stay tuned.

1:48:55I think in July, you'll see some updates

1:48:57to property standards

1:48:58and certainly the heritage property standard bylaw as well

1:49:01which may address some of your concerns.

1:49:03So it's incremental changes that we're making

1:49:06and you'll see more in probably July.

1:49:10Okay, that's good to know.

1:49:11That puts my mind at ease

1:49:12because that's actually exactly what I mean.

1:49:15My question was directed at

1:49:17is that we have to make sure

1:49:21that the two are working in tandem

1:49:22and additional protections

1:49:24for heritage buildings has been on our work plans

1:49:27for a long time.

1:49:28So I will wait till July.

1:49:31Thanks.

1:49:32Great, thank you.

1:49:33Alt then O'Rourke.

1:49:36Thank you, Mayor Guthrie.

1:49:37And before I ask the question,

1:49:40I have many but I don't know.

1:49:44Is asking questions about a vacancy tax in scope

1:49:50as we are dealing with a bylaw on demolition?

1:49:52I just need to hear from you on that first of all.

1:49:55No, it's not, not this time.

1:49:57Then my questions will be for another time.

1:50:00Thank you very much.

1:50:02Yep, no problem.

1:50:04O'Rourke, then Downer.

1:50:08Thank you, Mayor Guthrie.

1:50:08Through you to staff first,

1:50:09I just wanna say I really like

1:50:11that the signage will be retained.

1:50:13I actually must get a significant percentage

1:50:15of some of these delimitation requests

1:50:18and it's helpful to have that information there

1:50:20and also to be able to direct their questions really helpful.

1:50:23I know there'll be questions around vacancy tax separately.

1:50:26So mine through you, Mayor Guthrie, to staff is

1:50:29this is primarily for residential demolition.

1:50:35Do we have a tool for a demolition

1:50:38like the demolition of the former Royal Brock Hotel

1:50:42where they are, it was a hotel that paid property taxes.

1:50:48It would have potentially paid municipal accommodation taxes.

1:50:51So this whole building is demolished.

1:50:55There's already been a number of OLT rulings

1:50:58to allow them to proceed.

1:50:59So there's nothing.

1:51:00Now there's just this big empty space

1:51:03that conceivably could have been used for other purposes.

1:51:05So I understand you can't force somebody

1:51:08to submit a development application

1:51:10when there's that demolition permit.

1:51:14And I understand that this bylaw applies

1:51:16to the residential units.

1:51:18But what can we do for other ones

1:51:20that are sort of intended for residential

1:51:22but they're just in this purgatory

1:51:26and they are unproductive sites.

1:51:28So if this isn't the tool, is there another one?

1:51:34Through the mayor to councillor or Rourke,

1:51:36through demolition control,

1:51:38we do not have the ability to mandate any sort of conditions

1:51:44for those kinds of buildings,

1:51:45institutional, industrial, commercial types of buildings,

1:51:48even if the property is converting to a residential use.

1:51:52Through demolition control, we don't have that ability.

1:51:57So through America three.

1:51:59I'll ask for your indulgence.

1:52:01Are there other tools then that would help us

1:52:03because it is a similar case right here,

1:52:05units that could be used but were demolished

1:52:09and they could be used for different purposes.

1:52:11Are there other tools that we could be looking at

1:52:14or should be looking at?

1:52:18Through the mayor to the councillor.

1:52:19So there's nothing that we're aware of at this time.

1:52:27Yes, nothing that we're aware of.

1:52:34Okay, downer please and then Claeson.

1:52:39Thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor.

1:52:41So the one thing that I'm not sure,

1:52:44it's one of the recommendations is saying a new condition

1:52:50in the report it says may be imposed

1:52:53to require the preparation and submission

1:52:55of a building permit.

1:52:56And yet other areas I see in the presentation,

1:52:59it's that we will be coming back with a condition.

1:53:02So I'm just, is it or isn't it?

1:53:05Is it well or is it may?

1:53:06So I'm sort of like what is it gonna be?

1:53:13Through the mayor to councillor downer

1:53:15that the use of the word may there

1:53:17is to account for the exemptions.

1:53:19So in that case, for example,

1:53:21if a property were to come in that for whatever reason

1:53:26the chief building official deems the property unsafe

1:53:29and we're not going to require them to come in

1:53:31for a demolition control permit.

1:53:33In that case, we're not going to require them

1:53:35immediately to come back

1:53:37with replacement building permit plans.

1:53:39Or in the case of the Hanlon Road properties

1:53:43that were demolished there,

1:53:44that's for the extension of the interchange

1:53:47at Stone Road West.

1:53:49We're not going to require the MTO in that case

1:53:51to come back with replacement building permit plans.

1:53:53Perfect.

1:53:54Okay, that's good.

1:53:57The other question sort of,

1:53:58it ties in with the discussion we've had

1:54:02and this one too around then

1:54:05and you may come back with this

1:54:07with a property standard single,

1:54:08but a registry of the vacant houses

1:54:11because those are usually the ones of course

1:54:13which have the demolition applications coming in.

1:54:17Would that ever be considered

1:54:19where you have annual inspections of vacant properties

1:54:23that are maybe slated to be demolished down the road?

1:54:27But I think as for protection of neighborhoods,

1:54:32I mean shingles and roofs can fly off

1:54:35and rats can start invest or recruit

1:54:40and start infesting these homes.

1:54:44And so is there an opportunity to have a registry

1:54:49that where there is some kind of inspection for them?

1:54:56And where there's a cost to register them as well?

1:55:02Through the mayor and the councillor.

1:55:03So I think what's before council today

1:55:06is the demolition control bylaw.

1:55:07So I'm gonna focus on that.

1:55:10When we bring the property standards bylaw

1:55:13for heritage properties that may give you some more insight

1:55:16of what's being considered at this time.

1:55:21We also do have a list that is kept between heritage staff,

1:55:25fire prevention and our bylaw staff

1:55:28for properties that we consider at risk

1:55:30that we do inspect and keep an eye

1:55:32on those properties as a result

1:55:34of the 797 Victoria investigation.

1:55:37But at this time demolition control

1:55:39is what I have under the planning act

1:55:41and what we've brought forward.

1:55:43Okay, so I'll send a follow up email

1:55:45about one of the properties identified.

1:55:47I think that that was it then.

1:55:51Thanks and I'm happy to see this updated new demolition bylaw.

1:55:58Maybe just one more thing actually

1:56:01on the deconstruction and the salvaging of materials

1:56:06in demolition.

1:56:07I mean, I hear a bit from people

1:56:10like requesting that that be done.

1:56:12And I know a lot of developers do that,

1:56:14but and it's encouraged.

1:56:17But do we have any educational material

1:56:19about where they can, where this can be salvaged

1:56:22and where that can be, you know,

1:56:23different things can be salvaged.

1:56:25And I know we do some out at our

1:56:27waste management center as well.

1:56:29Through the mayor to the counselor.

1:56:33So we did have a pilot project that happened last year

1:56:36and through our environmental services group

1:56:38and through Coil at the time

1:56:39where we do head some pilot projects

1:56:41and have certainly some best practices with that.

1:56:44We don't have information that we give out

1:56:46at the building permit counter right now,

1:56:49but we could look into that at some point in the future,

1:56:51but we just don't have the capacity to do it at this time.

1:56:57Great, thank you.

1:56:58Is there anything further?

1:57:00Councillor Klassen, sorry about that.

1:57:01I had you on my list and I forgot.

1:57:03Go ahead.

1:57:04Yes, thank you through you, Mr. Mayor, staff.

1:57:07My question is related to counselor downer's question

1:57:10with regard to recycling materials

1:57:13that come from a demolition.

1:57:15Do we have the ability to mandate recycling?

1:57:21Through the mayor to counselor Clawson,

1:57:23we do not through demolition control

1:57:24have the ability to mandate the deconstruction

1:57:27and then the recycling of those building materials

1:57:30that are salvaged.

1:57:32Okay, thank you and through you, Mayor,

1:57:33I'll follow up perhaps to Krista.

1:57:37Do we have other tools to mandate the recycling

1:57:40through other bylaws?

1:57:45Through the mayor to the counselor,

1:57:46I'd have to look into that and report back.

1:57:51Okay, thank you and if I may one more question, Mr. Mayor.

1:57:55I'm just looking at the bylaw and the fine for $50,000.

1:58:01And I'm just curious about two things.

1:58:03Where number one, where does the number come from?

1:58:05And two related to that is how many incidences

1:58:09have we had of demolitions without permits,

1:58:13maybe historically?

1:58:15So through the mayor to counselor Clawson,

1:58:18that fine number comes from the Planning Act.

1:58:20It's a specifically set out number.

1:58:22And as far as city staff are aware,

1:58:24we have never levied a demolition control charge

1:58:29of the existing $20,000 amount.

1:58:34Thank you.

1:58:37Great, thank you.

1:58:38Okay, I just have a couple of questions.

1:58:41The first one is, has there ever been any,

1:58:43I'm just gonna follow up on counselor Clawson's idea.

1:58:46And it was mentioned in your presentation as well about coil.

1:58:50Has there ever been an option of an incentive

1:58:54to somebody to divert their waste or to recycle?

1:58:58So in other words, if someone comes for a demolition permit

1:59:01and they pay X amount of money,

1:59:03because it's just a regular,

1:59:04just tear it down sort of process,

1:59:08but if there's proof of an inspection,

1:59:11prior to, during and after,

1:59:14there's a reduction of the fee

1:59:17because we're trying to give an incentive to somebody

1:59:20to actually divert their waste or recycle or reuse.

1:59:31Through the mayor, I do not know the answer to that question.

1:59:34So Mr. Mayor, if you don't mind if I could jump in.

1:59:37So why don't we take that back?

1:59:39That is probably some work that is being done

1:59:40through our solid waste staff.

1:59:42And I know they've been doing some followup

1:59:44on the coal work that's already been done.

1:59:46So we're happy to package that up

1:59:48and send it out to council as information.

1:59:54Okay, so if that were to come back as an option,

1:59:59if there's some validity to it,

2:00:01when and where would that come back?

2:00:04Just because today we're looking to approve this.

2:00:09Again, Mr. Mayor, we did not have a,

2:00:11I don't, we didn't know this was gonna be discussed today.

2:00:13So I'm, if you let me take it back,

2:00:16I can report back as quick as I can

2:00:18and it'll depend on the work that we've already done.

2:00:21Yeah, okay.

2:00:22All right, that's fine.

2:00:23And it just came to me in the moment.

2:00:26So yeah, I normally would send that question in advance,

2:00:29but I just thought it was worthwhile to ask

2:00:31to see if there was an incentive that we could build in.

2:00:34And that kind of speaks to the,

2:00:36I think it was Councillor Downer who'd mentioned

2:00:37about sort of the educational part of it too.

2:00:40So if every single person that comes to the counter here

2:00:43to get a demolition permit is also given an incentive

2:00:46in the educational part about the recycling,

2:00:48you never know, we could start to see some trends

2:00:51of that being done more often.

2:00:53Okay, I'll stop with that.

2:00:55And then my final question is,

2:00:56and I know I'm on the line here,

2:00:59so I just wanna be careful,

2:01:00but I just, I do fully agree with this demolition

2:01:06by neglect issue, so it has the word demolition in it.

2:01:09So can I just get clarity from you, Christa?

2:01:12When you said something's coming in July,

2:01:15I heard you say that something might be coming in July

2:01:18around heritage homes and demolition.

2:01:22My concern is about more than just heritage homes

2:01:27about the demolition by neglect issue.

2:01:30So can I just get, can Council just get clarity

2:01:33on what we are to expect in July?

2:01:36What are you focusing on?

2:01:38So through the mayor, I'm jumping in and answering

2:01:40because it's actually not a planning matter

2:01:42that's coming in July.

2:01:43And as you can see, Mr. Godfrey has come down.

2:01:45So what is coming in July is actually through

2:01:47Public Services, which is an update

2:01:49to the property standards by-law,

2:01:50and it pertains to heritage properties.

2:01:53And so it's an amendment to our property standards by-law

2:01:56pertaining to heritage properties.

2:01:58And I hope I've talked long enough that Doug is, yes,

2:02:00Doug is now there, and I'm gonna let Doug tell you more

2:02:02about what that update is about.

2:02:06To you, Mayor Guthrie, in July we will be bringing

2:02:11as DCO-Clack-Bush indicated some amendments

2:02:14to the property standards by-law for Council's consideration

2:02:18respecting heritage properties and how they are treated

2:02:22with respect to your concerns about property standards

2:02:27and how we enforce and everything like that.

2:02:29That's something that we're looking at now,

2:02:31not necessarily reporting back to Council,

2:02:33but looking at how we can improve that.

2:02:35As Ms. Walke indicated, we are now communicating

2:02:38between the multiple departments.

2:02:40We're mapping out information and sharing information,

2:02:44so we're trying to address some of those issues as well.

2:02:48Okay, thank you.

2:02:51So yeah, I'm gonna adhere to my own chair direction today

2:02:56that I don't wanna talk about a vacancy tax.

2:02:59But I really think that there's actually a lot of agreement

2:03:04of agreement probably on Council around the fact

2:03:10that we have a lot of non-heritage homes

2:03:13that cause a lot of problems for each of us

2:03:16with phone calls and complaints of the neglect

2:03:20around property standard issues of homes year over year

2:03:25over year over year that are causing a lot of problems.

2:03:29And I'm sure it's causing problems for your own staff

2:03:31by law having to do all the inspections too.

2:03:34I believe that there is something warranted here

2:03:37around either a registry and or fines

2:03:40or something that that homeowner has to pay for

2:03:43and not the entire property tax base has to pay for

2:03:46for their neglect, their purposeful neglect.

2:03:49And there's validity to that.

2:03:52So I'm asking this question now.

2:03:55Do you need direction from Council today

2:03:58so that in July a property standards report

2:04:02identifies that issue?

2:04:07Or do you want us to wait till July

2:04:09to give you the direction on that?

2:04:11Because I think that there would be some agreement

2:04:14amongst Council to give you that direction now

2:04:16that in July we can at least see something similar

2:04:20to either a registry and or some fees

2:04:24in regards to this issue.

2:04:26So I'll just throw that out there.

2:04:31To you Mayor Guthrie, if you're speaking

2:04:34to vacant property specifically that are not heritage

2:04:38as Council would indicate as you know,

2:04:43we've spoken in the past, we do have a bylaw schedule

2:04:47review that we presented, vacant properties

2:04:50and possible regulations regarding them is in 2027.

2:04:54That's when that schedule to come forward

2:04:56with respect to the July 3rd report

2:05:00that's dealing specifically with heritage

2:05:03and the overall process of how we address

2:05:07property standards is being reviewed internally now

2:05:10to see how we can make improvements.

2:05:11So I don't know if that answers all of your questions.

2:05:14And so my last question then on that follow up

2:05:16is the heritage one in July,

2:05:18you're doing a more fulsome review.

2:05:20When should we expect that?

2:05:25Through you to Mayor Guthrie currently,

2:05:27that's an administrative responsibility

2:05:29that we're doing as to how we have the tools right now.

2:05:33There is a property standards act,

2:05:35it's a property standards bylaw as to how we enforce it.

2:05:40That's what we're looking at opportunities to improve

2:05:43our response and that sort of thing.

2:05:45If Council would want us to report back on that,

2:05:48that is something that we could do.

2:05:57The tie in I have here, if I could Council,

2:06:00and hey Council, if you wanna stop me in my tracks,

2:06:02I respect that.

2:06:04The tie in I do have is there is a reality here

2:06:07where some people leave their properties in such disrepair

2:06:12that it comes to a point of a health and safety issue,

2:06:15which is embedded in this report

2:06:17where then it could just be demolished

2:06:19under a health and safety issue

2:06:20because it's been neglected for so long.

2:06:22I agree that that is a problem.

2:06:24So what I'm trying to get at is that,

2:06:27again, this isn't a vacancy tax issue.

2:06:29I'm not talking about that.

2:06:31I'm talking about the registration of these types of homes

2:06:36to light a fire, I'm gonna say it that way,

2:06:38light a fire under the property owners

2:06:40that they have a responsibility

2:06:42to at least be taking care of it properly

2:06:45and that there's some sort of registry and onus on them

2:06:49and payment by them so that we have the inspections

2:06:53to make sure that these are being covered off properly.

2:06:57So I'm just trying to determine whether or not

2:07:00there could be a motion of council right now

2:07:03to say we would like to have this report come back

2:07:06of both a registry and or inspection type of program

2:07:11in regards to these types of homes that do exist

2:07:14and are an increasing complaint amongst a lot of,

2:07:18a lot of, I don't know about my colleagues,

2:07:20but I get a lot of them.

2:07:28To you, Mayor Guthrie, I would recommend

2:07:30that any direction probably come as part

2:07:32of the July 3rd report on property standards,

2:07:35that might be the better tie in there.

2:07:37And then we can provide some information

2:07:39on our active work that we're doing on property standards

2:07:43and some of the improvements that we're making there.

2:07:47Okay, that's good.

2:07:48Okay, thank you.

2:07:49Oh, Colleen, did you wanna jump in?

2:07:50I'm good with that answer, but you go ahead.

2:07:52And Doug and I are trying to telepathically communicate.

2:07:55So thankfully, Doug jumped in and said

2:07:57what I was hoping he was going to.

2:07:58So I think we have the property standards by law

2:08:02in place.

2:08:02We wanna update it in terms of making sure

2:08:04we have those better protections in place

2:08:06for the heritage properties.

2:08:08But we wanna use the existing tools that we have

2:08:10as Mr. Godfrey has said.

2:08:12Some of this is administrative and we wanna make sure

2:08:15that we're using the tools that we already have.

2:08:17And so let us go away and look at what we're bringing you

2:08:19in July anyways.

2:08:21We'll come back with that report in July

2:08:23and then see if there's still a feeling that you want more.

2:08:26And we can take that away.

2:08:29Look at what information you're looking for.

2:08:31See if there's still a gap there

2:08:33because I also don't want to commit to a report back

2:08:37on something that we haven't looked at

2:08:39what that is in terms of our staff work plan.

2:08:43All right, we'll all look forward to the conversation

2:08:46in July then.

2:08:47That's awesome.

2:08:48Thank you.

2:08:49All right, thank you everyone.

2:08:50With that, I'll stop and just call the vote then.

2:08:53We're good.

2:08:53Yep, I'll call the vote.

2:08:55Is anyone against this updated demolition by law?

2:08:58Nobody.

2:09:00That's unanimous.

2:09:01Thank you so much for, thanks staff for updating that.

2:09:03It's great.

2:09:05And with that, I am going to look to my colleague,

2:09:09Councillor Downer to bring forward the bylaws please.

2:09:13Okay, so I'm moving that bylaws 2024-2908,

2:09:212024-90919, 2024-90919,

2:09:27923-2024-90928 and 2024-90929,

2:09:34be approved section 284.114 of the municipal act.

2:09:44Yes, the clerk would like to just jump in.

2:09:46Through you, Mr. Mayor,

2:09:47I just want to note the resolution on the screen

2:09:49includes as amended, there was an administrative error

2:09:52in one of the bylaws noted.

2:09:53So we've just included as amended

2:09:54so we can correct that before signing.

2:09:55So moved.

2:09:58For the update on the as amended.

2:10:01And would Councillor Orwark,

2:10:02would you be willing to second that?

2:10:03Thank you so much.

2:10:05Anything on the bylaws?

2:10:07Hearing and seeing none, I'll call the vote.

2:10:09Is anyone against the bylaws?

2:10:12No, and I'm just going to go back.

2:10:14So that's passed.

2:10:15I'm just going to go back

2:10:16because when I heard Councillor Downer read out that motion,

2:10:19I forgot to do that on the demolition one.

2:10:21So just to have it, I'll just quickly read it out

2:10:25that the demolition control discussion paper

2:10:27as included in attachment one be received.

2:10:30And the second one was that bylaw 2020,

2:10:32420, 923 as shown in attachment two of the report,

2:10:372024, 124, being a bylaw that doesn't need the entirety

2:10:42of the city quell as a demolition control area be approved.

2:10:44So I'm sorry, I forgot to read that out

2:10:46before it was unanimously passed.

2:10:48With that, I'm looking for, there's no mayor's announcements

2:10:51and I'm looking for adjournment please.

2:10:54Would someone be willing to throw their hand up for that?

2:10:56Councillor Caton throws up her hand.

2:10:58Thank you.

2:10:59And who's going to second that one?

2:11:02I'm going to go with Boosatill.

2:11:03Awesome.

2:11:04All right.

2:11:05And I'm sure that's unanimous.

2:11:07Yes, it is.

2:11:08So we're out of here and have a great rest of the day.

2:11:10Thank you so much.