Good afternoon, Guelph. I'd like to call to order the
August 13th, 2026 hearing of the Gulf Committee of Adjustment.
This hearing is being held in a hybrid format and
with attendees appearing in person and or remotely and as
being live streamed and recorded. Please be advised the public
hearings form part of the public record, and the words,
images of those participating shall be recorded and posted online.
I have received regrets from member membrano who will not
be attending this hearing this evening. Before I outline the
hearing format, if you're watching online and wish to speak
to an application that's listed on our agenda and have
not yet submitted a request in advance of the hearing,
please call the number displayed on the screen now. That
number is 519 - 822 - 1260. That's 519 -
822 - 1260, and the extension is 2524. At that
point, you will receive instructions on how to participate. For
those attending the hearing in person, you'll also be given
a chance to address our committee. A final call for
delegations will be made when each application is called. The
agenda for this hearing has been posted online at Guelph.
ca - forward slash C - O - F -
A. I will remind all committee members and staff participating
in the hearing to please mute your microphone when nodding
use. Applicants will be unmuted when their application is called.
I don't also like to share the hearing format will
be using to navigate through our meeting today. Each applicant
will be called by the Secretary Treasurer and the call
- in number for those wishing to speak to an
application shall be displayed on the screen. Afterwards. The applicant
will be given the opportunity to add any further anything
further to their application to a maximum of 10 minutes.
You will hear a chime when there are 30 seconds
left and another when you're 10 minutes have elapsed. If
you're an applicant and have nothing further to add, then
you can simply say so. Following this for some file,
staff may provide a brief presentation. Our committee will then
be able to ask questions of the applicant or staff.
After that, we will hear from members of the public
who wish to comment on the application. Please note that
all comments should be addressed through myself the chair. Please
avoid repeating concerns already stated by others. And please focus
on adding new information. Comments are limited to 10 minutes
or less, and you will hear a chime when there
are 30 seconds left and another, when you're 10 minutes
have expired. For delegates that have advised staff in advance
of the hearing that they wish to display a presentation,
your presentation will be displayed on the screen and remote
is available at the podium for delegates in - person
to advance the slides. Any members of the public who
have submitted a request to speak prior to the hearing
will be the first invited to provide comments. For those
wishing to bigger pardon. For those watching the hearing online,
if you wish to speak to an application and have
not yet submitted a request in advance of the hearing,
please call the number displayed and you on the screen
now, and you will be given a chance to come
forward to the podium and address the committee. Once all
comments from the public have been heard, the applicant or
staff will be given the opportunity to respond to comments.
Finally, as chair, I will turn the committee, turn to
our committee for a motion and deliberation as well as
a vote on the application. When the committee is making
a decision on an application, as chair, I will be
asking the Secretary Treasure to conduct the vote by roll
call. Our Secretary of Treasure will call the call each
of the members'name, and each member will respond if they
are in favor or opposed to the motion. And as
chair, I will announce the result of the vote. If
you wish to receive a copy of the decision on
an application, you must set, submit a written request. A
written request can be made by contact sting staff at
the contact information shown on the screen. To receive a
copy of the decision, please email cofat. ca with your
name, the file number that you're interested in. And note
that owners and applicants automatically receive a copy of a
decision. At this point, in our meeting, I'm going to
read the territorial acknowledgement, and I would ask those that
are able to please stand while I do so.
As we gather, let us take time to reflect on
our privilege to live and work in wealth. A CD
built over rich Indigenous histories. We're guests here. We should
reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land, the
people who live here today, and the generations to come.
If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation, we
should take pause and make those decisions with intention and
with gratitude. This place we call Guelph has served as
traditional lands and a place of refuge for many peoples
over time, but more specifically, the Adirondach and the Honashune.
This land is held as the treaty lands and territory
of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. Guelph lies
directly adjacent to the Haldeman track, and is part of
long - established traditional hunting ground of the Six nations
of the Grand River. Many First Nations Inuit and Maite
people who have come from across Turtle Island called Gulf
Home today. Thank you. At this point,
Committee members, I'd like to entertain a motion on accepting
the minutes from our July 9th meeting. Um, yes. Remember
Mir. So moved into, and that's what's your name
again? So remember Goodwill. Um, all those opposed. All those
in favor. That carries Madam Secretary Treasurer. And apologies, member
Good Phil. I had a brain cramp. I've confirmed with
their Secretary Treasury that we have noed for all requests,
and I will call now on our Secretary Treasurer to
announce our first application. Madam Secretary Treasure. The first application
is file A - 33 - 26. Variants to permit
no Front Yard setback for proposed covered front porch and
stairs at 166 London Road West. I'll note for those
attending remotely if you wish to speak to this application,
you can do so by calling the number displayed on
the screen. That number's 519 - 822 - 1260 Extension
2524. And when you call in staff, we'll give you
instructions on how you can delegate remotely. It was the
applicant present, or are they online. Online. Good afternoon. Can
you state your name for the record, please? And your
relationship to this application. Benjamin Percy, I am the applicant.
Thank you, Mr. Percy. And, um, have you read Staff's
comments? And are you in agreement. I am. And one
other bit of business that we have to get out
of the way is about the sign. Can you tell
me if it was posted as per the planning act?
The sign was posted, as per the Planning Act. That's
awesome. So at this point, um, you may have heard
in my opening remarks that you have 10 minutes to
address our committee, so please go ahead. Um, I also,
in your opening remarks, I said, if I don't have
anything to add, I don't need to. Um, so I
don't think I have anything to add. I think the
proposal is there. Um, and I don't see that any
comments have been made against it. Okay, that's to the
point. Um, I'm going to ask staff if they have
any presentation to make about this application. Seeing none. Are
there any members of, oh, before I ask for the
public, are any of our committee members interested in speaking
to this application and asking questions of the applicant. Seeing
none, I'm going to now turn to the public. Madam
Secretary Treasurer, are there any delegates online. Mr. Chair can
confirm there are no registered delegates. Thank you. And, um,
is there anyone in the gallery that would like to
speak to this application. Seeing none, committee members, what is
your wish. Member speers. I move that we accept this
application as recommended by City staff. And do we have
a seconder. Fitzpatrick? And is there any discussion on the
motion before us. Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasury, would you
call the vote, please? Thank you, Chair Committee members, please
indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to
the motion, which is to approve the application. Chair Smith.
In favor. Remember, Fitzpatrick. In favor. Goodfellow in favor. In
favor. Remember Ross. In favor. And member spears. In favor.
That's carried Mr. Chair. Uh, thank you, Madam Secretary Treasurer.
To the applicant, your application has been approved, and your
free to hang up or stay tuned for some more
exciting episodes. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. May we
have the next applicant, please, Madam Secretary. The next application
is file A - 30 slash 26. Variants permit increased
fence height and front yard at one West Hill Road.
I'll note for those attending remotely, if you wish to
speak to this application, you can do so by calling
the number displayed on the screen. That number's 519 -
822 - 1260 extension 2524. And when you call in
staff, we'll give you instructions on delegating remotely. Thank you.
I believe I see the applicant online, is that correct?
Yes. Welcome, can you state your name for the record,
please, and your relationship to this application. My name is
Natasha Welch, and I'm one of the applicants. Thank you.
And can you tell me if the sign was posted
as per the planning act. Yes, they were. And have
you read Staff's comments? And are you in agreement. I
am in agreement. Thank you. As you may have heard
with the opening of remarks, you have 10 minutes to
address the committee, so please go ahead. Uh, yeah, I
don't really have anything for further to add, uh, to
the City's comments. Uh, it is, but yeah. So I
think it pretty much is self - explained with what
they have provided. Okay, thank you. Um, I'm going to
turn to staff and see if they have, they do
not have a presentation. Um, I'm going to ask, if
any of my colleagues have any questions for you if
you want to hang on for a moment, uh, Committee
members, any questions of this applicant, seeing none, Madam Secretary
Treasurer, is there anyone online who wishes to speak to
this that's been registered. Mr. Chair, I can confirm there
are no registered delegates. Thank you. And is there anyone
in the gallery who would like to speak to this
application. Seeing none, um, I'll entertain a motion, committee members,
what is your wish? Remember Goodfella. I motion that we
approve the application is recommended by City staff. Thank you,
and we have a seconder. A second member Mir, is
there any conversation or debate on this motion before us.
Seeing none, um, Madam Secretary Treasurer, could you call the
role, please? Thank you, Chair Committee members, please indicate your
vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,
which is to approve the application. Chair Smith in favor.
Member Goodfellow in favor, member Mir. In favor. Remember Ross
in favor. And member Spears in favor. Let's carry Mr.
Chair. Thank you, Madam Secretary Treasurer. Your application has been
approved. And you're free to leave the meeting if you
wish. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Madam Secretary Treasurer,
may we have the next applicant, please. The next file
is file A - 31 slash 26. Variance to permit
a pool patio fence and walkway within the natural heritage
system NHS zone at 32 Spring Street. I'll know for
those attending remotely. If you wish to speak to this
application, you can do so by calling the number displayed
on the screen. The number's 519 - 822 - 1260
extension 2524. And when you call in SNAF, I'll give
you instructions on how you can delegate remotely. Is the
applicant in attendance? Yes, please come forward.
Good afternoon. Can you state your name and your relationship
to the application for the record, please? Oh, your mic's
not on. Hang on a sec. There we go. Go
ahead, please. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. My name is Colin
Vanward of Van Harten Surveying, and I'm the agent for
this application. The property owners, Mike Meg, are here as
well. Thank you. And can you tell me if the
sign was posted as per the planning app? It was.
And have you read staff's comments? I have. And are
you in agreement. I am. At this point, we have
10 minutes to address the committee, so please go ahead.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm not going to add too
much. Um, I just like to just state a couple
of the main points. Um, and environmental brief was prepared
by a boot. Um, and reviewed by city environmental planning
staff. Um, this application is a bit of a technicality.
Um, and, uh, the proposed works are in an area
that is already currently, um, landscaped. And so there's no
new, um, encroachment or development in the Natural Heritage area.
Um, I'd be happy to answer any questions we have.
Okay. Thank you. Um, does staff have a presentation or
comments they'd like to make at this point seeing, um,
shaking of heads, um, I'm going to interpret that as
unknown. Um, committee members, do we have any questions for
the applicant. Remember, Mir. To the, not to the applicant,
but to the staff, sorry. So I will. Maybe that
will be more appropriate because I see that, uh, the
handscape area, uh, is, is not within, uh, the NHS.
It was approved. And as I see in the years
already, he has a part, not within the NHS. So
as what are we approving, what are we a preming?
What is the variance we are talking about here. Uh,
through the chair to member Mir, if you can see
the dotted line that goes across. The image there, um,
that's the limit of the natural heritage area. So you
can see on this zoomed insight plan there that the
pool crosses into that NHS lands. Um, so that's the
reason why a variance is required as outlined in the
staff comment, uh, this area was already disturbed and hardscaped.
Um, so staff have no concern with the pool encroaching
into that, uh, NHS area. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Committee
members, any other questions for the applicant. Seeing none, are
there any registered delegates to speak to us, Madam Secretary.
Mr. Chair, I can confirm no registered delegates. Is there
anyone in the auditorium who'd like to speak to this
application. Seeing no one rushing the microphone. I'll take that
as a no. Um, at this point committee members, what
is your wish. Member Fitzpatrick. Yes, sir, you share. I,
um, post that we accept this application, uh, with the
conditions as outlined by staff. Thank you. And do we
have a seconder. Remember good fellow. Is there any discussion
on the application before us. Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer,
um, can we have a vote, please. Thank you, Chair
Committee members. Please indicate your vote by responding in favor
or opposed to the motion, which is to approve the
application with the recommended condition. Chair Smith in favor. Remember
Fritz Patrick. In favor. Remember good fellow in favor. Remember
Mirt. Remember Ross in favor. And member Spears in favor.
That's carried Mr. Chair. Thank you. Your application has been
approved. Thank you. Madam Secretary Treasure, may we have the
next applicant, please. The next application is file A dash
32 slash 26. Variances for reduced private amenity depth for
proposed above grade townhouse units and for reduced rear yard
setback for tower portion of proposed apartment building at 12
Pool Street. I'll note for those attending remotely if you
wish to speak to this application. You can do so
by calling the number displayed on the screen. That number's
519 822 1260 extension 2524 and staff will give you
instructions on how you can delegate remotely. I see the
applicant online. Can you state your name and your relationship
to the application, please? Yes. Carson Parks. I'm a planner
with Arcadis and we're representing the owners on this file.
Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign
was posted as per the planning act. Yes, it was.
That's great. So, um, have you read staff's comments and
are you in agreement. Yes, we are in agreement. Um,
as you may have heard, uh, you have 10 minutes
that you can address the committee with. So please make
as much use of that time as you'd like. Yes.
Um, I prepared a presentation. That I believe can be
shared. Thanks. Just brief. Next slide. So here
we have the overview of the, uh, helpful street. The
application is two and a half hectares basically. Next slide.
Proposed is 451 units with a 10 story apartment building.
Um, this application's gone through in Ontario Land tribunal already.
And we are currently going through these state plan application
process. So the variances are to proceed with that. Next
slide. The first variance is for the private amenity area
where it's required 1. 8 metres. We are requesting 1.
2 metres. We are still providing the total area wired.
Excellent. The rear yard set back where 12. 5 metres
is required. We have, um, 5. 5 metres. This is
based on the regularity of the lot. Um, as you
can see along the rear lot line, um, some areas,
this distance is met. But at the lowest point 5.
5, it's not. Um, also to note at the rear
of the law is a conservation area and it won't
be developed. Excellent. That's it for us. I'm happy to
answer any questions. Okay. Thank you. Um, I'm going to
turn to staff and see, is there any, um, staff
presentation on this file? Yes, please go ahead, Mr. Yu.
Thank you. Uh, through you, Mr. Chair and to the
committee, I'd just like to provide some background history for
the site in order to provide context for the variances
before you. Um, so the subject lands known as 12
pool street. We're initially received by the city as an
official plan amendment in 2022. We've council choosing to fuse
the application. Uh, the application was there for appeal to
the interior land tribunal. The tribunal found that the proposal
was generally in keeping with the provincial planning direction at
the time and approved in 2023 several amending zoning provisions
as recognised and staff comments. Of note, is that this
decision amended only the 1995 zoning bylaw. So in the
following year of 2024, uh, we also approved the city
initiated housekeeping amendment for the subject lands. Thereby bringing this
tribunal approved 1995 zoning into the current 2023 A zoning
by lawyer. Um, so as the app can noted, there
is a formal site plane application that was received in
2024 as well. And it's still active. Um, so generally
most of the design work is, uh, completed pending minor
revisions, um, such as the variances before you. And some
of which were missed in the Cities 2024 housekeeping amendment.
Uh, which is in line of the OLT decision. So
that's kind of a high level background of how we
got here, um, staff in the applicant available to answer
any questions you might have. Thank you. Thank you very
much. Um, at this point, rather than go to committee,
I'm going to ask if there are any members of
the public who wish to speak to this application. I
don't see anyone in the chamber. Are there any registered
delegates, Madam Secretary Treasure. Mr. Chair can confirm no registered
delegates. Thank you. And I don't see anyone waiting on
the line. Committee members, do we have any questions for
either the applicant or for SNAF. Remember, good fellow. Yes.
Uh, through the chair, um, I think to City staff,
so the dates that you just shared, they seem to
suggest just a little unsure why this is coming to
us now. They seem like they would have been addressed
in earlier phases of the project. Um, so is there
a better or more detailed explanation on kind of why
these last two, uh, have come forward at this time
versus maybe having gotten momped up in other iterations or
the site plan or conversations and et cetera. Through you
chair. So my understanding, I wasn't the plan on a
file in the original application, but my understanding is at
the time of the city initiated housekeeping amendment, the city
was also working with, um, like a contracted planning consultant
to bring forward some of the housekeeping amendments. And as
some of them were missed, um, as well as since
it's still an active site plan, um, file, might still
be some minor visions being made. Um, they are conditionally
approved, but the tweaks that might have to be satisfied
prior to full site plan approval. Thank you. That was
really helpful. Can I just ask a follow - up
question? Um, and this is really just for my curiosity
because I was just looking at the timeline again and
trying to kind of piece things together. But is it
the case that this could be back before us at
some point with a couple more, um, minor, um, minor
requests. Uh, through the chair, that's something that's to be
determined as site plan concludes. Okay. Yeah. But it would
be tied to site plan. Uh, process at that point.
Yep. Okay. Cool. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, member Goodfellow.
Are there any other questions for the applicant or for
staff. Seeing none, but I, I do have a couple.
Um, first I'd like staff to help me, um, with,
with, um, interpretation of this given the size of the
request of the setback from the property loan. Um, I'm
wondering if my understanding of staff's comments is that this
is being, uh, found acceptable because the lot, um, is
adjacent is actually part of, um, conservation and is not
develop. Am I clear on that. Uh, through your chair.
Yeah. That's, that's correct. Okay. That's, sorry go ahead. And,
uh, I don't believe environmental planning has flagged any issue
with the setback either. Okay. Thank you. And, um. We
did receive some late correspondence about this file. And I
think a lot of it has been, um, captured in
some of both staff and the applicants, um, uh, presentation.
But I just want to, I just want to be
sure of this, that since this was initially, um, rejected
at city council, but then was appealed and on appeal,
the Ontario land tribunal has overturned city council's view that
many of the issues raised by the correspondent would have
been handled at the Ontario Land Tribunal. Am I jumping
ahead or misinterpreting that. Uh, to you, Chair, that's my
understanding as well. Um, from what I know, it sounds
like that the correspondence we receive the rules in talks
with city staff as well. Okay. It's just, when I
receive such a thorough, uh, piece of correspondence and didn't
have a whole lot of time to digest it. First
of all, I think it's important to, um, to the
public who've taken the time to correspond with us to
elucidate that. And second, um. Help me understand it in,
in, in my deliberation. So thank you very much for
that. Um, Committee members, any other questions or comments. So
at this point, um, I would like to entertain a
motion. Do we have a motion ladies gentlemen. Member Mir.
And whether, um. Yes, member, good Phillip. That's good. And
I guess at this point, if we have any discussion,
that would be appropriate now. Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer
can ask you to call the vote, please. Thank you,
Chair Committee members. Please indicate your vote by responding in
favor or post to the motion, which is to approve
the application. Chair Smith in favor, Fitzpatrick. In favor. Remember
Goodfellow in favor mirror. And favourite member Ross in favor.
And member Spears in favor. That's carried Mr. Chair. Your
application has been approved. Awesome. Thank you. You're welcome. Madam
Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next applicant, please. The
next application is file A dash 29 slash 26. Variances
to permit increased front yard and exterior side yard setbacks
and reduced buffer strip width for proposed multi tenant commercial
building at seven feeling court. I'll note for those attending
remotely if you wish to speak to this application. You
can do so by calling the number displayed on the
screen. That number's 519 822 1260 extension 2524. And when
you call in staff, we'll give you instructions on how
you can delegate remotely. Is the applicant in the chamber?
Yes. Please come forward. Good afternoon. Can you state
your name and your relationship to the project we're reviewing
today. We need to turn your microphone on. There you
go. Oh, you turned it off. There we are. Okay.
Um, please go ahead. My name is Nicola. I am
an architect with Fryet Turner Architects and the applicant. And
can you tell me if the sign was posted as
per the planning act? It was. And have you read
staff's comments and are you in agreement. I have and
we are. Um, as with others, you have 10 minutes
to address the committee. So please make as much use
at that time as you wish. Great. Thank you. Um,
the minor variances being requested are to facilitate the proposed
development of a one story, a one, two story multi
- tenant commercial building that will support three commercial tenants.
It is the intent that each of these tenants will
be a combination of office and warehouse uses. These tenants
are proposed to be supported by 111 parking stalls and
three internal loading bays. The minor variants being sought are
to permit a maximum building setback from the front lot
line of 29. 3 metres. Whereas the requirement is 25
metres. Um, to permit a maximum building setback from the
exterior sideline of 25. 5 metres, whereas the requirement is
25 metres. And to permit a localized reduction in the
landscape buffer strip to 1. 5 metres along the west
interior lot line for a length of 50 metres, whereas
the required three metres for the entire lot line. Um,
our justification is that the zoning bylaw establishes a minimum
six metre setback and a maximum 25 metre setback along
front and exterior side lot lines. It is our understanding
that the purpose of both the minimum and maximum building
setbacks is to encourage consistent street frontage across multiple properties
in a row. Our property has an irregular triangular with
a curve property line where it abuts the intersection of
failing court and Cooper drive. There is a significant stitch
across the whole front, uh, property line on feeling court.
And the opportunity for acceptable locations for access by large
vehicles along failing court is limited due to the intersection
and curvature of failing court. Additionally, the intended use of
the commercial units is as office and warehouse spaces with
visiting clients. It is anticipated that to support these users,
uh, a greater number of parking spaces than what the
bylaw describes as the minimum will be required. The number
of parking spaces proposed for the site is based on
market research of the area and likelihood of staff and
clients to travel by car to the site, given the
location location, catchment area for clients and limited alternative methods
of travel available to the area from within Guelph and
neighbouring cities. It should be noted that there is no
maximum number of parking spaces stipulated within the bylaw for
this property. It's our opinion that increasing the building setback
will not diminish the building capacity. Uh, to contribute to
consistent frontage along failing court due to the curvature of
the street. The front corners of the building are still
within the setback limits of both adjacent properties of the
same zoning. It is our opinion that increasing the building
setback with improved viability. Or sorry, will improve viability of
the site by allowing for a truck, truck access driveway
away from the intersection that has direct access to the
loading docs. With limited disturbance of the existing ditch and
improved visibility of the building from the handling Expressway. It
is our opinion that increasing the building setback will allow
an adequate number of parking spaces to support the intended
use, while also allowing those parking spaces to be surrounded
by ample landscape area. For screening and improved visual interest
from the street. As for the buffer strip, um, the
bylaw requires a minimum three metre wide buffer strip adjacent
to interior side and rear lot lines. And it's our
understanding that the purpose of the buffer strip is to
screen service and parking areas from neighbouring properties and public
streets. Uh, the localized reduction is to facilitate the turning
of large truck and trailer vehicles into the loading docks.
And, um, we believe that the localized reduction of the
landscape offers trip will not diminish the capacity of the
buffer strip to screen this area from neighbouring sites or
the street. Overall, it's our opinion that these requests are
minor and still meet the general intent of the bylaw
and will not adversely affect the overall zoning requirements specific
to this site. Thank you very much. And, um, if
you wait right there, I'm going to see first if
staff have any, um, additions or comments. And then we
may have some questions for you. So city staff, is
there a presentation or comments that would like to be.
Okay. Seeing none. Um, are either any registered delegates, minimum
secretary treasure. Mr. Chair, I can confirm no registered delegates.
Is there anybody in the chamber who would like to
speak to this application. Seeing none committee members, do we
have any questions of the applicant. I don't see anyone,
um, with their hands raised. So at this point, uh,
Committee members, what is your wish. Through you, Jade? I
have a question for the staff. Uh, I see you're
proposing the approval, but I don't find any conditionality in
doing so. So you are approving the variances, but I
haven't done that. What is the condition for that? As
you are proposing. Through the chairita member. So that one
condition is to limit the reduction in the landscape buffer
to adjust the area shown on the site plan, uh,
as that's, you know, an area that needs to be
encroached upon for a truck movement. Uh, so the conditionable
just ensure that the three metre buffer will be maintained
across the rest of the site and that the variants
would only apply to that specific area. It is not
clear through your writer that condition. I'm not sure. Or
side building, yes, you need all these permissions. But, uh,
as a conditional to that. So the variance is approved
as such. So I didn't get it exactly. Yeah. So
through the chair again, there is a recommended condition that
Planning staff have included, um, and I can read that
off. The condition is that the requested variances remain in
conformity with the submitted site plan to the generals or
to the satisfaction of the general manager planning and building
services. Um, so in this application, go as for site
plan approval, whoever's doing the zoning review, uh, will look
at the condition stipulated on the variance and we'll note
that that, uh, buffer reduction only applies to the areas
shown on this submitted site plan. Okay. Thank you. Any
other questions for the applicant or for staff. Seeing none,
what is your wish committee members. Member spears. I move
that we, uh, we accept this application with the condition
recommended by City staff. And do we have a seconder.
Remember Fitzpatrick? Any discussion on the motion before us. Seeing
none, Madam Secretary Treasure, would you call the vote, please?
Thank you, Chair Committee members. Please indicate your vote by
responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is
to approve the application with the recommended condition. Chair Smith
in favor. In favor. Remember, good fellow in favor. Remember
Mir in favor. Remember Ross in favor. And member spears.
In favor. That's carried Mr. Chair. Thank you. Your application
has been approved. Thank you. Thank you very much. Madam
Secretary Treasure, may we have the, uh, next applicant, please.
The next application is file B - 44 - 26
consent to create one new residential lot with one retained
residential aut at 40 Ridgeway Avenue. I'll note for those
attending remotely if you wish to speak to this application,
you can do so by calling the number displayed on
the screen. The number is 519 - 822 - 1260,
extension 2524 and staff will give you instructions on how
you can delegate remotely. Is the applicant present? Yes. Please
come forward. Welcome back. Can you state your name and
your relationship to the application, please? Thanks, Mr. Chair. My
name is Colin Vanderturving. And I'm the, uh, the agent
for this application. Thank you. And can you tell me
if the sign was posted as per the planning act?
It was. And have you read staff's comments? I have.
And are you in agreement. At this point, as you
understand, you have 10 minutes to address their committee. So
please go ahead. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Um, this application proposes
a severance to create two residential lots, or sorry, one
new residential lot. Um, both lots meet the requirements of
the, uh, RL1 zoning. Um, and are intended to facilitate
the development of, uh, a semi - detached dwelling. Um,
a form of housing that has already permitted within both
the zoning and the official plan designation. Planning staff have
completed a reveal of the proposal concluded that the development
is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood maintains the low density
residential character of the area and represents an appropriate form
of intensification. Um, the staff comments concluded that the proposal
satisfies the applicable official plan policies consent policies and the
planning act criteria and have recommended approval subject to conditions.
We recognise that some residents have raised concerns regarding traffic,
parking, drainage, tree preservation and the cumulative effects of development
within the neighbourhood. He's concerns, our understandable and have been
reviewed, um, through the city's review and our addressed by
the conditions of the severance. The conditions recommended by staff
require a tree inventory and preservation plan, water balance analysis,
stormwater management review. Um, agreeing a drainage plan, servicing review
and others prior to the finalization of the severance. Our
opinion is that these conditions provide, um, framework to ensure
that the development precedes, uh, in a manner satisfactory to
staff. Um, engineering staff, I'd just like to point this
out too, that engineering staff have, um, reviewed the proposal
and determined that the application does not trigger a traffic
study under the city's guidelines. Uh, I found the comments
were quite clear and identifying what things would trigger an
impact study. And they state that this application does not
trigger that. So they support this, uh, application subject to
the conditions. Uh, we respectfully request that the committee adopt
the staff recommendation and approve this application subject to the
conditions. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. And
if you want to, uh, wait right there. We'll go
through perhaps some comment from city staff as well as
some questions from the public. Uh, City staff is, do
you have a presentation? Yes. Mr. Rembel, please go ahead.
Through you, Mr. Chair, uh, the applicant is proposing to
sever the existing single detached lot to facilitate the creation
of two semi - detached residential lots. Staff's understanding is
that each semi - detached unit would have 280Us in
the main structure for a total of six units between
the two lots. The proposed lots conform with all the
zoning requirements of the 2023 zoning bylaw and do not
require any minor variances. Additionally, the proposed development provides five
legal parking spaces per lot for in the driveway and
one in the attached garage. Whereas the zoning by law
requires, uh, two parking spaces per lot if the maximum
number of allowable ADUs is included in the development. Staff
note that similar proposals adjacent to this site at 34
and 36 Ridgway have been approved previously. These developments have
been able to satisfy engineering and environmental planning concerns about
stormwater management, grading and drainage and water balance. For this
reason, staff are confident that the applicant will be able
to satisfy these requirements for this site. However, if the
applicant is unable to clear these conditions for whatever reason,
uh, the severances would not be finalised. Additionally, concerns have
been raised about the safety of Ridgway Avenue and Malveren
Crescent given the width of the roadway and lack of
sidewalks. Um, so engineering staff are aware of these road
conditions. The city conducted a sidewalk needs assessment back in
2016, grading the need for new sidewalks across the city.
Um, scoring was out of a potential maximum of 51
points. And using this, uh, this city or city staff,
uh, created a list of the top 100 streets that
need sidewalk improvements. Melvin Crescent is identified on that list
with a score of 17. And currently the city is
working on constructing sidewalks that scored between 20 and 25.
So they are working their way down that list. Um,
but Malvin and Ridgway haven't, uh, gotten their time yet.
Additionally, the city has plans for a new pedestrian master
plan in the next few years that would likely look
at sidewalks as part of that study. Additionally, this proposal
was reviewed by traffic engineering staff who did not deem
traffic study necessary at this time. That being said, as
development continues in the area, the need for a traffic
study may be triggered based on the cumulative effects of
all the development that has taken place, uh, in the
area. So the city's traffic guidelines include criteria for when
a traffic study is required. And currently those guidelines are
geared towards, uh, much larger individual projects, uh, rather than
the proposals that we are seeing today on, uh, Ridgway
Avenue and kind of across the city as infill development
becomes more popular. So as these projects become more common
in Guelph City staff will have to start evaluating based
on the cumulative impacts, uh, rather than just the impacts
of individual applications. Uh, so while staff did not, uh,
traffick staff did not deem, uh, traffic brief necessary for
this particular application. We will be monitoring this area. And
for future applications traffic brief may be required. Thank you
very much. Um, Committee members, um, I'm going to, um.
Uh, at this point, go to, um, comments from the
public. And then we'll have an opportunity to circle back
and ask questions of staff and or the applicant. If
need be. So at this point, Madam Secretary Treasurer, are
there any registered delegates. Mr. Chair, can confirm there are
registered delegates. The first is Jenna Hardy. Yes. Please come
forward. Welcome. Can you state your name for the record,
please? Yes. My name is Jenna Hardy. And can I
ask you just to move a titch closer to the
microphone? I'm having these old years are having a little
bit of difficulty, I'm afraid. And, um, you may have
heard my comments earlier that you have 10 minutes to
address the committee. And there will be a chime when
you've got 30 seconds left and one when that's completed.
And if you don't run away, my colleagues may have
questions for you. So when you're ever, you're ready, please
go ahead. Sure. That sounds good. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak here today. I appreciate your time. So
while on the individual merit of this proposal, the request
seems very reasonable. It is the cumulative impact that is
of concern. So I say, what is the intent of
gentle intensification. Based on my letter and the visual images
provided, you can see the dramatic effect on the avenue
and the fundamental change of the neighbourhood. The population across
the three lots of 340 or 32, 34 and 40
Ridgway. Has increased by 1200 percent of an increase is
difficult to even comprehend. So perhaps we're seven and a
half people once lived. We now could have upwards of
100 people living. While each lot change individually may seem
reasonable, that cumulative impact on the neighbourhood is large. And
we should not assume that studies originally conducted for 34
Ridgway or such as just the mention of the traffic
study are still relevant and applicable with the additional development
that has continued on the street. My next question is
who is accountable and responsible to ensure that the housing
built meets the needs of the priority populations as listed
in the CMHA research study. And Canada's National Housing Strategy.
And the type of housing aligns to what has been
identified as in need by the housing needs engulfed in
2025. The CMHA identified 11 priority groups of people who
require housing. For awareness, the priority group does not include
university students. The housing need in Gulf study specifically stated
the need for townhouses and apartments. It did not identify
duplexes with single bedroom rentals. Across Guelph, developers are purchasing
large lots in established neighbourhoods and converting these properties into
duplexes with single bedroom units. The committee has approved these
changes previously on Ridgeway Avenue. Monticello Crescent, Orchard Crescent, just
to name a few. Which brings me to ask, what
is the intent of housing at 40 Ridgeway. The developer
for the proposal is the same for 36 Ridgway and
is putting forward similar specifications as was built. Per my
letter in the appendix, you can see that the units
at 36 Ridgway are posted on student housing rental websites.
Furthermore, the rentals aren't even available for folio terms. It's
10 months. Thus, the developers putting forward housing that does
not align to the priority populations, nor does it align
to the types of housing that are needed. A quick
side part. Do you know how much land the University
of Gulf owns in the city. It's about 400 hectares.
While some is already developed, others is not. While the
university has identified that it can house first year in
international students, perhaps it should do more. If university is
housing is a need in the city, let the university
support the need on its time. On its property and
not on the working class or the newcomers or the
senior citizens who now have fewer places and options to
live. At the last committee hearing for Ridgway, an engineer
brought up a point as similarly discussed that broader services
concerns is assessed and analysed by the city. Let's talk
about sidewalks. While this provided some comfort to the committee,
it does not provide comfort to me. Sidewalks is a
statement of safety. And personally, I don't feel that safety
is something that should be done retroactively. I feel like
it is something that should be done proactively. To circle
back on the intent, I find it difficult to comprehend
that the intent of this committee or of the city
is to build off - campus row housing in the
middle of established residential neighbourhoods. Because in these situations, the
needs of none of the residents are met. Not the
needs of the students, and the typical support services that
are provided by on - campus housing or the very
close proximity to public transportation. Or the needs of the
older residents who are concerned about safety and infrastructure. And
in the cover letter of this proposal, the developer mentions
that if you can also purchase 42 Ridgway, he has
worked it in a way that they can combine and
divide into four additional watts. Which would then lead to
a total of seven duplexes consecutively on the street. This
is student campus housing. Not a residential neighbourhood. So to
close and to be frank, I am exasperated. When 34
Ridgway came to this committee for a proposal, you received
40 letters. 40. Nearly that many individuals came to speak.
When it came to 36 Ridgeway, it was only 12
letters. And two speakers. And unfortunately I was out of
town and could not attend. Now for 40 Ridgeway, four
people have submitted letters. Four. It is not due to
lack of concern. It is not because it's because people
feel that this community no longer has a voice. Our
neighbourhood has fundamentally changed. And instead of pausing to assess
the impacts, greater development is proposed. The neighbourhood field saddened.
We feel disheartened. We write our councillors listen, yet no
one takes action. Thus today, I am asking you to
take action. I am asking you to defer the ruling
on the proposal. Until the developer can submit something that
does not further fundamentally change our neighbourhood. Thank you for
your time and consideration. Thank you very much for your
considered thoughts on the matter and your presentation. Um, if
you want to wait right there, my colleagues may have
some questions for you. So just a moment committee members,
do we have any questions of this applicant. Um, seeing
none. I want to thank you sincerely for your presentation
today. Um, this file is not new to this committee.
And, um, I think, uh, some of your comments will
stir some further debate. So let me thank you again.
Thank you. Madam Secretary Treasurer, do we have another, um,
delegate. Mr. Chair, yes, we do. The next delegate is
Mary Reif. Yes, please come forward.
Thank you for the adjustment. Um, can you state your
name for the record, plead? My name is Mary Reife
and I've lived in this neighbourhood 36 years. May I
just remind you that you have 10 minutes to address
our committee and that there will be a chime after
30 seconds. And if you want to stand by, my
colleagues may have some questions for you. So please go
ahead when you feel ready. Chair Committee members, thank you
for what you do. It's a difficult and time -
consuming job. And you do it well. I want you
to imagine a big, beautiful house that you've built and
it's got everything in it that you want. And then
you decide or discover. That it doesn't have a foundation.
That's what's happening here. I've lived in the same house
for 36 years. I've had three addresses. When I moved
there, I was in PussLunch Township. These were country -
estate lots. Then I became real - wrote two Gulf,
and now I'm 63 Aracle Road, right on the corner
of Malvern. I haven't moved. Our neighbourhood has about 60
large country lots, because back in the 60s, when it
was built, they needed the big lots for wells. And
septic beds. According to the Planning Department, when I Googled
it, said the road is substandard and narrow. There are
no sidewalks or shoulders of any kind. It's lined with
drained ditches on both sides. And street parking is prohibited
for emergency access. Because there are no storm sewers in
our area. The ditches are necessary for the rainfall runoff.
We are very close - knit neighbourhood. And yes, we
are getting tired of coming here. We are. As property
is become available. And we are an aging population. Eventually,
I'll probably have to sell mine, not yet. Developers are
eyeing them so they can subdivide them into small city
lots. And build multiple residents on each one. Two such
lots have already been bought and developed. We're talking about
taking out two existing houses. And putting 24 on the
same. This is variances asking us to do something similar.
Cars and pedestrians do not share the same space. But
that's what you're asking us to increase the density on
that narrow little street that the city calls substandard, not
me, the city. You're asking us to share space. It's
a recipe for disaster. More cars, more people, more cars,
more people. Each lot that gets developed just adds cumulanic.
Thank you for your comments. That was exactly right. Um,
during construction of the two that have been developed, um,
construction crews and equipment parked on our tiny, no parking
street made it difficult for residents to access their own
properties. And at one point prevented the garbage truck from
getting through. It actually had to stop, back up, turn
around in a neighbor's driveway and go the other way.
That's how congested this street gets. Now imagine if that
was your house burning down and you called the fire
department. And the same thing happened. That the truck couldn't
get through to your place. Imagine if your kid had
a medical emergency, asthma attack and couldn't breathe. And you
called the ambulance. And it couldn't get through. Because of
the construction. You're liable city. You're liable. You're our blocking
our only access rope. You cannot continue to do this.
That road needs to be widened sidewalks need to be
in place. The, um, okay. The other thing is, um,
on the two developed lots that have been developed, they
house and pave almost the entire thing. There's no green
space. There's no trees. There's nothing. They've removed the drainage
stitches. So now when it rains hard, where does the
water go. On the street. On the neighbor's lots, in
their basements, in their wells? And yes, a lot of
us are still on wells and septic beds. Again, it's
a liability issue for the city. When are you going
to stop this. All new subdivisions have the infrastructure in
first. Not after, well in advance of housing going up.
This should be no different by allowing such a massive
infilling one house to 12. You are creating a whole
new subdivision. And the infrastructure needs to be in place
to support such development. It's too late if the development
continues to build so close to the existing roadway so
that the roads cannot be widened. It's too late if
the neighbor's basements are wells get flooded due to improper
drainage. Don't say it doesn't happen. It happened on Lowe's
Road. That road flooded for a long time before the
city corrected it. It's too late if somebody gets hit
by a car because they were walking on the road
because it's the only place to walk. It's too late
if your house burns down or your child dies because
the emergency vehicle cannot get through. You will be liable
City. I'm not ejecting to new development. I know it's
going to continue. But there should be a more tarmy
on any new development until the city does its part
and puts a proper infrastructure in place. You're asking us
to change our neighbourhood. We're saying, yeah. When it is
safe to do so. Thank you. Thank you very much
for your thoughts and your presentation. If you want to
wait right there, I'll see if my colleagues would have
any questions for you. Committee members. Yes. Remember good fellow.
Yes. Through the chair to the, um, delegate. I just
have one question. You mentioned a street survey. Um, that
you had identified where it was talking about the conditions
of the street. Do you have a date on that?
Just I'm trying to put it in the timeline between
when, you know, some of these applications started coming forward.
And when some of these reports have been written. So
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Okay. My apologies.
I must have misheard it then. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions for this applicant. Seeing none.
I want to thank you sincerely again for your presentation.
Um, I'm sure that, um, our committee is going to
have something of a conversation about it. And what you've
said to us has, has been very insightful. So thank
you very much again. Madam Secretary Treasurer, do we have
any other registered delegates. Mr. Chair, yes, we do. The
last registered delegate is you made ARMUS and that individual
is appearing online. Hello. Can you hear me? Hello, uh,
can you state your name for the record plead. Yes.
So my name is Yumei de Armas and I leave
at Malvern present. So, um, you may have heard with
the other people who have addressed the committee that you
have 10 minutes to, um, state your point of view
on this application. So whenever you're ready, please go ahead.
Sure. So I leave right on Malver Crescent. We connect
right into Ridgway. I believe here for about five years
now. I sacrifice a lot to buy a house in
this area. This used to be such a quiet, peaceful
neighbourhood to raise a family. I know the rules that
you have to follow. And I'm well aware that the
old T previously approved a single severance on our street
at 34 Ridgway. But back then, that was treated as
a standalone one time in field case. After that, the
Committee of Adjustment approved another one. And now we are
looking at yet another one at Fori Ridgway. This makes
three lots in a row. What makes this completely unacceptable
is that this is no longer a one - time
infield. We're watching a systematic takeover of our street. In
fact, developer's own cover letter explicitly lays out how easily
this will continue. Stating that they can take part of
the side yard at 40 stitches together with 42. A
manufacturer, a massive frontage just to squeeze former logs in.
It is a compounding runaway loop of continuous teardowns. We
have already said by and watch other single homes during
to multi - unit conversions, bringing clothes to 80 rooms
right into our immediate pocket. Now developers want to do
it again, which is going to flood our tiny street.
What's the limit 200 people, 300 people. That's more than
the population of the holes street. In three or four
single lots. What's their plan? More rooms. This continues destruction
of our neighbourhood character. It's actively hurting existing homeowners. Traditional
family homes put up for say on and around our
street. Start sitting on the market for over a year.
And are now selling for around 750K. So 33 rich
way was sold after two years in the market, a
house in a lot of 14, 000 square feet way
lower than they should have been gotten. Nobody except developers
are interesting. These lots anymore. Worse than that. The city
keeps green lighting all of these without fixing the basic
safety of our street. Readway and Malbor, an exceptionally narrow
rose as you have here already from a few people.
Tarkin is not allowed on the street. So emergency cars
cannot go back. And there are no sidewalks. My house
sits right on a corner with mature trees and terrible
visibility, which means my kids have to step directly into
the road just to walk to school. I am not
exaggerating when I say that they're having multiple terrifying moments
where I have physically had to show them into the
ditch just to dodge and common traffic. And yes, like
I know in some of the papers on paper, it
might look like the traffic's non - increased match because
some of these rooms, those people, they don't have a
car, but they do order their Amazon. They do or
they. And we are talking about 80 more people that
we have right now. Doing delivery. So we see cars
go by really quickly. Since these applicants started coming. So
I'll try reaching out to traffic services and councillors to
get safety fixes for almost two years now. I keep
begging. I keep asking for speed bumps or lower speed
limits because the science has 40, but most cars were
to 50 or 60. And just keep getting a no.
The City tells me that the traffic common requests are
paused. The speed limits won't change because it's not in
a school area. And the mystery has to wait in
AQ indefinitely. How can the city justify refusing to make
the street safe while simultaneously approving massive population and traffic
spikes. I understand that on paper traffic studies might not
be needed. But reality what I see every day, it's
very different. I get a previous cases where pushed through
or approved. But these applications relies on the idea that
nearby spaces can just absorb the overflow. The logic only
work when you spew as a nice related incident. Now
that is happening over and over again on a narrow
street where packing is strictly prohibited. It is breaking the
physical space of our neighbourhood. And for some context, when
the first application went to the OLT, one of the
reasoning behind was that they could actually park on the
street behind ours. I don't remember Oak Rich. That's no
longer applicable cars keep coming. So if the applicant was
to take this to the OT, let them go. This
is a brand new application. And it is a systematic
takeover of our street. Not an isolated infield. We cannot
keep rubber stamping this high density severance. As without putting
proper pedestrian safety pairs first, please. Step back. Look at
the big picture of what's happening to us and refuse
this application. Thank you very much. Thank you very much
for your, um, presentation. And if you want to write
right there, um, we may have some questions. Committee members,
do you have any questions for the delegate. Um, seeing
none, you did mention the OLT. And, um, the decision
that was made on earlier applications, um, and. You may
also be aware that, uh, this committee, um, rejected initially
a similar proposal that was overturned at the OLT. I
wonder if you, um, thought about how that would impact,
um, our decisions. And what do you mean. About the
old T? I mean, um, this committee has, um, has
looked at similar applications on the street. And initially we
did not agree with the application as being minor in
nature. However, the Ontario Land Tribunal did, um, in their
wisdom, um, uh, agree with the applicant. And I'm wondering
if that factors into any of your comments. Yes. So
when we did the OLT and I helped with the
neighbourhood to get a traffic expert and different experts. And
he went to the OLT. The case was approved because
at the end of the day, we were only talking
about one lot. So the judge kept talking about how
this could be able any extra cars that they need
to park. Since they are not allowed to park on
that street, they will overflow into the street behind, which
I think was O - Rich. And they even represented
the amount of spaces that there is in this street.
I don't have the design right now, but they show
like a design how it will support up to like
five, six extra cars on that street. And that isolated
only one case was approved. But my point is the
second one, it didn't even go to the OLT, Committee
of Adjustment approved. So now it duplicates. So the amount
of cars also duplicated. And now we're going to the
third. So whatever the OLT said, the first time is
no longer applicable. This is not the case of one
single application in an existing neighbourhood that may be cool
tolerate only one. Now we're asking for more. And in
the cover later from the applicant, you can look at
the cover letter from the application. You can specifically see
how they are talking about the extra space that they
are living next to the 42, which by the way,
it's renounced save. So the 42 and the 44, it's
also on sale. And they are talking about doing former
nodes on the 42. So I think they are living
that space in between. So in the future, they could
also do formal lots. Now we are talking about one,
two, three, four, five lots in a row. The equilibrium
having like more than 300, 400 people. Like again, I'm
not against any development, but that kind of intensification doesn't
belong as 3 that it doesn't have any sidewalks. That
the lightning is not great. My kids every time they
stay out, like it's really dangerous. Like I'm telling them
to walk on the beach. Winter time when they are
like a snow there. That's not even possible. So we
are driving more or less walking. And so anyhow. Um,
I, I hear your point of view about the sidewalks
and everything else. And wonder if you have, um, spoken
to your, your city representatives on this issue. I have,
many times, um, I got redirected to the traffic experts.
They told me we're going to do like a study
soon. And they kept saying soon. And I kept reaching
out. They said fall. I reached out in winter time.
Like look, I'm a scared. Am I kids like the
amount of traffic? It's carrying by. Can I just interrupt
for a second and ask you specifically I'm talking about
your elected representatives. Have you spoken to them about this.
Oh, no, sorry. Alida councillors. And the major. I reach
out to the major ones as well. Um, my word
councillors. Yeah. I did talk. Okay. Thank you. That's what
I was getting at. You may be aware the city
election coming up. So maybe you want to raise it
with some of the candidates as well. Thank you very
much. Um, unless my colleagues have any other questions for
you. Um, thank you very much for your views. Thank
you so much. Madam Secretary Treasurer, do we have any
other delegates. Mr. Chair, we don't have any other registered
delegates, but I don't know if there's any in the
audience that wish to speak. Okay. Is there anyone in
the chamber who would like to speak to this application.
Seeing none. Um, at this point I would ask the
proponent to the application to come forward. If they wish
to, um, speak to any of the issues that have
been raised today. Thanks, Mr. Chair and members of the
committee, um, for reviewing this and your time on this.
Um, I don't have too much more to add. We
also support save streets and are aware that, um, sidewalks
would, would improve those neighbourhood. Um. Recognise that, that this,
uh, the number of people have mentioned that this is
high density, but I just like to clarify again, that
the zoning bylaw says this form of building is low,
low density residential. Um, and it is a bit of
an adjustment in this neighbourhood. I'm happy to answer any
questions. Thank you. Um, Commit members, any further questions either
for staff or the applicant. Remember Ross. Uh, through you,
Mr. Chair, this question is to staff. So I gather
that, um, there was a sidewalk study done in 2016.
And that's the sort of the, the blueprint for when
sidewalk improvements are made throughout the city. I hope I'm
correct in what I'm saying so far. Uh, so to
the, in 2016, uh, that would be, uh, 10 years
ago, um, so my question to staff is there an
opportunity to revisit that study. Uh, or to look at
certain communities that are under pressure from intensification as a
result of, um, the provincial legislation that certainly wasn't contemplated
into 2016. Through the chair to member Ross.
Currently through discussion with transportation, there is plans to commence
a pedestrian master plan. Um, that may take some time,
maybe a few years. And at that time, depending on
what happens with that master plan, there could be a
reevaluation. Of sidewalk, uh, needs. And that reevaluation can be
scored. In different ways that we don't know at this
point. And there be public consultation to work through that.
Remember Odds? Uh, just in response. So, uh. So no
immediate opportunity to, um. The vehicle at this point. That's
probably the wrong terminology. There's, there's no, uh, mechanism at
this point for staff to, um, revise the 2016 study.
That's what I'm, I'm hearing. So, uh. In the interim
then we continue to approve these applications or we continue
to support the minor variances or they go to the
OLT and the OLT supports the minor variants. So it
does seem that the community is, is left. Trying to
deal with a situation that's not of their making. Um,
and that, uh, it's one of the fallouts I'm concluding
from legislation to permit, uh, the gentle intensification that we're
seeing across the city. So my final question is when
approximately when, I don't know if you can answer this
question without, um, perhaps going into your falls. But is
there a sense of when this particular street might see
a sidewalk. Through the chair, uh, that is difficult. Question
and answer. Um, if you look at our webpage, uh,
golf. ca get involved cycling and walking or cycling in
pedestrian. Um, there is a list of current projects underway
for sidewalk construction, current projects in design and current projects
planned for the future. Um, we have that list of
top 100 sites. Through the sidewalk study that was done
in 2016. Um, currently we're at 20 to 25, um,
where that score of, of, um, Psywalk need, um, curly
Malveren sits at 17. So there is no plans at
the moment. For works. Um, on, uh, Ridgeway.
They're potentially plans for some work on RCAL, but that's
also not in, in the budget as I understand. At
the moment. Just a point of order, remember Ross. This
isn't a minor variance application. This is a, uh, a
consent agenda item. So, um, I just wanted to make
that clear for the record. Uh, thank you for that
correction, Mr. Chair.
I do beg your pardon. Um, is there, um, any
other questions for the applicant. I thought, remember Fritz Patrick,
I saw your hand earlier. Please go ahead. Thank you,
Chair, through you too, staff. The delegates raise a series
of good questions about sort of a creeping intensification on
the street. And when we step back and look at,
and I guess I'll preface this by saying I understand
if they meet all the requirements of this application, we
can't just reject it because we don't like it. If
it meets the requirements, enter tied because of the provincial
government. But is the city actively. Taking sort of. A
10, 000 metre view of this and, and seeing where
this intensification is happening and trying to be proactive in
making it fit in better with, with the neighbourhood. Through
the charity member, if it's Patrick. So as I mentioned
in my presentation, we do have traffic study guidelines. And
those guidelines were crafted. With larger projects in mind, uh,
and there's a, uh, variety of reasons why one might
require a traffic impact study, uh, but one of those
is the volume of traffic anticipated from the development. And
I believe the number is something like 100 trips, uh,
during peak hours per day is kind of the threshold
needed. And none of these projects individually meet that. Um,
but recognising that, uh, this style of infill development is
becoming more common and more popular across the city. Um,
we are kind of taking a closer look at that.
And we will be evaluating that on more of a
cumulative effects basis. Um, so at least I can't speak
for traffic engineering staff, but they have reviewed this application
and didn't deem, uh, it to be crossing that threshold
yet. Um, but if applications continue to come in for
this street and for this neighbourhood, I would anticipate that
they would require a traffic brief or a traffic study
of some sort, um, once it reaches a certain threshold
specifically where that threshold is, I can't say. Understood. Thank
you. Yes. Remember good fellow. Yes. Thank you, Chair. Maybe
just a follow up first on, um, the questions raised
by, uh, member Ross. Um, I guess this, this is
not something, this is about sidewalk. So this is not
something that I fully understand. So I apologise if this
is not, um, a question. But, uh, this is to
city staff. I notice in other, uh, consent applications. There's
often a road widening that's included with the conditions. Help
me understand that in the context of a situation like
this, you know, there is no road widening that's been
proposed here. Certainly we're hearing that there is some concern
about the road. And I guess I've just never asked
the question to understand why in, in some cases, there
is a road widening included and in others perhaps not.
Through the chair. Um, there is, um, some outlined information
through our official plan that speaks to where road windings
are necessary. Okay. And that's, and that is usually, um,
determined in the past by, um, transportation and through consultation
through different departments. And it's updated over time if needed.
Okay. Thank you just to follow up on that. Um,
so in this case, it would not be on the
official plan because this is still considered low density residential.
Uh, and maybe not following under, um, a situation where
road widening would be required or necessary for transportation. I
kind of following that. Through the chair. Um. Oh, Eric.
I think you can answer that question. Probably that if
I may interject, uh, through you, Mr. Chair, so when
we're talking about road widenings, what's being talked about is
the width of the right of way. The road right
away. So the right of way, uh, on Ridgeway Avenue,
I believe is, is 20 metres. Um, but the actual
physical like asphalted road is about seven metres to seven
to eight metres in width. So I think the problem
here is the width of the right of way, which
is what, what is being talked about when, uh, road
widening is being contemplated. It's adding to the right of
way of the roadway. Um, I think the concern here
is the construction of the roadway itself. Um, considering it
still has that, uh, more roll cross section with ditches
on either side rather than sidewalks. Okay. Thank you. I
really appreciate that helpful clarification. Was it something that I
had ever asked before? Um, can I ask another question?
Okay. Thank you. Uh, so through the chair again, I
believe to City staff. We were talking about traffic volumes,
um, and the conditions that would trigger a traffic impact
study. I think that makes sense to me. Um, but
I was wondering with the prevalence of delivery vehicles rising.
And my own street, they seem to be everywhere. Some
houses seem to be getting, you know, two deliveries, three
deliveries a day. How is that accounted for in the
traffic assessment? Yeah, I think you mentioned, you know, a
hundred additional net new trips in your notes. So our
delivery vehicles considered to be part of that assessment.
Through the chair. So my understanding is, is, uh, that,
uh, that criteria of the 100 trips was based on
AM and PM peak flow time. So that would be
primarily considering, um, immuters going to and from work or
school or whatever engagements they have throughout the day. I'm
not sure if delivery vehicles are contemplated through that, uh,
criteria specifically. But if there is a traffic study that's
done, obviously it would measure any traffic that passes through
the area. Um, that being said, I'm not sure if
with the rise of things like Uber Eats and Amazon
deliveries, whether or not that has been taken into account
for traffic engineering studies. That's something that I can't speak
to. I'm not sure if, uh, Jamie can clarify that.
Okay. Okay. I think that's something that neither of us
were neither of us are professional transportation engineers. So I
don't think we can answer that for you, unfortunately. Okay.
Thank you. Uh, follow a question on traffic studies, please.
I also noted, um, I guess I didn't see and
have an encountered kind of the outcome of traffic impact
study. Can you just talk in general terms when a
traffic impact study is completed for a new development? And
there are concerns raised by the traffic engineer what kind
of consequences? What kinds of changes modifications revisions may come
out of that? I'm just not familiar enough with traffic
impact studies to understand that. Through the chair. Um, yeah,
these traffic impact studies are usually sculpt by traffic engineering,
uh, when they are required. There will be a meeting
to discuss with the applicant at that time what would
need to be looked at. Where would what intersections would
have to be looked at in a certain scale of
that depending on the actual application? Um, through the, through
that study, there may be requirements for cross sections or
crosswalks. Um, signalization at intersections. Um, general improvements to, to
the, to the, to the route. Usually crossings and, and
signalization. Okay. Thank you. And a follow up question. So,
uh, through the chair, back to staff. So in this
case where there is a narrow road, is it the
case that the traffic PAC study might identify that the
roadway is narrow and that improvements might be recommended? Is
it that kind of thing that might crop up. Or
is that going beyond the typical scope of a trafficked
impact study. Through the chair, my understanding is that's beyond
the scope of the impact study. The impact study looks
more towards the signalization, um, line paintings, um, crossings, whether
it be a signalized crossing or just a regular pedestrian
crossing, um, things of that nature. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Um, and I finally, sorry, I have one additional question.
I kind of went deep into traffic. Um, you're making
my job a lot easier. Go ahead, please. Uh, so
through the chair back to staff, there was one bullet
that I thought was interesting in the triggers for a
traffic impact study, um, and I'll just read it here
that the development is not envisioned by land use plans.
And, um, I guess when the original, uh, planning was
done for this neighbourhood, there was no, but you know,
it was an envision that there would be this much
traffic because it was just single family dwellings. And so
I think my question here is, um, in this case,
I do believe that this development was not envisioned when
the land use was originally planned. So how is that
accounted for in the, uh, assessment of whether a traffic
impact study would be relevant here? Uh, through the chair,
um, I can't speak directly to transportation engineering's rationale behind
what they believe, um, when a TIS or a traffic
brief is required. They did take a look at the
site. Normally these traffic studies are looking at larger. Developments,
including, um, medium density, large density. In this case, it's
a small density. Um, site, um, so at this time,
it was not. A requirement, but maybe, um, a requirement
in the future if there are future applications and development
in this area. Okay. I have, I was, I apologise.
That was very helpful, but it triggered one additional question.
So through the chair, um, they, my question is whether
a traffic impacts study done today would be then helpful
in future developments on this street. Because I think we
are hearing that there could be more of these types
of infill developments coming in the neighbourhood. And is it
the case that having that document now could help inform
that future applications, which would almost certainly be coming to
the committee. Through the chair, transportation is already aware of
the applications that are coming in through this, um, on
the street and through in this neighbourhood. So they do
know, um, what's occurring. So that is part of their
scope that they look at when, when they're assessing, um,
the needs for any sort of study. Um. Whether or
not a study now would help. Any more information could
would currently help. But at this time, it's not needed
for the site. And perhaps just one clarification on that.
So it's not needed for this particular standalone development or
it is not needed for the cumulative impacts on this
street. Through the chair at this time. With the cumulative
impacts, it's hard work for me to say, um, it
is not needed. But in future, um, applications, if there
are any. Those cumulative impacts would be assessed. And we
would determine at that time whether a traffic study brief
or assessment would be needed. Okay. Uh, thank you. I
really appreciate the clarity with which you've been able to
answer those questions. So thank you. Thank you. And remember
Goodfellow. And remember Spears wants to jump in. Yes, go
ahead. Do you miss your chair to staff again? I
want to look at this just a question from a
much higher level. We talked earlier about infrastructure and projects,
larger projects that may be net new. And when they're
planned and contemplated, I'm curious about what responsibility the developer
has to pay for the infrastructure that has to be
built in order for them to do their business. We're
talking about townhouse developments, streets have to be built schools
have to be built. What proportion of that infrastructure is
carried by the developer. I don't know if you know
that, but I certainly don't. Are you asking about development
charges, member Spears? Sure. Through the chair to member Spear,
um, yes, development charges are a mechanism that can help
pay for growth. But when you're talking about larger developments
like subdivisions and whatnot, there are subdivision agreements, uh, and
draft plan approvals of subdivisions have a long list of
conditions, um, and a lot of those conditions involve cost
sharing or the developer paying for some or all of
certain bits of infrastructure that are necessary to service that
development. Um, so there are mechanisms in place for those
larger style developments. Uh, I think kind of the, what
the city is struggling with here is that those type
of mechanisms weren't originally envisioned for developments of this scale,
right? So that's something that the city is having to
adapt to, um, and that's something that we're actively working
on. Okay. Because where I'm headed here is this, and
it's this, it's the creeping nature of this. Sure, we
have one, we have two, we have three. Maybe we
have seven eight or nine. And we're, it's not just
Ridgway. Clearly, we're seeing this all over the place. When
do they have to step up and start paying for
this? When does the development charge kick in? Because it
seems obvious that it's happening. And I'm really asking the
question, are they paying for it? Is there any way
that we as the citizens of wealth get our money
back. That's with the chair to member spears again. So
there has been discussions with, with transportation staff, I was
speaking with the manager of transportation engineering, uh, earlier. Um,
and this unfortunately isn't something that we have a mechanism
in place right now to ask for, uh, money from
developers for individual severances. Um, but that's something that, uh,
staff are considering and might be something, uh, that we
have to explore in the future. Or rather, it is
something we are exploring and something that might be in
effect in the future. Um, but in terms of development
charges, that's something that is typically applied at building permit
stage for all developments, regardless of their scale. Uh, I
believe there are some exemptions, um, for certain types of
development. But, uh, all scales of development, uh, would theoretically
have to pay development charges? Yes. Thank you. That answers
my question. Any other, um, questions for staff or for
the applicant. Seeing none, I want to thank our Committee
members, uh, for robust discussion on this at this point.
I think, um, it's up to us to come to
some decision. So I would like to entertain a motion
committee member.
For approval with condition. Thank you. And do we have
a seconder. Remember Ross. Is there any discussion on the,
uh, motion before us. Member Spears? Yeah, I think that
we're talking about the traffic study. And while I understand
from staff that this particular situation at this very moment
doesn't require traffic study. All of these things take forever.
And even if we said as a condition, that it's
required, like I'm not sure when that would get done.
Would it be, would it, I don't know how to
phrase this, but I would like to bundle some protection
for the, for the community in here, because it's not
going to stop. I thought it was one off fine,
but it isn't. It's clearly not. You know, drive down
the street, see the for sale science. It's going to
keep happening. So we need to figure out a way
to insert a condition that protects them and gets this
thing moving faster than it appears to want to move
right now. Because I'm hearing years before this is even
contemplated. So I know I can't change your, you made
a motion. And we'll see how that goes. But maybe
we make another motion, which adds a condition. And we
have to figure out how to word it that forces
traffic study. And I don't, and I say that knowing
that city staff just said, we don't need one. Which
says to me that city staff won't support this and
it puts us right back in this, this cycle of,
we can say no, but then city staff won't support
us when it goes to the OT. So it's just
wasted time. So I'm not sure how to go forward
with this. So, um, yes, remember good for. Yes. I
actually was thinking perhaps along the same lines. And I
am mindful that, um, for Edinburgh where there was again,
granted, a much larger thoroughfare. But there was a traffic
impact study done on the earlier applications, which then was
re - upped or updated and came back to us
and was actually somewhat reassuring when we saw it that
it had been considered a traffic engineer had reviewed it.
And so I think that's kind of where I was
thinking, um, was that perhaps a condition here would make
sense because at least then when the next one comes
and the next one comes, frankly, it gives the developer,
but also the city and us a formal basis on
which we can then review and evaluate the next and
the next and the next application. So that was be
my perspective. Thank you. So. The discussion on the motion,
um, a possible amendment. And so, um, I'd like to
address the amendment first. And so I think, um, I'm
going to turn to our secretary treasure for some assistance
on this. Um, were we to consider an amendment? Can
we do that without addressing the motion before us. Through
you, Mr. Chair, if the mover member wishes to amend
their app, um, motion, they could, um, do so. I
would recommend if the committee is looking at maybe imposing
a traffic impact study condition, you might want to consult
with staff to get a bit more of their feedback
or, um, feedback from the applicant as well. I was
going there next, but I, I just wanted to get
the sort of parliamentary rules of order, um. Benefit. The
whole process. So let me first go to member Mir
and say, um, would you be, um, would you consider
a friendly amendment to speak to something about a traffic?
I would say it will not add any value for
this special purpose. It's an overall city, a traffic management
and the whole system has to become at a very
higher level. From their specialized traffic and all these people
to find the ways and meals, we should remain focused
on what has been placed on us as a variates.
And whether within that scope, we are approving with the
required condition. And while we wish, which can be done
anyway that the, uh, this congestion and the traffic should
be managed. But I think it's, it's beyond the scope
within which we are talking. It should be taken and
by the city. We can only recommend them that such
things should be taken as a outside this scope which
we are thinking. So I would say we maintain and
approve this while we can consider and discuss together also
how that can be presented to them. Because it's not
this isn't it's many. So it's not and each has
it so merit. Each area will have its own married.
It's not so it's a broad discussion. I think I
have not even sure it comes within our band -
aid to put such parts than many things will come
future. Then the street will come that the snow will
count that the other. So you are opening a window
unnecessarily beyond your scope of area. So it's I take
your point. Um, and, uh, I think that, uh, remember
good fellow pointed out that, um, we had proceeded in
a similar fashion with a similar project, albeit a larger
project, um, and, uh, we, we did impose that, uh,
kind of a, but I'm taking your point that as
the mover, you're not comfortable with a friendly amendment. Yes.
Okay. And remember Ross would like to speak. Through you,
Mr. Chair. I think, um, what member Spears is addressing
is, is, is very important given the kinds of applications
that we see before us on a regular basis. And
it points to, um, a gap. And who pays for
Intensification. Uh, so, you know, we don't really have the
answer for that. The whole purpose of the provincial legislation
is to create more units faster. And when individual applications
come forward for severances, that's indeed what, uh, is achieved.
So staff pointed out that for larger projects, there's cost
sharing. So there are possibly multiple landowners involved in paying
for things like traffic studies. And certainly for paying for
things like road improvements or creating roads, but here we
have an evolving situation where in certain communities, um, they
are unfairly asked, um, not that, you know, the remedy
immediate remedy for this, but from their point of view
unfairly asked to take on the burden of intensification without
any mechanism, uh, to achieve the level of like a,
uh, an urban road to support. The cumulative effect. Of
the intensification. So some of these communities like this particular
one are harder hit with this than others. And so
I support what, um, member Speer says intending there that
how best to address this gap. And for us as
a committee, it would seem that, um, we're having a
conversation here about our actual role is, is quite limited
in terms of, um, it being anything more than a,
than a suggestion. And to, I think it's probably very
clear to stop that we struggle with how to go
about, um, discussing this with the communities that come forward
expressing the concerns that we've held here today. Uh, so
I, I understand and support what, um, member Spears Intention
is I also understand what member Mir is saying in
terms of is this really the place. Is this really
the motion for us to come up with some way
to address this gap. Thank you member Rosh. That's given
me some, um, considerations as well. But I think, remember
before I chime in, uh, member, mayor, please. I think
the linkage with the street congestion, we are making, then
we are tying the approval with it. And if I
understand from the staff, it may take four year, five
years before they will address that part. So should we
hold and connect it with it? Or should we leave
it this. And see how city, because it comes a
hundred percent of the city itself, of their department specialized
in this, how traffic moves, what are the constituents. But
approving this, which is within the bylaws which we are
doing, linking will not, will, are we stopping that disapproval
is now linked with that. That it is four year,
they will be putting forward. So how we are doing
that, I think we should live here, approve this as
we have done before three, four. And more will be
coming to us. But this address separately and how we
can send a separate letter saying we are frequently receiving
this thing of the consults of, so this should be
disconnected and take her separately with the city by us
that we are free quality facing. It's very difficult for
us because we are very concerned out there. And that
is a special letter for the community can give for
them to be taking care of. That how we should
be addressing these situations, what is the bad date? Is
it possible, whatever, but not linking. I think we will
be having more with different concerns. People are concerned, worried.
But that is a linking with our approvals of this
should be strictly on the bylaw, which we are facing.
Okay. And, um, I think, um. I think there's something
to be said to speaking to staff about the. Legitimacy
or the efficacy of such an amendment, um, were it.
Not an amendment, but, uh, were it considered as part
of a, uh, different motion. So, um, what I'd like
our committee to consider is that we, um, as member,
Mir has said we consider this motion. And it passes
her in fails. And if it does fail that potentially
we could have another motion and address some of the
concerns that, uh, members have made, um, about the traffic
study in a separate motion. What are your thoughts? Member
spears. I think a member may is probably on the
money here with, with his perspective. And it also, I've
been thinking about this as in terms of this creeping
development as if it's one thing. And the problem is
that it isn't every one of these things is in
fact a completely independent. The owners are different. The applicant
is different. We can't say to this applicant who wants
to do this property. Oh, you have to do a
traffic study because it doesn't, it just doesn't reflect reality.
It's a, it's a larger beast here. And I, and
I, I, well, I want it to happen. It probably
isn't the right thing to try and do it this
way to try and tie cost of a traffic study
into this particular application. I just, it doesn't sound, it
doesn't seem practical, even though I want it to happen.
I hear that. Um, it is, it is essentially cumulative.
In my estimation. But like you say, we're talking about
a severance application. Creating, um. A couple of, uh, additional
buildings. And, um. I, I think at this point it
would be best if we, um, unless there's any pressing
concerns that we call to vote. And, uh, take our,
um, take our chances from there. I think that's been
a good discussion. So with that, Madam Secretary Treasurer, um.
Before I turned to you, I'm just going to say
that I'm uncomfortable, um, with this application. Um, it's a
severance and it's straightforward. And that lines up and everything's,
everything's copacitic. Um, that being said, my comment about cumulative
effect. I'm, I'm concerned. This committee rejected the first application
on Ridgeway because we, we saw where this train was
going, um, and their wisdom, the Ontario Land tribunal said,
um, that no, this, this is acceptable. Um, additionally, as
I mentioned to one of the delegates, um, this is
what city council has, uh, has said the direction the
city's going in. And I followed that discussion quite closely.
So it's, it's, it's really, um, I'm not going to
say our hands are tied. They're not. Um, in some
ways they are. So, um, reluctantly I would support this,
this motion. Remember Goodfilm. Yes. I wanted to add a
couple of words as well because I do think that
I am hearing from city staff and perhaps I am
over interpreting what I'm hearing. But I think my perception
of what we've talked about tonight is that there aren't
these mechanisms that we've been talking about. And, um, yeah,
I agree, member spears to your point that, you know,
burdening one applicant with a cost isn't truly fair. But
neither is it fair to burden the community with the
cost of this cumulative effects. And neither is it fair
to burden the city and the rest of the taxpayers
with doing a traffic impact study when it is such
a localized, uh, event. And so I think I am
just, you know, trying to look at ways where we
can get good and perhaps it's the engineer in me,
but I am looking for good data and trying to
understand from a pragmatic point of view, is there an
opportunity here for us to get decent data on which
the city and everyone involved applicants us, everyone has some
information then instead of us speculating about the cumulative impacts,
then, you know, there is an opportunity. We have the
data. So for all of that reason and because it
sounds like the boat's going to go the other way,
I'm going to be opposed to this one. And mostly
as an indication that I think the city, the applicant
and us are all in a bad position here. And
nobody is, unfortunately, able to transfer the costs to where
it probably should be allocated. And so that's for that
reason I'll be opposed. Thank you, member Goodfellow. You almost
convinced me to change my mind. Any other comments or
questions on the motion before us. Seeing none, Madam Secretary
Treasure, would you call to vote, please? Thank you, Chair
Committee members. Please indicate your vote by responding in favor
or opposed to the motion, which is to approve the
application with the recommended conditions by staff. Chair Smith in
favor. Member Fitzpatrick. In your favor. Member Goodfellow. Opposed. Member
Mir in favor. Remember Ross in favor. Member spears. Reluctantly
in favor, sorry for the editorial. That's carried, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Um, thank you for your patience, your application
has been approved. I believe Madam Secretary Treasure, we have
one more application to go. The last file is file
A dash 28 slash 26 variance to permit reduced exterior
side yard setback for proposed conversion of existing carport to
attach garage at 73 Yorkshire Street South. I'll note for
those attending remotely. If you wish to speak to this
application, you can call the number displayed on the screen.
That number's 519 - 822 - 1260 Extension 2524. And
when you call in staff, we'll give you instructions on
how you can delegate remotely. Does the applicant president? Yes,
please come forward. Um. Before you state your name for
the record, let me thank you for your patience in
sitting through that last hearing. And with that, can I
ask for your name and your relationship to this application.
Bill McFadden from Build Consulting Services and the agent of
the owner. Thank you. And can you tell me if
the sign was posted as per the planning act. Yes,
it was. And have you read Staff's comments on Area
in agreement. I have and I am. Um, I should
be have heard. You have 10 minutes to address the
committee. Uh, good evening. I will try and keep this
brief. I'm sorry. Uh, we are seeking a reduced side
yard set back to allow, uh, enclosing the existing car
port at 73 York Trio Street South, as seen on
the screen here, uh, where it is six metres required
setback from the sidewalker from the, uh, on the backside
of the sidewalk to the building. We have four metres.
Um, we have had this file previously, uh, for other,
uh, applications from minor variances, uh, at this site. We
did have, um, CGH transportation complete a traffic report, uh,
at the site to get additional comment and support for
this reduced, uh, setback in order to allow for the
enclosure of the garage. And, uh, we did, like I
said, we reviewed staff's comments and we are in support
and I am available for any questions that, uh, anyone
may have. Thank you. Um, and are there any, um,
comments from staff or presentation. Um, seeing none, um, at
this point, I'll turn to the public. And Madam Secretary,
is there anyone registered to speak. Mr. Chair can confirm
no registered delegates for this file. Thank you. And is
there anyone in the chamber who would like to speak
to this application? Seeing none. Committee members, do we have
any questions of the applicant. No, and, um, at that
point, um, I'm going to entertain a motion. Member Fitzpatrick.
I motion that we, uh, prove the application as recommended
by staff. Thank you. And do we have a seconder.
Five second member. Any discussion on the motion before us.
Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasure, would you call the vote,
please? Thank you, Chair Committee members. Please indicate your vote
by responding in favor or post to the motion, which
is to approve the application. Chair Smith in favor. Remember
Fitzpatrick. Remember, good fellow in favor. Remember Mir in favor.
Remember Ross in favor. And member spears. In favor. That's
carried Mr. Chair. Thank you. Your application has been approved.
Madam Secretary Treasure, I believe that completes our agenda is
in terms of applications. I do have any staff announcements.
Mr. Chair, I don't have any staff announcements. Um, at
that point neither do I. Um, so I would entertain
a motion to adjourn. So moved. Um, and member spears,
seconded by member Goodfellow, all in favor. We stand adjourned.
Thank you very much Committee members. And I would also
like to thank the new faces at staff for their
presentation and patients. Thank you.