Committee of Adjustment

5:15Good afternoon, Guelph.

5:16I'd like to call to order the March 12th, 2026 hearing

5:19of the Guelph Committee of Adjustment.

5:23This hearing is being held in a hybrid format

5:25with attendees appearing in person or remotely

5:27and is being live streamed and recorded.

5:30Please be advised that public hearings form part

5:32of the public record and the words, names, and images

5:36of those participating shall be recorded and posted online.

5:40Before I outline the hearing format,

5:42if you are watching online and wish to speak

5:44to an application that's listed on our agenda

5:47and have not yet submitted a request in advance

5:50of the hearing, please call the number displayed

5:52on the screen now, which is 519-822-1260.

5:58That's 519-822-1260 and the extension is 2524.

6:05There you will receive instructions on how to participate.

6:09For those attending the hearing in person,

6:12you will also be given a chance to address our committee.

6:15A final call for delegations will be made

6:17when each application is called.

6:20The agenda for this hearing has been posted online

6:22at guelph.ca forward slash COFA.

6:28I'll remind all committee members and staff participating

6:31in the hearing to please mute your microphone when not

6:34in use.

6:35Applicants will be unmuted when their application is called.

6:39I'd also like to share the hearing format we'll be using

6:43to navigate through each application.

6:46Each application will be called by the secretary,

6:48treasurer, and the call in number for those wishing

6:50to speak to an application shall be described,

6:53displayed on the screen.

6:56Afterwards, the applicant will be given an opportunity

6:58to add anything further to their application

7:01to a maximum of 10 minutes.

7:03You will hear a chime when there are 30 seconds left

7:06and another when 10 minutes have elapsed.

7:09If you are an applicant and have nothing further to add,

7:12then you can simply say so.

7:14Following this, for some files,

7:16staff may provide a brief presentation.

7:19Our committee will then be able to ask questions

7:21of the applicant and or staff.

7:24After that, we'll hear from members of the public.

7:27And if you wish to comment on an application,

7:30please note that all comments should be addressed

7:32through myself, the chair.

7:34Please avoid repeating concerns already stated by others

7:37and focus on adding new information.

7:40Comments are also limited to 10 minutes or less.

7:43You will hear a chime when there are 30 seconds left

7:46and another when the 10 minutes have elapsed.

7:49For delegates that have advised staff in advance

7:52of the hearing that they wish to display a presentation,

7:55your presentation will be displayed on the screen.

7:58And a remote is available at the podium for delegates

8:03in person to advance their slides.

8:06Any member of the public who have submitted a request

8:09to speak prior to a hearing will be the first invited

8:12to provide comments.

8:14For those watching the hearing online, if you want to wish,

8:17pardon me, if you wish to speak to an application

8:20and have not submitted a request in advance of our hearing,

8:24please call the number displayed on the screen now.

8:28For those attending the hearing in person,

8:31you will also be given a chance to come forward

8:34to the podium and address our committee.

8:37Once all comments from the public have been heard,

8:39the applicant or staff will be given the opportunity

8:42to respond to the comments made.

8:44Finally, as chair, I will turn to our committee

8:47for a motion and deliberation as we will vote

8:50on each application.

8:52When the committee is making a decision on an application

8:56as chair, I will be asking the secretary treasurer

8:58to conduct the vote by roll call.

9:01The secretary treasurer will call each of the members' names

9:05and each member will respond if they are in favor

9:08or opposed to the motion.

9:10And as chair, I will announce the result of the vote.

9:16If you wish to receive a copy of the decision

9:18on an application, you must submit a written request.

9:22A written request can be made by contacting staff

9:25using the contact information shown now on the screen.

9:29To receive a copy of the decision, please email

9:32cofaatgualf.ca with the name of the,

9:39and the file number you're interested in.

9:41Please note that owners and applicants automatically

9:43receive a copy of a decision.

9:46At this point, in our proceedings,

9:48it's time for the territorial acknowledgement

9:51and those of us that can stand, please do so.

9:54And I'll ask member Ross to provide the acknowledgement.

10:02As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege

10:06to live and work in Guelph,

10:08a city built over rich indigenous histories.

10:11We are guests here and we should reflect upon

10:14the responsibility to care for this land,

10:17the people who live here today and the generations to come.

10:21If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation,

10:25we should take pause and make those decisions

10:28with intention and gratitude.

10:31This place we call Guelph has served as traditional lands

10:35and a place of refuge for many peoples over time,

10:38but more specifically, at a Wanda Ronque

10:42and the Haudenosaunee.

10:44This land is held as the treaty lands and territory

10:47with the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

10:51Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Haldeman Tract

10:54and is part of a long established traditional hunting ground

10:57for the six nations of the Grand River.

11:00Many First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples

11:04who have come from across Turtle Island call Guelph home today.

11:12Thank you very much, member Ross.

11:15Committee members, are there any disclosures,

11:17disclosure of pecuniary interest?

11:22Seeing none, at this point, I will ask for a motion

11:29to approve the minutes of our last meeting.

11:33Member Goodfellow and a seconder.

11:37Member Mambreno, all those in favor?

11:40That has carried.

11:43I've confirmed with the secretary treasurer

11:44that we do have one withdrawal

11:47and I shall now turn to our secretary treasurer

11:50to address this request.

11:53Thank you, chair.

11:54File A-10 slash 26, 56 Chesterton Lane has been withdrawn

12:00and both the applicant and staff are in support of this.

12:04No motion is required when an application is withdrawn.

12:07I'll now turn it back to the chair

12:09to call for the next item.

12:12Thank you, Mr. Secretary Treasurer

12:15and thank you for filling in this afternoon.

12:21At this point, I would like to ask you

12:25to call the next, or the first application.

12:29The first file is B-73 slash 25,

12:35B-74 slash 25 and B-7525, 310 Edinburgh Road South.

12:43If you wish to speak of the application,

12:45please call the number shown on screen.

12:48The number is 519-822-1260, extension 2524.

12:54When your call is received,

12:55staff will provide you with instructions

12:57on how you can delegate remotely by phone.

13:00This is the final opportunity to call in

13:02regarding this application.

13:04Good afternoon.

13:05Can you state your name and your association

13:11with this application for the record, please?

13:13Jeff Buseman, a Van Harten serving agent for the application.

13:17Thank you and Mr. Buseman, can you tell me

13:19if the sign was posted as per the planning act?

13:22Yes, it was.

13:24And have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement?

13:27Yes, I have read their comments and I am in agreement with them.

13:30As you know, you now have 10 minutes

13:32to address our committee, so please make as much time,

13:35use of that time as you'd like.

13:37Sure.

13:38I think we'll put up a, so this is on Edinburgh Road,

13:43between college and Wellington on the east side of the road.

13:48There's two houses there now,

13:50or one house there now that we're planning to have removed

13:53and then have four semi-detached units.

13:56So this is right next to a strip of those recently approved.

14:02You can see that on the left is the footprint

14:04of the future unit on the left.

14:07There were quite a number there approved

14:09about a year or two ago and construction is happening

14:12on those shortly.

14:13A number of preliminary reports,

14:18engineering type of reports have been submitted to city staff

14:22and city staff are satisfied with all of them

14:24to make this application proceed forward.

14:27The only one that they're still,

14:29haven't had a chance to review yet is the noise study,

14:33but all the other ones, traffic and the servicing

14:37and other ones like that have all been already reviewed

14:40and approved, supported by city staff.

14:43This is a typical case of the city,

14:46typically infill lot on our road

14:49and I think it'll be a good application.

14:51I'd be happy to answer any questions.

14:52I mean, you can also see the configuration

14:55is 7.6 meters wide for each parcel

14:59and they all meet zoning.

15:02So yeah, any questions or comments

15:04I'd be happy to answer them.

15:08Thank you very much and thank you for your brevity.

15:11Committee members, do we have any questions of the applicant?

15:17Member Goodfellow.

15:18To the chair, I actually have a question for city staff,

15:21but should I ask it now

15:23or do they perhaps have a presentation on this one?

15:26Let me see if city staff has a presentation.

15:31So thank you for reminding me.

15:35I'm wondering if city staff have any comment

15:38or presentation for this application?

15:47It appears not.

15:48So I think this might be the appropriate time.

15:52Okay, thank you for that.

15:53So through the chair to city staff,

15:55I did have a question about stormwater.

15:57Just wanting to confirm that city staff had no concerns

16:01about the available infiltration area

16:03in the back, the rear yard of the new proposed development.

16:08Thanks.

16:11Through the chair, member Goodfellow, no concerns.

16:14The stormwater report is gonna be

16:15a required condition of the severance.

16:18Thank you, appreciate that.

16:21Thank you.

16:22Any other questions of the applicant?

16:27Seeing none,

16:28I'm going to turn to the public

16:30and see if there's anyone who's registered

16:33as a delegate, Secretary Charter.

16:37Yes, Mr. Chair, we have one registered delegate.

16:40We have Mark and Jody Solda

16:44and they will be appearing via video.

16:50I don't see them yet.

16:54They're here.

17:00Chair, they're in.

17:01I don't believe the video is working,

17:03so they'll just be joining by audio.

17:05Just audio.

17:07Can you hear me?

17:08Yeah, we can hear you.

17:09Can you hear us?

17:10Okay, that's great.

17:11Can you state your name for the record, please?

17:13Mark and Jody Solda.

17:16Thank you.

17:17And you may or may not have heard me earlier,

17:20but you have the opportunity to address our committee

17:23for 10 minutes and you can make as much use of that time

17:27as you'd like, so please go ahead.

17:29We should be pretty quick as well.

17:31We're the owners of 312 at Inverso,

17:35this is the property directly adjacent

17:37to the property we're talking about today.

17:40We do have a couple of concerns regarding 310 Edinburgh.

17:43The first concern I have is parking spaces.

17:48There are potentially five vehicles per proposed townhouse.

17:54If I imagine the house,

17:57or each townhouse is gonna be rented out to students

17:59and I'm sure they're gonna stay at five

18:02and not exceed five and go to six

18:04for this simple reason of once you hit six,

18:07there's many more considerations.

18:11So almost everyone has a car nowadays

18:15and the driveway and the parking area

18:17looks very small for each townhouse.

18:19So my concern is if there are five residents per unit

18:24and potentially five vehicles per unit,

18:27Edinburgh is a heck of a road to pull out on,

18:31and pull into, nevermind backing in and backing out.

18:38That's our first concern is parking.

18:41Our second concern is fencing.

18:44We would like the property owner to erect a privacy fence

18:48to the maximum height and length

18:50to ensure that our backyard remains somewhat private.

18:54Those are the two concerns I have

18:56and we wish the best of progress for the applicants

19:00and hope that everything else goes smoothly for them.

19:03That is all I have to say at this time

19:05and we thank you for your consideration.

19:09Thank you.

19:09If you want to stay on the line for a moment,

19:13our committee members may have some questions for you.

19:15So please stand by for a moment.

19:17Committee members, do we have any questions of this delegate?

19:22I do have one question and that is,

19:26you're aware of a similar application

19:30that has gone forward and I believe construction

19:32has started very close, if not adjacent to this.

19:38Is that something you're aware of?

19:41Yes, we're aware of the couple doors down, yes.

19:44And you may not be aware,

19:48but our committee reviewed that in the past

19:52and that development has gone forward.

19:58And have you read staff's comments

20:03about this proposed development?

20:06No, we have not read the statements.

20:09Okay, maybe you'd like to stand by

20:11and I'm going to turn this,

20:15unless we have another delegate,

20:17I'm gonna turn it back to the applicant and city staff.

20:21So I'd encourage you to listen to the rest

20:26of this portion of the hearing.

20:28Yes, of course.

20:32Secretary Treasurer, do we have any other registered delegates?

20:36No, Chair, we do not have any other registered delegates.

20:39And is there anyone on the phone?

20:41We do not have anyone on the phones.

20:43Is there anyone in the chamber

20:44who would like to speak to this application?

20:48Seeing none, I will turn it back to Mr. Buseman

20:51if he would like to address the concerns

20:55that have been raised.

20:57The design is set up to meet the zoning requirements

21:01for parking.

21:04And the plan is to put up a privacy fence to the height,

21:09that what's height?

21:11Eight feet max, that's the,

21:13so they plan to put a privacy fence

21:16as suggested by the neighbor.

21:19Okay, thank you.

21:22Committee members, do we have any other questions

21:24for the applicant or for staff?

21:31I don't see anyone racing to the microphone.

21:34So it's, oh, sorry, Member Ross, I neglected you.

21:38This, through you, Mr. Chair,

21:41this question is to staff as it relates to the zoning bylaw.

21:45So the applicant's agent has said that this application's

21:50parking meets the zoning bylaw.

21:53Just for my clarification, does the zoning bylaw

21:57differentiate between different sizes of roads?

22:03So Edinburgh Road versus a small local road

22:06in terms of driveways, parking,

22:10and how a staff approaches their review

22:14of a traffic study on a major roadway?

22:20Through the chair, I can just answer the first part

22:23on parking requirement and then engineering can,

22:26comment on the traffic study,

22:28but it's for parking, we don't base the required number

22:33of parking spaces on what type of road it's on.

22:38It's how many dwelling units.

22:40So a main dwelling unit with 280 use in it

22:44only requires two parking spaces.

22:48Thank you.

22:53Through the chair, the traffic study for the property

22:58assessed the driveways and assessed the road,

23:03the amount of traffic, driveways, and collision data,

23:10among other things, and determined that the driveways

23:13were safe for the intended residential use.

23:21Just one other question.

23:22So was the traffic study prepared by the consultants,

23:27by the consultant, and then staff reviewed that study?

23:31Is that how the application was dealt with?

23:37Through the chair, that's correct.

23:39They submitted it with the application for the severance

23:43and staff reviewed it and put that in our comments.

23:49Are there any other questions for the applicant?

23:53Seeing none, committee members, what is your wish?

23:56Do we have a motion to consider?

24:00Member Ross.

24:01I move approval of the application

24:06with the condition set out by staff.

24:09And a seconder.

24:10A member fits Patrick.

24:12Is there any discussion on the motion we have in front of us?

24:17Seeing none, Mr. Secretary-Trizier,

24:21would you mind calling the vote please?

24:24Committee members, please indicate your vote

24:26by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

24:30which is to approve the applications with conditions.

24:35Chair Smith.

24:36In favor.

24:38Member fits Patrick.

24:39In favor.

24:40Member Goodfellow.

24:41In favor.

24:43Member Mbrenio.

24:44In favor.

24:45Member Meir.

24:46In favor.

24:48Member Ross.

24:49In favor.

24:50And member Spears.

24:51In favor.

24:52That is carried, chair.

24:55Your application has been approved.

24:57Thank you.

25:00Before we move forward,

25:02I'm going to exercise a little bit of housekeeping here

25:08that I neglected to do at the beginning.

25:11And it seems that we have a request for a fee refund

25:14for 22 Ambrose Crescent.

25:18I would like to move that to right after the consideration

25:24of the application for 22 Ambrose Crescent

25:28if that's acceptable to the committee.

25:32I'm seeing nodding.

25:33So, Mr. Secretary Treasurer, can you make that note?

25:39I'm assuming that the applicant would be amenable to that

25:45rather than having to wait to the very end.

25:49Okay.

25:50With that out of the way,

25:52may we have the next application please?

25:55Yes, chair.

25:56The next file is B-80-26,

26:00B-81-26, and A-2-26 for 7072 and 74 Preston Street.

26:10If you wish to speak to this application,

26:12please call the number shown on screen.

26:15The number is 519-822-1260, extension 2524.

26:24When your call is received,

26:25staff will provide you with instructions

26:27on how you can delegate remotely by phone.

26:33Welcome back.

26:34Can you state your name for the record please?

26:36Jeff Beesman, Van Hart and Surveying,

26:38applicant for the, or agent for the property owner.

26:43And can you tell me if the sign was posted

26:45as per the planning act?

26:46Yes, it was.

26:47And have you read staff's comments and are you in agreement?

26:50Yes, I am.

26:52Okay. As you know, you have 10 minutes to address our committee.

26:56Sure.

26:58Okay, so this was before the committee,

27:01the same property quite a while ago,

27:04and severances were approved for a different configuration.

27:07You can see on the bottom left of that picture,

27:10we use the word previous severances,

27:12and you can see the different dimensions of the properties.

27:15And so the first one on the left,

27:19as we see it from the piece of paper,

27:21that is remaining the same.

27:23The next three are all, they're being changed to reflect more

27:27to go for the semi-detached type of units

27:30than what they had previously.

27:32So the configurations of the parcels

27:34are going to change slightly.

27:36Part of the, part of the condition in all of this

27:40is that the previous severances are all going to be,

27:44forget the terminology, but wiped out, removed.

27:47Okay, so these will replace it.

27:49It's the smoother than trying to do

27:51lot line adjustments for all of these.

27:54There are two minor variances.

27:56You can see on the left-hand side,

27:58there's a piece of property that we identify as a lane.

28:01The lane's very, very old.

28:04It's part of a registered plan.

28:06Never built upon, never used, never will be used.

28:10And so we're asking for, so technically,

28:14it's still a road for zoning purposes.

28:18So the exterior side yard is supposed to be,

28:21I believe six meters, we're asking for it to be two meters.

28:24Similarly, there's a sight line triangle rule

28:27for the intersection of the two roads,

28:28and you can see that in the corner there.

28:31So that again, we're asking for variance

28:34for that sight line triangle.

28:37Those two variances, I believe,

28:38were not here the first time.

28:40So taking advantage of this to clean this up as well

28:44to deal with these needed variances.

28:49Otherwise, I'd be happy to,

28:50and in a lot of the engineering and so on,

28:53all was all done for the previous configuration.

28:57The house footprints have changed a bit,

28:59but everything looks to be in order.

29:01I'd be happy to answer any questions or comments.

29:05Thank you for that.

29:06And does staff have any sort of a presentation or comment?

29:13Yes, please go ahead.

29:17To you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee,

29:19as the applicant mentioned,

29:20the proposal is to sever the subject lands

29:22into two new residential lots with one lot being retained.

29:25And as he also mentioned,

29:27I would like to note that the committee

29:28previously approved consent applications

29:31for the subject lands in July, 2024.

29:34And as a result of that decision,

29:36the parcel at 74 Preston Street remains unchanged

29:39in the context of this proposal.

29:42Whereas the additional properties

29:44included in today's applications

29:46would replace those severances that were previously approved.

29:50And I also wanted to make note

29:52that staff have reviewed the proposal

29:54and are satisfied the severances

29:55meet the consent policy of the official plan,

29:58as well as the criteria under section 51, 24

30:01of the planning act.

30:02The applicant has also requested two variances,

30:05one for the exterior side yard setback

30:07and one for the required sight line triangle.

30:10And based on our review,

30:11staff recommending approval of consent application

30:15B-80 slash 26

30:18along with minor variance application A-2 slash 26,

30:24subject to the recommended conditions.

30:26Thank you.

30:28Thank you.

30:29And committee members,

30:30do we have any questions of staff or the applicant?

30:35Member Memdrino, please.

30:38Through you, Chair, to staff.

30:41I was looking at the sketches

30:42and the previous severance has a distance,

30:47difference, different distance or measurement

30:51than the current, what you're asking right now.

30:56Can you tell me why is it different?

31:03So the last one is 8.9,

31:06but then you add the other three that the proposed severances

31:11is different, the previous one to this one.

31:15And actually the one in 2024 is even

31:20another 10 centimeter difference.

31:28Is that for me?

31:32Yes, Chair, for the applicant.

31:36Fundamentally, the previous widths and configuration

31:40didn't work well with the house design intended.

31:43So really all we're doing is changing the configuration

31:46to fit better with the proposed dwellings.

31:49So some are just like it says

31:51on the bottom left previous severances

31:53and proposed severances and the dimensions

31:55that shows the differences that we're proposing

31:58to have this time around compared to the first time.

32:01Yes, if I may continue, I understand that part,

32:07but if you add the three, they're different,

32:11the total is different.

32:13That's probably a rounding error.

32:15Like some of this is like when it says 9.6,

32:18it could be 9.55 for example.

32:22Do you remember me?

32:23It just could be simply rounding error.

32:25It's about this much.

32:26Yeah, yeah, yeah.

32:29In the terms of the context of what we're approving here

32:31and so on, it's not an issue.

32:33Like in terms of zoning and the fit, it's all gonna fit.

32:36And afterwards we do a formal survey plan

32:38called the reference plan,

32:39and that will have the precise measurements.

32:42Okay, thank you.

32:45Thank you.

32:46And any other questions for the applicant or for staff?

32:50I have one, and maybe it's a little arcane,

32:54but is this meant to be rental or is this considered?

33:02Yeah, it's meant to be rental.

33:04So this is more out of my curiosity.

33:08If this is, we're severing this one lot into four,

33:14and it's going to be a rental property,

33:19if it's the same owner,

33:21does that not have some implications down the road

33:24that it would get merged on title?

33:26That's the strength of the Consent Under Planning Act.

33:31We kind of use the phrase, once a consent, always a consent.

33:34So even if there's same owner,

33:36or it happens more if there's different owners at first,

33:40and then you buy your neighbor's house, okay?

33:42So that's the whole purpose of this application

33:45is to make sure we have separate lots by consent.

33:48Okay, thank you.

33:49And as I said, it was a bit arcane.

33:51It's not really germane to our discussion.

33:55Are there any other questions of the applicant or staff?

33:58Seeing none, Mr. Secretary Treasurer,

34:01do we have anyone online or a registered delegate

34:05on this application?

34:07No, Chair, we do not have any registered delegates,

34:09and we do not have anyone online.

34:11Thank you.

34:12Is there anyone in the chamber

34:13who would like to speak to this application?

34:16Seeing none, I'm going to turn to my colleagues,

34:21committee members, what is your wish?

34:24Member Goodfellow.

34:26I move we approve the application

34:28with the conditions recommended by city staff.

34:30Yeah, okay, and do we have a seconder?

34:33Member Spears, you've been relatively silent today.

34:39Do we have any discussion on the motion before us?

34:43Seeing none, Mr. Secretary Treasurer,

34:47would you call the roll please?

34:48Committee members, please indicate your vote

34:51by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

34:54which is to approve with conditions.

34:57Chair Smith.

34:58In favor.

35:00Member Fitzpatrick.

35:01In favor.

35:02Member Goodfellow.

35:03In favor.

35:04Member Mbrenio.

35:05In favor.

35:06Member Meir.

35:08In favor.

35:10Member Ross.

35:11In favor.

35:12Member Spears.

35:13In favor.

35:14Chair, that motion is carried.

35:17Thank you, your application has been approved.

35:19Thank you very much.

35:20You're welcome.

35:25May we have the next application please,

35:29Secretary Treasurer?

35:32The next file is B-4-26 to B-23-26

35:40for 1166 to 1204 Gordon Street.

35:45If you wish to speak to this application,

35:47please call the number shown on screen.

35:49The number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

35:58When your call is received,

35:59staff will provide you with instructions

36:01on how you can delegate remotely by phone.

36:04This is the final opportunity to call in

36:06regarding this application.

36:10Good afternoon.

36:10Can you state your name and your relationship

36:12to the application for the record please?

36:15Good afternoon everyone.

36:17My name is Jennifer Goddard

36:19and I'm an associate planner with MHBC,

36:22the agent for the application,

36:24here together with Kevin Lee, representing the owners.

36:28And can you tell me if the sign was posted

36:31as per the Planning Act?

36:32It was.

36:33And have you read staff's comments

36:35and are you in agreement?

36:36We have and we are in agreement.

36:39As you may have seen with the other applicants,

36:42you have 10 minutes to address the committee,

36:43so please make as much use of that time as you'd like.

36:47Thank you.

36:48We do, oh, here it is.

36:49Already one step ahead.

36:50Thank you.

36:52We'll be brief.

36:53It's a quick presentation.

36:55As you are aware, it's a 20 street townhouse application.

36:59So you'll see in this picture here, it's a rendering.

37:07Is this the remote, this button here?

37:10Green.

37:13Okay, thank you.

37:14That was a bit delayed, that's why.

37:17It's going too fast now.

37:20I think it's just delayed like 10 seconds.

37:22Okay, we got it.

37:24Thank you, sorry.

37:26Okay, it is highlighted in red here at the site.

37:30As you are probably aware,

37:32it's south end of Guelph on the east side of Gordon Street.

37:35It previously consisted of six single detached properties,

37:39but the properties have since been consolidated into one.

37:43And it's approximately 1.1 hectares in size

37:47and it has frontage on both Gordon Street

37:49and on the east side on Lansdowne.

37:55There were previous applications.

37:57So there was an official plan amendment

37:59and a zoning bylaw amendment.

38:01Those were both approved in 2024.

38:04And they address these proposed townhouse lots

38:07as well as the proposed apartment,

38:10which would be two of them,

38:11which would be on the retained land.

38:13And for the apartment site plan approval is in process.

38:17We have done our first submission for that.

38:25This consent sketch illustrates the proposed development

38:28so that sort of purpley bluish color, the retained lands,

38:32those would be where the apartments would be

38:34and they would front onto Gordon Street.

38:36And then the purple color,

38:38those are the proposed street townhouse lots.

38:40You'll notice there's a hatched yellow.

38:44Those show proposed easements.

38:46And the purpose of those easements

38:47is to get yard equipment.

38:49So primarily a lawnmower.

38:51If you do happen to be in one of those interior units,

38:55that would allow you to have access

38:57over the adjacent properties for your lawnmower

39:00or any other equipment you needed to get back there.

39:03So you don't have to bring it

39:04through your actual townhouse unit itself.

39:07Everything will comply with the zoning bylaw.

39:10And we do wanna take a moment to appreciate staff.

39:12We went through quite a few iterations

39:15of this consent sketch.

39:16So Lewis and Lindsay and Trista

39:18were all in the trenches with us.

39:19So thank you everyone.

39:22The previous concepts had a few more easements

39:25but we've narrowed it down with staff to this concept here.

39:32This is just a more fulsome plan view.

39:35Again, the townhouses which are the one subject

39:37to the applications are shown in red.

39:39It's just so committee could have a better understanding

39:42of the whole project that is being advanced here.

39:52In conclusion, staff are recommending approval

39:55of the applications.

39:56We're in support of staff recommendations

39:58in the proposed conditions.

40:00And we're available to answer any questions

40:02of the community or members of committee.

40:06Thank you.

40:08Thank you.

40:10That was concise given the complexity of the site.

40:15So thank you for that.

40:17If you wanna wait right there,

40:18I'm going to turn to staff first

40:21before I entertain questions

40:23and see if they have anything to say

40:26or presentation.

40:27Go ahead please.

40:29Thank you.

40:30Good afternoon, committee members,

40:32staff and members of the public.

40:34My name is Lindsay

40:34and I'm a senior planner with the city

40:36and will be presenting staff's recommendation

40:38for the consent applications on the subject lands.

40:41Just as the applicant has indicated,

40:43staff and the applicant have worked together

40:45over the past several years

40:46on various development applications for the subject lands.

40:50An official plan amendment

40:51and zoning by law amendment application

40:53were approved by council on July 9th, 2024

40:56to establish a site specific official plan policy

40:59and site specific zoning to facilitate the development

41:02of two six-story apartment buildings

41:05comprised of 122 units and 20 on street townhouse units.

41:10So the subject consent applications are required

41:12to implement the ultimate development of the lands

41:14in accordance with the approved zoning.

41:17The Ontario Planning Act and the city's official plan

41:19do not limit the number of sevens per property.

41:22However, they both provide criteria to review

41:25when assessing the appropriateness of consent applications.

41:28Section 5124, the Planning Act requires applications

41:32to align with provincial policies and local official plans.

41:35Key criteria include compatibility

41:38with neighborhood character, lot size and shape,

41:40adequate road access, sewage water servicing

41:43and the suitability for the intended use.

41:46So this criteria has been reviewed

41:47to evaluate the proposed severances and easements

41:50and staff are satisfied

41:51that the consent applications comply with the policies.

41:54Policy 10.9.1 of the official plan provides criteria

41:58to consider when evaluating consent applications.

42:01So I have included an evaluation of this criteria

42:04in the staff report.

42:06In summary, a plan of subdivision is not necessary

42:08to complete a detailed review of servicing zoning

42:10and traffic for the proposed development

42:12as this detailed review was completed

42:14through the previous official plan

42:15and zoning by law amendment applications.

42:18The subject lands also have both access

42:20and frontage onto an existing road.

42:23And a plan of subdivision is not required

42:25to create a new public road

42:26or for the extension of an existing one.

42:29And in summary, planning staff are satisfied

42:31that the proposed severances and easements

42:33meet the consent policies of the official plan

42:35and subdivision criteria as outlined in section 5124,

42:39the Planning Act and recommend approval of the applications.

42:42Thank you.

42:45Thank you.

42:46And committee members,

42:47do we have any questions of staff or the applicant?

42:53Member Fitzpatrick.

42:54Through you, Chair, more of a comment

42:56that they've answered any questions in terms of

43:00why the consent versus plan of subdivision.

43:03So I'm satisfied.

43:08I had a similar curiosity.

43:12So yes, thank you.

43:14I have one.

43:15Yes, I'm in spirit.

43:16I think this is to the applicant.

43:19I'm, it's a little bit off topic,

43:21but I'm curious about how the numbering of these houses,

43:24how the addresses will work.

43:27Because right now the redress does on Gordon.

43:29I'm assuming they'll be on landstown

43:31when they're constructed.

43:32But there's way more,

43:35there's a lot more houses here than one would imagine.

43:37There are numbers on the opposite side of the street.

43:46Through the chair to members here,

43:49I may defer to city staff on the addressing, if I may.

43:55Through the chair.

43:59It very well could have some A, Bs and Cs

44:03included in many of the numbering schemes.

44:08That's what does happen now when there isn't room

44:10and a range of numbers to accommodate

44:12every single dwelling.

44:14Thank you.

44:16That answers my question.

44:17Thank you very much.

44:18Ashton answered, thank you.

44:20And I really don't have any other questions

44:26other than in terms of parking,

44:29that seems staff seem to be supporting this.

44:33So just given the concern that was raised

44:37in the first application,

44:39I thought it would be helpful

44:43if you could speak a little bit about parking.

44:48Sure.

44:49So Mr. Chair, there would be two parking spaces

44:52for each of the proposed lots.

44:53So one within the garage

44:55and then one within the driveway as well.

44:58Thank you.

45:00That's what I anticipated,

45:01but I just wanted to draw that out.

45:03Thank you.

45:05At this point, I'm going to turn and see

45:07if there's any delegations for this application.

45:12Thank you, Chair.

45:13I can confirm that there are no registered delegates

45:15and we do not have any delegates online.

45:18Okay.

45:18Is there anyone in the chamber

45:19who would like to speak to this application?

45:22I don't see anyone rushing the podium.

45:25So I'm going to say no,

45:27and I will turn back to my colleagues.

45:30Committee members, what is your wish?

45:36Members, fears?

45:37I move we approve this application

45:39using the conditions set up by city staff.

45:42And we have a seconder.

45:44Member Fitzpatrick,

45:46is there any discussion on the application?

45:49Seeing none.

45:53Mr. Secretary Treasurer, would you call the vote please?

45:56Committee members, please indicate your vote

45:59by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

46:02which is to approve with conditions.

46:04Chair Smith.

46:06In favor.

46:07Member Fitzpatrick.

46:08In favor.

46:09Member Goodfellow.

46:10In favor.

46:12Member Membranian.

46:13In favor.

46:14Member Meir.

46:15In favor.

46:17Member Ross.

46:18In favor.

46:19And Member Spears.

46:20In favor.

46:21Chair, that motion has carried.

46:23Thank you.

46:24The application has been approved,

46:26then you're free to leave the meeting

46:28or stick around for some interesting highlights.

46:31Thank you, everyone.

46:35Mr. Secretary Treasurer,

46:36may we have the next application please?

46:40The next file is A-9-2690 Woodboro Road.

46:46If you wish to speak to this application,

46:49please call the number shown on screen.

46:51The number is 519-822-129.

46:566-0-extension-2524.

47:01When your call is received,

47:02staff will provide you with instructions

47:04on how you can delegate remotely by phone.

47:07This is the final opportunity to call

47:09in regarding this application.

47:14Good afternoon and welcome back.

47:16Can you state your name for the record please?

47:18Jeff Beesman, Van Hart and Sir Vang,

47:21agent for the property owner

47:22and property owners in the audience here.

47:25Thank you, and can you tell me

47:26if the sign was posted as per the planning?

47:28Yes, it was.

47:29And is, have you read staff's comments

47:33and are you in agreement?

47:34Yes, I've read them and I'm in agreement.

47:36As you know, you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

47:43So the property owner is building an addition.

47:48As extended family in-laws will be moving in with them

47:52and they want to make this addition

47:54on the side of the house.

47:56And the way the lay of the lot,

48:00they wanted to make it protrude a little further back.

48:04So the variance's request is for the back there

48:07for a rear yard setback of 5.4 meters instead of 7.5.

48:12You can see we still have lots of backyard space,

48:15especially with swimming pool back there.

48:17So for the majority of the yard,

48:19there's adequate plenty of recreational

48:22and a backyard space.

48:23So the variance is simply that rear yard at the back

48:27and staff are supportive.

48:29I think it's a great opportunity for him

48:31to welcome his family and part of the house.

48:36Okay, thank you.

48:38Does staff have anything to add

48:40to this particular application?

48:43I'm seeing shaking heads.

48:44So I will turn to my colleagues.

48:46Are there any questions of the applicant?

48:50Seeing none, I do have a question.

48:55Is it possible to bring the site plan back up?

49:03Awesome, thank you.

49:04And maybe this is directed at staff.

49:07I note that on the illustration,

49:10the 5.4 meters setback,

49:14I believe is the smaller of the two?

49:18Yeah, the smaller of the two.

49:21But it's not at right angles to the lot.

49:23Is that common or is that just how it's done?

49:31I would think that it might be actually larger

49:35than 5.4 if it was measured at right angles from the lot line.

49:42Go ahead, please.

49:43As a surveyor, we've been doing what we call setbacks

49:47to property buildings for decades.

49:50And it's always perpendicular to the property line,

49:53not perpendicular to the building.

49:55So what you're discussing or thinking about

49:57is the production of the sidewall back, right?

50:01So that's the perpendicular to the building.

50:04All side ties in all zoning bylaws are always taken

50:07as perpendicular to, say, the side line

50:10or the rear line or the front.

50:12Does that help?

50:16I'm not sure.

50:19It seems like it's drawn as a circle

50:24and the diameter of the circle

50:26rather than a right angle line.

50:29But if you look at that arrow

50:31that's pointing at the rear property line

50:33and the direction of the two arrows,

50:35if you drew a straight line from that property corner,

50:39and I can't do that on the screen, I don't think,

50:42I'm gonna trust, if you just drew a straight line down,

50:46that straight line is perpendicular to the rear.

50:49That's how all measurements are taken for dimensions

50:54in a zoning bylaw when they say setbacks from a property line.

50:57It's always perpendicular to the property line, not the house.

51:02I get you.

51:03I just can't see that line on.

51:07I can see it.

51:08Aston answered, thank you.

51:10No, that's my lack of being able to see it on my screen.

51:15Oh, that's fine.

51:16Thank you.

51:19Are there any other questions for the applicant or staff?

51:23Seeing none, are there any registered delegates?

51:27Through you, Chair, we have no registered delegates

51:30and we have no delegates online.

51:32Thank you.

51:33And is there anyone in the chamber

51:35who would like to speak to this application?

51:39Seeing none, committee members, what is our wish?

51:44Member Fitzpatrick.

51:46Through you, Chair, I motion that we accept this application

51:50with staff recommendations.

51:52Thank you, and do we have a seconder?

51:55Member Mambrano, is there any discussion

51:57on the motion before us?

51:59Seeing none, Mr. Secretary-Chreger,

52:02would you call the vote, please?

52:04Committee members, please indicate your vote

52:06by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

52:09which is to approve with conditions.

52:12Chair Smith.

52:13In favor.

52:15Member Fitzpatrick.

52:16In favor.

52:17Member Goodfellow.

52:18In favor.

52:19Member Mambrano.

52:20In favor.

52:21Member Meir.

52:22In favor.

52:24Member Ross.

52:25In favor.

52:26And Member Spears.

52:27In favor.

52:28That application is carried.

52:30Your application has been approved.

52:32Thank you.

52:36Secretary-Chreger, may we have the next applicant, please?

52:41The next file is A-11-2622 Ambrose Crescent.

52:47If you wish to speak to this application,

52:50please call the number that is shown on screen.

52:52The number is 519-822-1260 extension 2524.

53:01When your call is received,

53:03staff will provide you with instructions

53:05on how you can delegate remotely by phone.

53:08This is the final opportunity

53:09to call in regarding this application.

53:13Good afternoon.

53:14Can you state your name and your relationship

53:16to the application for the record, please?

53:18Yes, the name is Hussin Hafiz,

53:20and I'm the owner of the property.

53:23Thank you.

53:23And can you tell me if the sign was posted

53:25as per the Planning Act?

53:27The sign was posted.

53:29Okay.

53:30And have you read staff's comments

53:32and are you in agreement?

53:33Yeah, did we pick staff comments?

53:35And I mean, I agree.

53:40Okay.

53:41And as you may have noticed from the other applicants,

53:45you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

53:47Okay.

53:49Still unsure as to why I had to go through this process.

53:52This house was constructed by Fusion Homes.

53:56The property was approved by,

54:00I'm guessing the same staff,

54:02that had brought up the fact that my side door is not,

54:08cannot be accessed any longer.

54:10So the side door is about two meters high.

54:13So we had to build staircase to access the door.

54:19Most of the properties on this street

54:22do have side doors that are on a higher ground.

54:26And they've all put up staircases to access them,

54:29though none had to go through this process.

54:33Having said that,

54:34we did follow all the permits and everything

54:39in terms of legal.

54:42We did submit the drawings, which you can see up there.

54:46The neighbor next door has the same number of stairs as us.

54:52And we've put up a concrete path to access the door,

55:00because there's no other way to access the door without it.

55:05Essentially the house was built in 2018.

55:09And I've been told that this by-law was put in,

55:15or by-law was established in 2023.

55:19So the by-law states that there has to be a setback distance

55:28of 1.27 meters, I'm guessing.

55:35Our setback distance from the property

55:38without considering the staircase is 0.91 meters.

55:51Okay, the current setback distance is about 1.27 meters.

55:57And the platform that we've constructed is about 0.91 meters.

56:04Now, the Ontario Building Code says that

56:09when you put up staircase on the exterior

56:12interior, it has to have a certain length,

56:15which is 36 inches or 900 or 0.9 meters.

56:21So we followed that building code to make the staircase.

56:25This puts our current setback distance to about 0.36 meters.

56:31We paid the builder $50,000 to construct this house.

56:34And when we took possession of the house,

56:37our lawyer has told, or rather affirmed us,

56:41that everything was approved and legal for the property

56:47in terms of both the side door

56:49and everything else in the property.

56:54So the point is we wanna access our door.

56:59The reduced sideline, the motion is to approve

57:04for a reduced setback distance of about 0.36 meters.

57:12Now there was a condition put to put staircase

57:20on the other side to access the backyard,

57:23which was our initial plan anyway.

57:26So that's all I have for the application.

57:32Okay, thank you.

57:34Does staff have any comment

57:36or a presentation they'd like to make?

57:40Seeing none.

57:41Committee members, do we have any questions of the applicant?

57:46Member Spears.

57:48Through you, Mr. Chair, to the applicant.

57:50So I just wanna be understanding of this.

57:53Was the door there when you purchased the house?

57:55Yes.

57:56So you changed it?

57:59Well, you said you paid someone to make it a legal door.

58:03No, no.

58:04If we had paid the builder,

58:06when we bought the property to have a side door

58:11to this property, that's how we bought the property

58:13from the builder.

58:15It had a side door and had a front door.

58:17But there was no access point to the door

58:21because the door is two meters.

58:23Well, when we saw the plans,

58:25it then really specified the door would be two meters high.

58:28But when we got the house,

58:29it came to our attention that it would need a staircase

58:31because it was at such a height.

58:33So we didn't change the door, we didn't install the door.

58:35The door was put in there by Fusion Homes.

58:40And you purchased the home from the builder?

58:43That's correct.

58:48Any other questions?

58:49Committee members.

58:51Yes, Member Rumpf.

58:53Just a clarification as well.

58:56So the staff report reads that this variance is for

59:00an existing raised concrete walkway with stairs

59:04and landing into a side yard door entrance.

59:08So it exists today.

59:10The area that's being,

59:14the variance is being requested for.

59:16So I guess my question is,

59:19what has changed to bring this before staff?

59:28I am not sure either, to be honest.

59:30They've just told me that my setback distance

59:33doesn't match the by-law.

59:35However, the by-law came into effect in 2023

59:37and this house was constructed in 2018.

59:42Chair Mayes, staff to.

59:44So I wonder if staff could assist me to understand

59:48what is happening here with this application?

59:51Yes.

59:52Through the chair to all the members.

59:56And this will hopefully clarify quite a bit.

1:00:00So I will say that this setback was also

1:00:05in the previous by-law for stairs in the side yard as well.

1:00:12What happened?

1:00:13The house was built.

1:00:18The builder did give the option,

1:00:21as the homeowner stated, for a side door entrance.

1:00:25I reviewed the final grading plan

1:00:28and the site plan for the house.

1:00:30So the builder, I think,

1:00:32and here's, I'm just speculating somewhat.

1:00:36They sell the model.

1:00:38They offer the upgrades.

1:00:40Then they put in their permits for the subdivision

1:00:44where the final grading plan is also submitted.

1:00:48This did show the house,

1:00:51I'm sorry, the side door,

1:00:52floating off-grade.

1:00:55They did not propose any stairs.

1:00:58There's nothing in the building code

1:01:00that won't allow that side door.

1:01:03You could have a door on the second story

1:01:06and have it sealed properly out to a proposed future balcony,

1:01:10let's say.

1:01:11But if the balcony is not built,

1:01:12it just needs to be sealed properly.

1:01:16Now, as soon as the applicant has applied

1:01:19for the ADU in the basement under the building code,

1:01:23and I'm just gonna read here,

1:01:25since the side door will now be the main entrance

1:01:28into that basement ADU,

1:01:30it triggers a required landing.

1:01:34So that is why they needed to now show the landing

1:01:38to that door into the basement ADU

1:01:41where the zoning was reviewed

1:01:43and did trigger this side yard setback variance.

1:01:53So that's why they needed to do this process.

1:01:56We'll keep this.

1:01:57The ADU.

1:01:59We'll keep this discussion on level.

1:02:05And so I'd appreciate if you don't interrupt.

1:02:09I will give you an opportunity to respond,

1:02:13but I am not going to have this an open discussion.

1:02:18So we're just going to follow the rules.

1:02:19I'm just stating how the rules work.

1:02:23So, member Ross, did you have a follow up question?

1:02:26No, I do not.

1:02:27And that's, thank you for that clarification.

1:02:30Okay. Do we have any other questions?

1:02:32Yes, member Fitzpatrick.

1:02:33Through you chair to staff.

1:02:39So when the initial permit was taken out on the property

1:02:42through the builder,

1:02:44did that permit include finishings for an ADU?

1:02:49Through the chair to member Fitzpatrick.

1:02:52No, it did not.

1:02:54Okay. So it was an unfinished basement

1:02:56when you bought the house through you chair

1:02:58to the owner, to the applicant.

1:03:02When you bought the house, the basement was unfinished.

1:03:06You bought it with the intention

1:03:07that you were going to put an ADU in there

1:03:10at a future date. Is that correct?

1:03:12What is ADU?

1:03:13Accessory dwelling unit.

1:03:16Well, not necessarily.

1:03:18We just want to access the door that's there.

1:03:20We secondary entrance or primary entrance.

1:03:24We've paid for the door.

1:03:26We just like to access it.

1:03:28And further follow up question.

1:03:31Did the builder tell you that with a door two meters off grade

1:03:38that you would need a landing at some point

1:03:41if you went to use that door

1:03:43or further development the basement?

1:03:47I don't believe so.

1:03:48I mean, it's not,

1:03:50it wasn't provided to us in a written format.

1:03:53Although we went through the lawyer with the building

1:03:57with the builder.

1:04:02So one last question.

1:04:03No, it's open ended.

1:04:06You can ask as for an issue like.

1:04:07So I'm clear on this.

1:04:12The issue here is not,

1:04:14is that you now want to have access to the door,

1:04:19finish off the basement.

1:04:21We need this landing.

1:04:23And that's what's triggering the variance.

1:04:28And can I address the next part of the agenda item on this?

1:04:31Please.

1:04:32And now you're to the homeowner's feeling

1:04:35that he shouldn't have to pay for that application fee

1:04:38because it should have been included in the permit is like.

1:04:43Captured all this right?

1:04:44Yeah. Well, why don't we go through the first one first?

1:04:47Cause it's a different motion altogether.

1:04:52Okay. So, and I'm not trying to be obtuse here,

1:04:57but we've got a minor variance application for the landing

1:05:04on that's being built or has been built.

1:05:07Is that correct?

1:05:08Correct.

1:05:09Okay. That's it, Chair.

1:05:13Thanks.

1:05:14Member Goodfellow.

1:05:15Yes, through you, Mr. Chair, I think to city staff.

1:05:20So I just want to make sure I'm crystal clear on this.

1:05:23The, this has been triggered

1:05:25because there is a request for an ADU.

1:05:29If the owner, homeowner just wanted to use it

1:05:32as a secondary entrance to their residence,

1:05:39this application would not be necessary.

1:05:41Question mark.

1:05:44Through the chair to the members.

1:05:49It's complaint driven.

1:05:50Any setback or zoning infractions.

1:05:53If someone constructed something without a permit

1:05:57and the entrance required a permit,

1:06:01they, it would be reviewed and zoning would be reviewed

1:06:04and a minor variance would be triggered.

1:06:08It was, I want to say the builder who left the homeowners

1:06:12to finish off that process.

1:06:16Okay. Thank you.

1:06:17And maybe just a follow up question.

1:06:21So if the homeowner had not wanted to move forward

1:06:26with anything, there was still another mechanism

1:06:29by which they could end up requiring a minor variance

1:06:31for this landing.

1:06:33Correct. Thank you.

1:06:35I appreciate that.

1:06:37Any other questions?

1:06:39Yes, member Speer.

1:06:40I think through you, Mr. Chair, to staff again,

1:06:42I'm still not, there's a disconnect here.

1:06:47I'm hearing from the homeowner

1:06:49that he didn't have any intention

1:06:50or still has no intention of building an ADU.

1:06:53However, you said that there was an application made

1:06:57for an ADU.

1:06:58Is that correct?

1:07:05Through the chair.

1:07:07Yes. There is a building permit for the ADU in the basement

1:07:14and with that is the landing requirement.

1:07:17Thank you. Perfect. Thanks.

1:07:23You may have an opportunity in a moment.

1:07:25So let me just finish up with questions.

1:07:28Committee members, do we have any other questions

1:07:31for either the applicant or staff?

1:07:32I do have a question for staff.

1:07:34So the building dates back to 2018 apparently

1:07:39and building permit was issued and was inspected.

1:07:46Why was this not picked up when final inspection was done?

1:07:51Because my understanding of the OBC is you can't have a door

1:07:57that you have to jump to the ground off.

1:08:04To the chair and if you notice, I walked in here late.

1:08:07I was speaking with plans examiners

1:08:10and from what I understand,

1:08:11if the door is sealed properly, then...

1:08:18Okay. I'm clear on it now.

1:08:20Thank you for that qualification.

1:08:22I appreciate that.

1:08:24Okay. Thank you.

1:08:27Then I'm still not done.

1:08:28Please, members, please.

1:08:29One more to staff.

1:08:30So, or maybe I hope staff or applicant,

1:08:34my question is, was the door sealed

1:08:37or could you still open the door and go out on a ladder?

1:08:43And this is really to the applicant.

1:08:44There is no ladder.

1:08:45But you could open the door.

1:08:46No, no, I know there's no ladder,

1:08:47but when you bought the house,

1:08:48could you open that door and fall out?

1:08:52Yep.

1:08:54Define seal.

1:08:56Sorry.

1:08:57That's a fair, I think that's fair.

1:08:59So just to have, what does it mean to be sealed?

1:09:05To the chair, through the chair, to the members,

1:09:07I'm sorry, I'm not qualified.

1:09:08That's beyond my scope of qualifications.

1:09:13I'll just note that the builder left

1:09:15any future entrances to the homeowners.

1:09:25Any other questions for the applicant or staff?

1:09:30At this point, I'm going to ask

1:09:35if there were any delegations requested for this application.

1:09:40We have received no delegation requests

1:09:42and there are no delegates online.

1:09:44Thank you, chair.

1:09:45Okay, thank you.

1:09:46And is there anyone in the chamber

1:09:48who would wish to speak to this?

1:09:52Seeing none.

1:09:55I'm going to ask the applicant,

1:09:59if based on some of the discussion that we have,

1:10:02if you have any additional information or comments

1:10:05that you'd like to make.

1:10:07Yes, the additional dwelling unit application,

1:10:10I just want to make a clarification on that.

1:10:11My point was to mention if there was an ADU or not,

1:10:16that is in part of the minor variance application.

1:10:20The only piece that we were to discuss today

1:10:23was the setback distance.

1:10:24So that is what I focused on.

1:10:26The point what I made about the ADU was,

1:10:29had we needed one or, sorry,

1:10:31what are we planning to make an ADU or not,

1:10:34we would want to access the door either way

1:10:37because it's something that we've paid for.

1:10:40And there's no other way to access the door

1:10:42without making staircase that meets the Ontario Building Code.

1:10:47In terms of permitting, we went through all permits

1:10:51and we've gone back and forth since 2023.

1:10:56So it's been three years in making.

1:10:59And we followed all the recommendations by staff

1:11:03and the building code as well.

1:11:08Okay, thank you.

1:11:10I'm going to ask the applicant one other question

1:11:15and that is, you understand that we are going to address

1:11:21the minor variance to start with.

1:11:24And then I have asked that we move forward

1:11:27with your other request.

1:11:29So are you in a position after we make our decision

1:11:34to address the request for refund?

1:11:38Yes, okay.

1:11:41Thank you.

1:11:42So at this point, committee members, what is our wish?

1:11:47Member Ross.

1:11:48I move to approve the application

1:11:51subject to the condition of staff.

1:11:55Thank you.

1:11:56And do we have a seconder?

1:11:57Member Goodfellow, is there any discussion

1:12:01on the motion before us?

1:12:05Seeing none.

1:12:08Secretary Treasurer, would you call the vote please?

1:12:12Thank you, chair.

1:12:13Committee members, please indicate your vote

1:12:15by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

1:12:18which is to approve with condition.

1:12:21Chair Smith.

1:12:22In favor.

1:12:24Member Fitzpatrick.

1:12:25In favor.

1:12:26Member Goodfellow.

1:12:27In favor.

1:12:28Member Mbrenu.

1:12:29In favor.

1:12:30Member Meir.

1:12:31In favor.

1:12:33Member Ross.

1:12:33In favor.

1:12:35And member Spears.

1:12:36In favor.

1:12:37That motion is carried, chair.

1:12:39Thank you.

1:12:40Your application has been approved.

1:12:42Now, for the record, we are now moving to item 3.1,

1:12:49minor variance application request.

1:12:53So I will turn to secretary Treasurer to call.

1:12:59Thank you, chair.

1:13:00The next file, as you've stated,

1:13:02is the minor variance fee refund for 22 Ambrose Crescent.

1:13:08We do not call for delegations on fee refunds typically,

1:13:13as we've already done so for the application.

1:13:17Thank you.

1:13:18And forgive the bureaucracy,

1:13:22but can you state your name for the record please?

1:13:24Yes, the name is Hassan Hafiz.

1:13:27Thank you.

1:13:28And you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

1:13:32Yes, I've made a request to refund the fee

1:13:38for this application, just given the fact

1:13:39that we've already paid the builder

1:13:42about north of $50,000 for this site door.

1:13:50We've gone through all the processes that was there

1:13:56in terms of following the recommendations.

1:14:04Having said that, beyond money,

1:14:07we've been going back and forth about this application

1:14:09with the city staff since 2023.

1:14:14So essentially what's happened here

1:14:16is there's a gap in the city bylaw or planning

1:14:19or whoever departments,

1:14:21I'm not sure which department that's what I'm saying,

1:14:23whoever department deals with the final approvals

1:14:26with the builder in terms of recommending

1:14:30or approving site doors.

1:14:33Like I mentioned, we're not the only property

1:14:35with this issue.

1:14:36The right next door neighbor has the same height

1:14:40and the same issue as well,

1:14:42but they did not have to go through this process.

1:14:44And we confirmed that with them

1:14:45and also with other houses on our street.

1:14:50Having said that, when the builder does not disclose it

1:14:55to us that a given door will need a minor variance

1:15:01or a lawyer doesn't disclose it to us

1:15:03upon closing at the house,

1:15:06it is a hidden charge for the homeowners.

1:15:09I had to make a tough decision

1:15:11between paying my mortgage or paying for the fee.

1:15:16And by paying the fee, now I've put myself into debt

1:15:21for the next few months

1:15:23in order to recoup the money

1:15:25or make up for the financial loss.

1:15:31Like I mentioned, this is something

1:15:33that has gone through the city's department

1:15:35when the house was built

1:15:36and it was built through the builder

1:15:38and the city had it through the door.

1:15:41Now, if there was an issue such as this,

1:15:48it should be disclosed to property owners

1:15:52by the city or it should be disclosed to our lawyer

1:15:57by the builder.

1:16:00The builder would not tell us, right,

1:16:02if the city department don't enforce a bylaw

1:16:04to the builder because they would rather keep the money.

1:16:11So it is really the city department's job

1:16:15to address this issue when they're approving these houses

1:16:19or side doors for the builders.

1:16:23And I'm not sure what happened there.

1:16:25There is a little bit of gap that you all may need

1:16:27to address.

1:16:31Okay, thank you.

1:16:34Committee members, do we have any questions

1:16:36on the presentation?

1:16:44Yes, member Fitzpatrick.

1:16:46Questions or comments?

1:16:49Well, we're gonna have a motion

1:16:51so we can make comments in that discussion.

1:16:54So I'm going to limit it to questions at this point.

1:16:58Then I do have a question

1:16:59and through you, Chair, to the applicant.

1:17:02So when you discovered this challenge,

1:17:06did you go back to your lawyer

1:17:07or go back to the builder to seek redress that way?

1:17:12And what was the outcome?

1:17:14They had told us that this was mentioned to them

1:17:18by the city staff and they actually wrote us an email

1:17:20so it's in a written format.

1:17:22That the city staff had never brought it up

1:17:24to their attention.

1:17:25They had approved it and they re-emphasized

1:17:30that our house or the property was approved by the city

1:17:34and met all the requirements the city had at the time.

1:17:43Thank you.

1:17:45And can I ask a question of the staff?

1:17:48Through you, Chair, to staff.

1:17:53There are times when new construction,

1:17:58and I've seen it myself,

1:18:00that properties with sliding doors

1:18:04that would normally go out to a deck are built

1:18:08or the homes are built,

1:18:10but the builder doesn't include a deck in the purchase.

1:18:16The permits approved to have the sliding door,

1:18:19but they're told that it has to be sealed, correct?

1:18:25So I would assume that the same instructions

1:18:29or the builder would be aware of those requirements

1:18:33if there wasn't a landing built for that door

1:18:37that's two meters above grade.

1:18:43Through the Chair, to the members,

1:18:46I would just have to assume that yes, that is correct.

1:18:50The builder knew after their grading plan was submitted

1:18:53that the door was higher off grade

1:18:55and did not propose any stairs.

1:18:59If they had shown proposed stairs,

1:19:02staff would have noted these are not going to meet

1:19:05the zoning by-law and will require a minor variance,

1:19:08but the builder did not put any stairs on the drawing at all

1:19:12with elevations showing that it was raised off of grade.

1:19:17Thank you.

1:19:20Any other questions for the applicant or staff?

1:19:25Seeing none.

1:19:27What is your wish committee members?

1:19:30I'd like to entertain a motion of some kind.

1:19:37For Ross.

1:19:38I move that we reimburse the owner for the cost,

1:19:44refund the owner for the cost of the minor variance fee.

1:19:51And I'll tell you why I'm making that motion.

1:19:55Or shall I wait for you to get a seconder?

1:19:56Okay, well let's get the motion

1:19:57and then we can have the discussion.

1:19:59Do we have a seconder?

1:20:02Member Spears.

1:20:04And discussion, member Ross, you're the mover,

1:20:07so I'll turn to you first.

1:20:10So as I understand it, the owner,

1:20:15the owner is in a situation whereby both the builder

1:20:19and the lawyer failed to identify this to him

1:20:24regarding the stairs that would be required

1:20:26to access the door.

1:20:29Staff proceeded to approve a drawing

1:20:35as it was presented to them that didn't have the stairs.

1:20:38It had a door.

1:20:39And as staff have pointed out, houses are,

1:20:45the model of a house is sold,

1:20:47then there's options on that model,

1:20:50one of which might be a door.

1:20:52And in this case, indeed, there was a door.

1:20:54So it's not up to staff to then take the next step

1:20:57and say, where's the stairs?

1:20:59They're approving what's in front of them,

1:21:01which is a door, which is allowed,

1:21:03as I understand from staff,

1:21:05as long as it's appropriately closed.

1:21:07So we have a situation where a builder and a lawyer

1:21:12did not disclose this or weren't aware of it

1:21:17or just slipped between the cracks, we really don't know.

1:21:21So the owner then is left in this sort of limbo

1:21:25of what to do in terms of the refund.

1:21:28So for those reasons, the problem is not of his making.

1:21:33Also, it's reasonable to me that regardless of the ADU,

1:21:37he would want to be able to access the basement

1:21:41through that doorway.

1:21:42So these seem like reasonable things

1:21:44for a homeowner to wish to do.

1:21:46So for that reason, I made the motion as I've stated it.

1:21:52Thank you.

1:21:53Do we have any other comments or discussion?

1:22:01Then I'll start it off.

1:22:03Oh, Member Spears, go ahead.

1:22:04I just like to say that I think that Member Ross's comments

1:22:06are solid and I will go along with this motion

1:22:10because I'm not gonna say anything about a legal situation

1:22:14because I'm certainly not a lawyer and not in that role,

1:22:16but it wasn't a great thing that happened

1:22:20and I think that we should stand up for this.

1:22:24Thank you.

1:22:25I'm not going to support this motion.

1:22:27I know and I appreciate the comments

1:22:31and the situation that the owner finds himself in.

1:22:35It's a little bit caveat emptor as far as I'm concerned

1:22:39that by everywhere and I think he probably has

1:22:43a small claims court case with the builder.

1:22:49This is not the first situation that we've discussed

1:22:54and we haven't entertained fee refunds

1:22:59in any of these cases and it happens not infrequently.

1:23:04In fact, I seem to recall one meeting in 2024

1:23:08where we had two and we approved the minor variance,

1:23:13but there was no request for compensation

1:23:18or fee waving the fee.

1:23:20So with that, I won't be supporting the motion.

1:23:25Any other comments?

1:23:28Discussion?

1:23:30Seeing none.

1:23:32Mr. Secretary Treasurer,

1:23:33would you be willing to call the vote please?

1:23:37Through you, Chair, committee members,

1:23:39please indicate your vote by responding in favor

1:23:42or opposed to the motion,

1:23:44which is to approve the refund of the application fee.

1:23:50Chair Smith?

1:23:52Opposed?

1:23:54Member Fitzpatrick?

1:24:02In favor.

1:24:05Member Goodfellow?

1:24:06In favor.

1:24:08Member Membranio?

1:24:09Opposed.

1:24:12Member Meir?

1:24:13Opposed.

1:24:16Member Ross?

1:24:18In favor.

1:24:20And Member Spears?

1:24:21Opposed.

1:24:27Through you, Chair, that motion does not carry.

1:24:31Thank you.

1:24:32Your application for fee refund has been denied.

1:24:36Through you, Chair.

1:24:38Yes.

1:24:39While that motion did not carry,

1:24:42we still need to pass another motion and could...

1:24:45Correct.

1:24:46I'll leave it to you.

1:24:47You're absolutely right.

1:24:48And so I'm going to entertain another motion,

1:24:53which would be to refuse the fee waiver.

1:25:01And I'll make that motion if no one else will.

1:25:05That is, I'm seeking a seconder.

1:25:07Through you, Chair, I apologize.

1:25:09The Chair is not able to move a motion.

1:25:11Okay, I will shut up then and look for a mover.

1:25:16Member Goodfellow?

1:25:17I actually have a question.

1:25:19Is refusal the only option here?

1:25:22Or are we able to adjust the amount?

1:25:27Is there, are there kind of some flexibility

1:25:30in what we are able to propose?

1:25:31My understanding is that, yes,

1:25:32we could issue a partial refund.

1:25:37And I'm getting the Secretary of Treasury

1:25:39nodding in agreement.

1:25:40So there's that.

1:25:49Member Goodfellow?

1:25:50All right, I will move that we,

1:25:53I guess approve a partial refund for the applicant.

1:26:01And I think my math is about 991 the other.

1:26:08So, 990 to be resubmitted to the,

1:26:17refunded to the applicant

1:26:18and the remaining amount to be paid is 991.

1:26:21That's my motion.

1:26:23And do we have a seconder?

1:26:25Member Fitzpatrick, do we have any discussion?

1:26:28I will be supporting this.

1:26:32Member Goodfellow?

1:26:33Yes, thank you.

1:26:34So I've been contemplating this and I feel,

1:26:38I think as we all do that there,

1:26:40this is a no win situation.

1:26:42The applicant certainly tried to follow the rules.

1:26:47I think what I heard was that he's been working

1:26:50with city staff over a period of time

1:26:51to get building permits and to make sure

1:26:53that this gets done right now in this circumstance.

1:26:57I also heard from city staff that,

1:26:59processes were followed,

1:27:01but I also understand that perhaps the builder

1:27:05has some role to play here.

1:27:06So I guess I feel that splitting the costs in two

1:27:10is at least recognizing that a few things went wrong

1:27:15and that this is an opportunity for us

1:27:18to at least recognize that there were some concerns

1:27:21and some issues that occurred

1:27:23to the disadvantage of the homeowner.

1:27:27Well said.

1:27:29Do we have any other discussion?

1:27:32Seeing none.

1:27:34Mr. Secretary, Tricia, would you call the roll?

1:27:39Through you, Chair.

1:27:41I would just like to confirm the amount

1:27:44that it is going to be 50% of the application fee

1:27:49rounding up.

1:27:50So it will be $991 being refunded.

1:27:56I believe that's correct.

1:27:57Yes.

1:27:58Thank you.

1:28:00Committee members, please indicate your vote

1:28:02by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

1:28:06which is to approve a partial refund.

1:28:09Chair Smith.

1:28:10In favor.

1:28:12Member Fitzpatrick.

1:28:13In favor.

1:28:14Good fellow.

1:28:15In favor.

1:28:17Member Membranio.

1:28:18In favor.

1:28:19Member Ross.

1:28:20In favor.

1:28:21And member Spears.

1:28:25Oh, I apologize.

1:28:26Member Meir for skipping you.

1:28:27Member Meir.

1:28:29In favor.

1:28:31And member Spears.

1:28:32In favor.

1:28:34Thank you.

1:28:35That motion has carried.

1:28:37Thank you.

1:28:39Has the applicant left the building?

1:28:41Yes.

1:28:43We will contact, I assume the city will contact

1:28:46the homeowner with that information.

1:28:48Through you, Chair.

1:28:49Yes, we will.

1:28:50Okay.

1:28:52At this point, I know we only have two applications left,

1:28:56but I'd like to suggest a brief recess of 20 minutes.

1:29:03Thank you.

1:29:04We stand adjourned for 20 minutes,

1:29:05so we'll be returning at quarter two.

1:29:09Thank you.

1:49:57Welcome back.

1:49:58I'm going to call back into session

1:50:01the March 12th Committee of Adjustment meeting.

1:50:04And at this point, I would like the Secretary-Treasurer

1:50:08to call the next application, please.

1:50:13Thank you, Chair.

1:50:14The next files are B-24-26,

1:50:19B-25-26, and B-26-26 for 71 Stone Road East.

1:50:27If you wish to speak to this application,

1:50:29please call the number shown on screen.

1:50:31The number is 519-822-1260,

1:50:37extension 2524.

1:50:41When your call is received,

1:50:42staff will provide you with instructions

1:50:44on how you can delegate remotely by phone.

1:50:47This is the final opportunity to call in

1:50:49regarding this application.

1:50:53Welcome back.

1:50:54Can you state your name for the record, please?

1:50:56Jeff Buseman, Van Hart and Sir Vang,

1:50:58agent for the property owner.

1:51:01Thank you.

1:51:02And can you tell me if the sign was posted

1:51:03as for the planning act?

1:51:04Yes, it was.

1:51:06Thank you.

1:51:07And have you read staff's comments

1:51:09and are you in agreement?

1:51:10I have read the comments and I am in agreement with them.

1:51:13At this point, you have 10 minutes to address the committee.

1:51:16Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee members.

1:51:20This is on Stone Road East,

1:51:23right directly opposite University of Guelph.

1:51:26And the proposal is to tear down the older home

1:51:30that's there and split it into four semi-attached units.

1:51:34Each parcel is gonna be 8.3 meters wide.

1:51:39And with the depth of 42 and a half meters,

1:51:43the area of each parcel is 357 square meters.

1:51:47So the width of the area exceeds the minimums for semis.

1:51:54It's an infallot city staff are supportive

1:51:57and I've looked at many of the things.

1:51:59There's a few conditions.

1:52:00The one more engineering type thing is that noise study

1:52:03that needs to be reviewed by city staff yet.

1:52:07But the city staff are supportive of the application.

1:52:11I think it's a great infill project

1:52:13and be happy to answer any questions

1:52:16that committee members might have.

1:52:19Thank you.

1:52:20Does staff have a presentation for this application?

1:52:24I'm seeing shaking of heads.

1:52:26So I'm going to turn to my colleagues.

1:52:28Are there any questions of the applicant committee members?

1:52:33Member Fitzpatrick.

1:52:35Through you, chair, to the applicant.

1:52:38Your earlier, one of your earlier applications

1:52:40had traffic studies and noise studies.

1:52:45And I'm assuming you've satisfied staff

1:52:47on all those requirements as well.

1:52:50This one hasn't had all the engineering done yet.

1:52:53The, but the industry staff has taken a look at it

1:52:56and feeling pretty comfortable with it is,

1:52:59but all the appropriate studies will be or have been done.

1:53:03Thank you.

1:53:06Just to follow up with that,

1:53:08would that be part of the building permit process staff?

1:53:15Through the chair, to the chair.

1:53:18The conditions would either be prior

1:53:20to the certificate of official

1:53:21or prior to building permit

1:53:23depending on the nature of the condition.

1:53:25Okay, thank you.

1:53:27Any other questions of the applicant?

1:53:31Seeing none, committee members, or pardon me,

1:53:35are there any delegations who have been registered?

1:53:38Mr. Secretary Treasurer.

1:53:40Chair, we have no registered delegates

1:53:42and we have no delegates online.

1:53:45Is there anyone in the gallery

1:53:47who would like to speak to this application?

1:53:50Seeing none, I'll turn to committee for a motion.

1:53:55Do we have a motion committee members?

1:53:59Members Spears.

1:54:00I move we accept this application

1:54:02with the staff's suggestions.

1:54:07And we have a second.

1:54:11Member Mavrano, I think was first.

1:54:17Is there any?

1:54:24In support of my motion,

1:54:25I'd like to say this is the first one of these

1:54:28that probably doesn't have a parking issue

1:54:32given where it's located.

1:54:35Well said.

1:54:38Any other question or any other discussion

1:54:42on the motion before us?

1:54:45Seeing none, Secretary Treasurer,

1:54:48would you call the vote please?

1:54:51Committee members, please indicate your vote

1:54:53by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

1:54:56which is to approve with conditions.

1:54:59Chair Smith.

1:55:00In favor.

1:55:02Member Fitzpatrick.

1:55:03In favor.

1:55:04Member Goodfellow.

1:55:05In favor.

1:55:06Member Mavrano.

1:55:07In favor.

1:55:08Member Meir.

1:55:09In favor.

1:55:11Member Ross.

1:55:12In favor.

1:55:13Member Spears.

1:55:14In favor.

1:55:15That motion is carried, Chair.

1:55:17Your application has been approved.

1:55:19Thank you.

1:55:20Thank you for your patience.

1:55:27May we have the next,

1:55:29and I believe final application,

1:55:31Secretary Treasurer.

1:55:34The next files are B-27-26

1:55:40and B-28-26 for 121 Hanlon Creek Boulevard.

1:55:45If you wish to speak at this application,

1:55:48please call the number shown on the screen.

1:55:50The number is 519-822-1260,

1:55:57extension 2524.

1:55:59When your call is received,

1:56:01staff will provide you with instructions

1:56:03on how you can delegate remotely by phone.

1:56:05This is the final opportunity

1:56:07to call in regarding this application.

1:56:10I will also note that correspondence was received

1:56:13after the commenting deadline from the agent

1:56:16with an additional sketch regarding the easement application.

1:56:20This drawing was circulated to committee members

1:56:22and staff in advance of the hearing.

1:56:27Welcome back.

1:56:28Can you state your name for the record, please?

1:56:30Jeff Beasman, Van Hart and Sir Vang,

1:56:32agent for the property owners.

1:56:34And can you tell me if the sign was posted

1:56:36as per the Planning Act?

1:56:37Yes, it was.

1:56:38And have you read staff's comments on RU and agreement?

1:56:42I've read the comments.

1:56:44I'm just asking that the easement application

1:56:47not be deferred but be decided upon today.

1:56:51That's probably the main request.

1:56:55But I'll explain it as we go.

1:56:57Thank you.

1:56:58And as you know, you have 10 minutes

1:57:01to address the committee.

1:57:03Thank you.

1:57:06Okay.

1:57:08Okay, so this property consists of,

1:57:12and the Handling Creek Business Park was developed over,

1:57:15there's three phases.

1:57:17Phase one and two got registered 15 years ago or so.

1:57:22The phase one was north of Laird Road

1:57:25and phase two was south of Laird Road.

1:57:28So they're on two different registered plans.

1:57:31The Handling Creek and the Hanlon Expressway is here

1:57:35with the Laird Interchange is over here.

1:57:38So Laird Road used to go through the city closed Laird Road

1:57:44which is right in here.

1:57:45The original road allowance between two concessions.

1:57:48The property owner bought this parcel and the road

1:57:52and this one all in the same name.

1:57:55After some dialogue with Solicitor,

1:57:57we came to the conclusion that this parcel had all merged.

1:58:01So conveniently we're actually developing right now.

1:58:06This one is going through site plan application,

1:58:08this new building here and moving forward.

1:58:12And so the request is to sever the property

1:58:16from the north limit of the old road allowance up to here

1:58:20but then merge it with this parcel.

1:58:22For quite some time, this parcel that is already owned

1:58:25by the same people has had parking in here already.

1:58:31So this area here has had parking

1:58:33used by these buildings for a number of years.

1:58:36And that's been a matter that needed to be addressed.

1:58:39So what's the benefit of all this happening

1:58:41is this piece is going to merge in here,

1:58:43it's going to take care of that parking

1:58:44and a new building will go in here.

1:58:47So as I said, the severance is this piece here.

1:58:50The request also is for an easement for this.

1:58:53Now, in the rush to get this drawing in,

1:58:58I did not show a footprint of the new building

1:59:01and I should have to explain better

1:59:03why this easement is here.

1:59:04And the second drawing, if you could put on the screen,

1:59:06better helps explain why we need this easement

1:59:10if we could throw on that drawing.

1:59:24Through you, Chair, we'll just need one moment

1:59:26to pull up that sketch.

1:59:39Is this the drawing that we were given this afternoon?

1:59:44Yes, that is correct, Chair.

1:59:45Thank you.

2:00:11And we're not eating into Mr. Buseman's a lot of time,

2:00:16I assume, okay.

2:00:27Great, thank you.

2:00:29So to kind of recap, this is the building

2:00:33that's being proposed to be built.

2:00:36This, for the most part, is the parcel

2:00:39that's gonna be merged over here.

2:00:41So the orientation of this map is different

2:00:44than the previous one.

2:00:45The easement we talked about is gonna go through here

2:00:49and around and like this.

2:00:52Due to this parking being part of this,

2:00:54doing this building being here, there's a desire,

2:00:58and I think the city has requested a limited number

2:01:00of entrances along the whole way.

2:01:02So what the plan is to have one kind of shared entrance

2:01:05right in the middle here for these two properties.

2:01:09And then the biggest thing is that the trucks will pull in

2:01:14and go up to here and back into these loading docks

2:01:18and then come out this way.

2:01:21So that's the purpose of that easement,

2:01:24is for the truck, especially the truck flow

2:01:26to come through here, and also for the cars

2:01:29that will park along this side here

2:01:31that they can get in and get out fairly easily as well.

2:01:35That's the purpose of that easement.

2:01:37It's really a functioning and therefore

2:01:39we're gonna have an entrance here,

2:01:41we're gonna have an entrance here,

2:01:43and there's an entrance here.

2:01:45If we didn't do this, we'd have be forced

2:01:47to stick another entrance in here to let the truck traffic

2:01:50to kind of get through this property.

2:01:53And I think it'd be just too much.

2:01:55So that's what the easement's all about.

2:02:00I think it's pretty straightforward and pretty offside.

2:02:03On the ground, we won't see anything

2:02:05other than the trucks that go and service this building

2:02:11will be able to exit out this way.

2:02:18I hope that that's the main request,

2:02:21is that the severance to merge and the easement.

2:02:24Thank you.

2:02:27Does city staff have comments or a presentation

2:02:30they'd like to, I'm seeing shaking heads,

2:02:36so I will take that as a no.

2:02:39And yes, member Fitzpatrick.

2:02:44So question through you, Chair, to staff.

2:02:48Noting that you're suggesting we defer

2:02:50the easement part of it, and hearing Mr. Buseman's

2:02:55explanation is why it makes good sense to do it now.

2:03:01How do you, what are your comments with that logic?

2:03:07Through the chair to member Fitzpatrick.

2:03:10That staff want to see a development application

2:03:15or are there being an existing development on that site

2:03:18that would work too?

2:03:19So want to be able to demonstrate that easement

2:03:23is required as part of a future development.

2:03:32Further, thank you and through you to staff.

2:03:38So I understand that you don't want to necessarily

2:03:41approve something that isn't on paper yet,

2:03:48but is the applicant accurate in saying that

2:03:52there's a limited number of egress and entry points

2:03:56for these properties, and does that make sense

2:03:59to pre-plan those now, regardless of what's

2:04:02going to go into that site?

2:04:09So for the 121, that one is going through

2:04:12a site plan application, but for 181,

2:04:16since there's no application, can't say which entrances

2:04:19would make sense, should the building change down the road

2:04:23for the proposed 181 as well.

2:04:31Any other questions for the applicant or staff?

2:04:35Yes, member Goodfellow.

2:04:37So thank you, chair.

2:04:38So to pick up on member Fitzpatrick's questions,

2:04:42I just want to understand, I think this is a question

2:04:45true to city staff, want to understand then,

2:04:50would the applicant need to come back

2:04:52to the committee of adjustment once the SPA was approved

2:04:56and an easement was required for 121?

2:05:00Like I guess I'm just trying to understand then

2:05:02if the easement is ultimately decided to be necessary,

2:05:06will that require the applicant to come back?

2:05:10Thank you.

2:05:14Through the chair to member Goodfellow,

2:05:16I think they would have to come back

2:05:17for another, for the easement itself.

2:05:25And just further to engineering's concerns,

2:05:29the site plan now didn't show a future easement

2:05:32for the neighboring property.

2:05:34And basically the applicant is proposing

2:05:37an encumbrance on the property

2:05:40for a future development that staff haven't seen

2:05:44and what in the future, two different property owners

2:05:49could potentially own.

2:05:54Thank you, that's helpful.

2:05:56Yes, member Fitzpatrick.

2:05:59So further to member Goodfellow and through you too, staff,

2:06:05I understand you're concerned about creating something

2:06:10when you don't have a proposal in front of you,

2:06:12but does it make good future planning sense

2:06:15that if you're looking at limiting access to the property,

2:06:24if we don't approve that easement,

2:06:26or essentially we're almost creating a right of way

2:06:30on that one driveway entrance,

2:06:31is that an accurate depiction?

2:06:37I'm seeing yes from the applicant.

2:06:39Okay, so if we don't approve an easement there,

2:06:45they go ahead and develop it.

2:06:48What's the likelihood that you're gonna diminish

2:06:52the ability to get the best and highest use

2:06:56out of that piece of parcel,

2:06:57that parcel that hasn't got a plan on it right now?

2:07:01If what the applicant is saying is that there's gonna be

2:07:05three potential driveways or egress points

2:07:09for those properties, how does that look in the future now

2:07:15if that middle piece of land is suddenly

2:07:20gotta have a right of way or an easement

2:07:24in order to have proper egress?

2:07:28Does that make sense?

2:07:31I think so, and through the chair,

2:07:36as the property owner does own both the properties right now,

2:07:41when the future development that staff haven't seen

2:07:45does come through, the opportunity still,

2:07:48and it could require an easement.

2:07:51We don't know if this will be 100%

2:07:53the proposed development that was just provided to us.

2:07:57It could then be proposed, the access.

2:08:04Thank you.

2:08:08Yes, Mr. Fuseman.

2:08:10The property owner is partial owner with,

2:08:15like owns the one to the north,

2:08:18the one that's gonna be merged.

2:08:20He's having a different relationship

2:08:22with the people to the south.

2:08:24He wants to create this easement now,

2:08:28and even if he sold it to a third party

2:08:30that he did is totally unrelated,

2:08:32he's gonna put himself in a predicament

2:08:36for the northerly property if he doesn't have that easement.

2:08:40If he doesn't need it in the future,

2:08:43he doesn't really need it, it won't be used.

2:08:46I mean, if you envision, they could put up a building

2:08:50in there that would maybe use that existing parking

2:08:53and be in office and not have trucks and might be okay,

2:08:57and then they don't really need that easement,

2:09:00but he wants to make the northerly property functional

2:09:04in the future to allow, he needs that easement

2:09:11for the functioning of that northerly property.

2:09:13He doesn't wanna sell it to someone now.

2:09:16So if you grant the severance, are we kinda stuck?

2:09:20If you grant the severance and not the easement,

2:09:22not the easement until we have a site plan

2:09:24for that chunk in the middle, are we stuck?

2:09:28Because if you sold it to a third party,

2:09:30he can knock in the door and say kindly please,

2:09:34will you now grant us this easement?

2:09:37So that's what we're asking for this easement now.

2:09:40Does that not make sense?

2:09:42And I guess I'm having a hard time seeing the harm

2:09:46in granting it without knowing

2:09:48what building's gonna be right next to it.

2:09:52And maybe the staff can address that more,

2:09:55but I'm just sorta like,

2:09:58like this puts the property owner predicament,

2:10:01if we can't get that easement,

2:10:03unless we figure out the building, he hasn't got tenants.

2:10:06He hasn't got the tenants.

2:10:07He needs tenants, he needs somebody in mind

2:10:11to put up that building, and he hasn't got somebody right now.

2:10:14He's fortunate to have somebody on the one

2:10:16that we're leaving on the south,

2:10:18and I'm very happy for him, he's got that.

2:10:20I just don't see it.

2:10:23And the person that's buying this,

2:10:25or partner with him on this, on this,

2:10:27and the person that's dealing with this suddenly,

2:10:29one knows the easement is there,

2:10:31and knows it's going to happen, and is okay with it.

2:10:37So why not?

2:10:43Member Spears.

2:10:46It's a question to both staff and the applicant, I think.

2:10:50One of the things that Ms. Patzer said

2:10:52was that she had a concern about encumbering

2:10:56the northern parcel with that little tiny piece of easement,

2:11:00and if I'm looking at this and understanding it,

2:11:03it would be an, I don't understand what the value

2:11:07of that little piece is on the diagram,

2:11:10which is not there, but to the left of the property line,

2:11:13it's in green.

2:11:15I'm not sure who would use it other than that property owner.

2:11:18So the easement to the right, to the south,

2:11:21I understand why that should be there, why not?

2:11:23And if you don't use it, you don't use it.

2:11:25I don't see a downside to that,

2:11:28but I do understand why that little piece

2:11:31to the left of the line encumbers that property.

2:11:35Just to be clear, the green and the red

2:11:39represent how that, like somebody's got a really cool program

2:11:42in their computer to simulate a tractor trailer.

2:11:44Sure.

2:11:46We've drawn the easement a bit bigger.

2:11:48The easement goes right to the property line,

2:11:50and this drawing isn't quite right on,

2:11:56this was an older version.

2:11:58My main purpose was to really show this was an option

2:12:01of what might happen here.

2:12:02We don't know.

2:12:03The property line is going straight here.

2:12:06If you go to the original severance sketch,

2:12:08you'll see the property line,

2:12:09you'll see that the easement is right to the north limit.

2:12:14So it's right against whatever happens here.

2:12:17And so there's no, it's being,

2:12:20like, I mean, this property, this merged parcel,

2:12:23will, if you could pan that down a bit,

2:12:26will experience the benefit of the easement.

2:12:29It will not have any encumbrance on it.

2:12:33It'll be an encumbrance if it doesn't get the easement,

2:12:36almost.

2:12:39On the sketch that's there right now,

2:12:41Yes.

2:12:42On the sketch that's there right now,

2:12:43the easement on the northern property is not shown.

2:12:46The easement is this whole gray shading.

2:12:48No, I understand that.

2:12:49But on the, oh, so, okay, that's my confusion.

2:12:52The drawing of the red and green isn't the easement,

2:12:55it's just the truck traffic.

2:12:56It's just the truck traffic.

2:12:57Okay, so that's the confusion.

2:12:59Yeah, I apologize.

2:13:00I just wanted to try to explain why do we need it?

2:13:03I wanted to show the trucks.

2:13:05I guess that was my objective there.

2:13:08That's great.

2:13:09Yeah, thanks.

2:13:12Member Goodfellow.

2:13:13Yes, through the chair to the applicant,

2:13:18the easement, and maybe this is just my lack of clarity

2:13:22about how easements work,

2:13:22but is there any risk that there would be a situation

2:13:28where the current owner of the property to the south,

2:13:34yeah, to the south would not be able to use that easement

2:13:37for their own purposes.

2:13:39So it's an agreement in principle

2:13:41between the two organizations

2:13:43that both would be able to use it.

2:13:45That it's intended to be a driveway

2:13:47shared by both parties.

2:13:49Okay.

2:13:49That's, and just because you're the landowner,

2:13:52you can do with it what you want.

2:13:54You're subject to the easement of somebody else

2:13:57also using it as a driveway.

2:14:00Okay, thank you.

2:14:03Member Fitzpatrick.

2:14:05Through you, Chair, to, I guess, staff and or the applicant,

2:14:11if the easement is not granted,

2:14:13and let's say option two on your sketch comes into play

2:14:19where there's no easement there,

2:14:23does that, are there side yard,

2:14:27are there setbacks that are gonna come into play

2:14:29that would reduce the size of the footprint of the proposed,

2:14:33or of a building that could go into that parcel?

2:14:37It may not be setbacks.

2:14:39It's more function and movement of trucks, right?

2:14:43The trucks, the way it's shown there,

2:14:46there's no way the trucks could get there.

2:14:49You'd have to have a totally different building,

2:14:51probably a lot smaller building to make the trucks work.

2:14:55Or do you have the trucks come from the other side?

2:14:57But the other side, the other side are, you know,

2:15:00some, my lawyer, my accountant's office is there,

2:15:03you know, is a bunch of businesses and so on.

2:15:05Do they want, they're parking obstructed by trucks

2:15:08coming into 181 handling, like on the left there?

2:15:11I'll point, like these here are more business type uses,

2:15:15you know, then do the trucks,

2:15:17are they gonna be forced to come in the driveway

2:15:19and like kind of back in and then come out?

2:15:23You're gonna, what this, this easement request

2:15:26is just providing flexibility for the,

2:15:29northerly, for this property, for the, you know,

2:15:34we're not sure exactly what it's gonna be,

2:15:36but even these, this parking here,

2:15:39that the cars can go in and out like that,

2:15:42there's no idea that there's not gonna be like a fence here

2:15:46separating the properties.

2:15:55Very much so, Patrick.

2:15:56Through you, Chair, you're right,

2:15:59there wouldn't be, logically,

2:16:01you wouldn't put a fence there,

2:16:03but if the easement wasn't there

2:16:04and a third party bought that parcel,

2:16:08they would be within their rights to.

2:16:11Absolutely.

2:16:12Put something there and diminish both properties, utility.

2:16:17Okay.

2:16:19I believe member Rempel, or member,

2:16:22Mr. Rempel has a comment.

2:16:25Thank you, Mr. Chair.

2:16:30My apologies.

2:16:31So I think ultimately staff's concern is,

2:16:34we view this as kind of a bit

2:16:35putting the cart before the horse here.

2:16:37So this drawing that we're seeing on the screen right now

2:16:40that Mr. Abuseman provided, he acknowledged,

2:16:43is out of date and doesn't reflect

2:16:45the actual severances proposed.

2:16:48And ultimately, staff have reviewed site plan documents

2:16:51for the portion of the parcel to the south at 121 Hanlon,

2:16:56but there hasn't been any review, to my knowledge,

2:16:58for the portion to the north that's labeled

2:17:00as 181 Hanlon Creek from a site plan perspective.

2:17:03And I think engineering staff and planning staff

2:17:05would need to review those documents

2:17:08to make sure that we're comfortable,

2:17:10that the proposed easement is something

2:17:12that's appropriate.

2:17:13So it's not that staff are fundamentally opposed

2:17:15to the concept of an easement,

2:17:17but rather that we think it's kind of premature

2:17:20at this time given we don't have all the details

2:17:23on what's proposed at that severed lot.

2:17:29Yes, Mr. Abuseman.

2:17:32I guess maybe the question may be directed to staff

2:17:35a bit in the sense of,

2:17:40we don't know what's gonna happen at 181.

2:17:43We're not gonna know next month.

2:17:48We don't know.

2:17:50So maybe clarity, is it that staff,

2:17:55maybe this drawing was late,

2:17:56do they wanna look at it now

2:17:58and we could bring back the easement

2:18:00in a month or two to be decided upon?

2:18:03Or is it that staff really wanna see

2:18:05what building's gonna go in there?

2:18:06If that's the request,

2:18:10that I don't think, I don't know if that's appropriate

2:18:12because like as I'm trying to explain,

2:18:14it puts the property owner predicament

2:18:17that they don't wanna,

2:18:19they wanna move forward on the building on the south.

2:18:22Is that gonna hold back the development on the south

2:18:25because they can't get their easement

2:18:27until they figure out what they're gonna do with 181?

2:18:32Member Fitzpatrick.

2:18:33Through you, Chair, to Mr. Abuseman, the applicant.

2:18:38So interesting that you, and I hear what you're saying,

2:18:42my question for you then is,

2:18:44we're dealing with a common owner

2:18:46who may be partnering on 121 Hanlon Creek.

2:18:51Yes.

2:18:52So is the solution one that,

2:18:55and you've already indicated that that new partner

2:18:57is aware of the likelihood or the need for an easement,

2:19:03is that not already baked into their agreement

2:19:05that gives you the flexibility to say it will be there

2:19:10and taking into consideration staff's concerns about future,

2:19:16future development on 181?

2:19:21Of course, I'm not in tune with the details

2:19:24of the agreement and understanding.

2:19:26So I can't answer that.

2:19:28I haven't been at all the meetings and all the arrangements.

2:19:31So I can't answer that exactly.

2:19:36Common sense would be they're both aware,

2:19:38they know what's going on,

2:19:41but things happen.

2:19:43You know, the main party that I'm working for,

2:19:45where if you were to pass on,

2:19:48and it gets into a state business

2:19:50and it gets into different ownership and so on.

2:19:53We don't know.

2:19:54We almost, we have to treat these as,

2:19:56if we create the separate property now,

2:19:59we have to treat them as,

2:20:00they're gonna be separate properties.

2:20:03You know, as soon as we get the deed registered.

2:20:07And so, the desire here is to make sure

2:20:11that the northerly property has the benefit of that easement.

2:20:13And I guess I'm having a really hard time

2:20:17to understand the disadvantage of allowing the easement.

2:20:21And maybe if you give me a good example

2:20:25of why it's not a good thing,

2:20:28maybe I'd be not so adamant to say,

2:20:30I think it's fine to have the easement.

2:20:35Thank you.

2:20:37Member Goodfellow.

2:20:38Yeah, so through the chair to, I think the applicant,

2:20:42actually, no, sorry, apologies to city staff.

2:20:45Can you explain to me the zoning of this property?

2:20:51Because we are assuming that trucks

2:20:52are going to be required.

2:20:54I think that easement is intended,

2:20:56as Mr. Buesen has outlined,

2:20:58to allow truck traffic to access the property.

2:21:02But on the property at 181,

2:21:05what else could be constructed at that site?

2:21:09And is truck traffic the,

2:21:11are there other conditions or other situations

2:21:15where perhaps truck traffic won't be an issue

2:21:19if another allowable use was constructed?

2:21:23Sorry.

2:21:34Sorry, Member Goodfellow, was that directed to staff?

2:21:38Yeah, sorry, sorry, I redirected, so it is to staff.

2:21:41Thank you for that clarifying question.

2:21:45Through you, Chair, to Member Goodfellow,

2:21:47could you reword that for me?

2:21:49Yeah, certainly.

2:21:50I'd like to understand what the zoning,

2:21:55the current zoning of 181 allows for uses,

2:22:00and whether truck traffic is going to be,

2:22:05is kind of necessary to develop the land

2:22:07according to the zoning bylaw as it is currently zoned,

2:22:11or are there other uses that could be constructed

2:22:13on the site where truck traffic may not be required?

2:22:17Hopefully that's a little clearer.

2:22:19Yep, so the sites zoned Corporate Business Park,

2:22:23so they are permitted to have truck traffic

2:22:26for business park uses if they want.

2:22:29We can't control which uses they want to have

2:22:33if it's permitted in the zoning bylaw.

2:22:36Yes, thank you, and so maybe just a follow-up then.

2:22:38Okay, so I think the second part of my question

2:22:41is what else is permitted in the Corporate Business Park

2:22:45zoning?

2:22:54One moment, please.

2:23:11Yep, sorry, I just had to pull up the zoning table.

2:23:14So for the business park, they are permitted,

2:23:19Conferred Convention Facilities, Food Vehicle,

2:23:22hotel uses, offices, research and development

2:23:26establishments, warehousing, and commercial schools.

2:23:32Thank you, that's very helpful.

2:23:34Thank you.

2:23:35Thank you, any other, yes, Member Rums.

2:23:39This through you, Chair, to the applicant.

2:23:42So my understanding is that what you're proposing

2:23:45is creating a solution to truck traffic circulation

2:23:49from the North parcel, if required, through the South parcel.

2:23:57Yes, and I should be clear too, like this is maybe,

2:24:02we don't know exactly what 181 is gonna be,

2:24:04and it's geared for the truck traffic,

2:24:06but also think about the cars,

2:24:08if this building at 181 was built like it is,

2:24:12the cars on the right side,

2:24:13all those little narrow things are representing

2:24:16car spots, parking spots, when they leave,

2:24:20the idea is that they leave through that same entrance

2:24:24that's being used by 121.

2:24:26So yes, it's for the trucks, but it's also for the cars,

2:24:28because otherwise, if there were cars on that side,

2:24:32they would, if there was this building,

2:24:35the cars would have, you'd have to have enough width

2:24:37on that side to have a two-way laneway

2:24:41plus the parking spots,

2:24:42and they'd have to drive in front of 181

2:24:45to the other entrance.

2:24:48Amy, I should use the pointer.

2:24:50So all these parking spots here,

2:24:52are we gonna set it up so this building's gonna be,

2:24:54have to be narrower here,

2:24:56and then these cars drive like this to get through out,

2:24:59to get out?

2:25:00The idea is that the cars or whatever usage

2:25:03that these cars can go through here,

2:25:04and I guess, and I'll be honest with you,

2:25:07and maybe this is a concern,

2:25:08I'm racking my brain to say what's wrong with this,

2:25:11is that the car parked here,

2:25:13will they decide to drive out and come out,

2:25:16go this way and come out?

2:25:18That's a possibility, right?

2:25:22That's the entitlement of the easement.

2:25:24Now, we've seen many places like this,

2:25:28if they don't have fences,

2:25:29and the parking lots are all interconnected,

2:25:31yeah, that's how traffic's gonna flow.

2:25:34So following that question,

2:25:37right now the owner owns the entire acreage.

2:25:42Yes, different partners,

2:25:44it'll be a different partner for this one,

2:25:46than for this one.

2:25:47So the southern parcel will have a different partner,

2:25:51but it will still be the same ownership,

2:25:53or that's to be determined, we don't know.

2:25:55I don't know the details of the ownership.

2:25:57Okay, so at any rate, right now,

2:26:02the partners are agreeing to this idea of the easement.

2:26:06Yes.

2:26:07And in the fullness of time,

2:26:09who's to say whether the southern parcel

2:26:13becomes part of a independent ownership, we don't know.

2:26:17And are you also uncertain about the timing

2:26:20for the north building?

2:26:21That's right, I'm on.

2:26:22Okay, so then, just so I have this clear,

2:26:26then what's being proposed is a way to make sense of,

2:26:32and maximize what happens on the north parcel

2:26:35in terms of that north building,

2:26:38yet to be designed because you don't have,

2:26:40there's no, you don't know who's gonna be in it.

2:26:43But given that now, time is of the essence in terms of,

2:26:49or rather the flexibility is there now to do an easement

2:26:52because you have control over the property.

2:26:55Whereas in the future, you may not have control over it,

2:26:58and that then results in the north property building

2:27:02being either more difficult to achieve circulation

2:27:07or it reduces the score footage that gets built

2:27:10as a result of it.

2:27:12Do I have all that straight?

2:27:13You said that very well.

2:27:14Okay, thank you.

2:27:19Any other, yes.

2:27:21Thank you, Mr. Chair, to staff, I think.

2:27:23Just clear up something about the difference

2:27:26between a road allowance and an easement.

2:27:29And once you create an easement, can you uncreate it?

2:27:34That's sort of first question, semi-colon.

2:27:38When you create the easement,

2:27:39does it have to be for the benefit of somebody else?

2:27:43So that if you create an easement on your own property,

2:27:47thinking someday my neighbor might wanna use it,

2:27:50are you gonna write in that it's for the possible,

2:27:53maybe future use of whoever that is?

2:27:56That you'd have to say that, wouldn't you?

2:27:58Why if you create an easement?

2:28:00That's to staff.

2:28:03I look at the Chair to Members' Peers,

2:28:04that is my understanding that an easement

2:28:06would have to be in favor of a certain property.

2:28:09In this case, it would be in favor

2:28:10of 181 Hanlon Creek Boulevard.

2:28:13And in theory, I guess it is possible

2:28:15to lift an easement, but ultimately,

2:28:18we're here to create the easement rather than to lift it.

2:28:21So I think that's what's being discussed today.

2:28:26Okay.

2:28:31Any other questions for staff or for the applicant?

2:28:35I have one for staff, and I guess,

2:28:41I'm trying to understand

2:28:44the rationale for the request for deferral.

2:28:48And so is it that

2:28:51staff need more time to look at this,

2:28:54or is it more a question that staff don't know

2:29:00what will happen to the Northern property?

2:29:03So that's why they want to wait for a future plan.

2:29:10Is it one of those or am I off base?

2:29:18To the Chair and Members,

2:29:22the severance is being proposed,

2:29:25which with this building limits the size of property

2:29:31and requires access onto a neighbor's property

2:29:35to complete a future unknown proposed development.

2:29:43So the applicant even noted,

2:29:46like, is the severance even appropriate with not,

2:29:51does it because of the size of the property,

2:29:55it requires the neighbor's property for access?

2:30:01Yeah, go ahead.

2:30:02It's unknown.

2:30:04And to the Chair to add on to that,

2:30:06because this, the proposal for 181 handling Creek

2:30:09hasn't been reviewed through site plan,

2:30:10there hasn't been a zoning review of this development.

2:30:14Just looking at the site plan that's on the screen here

2:30:16that was circulated earlier today,

2:30:18it looks like the parking area for 121 and 181

2:30:22looks to be contiguous, one large mass,

2:30:25but the zoning bylaw does require landscape buffer strip,

2:30:29which appeared to be shown in the site plan

2:30:30that has been submitted for 121 handling Creek Boulevard

2:30:34that has been reviewed by staff thus far.

2:30:36So there seems to be inconsistencies with what's on the screen

2:30:39versus what has been provided to professional staff

2:30:43to review for the site plan application thus far.

2:30:45So there seems to be a lot of question marks.

2:30:47And I think staff need to have further conversations

2:30:50with the applicant before we feel comfortable

2:30:53recommending support for any easements.

2:30:56So just to follow up on that a little bit.

2:31:01If we grant the severance today

2:31:04and defer the application for an easement,

2:31:12is it possible for the applicant to come back

2:31:16and say the April or the May meeting,

2:31:19requesting the easement based on the severance?

2:31:23Because then what site plan, et cetera,

2:31:27will be in the process for what is it, 121?

2:31:31And the easement would be for future considerations

2:31:37for the Northern property.

2:31:41Is that a way forward or is it still

2:31:47that staff don't have an application

2:31:51to look at for the Northern property?

2:31:56Through you, Mr. Chair, I think theoretically

2:31:58that could be possible.

2:31:59We need to make sure we have those discussions

2:32:01with the applicant and we might be able to get to yes

2:32:04prior to a site plan application being submitted

2:32:06and approved, but that's not something

2:32:08that I would feel comfortable guaranteeing right now, right?

2:32:12Okay, let me ask Mr. Buseman,

2:32:15if that's a way forward for you and your client.

2:32:18Suggest, just to be clear, suggest approval

2:32:21of the main severance now and that we dialogue

2:32:25with city staff on the details of this easement

2:32:28over the next month or so and bring it back in April, May,

2:32:31whatever, but not having necessarily a site plan application

2:32:36in for 181, because that's reasonable to me.

2:32:43Okay, I think that's helped me a little bit.

2:32:49Are there any other questions?

2:32:53Seeing none, are there any delegates

2:32:56who wish to speak to this application?

2:32:59Chair, I can confirm there are no registered delegates

2:33:01and there are no delegates online.

2:33:04Okay, and as the participants seem to be the,

2:33:09and the committee members seem to be the only ones

2:33:11in the audience, I will ask,

2:33:14but I don't believe there's anyone who wishes to delegate.

2:33:18So at this point, I'm going to turn to my colleagues

2:33:21for a motion, committee members, what is your wish?

2:33:26Member Fitzpatrick.

2:33:28I motion that we approve the severance application

2:33:33with conditions as recommended

2:33:37and can I compound that motion to say

2:33:42that we defer the easement application

2:33:46for a time period to allow staff and the applicant

2:33:50to come up with a more, an easier agreement

2:33:58on that easement.

2:34:00Okay, thank you.

2:34:01And before I ask for a seconder,

2:34:04I'm going to turn to our secretary treasurer

2:34:09for a little advice on that.

2:34:11Should these be split into two motions

2:34:14as one involves a deferral

2:34:16and the other is just looking at the motion?

2:34:21Thank you, chair.

2:34:23No, that is not necessary.

2:34:25You can move both of these as one motion.

2:34:29Okay, and can we still have discussion

2:34:32as with a deferral, we can't have discussion.

2:34:42Thank you, chair.

2:34:45I would say that discussion is permitted

2:34:48as part of this motion is approval of the severance.

2:34:55So I would say yes, discussion is permitted.

2:34:59Okay, so now I'll go back to committee

2:35:01and ask for a seconder on the motion before us.

2:35:06Member Spears.

2:35:09And so now I'll entertain any discussion

2:35:13as it relates to the severance, the consent agenda.

2:35:18Is there any discussion on that?

2:35:21Member Fitzpatrick.

2:35:22Thank you, chair.

2:35:24And thank you.

2:35:25Your compromise comments earlier

2:35:29actually helped cement my thought process on this.

2:35:33So I think that's a reasonable thing to look at

2:35:37to have further discussion about what can happen

2:35:42with 181, 181.

2:35:47Because in my mind, I'm seeing given the ownership structure

2:35:51of 121, they understand and the impact of the easement

2:35:56that's being proposed is already built into that piece.

2:36:01And once there's an easement in place

2:36:06that satisfies staff and engineering and planning

2:36:10to some degree, it also helps to preserve value on 181

2:36:14because without it, I think you've diminished

2:36:20the best and highest use of that property

2:36:22with without having something already prethought out.

2:36:27So that to me, your solution gives it flexibility

2:36:30and allows something to be MacGyvered in the coming weeks.

2:36:37Okay, I'm glad I was able to cement anything

2:36:39without resorting to airplane gillu.

2:36:43And is there any other discussion on the motion before us?

2:36:51Yes, members Spears.

2:36:51I'm gonna support this motion.

2:36:53And part of the reason with respect to the deferral

2:36:55is the statement that the professional,

2:37:02capital P professional staff need to look at this

2:37:05and they need to be fully comfortable

2:37:08that they understand that things are described properly,

2:37:12that the sketches are properly done.

2:37:14And I think that's worth the deferral right there.

2:37:19Is that part of something that you'd like to add

2:37:23to this motion?

2:37:25I don't think it's really necessary.

2:37:28I don't think it's necessary,

2:37:29but I just wanted to put it in there.

2:37:31Okay, any other questions or pardon me,

2:37:34comments or discussion?

2:37:37I see none.

2:37:39And at this point, I will turn to our secretary,

2:37:42treasurer for a vote, please.

2:37:46Thank you, chair.

2:37:46Just before we go into the vote,

2:37:48I just want to clarify the seconder for that motion.

2:37:50We have member Fitzpatrick as the mover and the seconder.

2:37:53I believe it was member Spears.

2:37:55Thank you, chair.

2:37:57Moving on to the vote.

2:37:59Committee members, please indicate your vote

2:38:01by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,

2:38:05which is to approve the lot addition of file B27-26.

2:38:12And defer file B-28-26, which is the easement.

2:38:19Chair Smith.

2:38:21In favor.

2:38:22Member Fitzpatrick.

2:38:23In favor.

2:38:24Member Goodfellow.

2:38:25In favor.

2:38:26Member Membranian.

2:38:27In favor.

2:38:28Member Meir.

2:38:29In favor.

2:38:31Member Ross.

2:38:32In favor.

2:38:32In member Spears.

2:38:33In favor.

2:38:35Thank you.

2:38:36Those motions have carried.

2:38:37Thank you.

2:38:39Your part of your application has been approved

2:38:42and part has been deferred to a subsequent meeting.

2:38:46Thank you, committee.

2:38:48Thank you.

2:38:49And thank you for your patience.

2:38:53I'm going to assume that that concludes our agenda

2:38:57for this evening unless you have any additional comments

2:39:03or staff announcements, excuse me.

2:39:07Thank you, chair.

2:39:08I have a couple of quick announcements.

2:39:10The Ontario Land Tribunal has scheduled a hearing

2:39:13on March 18th, 2026 regarding the appeal

2:39:17of the committee's decision to refuse file A-83-25

2:39:24for 62 Victoria Road South at the November 13th, 2025 hearing.

2:39:31Secondly, an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal

2:39:34was received regarding the committee's decision

2:39:37to refuse one of the requested variances

2:39:40for file A-8-26, 36 Lovett Lane.

2:39:45And those are all the announcements I have, Mr. Chair.

2:39:49Thank you.

2:39:50And I have, oh, member Ross.

2:39:53I just didn't hear the last part

2:39:55of the last sentence that you've said.

2:39:59The address of the application.

2:40:02Through you, chair.

2:40:03It was file A-8-26 and the address is 36 Lovett Lane.

2:40:09This file was heard at the February hearing.

2:40:13Thank you.

2:40:17And I have no announcements.

2:40:19So at this point, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

2:40:24Member Spears and seconded member Membrano.

2:40:32And all in favor, we stand adjourned.

2:40:35Thank you, ladies and gentlemen for your attention.

2:40:39Good evening.