[0:02] Good afternoon, Guelph. I'd like to call to order the
[0:05] August 13th, 2026 hearing of the Gulf Committee of Adjustment.
[0:09] This hearing is being held in a hybrid format and
[0:12] with attendees appearing in person and or remotely and as
[0:15] being live streamed and recorded. Please be advised the public
[0:19] hearings form part of the public record, and the words,
[0:22] images of those participating shall be recorded and posted online.
[0:27] I have received regrets from member membrano who will not
[0:31] be attending this hearing this evening. Before I outline the
[0:35] hearing format, if you're watching online and wish to speak
[0:37] to an application that's listed on our agenda and have
[0:40] not yet submitted a request in advance of the hearing,
[0:44] please call the number displayed on the screen now. That
[0:47] number is 519 - 822 - 1260. That's 519 -
[0:54] 822 - 1260, and the extension is 2524. At that
[0:59] point, you will receive instructions on how to participate. For
[1:03] those attending the hearing in person, you'll also be given
[1:05] a chance to address our committee. A final call for
[1:08] delegations will be made when each application is called. The
[1:12] agenda for this hearing has been posted online at Guelph.
[1:15] ca - forward slash C - O - F -
[1:18] A. I will remind all committee members and staff participating
[1:22] in the hearing to please mute your microphone when nodding
[1:26] use. Applicants will be unmuted when their application is called.
[1:31] I don't also like to share the hearing format will
[1:33] be using to navigate through our meeting today. Each applicant
[1:37] will be called by the Secretary Treasurer and the call
[1:40] - in number for those wishing to speak to an
[1:42] application shall be displayed on the screen. Afterwards. The applicant
[1:46] will be given the opportunity to add any further anything
[1:49] further to their application to a maximum of 10 minutes.
[1:53] You will hear a chime when there are 30 seconds
[1:55] left and another when you're 10 minutes have elapsed. If
[1:59] you're an applicant and have nothing further to add, then
[2:02] you can simply say so. Following this for some file,
[2:07] staff may provide a brief presentation. Our committee will then
[2:10] be able to ask questions of the applicant or staff.
[2:15] After that, we will hear from members of the public
[2:18] who wish to comment on the application. Please note that
[2:22] all comments should be addressed through myself the chair. Please
[2:26] avoid repeating concerns already stated by others. And please focus
[2:31] on adding new information. Comments are limited to 10 minutes
[2:35] or less, and you will hear a chime when there
[2:37] are 30 seconds left and another, when you're 10 minutes
[2:40] have expired. For delegates that have advised staff in advance
[2:43] of the hearing that they wish to display a presentation,
[2:46] your presentation will be displayed on the screen and remote
[2:50] is available at the podium for delegates in - person
[2:52] to advance the slides. Any members of the public who
[2:56] have submitted a request to speak prior to the hearing
[2:59] will be the first invited to provide comments. For those
[3:03] wishing to bigger pardon. For those watching the hearing online,
[3:08] if you wish to speak to an application and have
[3:11] not yet submitted a request in advance of the hearing,
[3:13] please call the number displayed and you on the screen
[3:17] now, and you will be given a chance to come
[3:21] forward to the podium and address the committee. Once all
[3:24] comments from the public have been heard, the applicant or
[3:27] staff will be given the opportunity to respond to comments.
[3:31] Finally, as chair, I will turn the committee, turn to
[3:34] our committee for a motion and deliberation as well as
[3:37] a vote on the application. When the committee is making
[3:40] a decision on an application, as chair, I will be
[3:43] asking the Secretary Treasure to conduct the vote by roll
[3:46] call. Our Secretary of Treasure will call the call each
[3:52] of the members'name, and each member will respond if they
[3:56] are in favor or opposed to the motion. And as
[3:59] chair, I will announce the result of the vote. If
[4:05] you wish to receive a copy of the decision on
[4:08] an application, you must set, submit a written request. A
[4:13] written request can be made by contact sting staff at
[4:16] the contact information shown on the screen. To receive a
[4:19] copy of the decision, please email cofat. ca with your
[4:26] name, the file number that you're interested in. And note
[4:31] that owners and applicants automatically receive a copy of a
[4:34] decision. At this point, in our meeting, I'm going to
[4:41] read the territorial acknowledgement, and I would ask those that
[4:45] are able to please stand while I do so.
[4:56] As we gather, let us take time to reflect on
[4:59] our privilege to live and work in wealth. A CD
[5:02] built over rich Indigenous histories. We're guests here. We should
[5:07] reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land, the
[5:11] people who live here today, and the generations to come.
[5:15] If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation, we
[5:19] should take pause and make those decisions with intention and
[5:23] with gratitude. This place we call Guelph has served as
[5:27] traditional lands and a place of refuge for many peoples
[5:30] over time, but more specifically, the Adirondach and the Honashune.
[5:36] This land is held as the treaty lands and territory
[5:39] of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. Guelph lies
[5:43] directly adjacent to the Haldeman track, and is part of
[5:47] long - established traditional hunting ground of the Six nations
[5:50] of the Grand River. Many First Nations Inuit and Maite
[5:55] people who have come from across Turtle Island called Gulf
[5:59] Home today. Thank you. At this point,
[6:09] Committee members, I'd like to entertain a motion on accepting
[6:13] the minutes from our July 9th meeting. Um, yes. Remember
[6:18] Mir. So moved into, and that's what's your name
[6:28] again? So remember Goodwill. Um, all those opposed. All those
[6:35] in favor. That carries Madam Secretary Treasurer. And apologies, member
[6:41] Good Phil. I had a brain cramp. I've confirmed with
[6:46] their Secretary Treasury that we have noed for all requests,
[6:49] and I will call now on our Secretary Treasurer to
[6:52] announce our first application. Madam Secretary Treasure. The first application
[6:58] is file A - 33 - 26. Variants to permit
[7:02] no Front Yard setback for proposed covered front porch and
[7:05] stairs at 166 London Road West. I'll note for those
[7:10] attending remotely if you wish to speak to this application,
[7:12] you can do so by calling the number displayed on
[7:15] the screen. That number's 519 - 822 - 1260 Extension
[7:20] 2524. And when you call in staff, we'll give you
[7:23] instructions on how you can delegate remotely. It was the
[7:27] applicant present, or are they online. Online. Good afternoon. Can
[7:35] you state your name for the record, please? And your
[7:38] relationship to this application. Benjamin Percy, I am the applicant.
[7:45] Thank you, Mr. Percy. And, um, have you read Staff's
[7:49] comments? And are you in agreement. I am. And one
[7:54] other bit of business that we have to get out
[7:57] of the way is about the sign. Can you tell
[8:00] me if it was posted as per the planning act?
[8:02] The sign was posted, as per the Planning Act. That's
[8:06] awesome. So at this point, um, you may have heard
[8:09] in my opening remarks that you have 10 minutes to
[8:11] address our committee, so please go ahead. Um, I also,
[8:16] in your opening remarks, I said, if I don't have
[8:18] anything to add, I don't need to. Um, so I
[8:21] don't think I have anything to add. I think the
[8:23] proposal is there. Um, and I don't see that any
[8:26] comments have been made against it. Okay, that's to the
[8:33] point. Um, I'm going to ask staff if they have
[8:37] any presentation to make about this application. Seeing none. Are
[8:45] there any members of, oh, before I ask for the
[8:48] public, are any of our committee members interested in speaking
[8:52] to this application and asking questions of the applicant. Seeing
[8:58] none, I'm going to now turn to the public. Madam
[9:01] Secretary Treasurer, are there any delegates online. Mr. Chair can
[9:07] confirm there are no registered delegates. Thank you. And, um,
[9:11] is there anyone in the gallery that would like to
[9:13] speak to this application. Seeing none, committee members, what is
[9:18] your wish. Member speers. I move that we accept this
[9:26] application as recommended by City staff. And do we have
[9:30] a seconder. Fitzpatrick? And is there any discussion on the
[9:37] motion before us. Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasury, would you
[9:41] call the vote, please? Thank you, Chair Committee members, please
[9:45] indicate your vote by responding in favor or opposed to
[9:47] the motion, which is to approve the application. Chair Smith.
[9:51] In favor. Remember, Fitzpatrick. In favor. Goodfellow in favor. In
[10:01] favor. Remember Ross. In favor. And member spears. In favor.
[10:08] That's carried Mr. Chair. Uh, thank you, Madam Secretary Treasurer.
[10:12] To the applicant, your application has been approved, and your
[10:17] free to hang up or stay tuned for some more
[10:20] exciting episodes. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. May we
[10:26] have the next applicant, please, Madam Secretary. The next application
[10:32] is file A - 30 slash 26. Variants permit increased
[10:37] fence height and front yard at one West Hill Road.
[10:41] I'll note for those attending remotely, if you wish to
[10:43] speak to this application, you can do so by calling
[10:45] the number displayed on the screen. That number's 519 -
[10:48] 822 - 1260 extension 2524. And when you call in
[10:53] staff, we'll give you instructions on delegating remotely. Thank you.
[10:58] I believe I see the applicant online, is that correct?
[11:03] Yes. Welcome, can you state your name for the record,
[11:07] please, and your relationship to this application. My name is
[11:11] Natasha Welch, and I'm one of the applicants. Thank you.
[11:14] And can you tell me if the sign was posted
[11:15] as per the planning act. Yes, they were. And have
[11:20] you read Staff's comments? And are you in agreement. I
[11:25] am in agreement. Thank you. As you may have heard
[11:31] with the opening of remarks, you have 10 minutes to
[11:34] address the committee, so please go ahead. Uh, yeah, I
[11:38] don't really have anything for further to add, uh, to
[11:41] the City's comments. Uh, it is, but yeah. So I
[11:46] think it pretty much is self - explained with what
[11:49] they have provided. Okay, thank you. Um, I'm going to
[11:54] turn to staff and see if they have, they do
[11:56] not have a presentation. Um, I'm going to ask, if
[12:01] any of my colleagues have any questions for you if
[12:04] you want to hang on for a moment, uh, Committee
[12:06] members, any questions of this applicant, seeing none, Madam Secretary
[12:12] Treasurer, is there anyone online who wishes to speak to
[12:17] this that's been registered. Mr. Chair, I can confirm there
[12:21] are no registered delegates. Thank you. And is there anyone
[12:24] in the gallery who would like to speak to this
[12:26] application. Seeing none, um, I'll entertain a motion, committee members,
[12:32] what is your wish? Remember Goodfella. I motion that we
[12:36] approve the application is recommended by City staff. Thank you,
[12:40] and we have a seconder. A second member Mir, is
[12:43] there any conversation or debate on this motion before us.
[12:49] Seeing none, um, Madam Secretary Treasurer, could you call the
[12:52] role, please? Thank you, Chair Committee members, please indicate your
[12:58] vote by responding in favor or opposed to the motion,
[13:01] which is to approve the application. Chair Smith in favor.
[13:08] Member Goodfellow in favor, member Mir. In favor. Remember Ross
[13:13] in favor. And member Spears in favor. Let's carry Mr.
[13:18] Chair. Thank you, Madam Secretary Treasurer. Your application has been
[13:23] approved. And you're free to leave the meeting if you
[13:27] wish. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Madam Secretary Treasurer,
[13:33] may we have the next applicant, please. The next file
[13:36] is file A - 31 slash 26. Variance to permit
[13:41] a pool patio fence and walkway within the natural heritage
[13:45] system NHS zone at 32 Spring Street. I'll know for
[13:49] those attending remotely. If you wish to speak to this
[13:52] application, you can do so by calling the number displayed
[13:54] on the screen. The number's 519 - 822 - 1260
[13:59] extension 2524. And when you call in SNAF, I'll give
[14:02] you instructions on how you can delegate remotely. Is the
[14:08] applicant in attendance? Yes, please come forward.
[14:19] Good afternoon. Can you state your name and your relationship
[14:21] to the application for the record, please? Oh, your mic's
[14:25] not on. Hang on a sec. There we go. Go
[14:29] ahead, please. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. My name is Colin
[14:33] Vanward of Van Harten Surveying, and I'm the agent for
[14:35] this application. The property owners, Mike Meg, are here as
[14:39] well. Thank you. And can you tell me if the
[14:41] sign was posted as per the planning app? It was.
[14:45] And have you read staff's comments? I have. And are
[14:48] you in agreement. I am. At this point, we have
[14:52] 10 minutes to address the committee, so please go ahead.
[14:56] Thanks, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm not going to add too
[14:58] much. Um, I just like to just state a couple
[15:03] of the main points. Um, and environmental brief was prepared
[15:07] by a boot. Um, and reviewed by city environmental planning
[15:11] staff. Um, this application is a bit of a technicality.
[15:15] Um, and, uh, the proposed works are in an area
[15:20] that is already currently, um, landscaped. And so there's no
[15:24] new, um, encroachment or development in the Natural Heritage area.
[15:31] Um, I'd be happy to answer any questions we have.
[15:35] Okay. Thank you. Um, does staff have a presentation or
[15:38] comments they'd like to make at this point seeing, um,
[15:41] shaking of heads, um, I'm going to interpret that as
[15:44] unknown. Um, committee members, do we have any questions for
[15:47] the applicant. Remember, Mir. To the, not to the applicant,
[15:54] but to the staff, sorry. So I will. Maybe that
[15:57] will be more appropriate because I see that, uh, the
[16:01] handscape area, uh, is, is not within, uh, the NHS.
[16:09] It was approved. And as I see in the years
[16:11] already, he has a part, not within the NHS. So
[16:17] as what are we approving, what are we a preming?
[16:20] What is the variance we are talking about here. Uh,
[16:28] through the chair to member Mir, if you can see
[16:31] the dotted line that goes across. The image there, um,
[16:37] that's the limit of the natural heritage area. So you
[16:39] can see on this zoomed insight plan there that the
[16:42] pool crosses into that NHS lands. Um, so that's the
[16:46] reason why a variance is required as outlined in the
[16:50] staff comment, uh, this area was already disturbed and hardscaped.
[16:54] Um, so staff have no concern with the pool encroaching
[16:56] into that, uh, NHS area. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Committee
[17:03] members, any other questions for the applicant. Seeing none, are
[17:10] there any registered delegates to speak to us, Madam Secretary.
[17:14] Mr. Chair, I can confirm no registered delegates. Is there
[17:18] anyone in the auditorium who'd like to speak to this
[17:21] application. Seeing no one rushing the microphone. I'll take that
[17:27] as a no. Um, at this point committee members, what
[17:30] is your wish. Member Fitzpatrick. Yes, sir, you share. I,
[17:36] um, post that we accept this application, uh, with the
[17:42] conditions as outlined by staff. Thank you. And do we
[17:46] have a seconder. Remember good fellow. Is there any discussion
[17:51] on the application before us. Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer,
[17:57] um, can we have a vote, please. Thank you, Chair
[18:02] Committee members. Please indicate your vote by responding in favor
[18:05] or opposed to the motion, which is to approve the
[18:07] application with the recommended condition. Chair Smith in favor. Remember
[18:12] Fritz Patrick. In favor. Remember good fellow in favor. Remember
[18:18] Mirt. Remember Ross in favor. And member Spears in favor.
[18:24] That's carried Mr. Chair. Thank you. Your application has been
[18:28] approved. Thank you. Madam Secretary Treasure, may we have the
[18:34] next applicant, please. The next application is file A dash
[18:41] 32 slash 26. Variances for reduced private amenity depth for
[18:46] proposed above grade townhouse units and for reduced rear yard
[18:50] setback for tower portion of proposed apartment building at 12
[18:53] Pool Street. I'll note for those attending remotely if you
[18:56] wish to speak to this application. You can do so
[18:58] by calling the number displayed on the screen. That number's
[19:01] 519 822 1260 extension 2524 and staff will give you
[19:08] instructions on how you can delegate remotely. I see the
[19:12] applicant online. Can you state your name and your relationship
[19:16] to the application, please? Yes. Carson Parks. I'm a planner
[19:20] with Arcadis and we're representing the owners on this file.
[19:24] Thank you. And can you tell me if the sign
[19:26] was posted as per the planning act. Yes, it was.
[19:30] That's great. So, um, have you read staff's comments and
[19:34] are you in agreement. Yes, we are in agreement. Um,
[19:38] as you may have heard, uh, you have 10 minutes
[19:40] that you can address the committee with. So please make
[19:43] as much use of that time as you'd like. Yes.
[19:46] Um, I prepared a presentation. That I believe can be
[19:50] shared. Thanks. Just brief. Next slide. So here
[20:00] we have the overview of the, uh, helpful street. The
[20:04] application is two and a half hectares basically. Next slide.
[20:13] Proposed is 451 units with a 10 story apartment building.
[20:18] Um, this application's gone through in Ontario Land tribunal already.
[20:21] And we are currently going through these state plan application
[20:23] process. So the variances are to proceed with that. Next
[20:27] slide. The first variance is for the private amenity area
[20:33] where it's required 1. 8 metres. We are requesting 1.
[20:36] 2 metres. We are still providing the total area wired.
[20:40] Excellent. The rear yard set back where 12. 5 metres
[20:47] is required. We have, um, 5. 5 metres. This is
[20:50] based on the regularity of the lot. Um, as you
[20:53] can see along the rear lot line, um, some areas,
[20:57] this distance is met. But at the lowest point 5.
[20:59] 5, it's not. Um, also to note at the rear
[21:03] of the law is a conservation area and it won't
[21:05] be developed. Excellent. That's it for us. I'm happy to
[21:12] answer any questions. Okay. Thank you. Um, I'm going to
[21:17] turn to staff and see, is there any, um, staff
[21:21] presentation on this file? Yes, please go ahead, Mr. Yu.
[21:25] Thank you. Uh, through you, Mr. Chair and to the
[21:28] committee, I'd just like to provide some background history for
[21:31] the site in order to provide context for the variances
[21:34] before you. Um, so the subject lands known as 12
[21:37] pool street. We're initially received by the city as an
[21:40] official plan amendment in 2022. We've council choosing to fuse
[21:45] the application. Uh, the application was there for appeal to
[21:48] the interior land tribunal. The tribunal found that the proposal
[21:52] was generally in keeping with the provincial planning direction at
[21:56] the time and approved in 2023 several amending zoning provisions
[22:00] as recognised and staff comments. Of note, is that this
[22:04] decision amended only the 1995 zoning bylaw. So in the
[22:08] following year of 2024, uh, we also approved the city
[22:12] initiated housekeeping amendment for the subject lands. Thereby bringing this
[22:16] tribunal approved 1995 zoning into the current 2023 A zoning
[22:21] by lawyer. Um, so as the app can noted, there
[22:24] is a formal site plane application that was received in
[22:27] 2024 as well. And it's still active. Um, so generally
[22:30] most of the design work is, uh, completed pending minor
[22:34] revisions, um, such as the variances before you. And some
[22:38] of which were missed in the Cities 2024 housekeeping amendment.
[22:42] Uh, which is in line of the OLT decision. So
[22:45] that's kind of a high level background of how we
[22:47] got here, um, staff in the applicant available to answer
[22:51] any questions you might have. Thank you. Thank you very
[22:55] much. Um, at this point, rather than go to committee,
[23:00] I'm going to ask if there are any members of
[23:02] the public who wish to speak to this application. I
[23:06] don't see anyone in the chamber. Are there any registered
[23:09] delegates, Madam Secretary Treasure. Mr. Chair can confirm no registered
[23:15] delegates. Thank you. And I don't see anyone waiting on
[23:18] the line. Committee members, do we have any questions for
[23:22] either the applicant or for SNAF. Remember, good fellow. Yes.
[23:27] Uh, through the chair, um, I think to City staff,
[23:32] so the dates that you just shared, they seem to
[23:36] suggest just a little unsure why this is coming to
[23:40] us now. They seem like they would have been addressed
[23:44] in earlier phases of the project. Um, so is there
[23:48] a better or more detailed explanation on kind of why
[23:51] these last two, uh, have come forward at this time
[23:54] versus maybe having gotten momped up in other iterations or
[23:58] the site plan or conversations and et cetera. Through you
[24:03] chair. So my understanding, I wasn't the plan on a
[24:06] file in the original application, but my understanding is at
[24:09] the time of the city initiated housekeeping amendment, the city
[24:12] was also working with, um, like a contracted planning consultant
[24:16] to bring forward some of the housekeeping amendments. And as
[24:19] some of them were missed, um, as well as since
[24:22] it's still an active site plan, um, file, might still
[24:26] be some minor visions being made. Um, they are conditionally
[24:29] approved, but the tweaks that might have to be satisfied
[24:34] prior to full site plan approval. Thank you. That was
[24:38] really helpful. Can I just ask a follow - up
[24:40] question? Um, and this is really just for my curiosity
[24:43] because I was just looking at the timeline again and
[24:46] trying to kind of piece things together. But is it
[24:48] the case that this could be back before us at
[24:51] some point with a couple more, um, minor, um, minor
[24:57] requests. Uh, through the chair, that's something that's to be
[25:03] determined as site plan concludes. Okay. Yeah. But it would
[25:07] be tied to site plan. Uh, process at that point.
[25:11] Yep. Okay. Cool. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, member Goodfellow.
[25:18] Are there any other questions for the applicant or for
[25:20] staff. Seeing none, but I, I do have a couple.
[25:25] Um, first I'd like staff to help me, um, with,
[25:29] with, um, interpretation of this given the size of the
[25:35] request of the setback from the property loan. Um, I'm
[25:41] wondering if my understanding of staff's comments is that this
[25:48] is being, uh, found acceptable because the lot, um, is
[25:55] adjacent is actually part of, um, conservation and is not
[26:00] develop. Am I clear on that. Uh, through your chair.
[26:06] Yeah. That's, that's correct. Okay. That's, sorry go ahead. And,
[26:11] uh, I don't believe environmental planning has flagged any issue
[26:14] with the setback either. Okay. Thank you. And, um. We
[26:22] did receive some late correspondence about this file. And I
[26:26] think a lot of it has been, um, captured in
[26:30] some of both staff and the applicants, um, uh, presentation.
[26:35] But I just want to, I just want to be
[26:36] sure of this, that since this was initially, um, rejected
[26:42] at city council, but then was appealed and on appeal,
[26:47] the Ontario land tribunal has overturned city council's view that
[26:54] many of the issues raised by the correspondent would have
[26:58] been handled at the Ontario Land Tribunal. Am I jumping
[27:03] ahead or misinterpreting that. Uh, to you, Chair, that's my
[27:09] understanding as well. Um, from what I know, it sounds
[27:13] like that the correspondence we receive the rules in talks
[27:17] with city staff as well. Okay. It's just, when I
[27:25] receive such a thorough, uh, piece of correspondence and didn't
[27:28] have a whole lot of time to digest it. First
[27:31] of all, I think it's important to, um, to the
[27:34] public who've taken the time to correspond with us to
[27:39] elucidate that. And second, um. Help me understand it in,
[27:44] in, in my deliberation. So thank you very much for
[27:46] that. Um, Committee members, any other questions or comments. So
[27:50] at this point, um, I would like to entertain a
[27:53] motion. Do we have a motion ladies gentlemen. Member Mir.
[28:05] And whether, um. Yes, member, good Phillip. That's good. And
[28:14] I guess at this point, if we have any discussion,
[28:19] that would be appropriate now. Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasurer
[28:23] can ask you to call the vote, please. Thank you,
[28:27] Chair Committee members. Please indicate your vote by responding in
[28:29] favor or post to the motion, which is to approve
[28:32] the application. Chair Smith in favor, Fitzpatrick. In favor. Remember
[28:40] Goodfellow in favor mirror. And favourite member Ross in favor.
[28:47] And member Spears in favor. That's carried Mr. Chair. Your
[28:51] application has been approved. Awesome. Thank you. You're welcome. Madam
[28:58] Secretary Treasurer, may we have the next applicant, please. The
[29:03] next application is file A dash 29 slash 26. Variances
[29:08] to permit increased front yard and exterior side yard setbacks
[29:11] and reduced buffer strip width for proposed multi tenant commercial
[29:15] building at seven feeling court. I'll note for those attending
[29:19] remotely if you wish to speak to this application. You
[29:22] can do so by calling the number displayed on the
[29:24] screen. That number's 519 822 1260 extension 2524. And when
[29:30] you call in staff, we'll give you instructions on how
[29:33] you can delegate remotely. Is the applicant in the chamber?
[29:38] Yes. Please come forward. Good afternoon. Can you state
[29:48] your name and your relationship to the project we're reviewing
[29:52] today. We need to turn your microphone on. There you
[29:56] go. Oh, you turned it off. There we are. Okay.
[29:59] Um, please go ahead. My name is Nicola. I am
[30:03] an architect with Fryet Turner Architects and the applicant. And
[30:08] can you tell me if the sign was posted as
[30:10] per the planning act? It was. And have you read
[30:13] staff's comments and are you in agreement. I have and
[30:16] we are. Um, as with others, you have 10 minutes
[30:20] to address the committee. So please make as much use
[30:23] at that time as you wish. Great. Thank you. Um,
[30:25] the minor variances being requested are to facilitate the proposed
[30:30] development of a one story, a one, two story multi
[30:34] - tenant commercial building that will support three commercial tenants.
[30:38] It is the intent that each of these tenants will
[30:40] be a combination of office and warehouse uses. These tenants
[30:43] are proposed to be supported by 111 parking stalls and
[30:46] three internal loading bays. The minor variants being sought are
[30:50] to permit a maximum building setback from the front lot
[30:53] line of 29. 3 metres. Whereas the requirement is 25
[30:57] metres. Um, to permit a maximum building setback from the
[31:00] exterior sideline of 25. 5 metres, whereas the requirement is
[31:05] 25 metres. And to permit a localized reduction in the
[31:08] landscape buffer strip to 1. 5 metres along the west
[31:12] interior lot line for a length of 50 metres, whereas
[31:15] the required three metres for the entire lot line. Um,
[31:21] our justification is that the zoning bylaw establishes a minimum
[31:24] six metre setback and a maximum 25 metre setback along
[31:28] front and exterior side lot lines. It is our understanding
[31:31] that the purpose of both the minimum and maximum building
[31:34] setbacks is to encourage consistent street frontage across multiple properties
[31:38] in a row. Our property has an irregular triangular with
[31:43] a curve property line where it abuts the intersection of
[31:47] failing court and Cooper drive. There is a significant stitch
[31:50] across the whole front, uh, property line on feeling court.
[31:54] And the opportunity for acceptable locations for access by large
[31:58] vehicles along failing court is limited due to the intersection
[32:02] and curvature of failing court. Additionally, the intended use of
[32:07] the commercial units is as office and warehouse spaces with
[32:11] visiting clients. It is anticipated that to support these users,
[32:16] uh, a greater number of parking spaces than what the
[32:19] bylaw describes as the minimum will be required. The number
[32:23] of parking spaces proposed for the site is based on
[32:25] market research of the area and likelihood of staff and
[32:28] clients to travel by car to the site, given the
[32:31] location location, catchment area for clients and limited alternative methods
[32:35] of travel available to the area from within Guelph and
[32:39] neighbouring cities. It should be noted that there is no
[32:43] maximum number of parking spaces stipulated within the bylaw for
[32:46] this property. It's our opinion that increasing the building setback
[32:50] will not diminish the building capacity. Uh, to contribute to
[32:54] consistent frontage along failing court due to the curvature of
[32:58] the street. The front corners of the building are still
[33:02] within the setback limits of both adjacent properties of the
[33:05] same zoning. It is our opinion that increasing the building
[33:09] setback with improved viability. Or sorry, will improve viability of
[33:13] the site by allowing for a truck, truck access driveway
[33:17] away from the intersection that has direct access to the
[33:20] loading docs. With limited disturbance of the existing ditch and
[33:25] improved visibility of the building from the handling Expressway. It
[33:30] is our opinion that increasing the building setback will allow
[33:33] an adequate number of parking spaces to support the intended
[33:35] use, while also allowing those parking spaces to be surrounded
[33:39] by ample landscape area. For screening and improved visual interest
[33:43] from the street. As for the buffer strip, um, the
[33:48] bylaw requires a minimum three metre wide buffer strip adjacent
[33:51] to interior side and rear lot lines. And it's our
[33:55] understanding that the purpose of the buffer strip is to
[33:57] screen service and parking areas from neighbouring properties and public
[34:01] streets. Uh, the localized reduction is to facilitate the turning
[34:07] of large truck and trailer vehicles into the loading docks.
[34:13] And, um, we believe that the localized reduction of the
[34:16] landscape offers trip will not diminish the capacity of the
[34:19] buffer strip to screen this area from neighbouring sites or
[34:23] the street. Overall, it's our opinion that these requests are
[34:30] minor and still meet the general intent of the bylaw
[34:33] and will not adversely affect the overall zoning requirements specific
[34:35] to this site. Thank you very much. And, um, if
[34:42] you wait right there, I'm going to see first if
[34:45] staff have any, um, additions or comments. And then we
[34:50] may have some questions for you. So city staff, is
[34:55] there a presentation or comments that would like to be.
[34:59] Okay. Seeing none. Um, are either any registered delegates, minimum
[35:03] secretary treasure. Mr. Chair, I can confirm no registered delegates.
[35:09] Is there anybody in the chamber who would like to
[35:11] speak to this application. Seeing none committee members, do we
[35:17] have any questions of the applicant. I don't see anyone,
[35:24] um, with their hands raised. So at this point, uh,
[35:27] Committee members, what is your wish. Through you, Jade? I
[35:31] have a question for the staff. Uh, I see you're
[35:35] proposing the approval, but I don't find any conditionality in
[35:40] doing so. So you are approving the variances, but I
[35:44] haven't done that. What is the condition for that? As
[35:49] you are proposing. Through the chairita member. So that one
[35:55] condition is to limit the reduction in the landscape buffer
[35:59] to adjust the area shown on the site plan, uh,
[36:02] as that's, you know, an area that needs to be
[36:05] encroached upon for a truck movement. Uh, so the conditionable
[36:08] just ensure that the three metre buffer will be maintained
[36:10] across the rest of the site and that the variants
[36:12] would only apply to that specific area. It is not
[36:17] clear through your writer that condition. I'm not sure. Or
[36:24] side building, yes, you need all these permissions. But, uh,
[36:28] as a conditional to that. So the variance is approved
[36:32] as such. So I didn't get it exactly. Yeah. So
[36:38] through the chair again, there is a recommended condition that
[36:41] Planning staff have included, um, and I can read that
[36:43] off. The condition is that the requested variances remain in
[36:47] conformity with the submitted site plan to the generals or
[36:50] to the satisfaction of the general manager planning and building
[36:53] services. Um, so in this application, go as for site
[36:56] plan approval, whoever's doing the zoning review, uh, will look
[36:59] at the condition stipulated on the variance and we'll note
[37:03] that that, uh, buffer reduction only applies to the areas
[37:06] shown on this submitted site plan. Okay. Thank you. Any
[37:11] other questions for the applicant or for staff. Seeing none,
[37:18] what is your wish committee members. Member spears. I move
[37:22] that we, uh, we accept this application with the condition
[37:26] recommended by City staff. And do we have a seconder.
[37:31] Remember Fitzpatrick? Any discussion on the motion before us. Seeing
[37:36] none, Madam Secretary Treasure, would you call the vote, please?
[37:40] Thank you, Chair Committee members. Please indicate your vote by
[37:43] responding in favor or opposed to the motion, which is
[37:46] to approve the application with the recommended condition. Chair Smith
[37:50] in favor. In favor. Remember, good fellow in favor. Remember
[37:58] Mir in favor. Remember Ross in favor. And member spears.
[38:05] In favor. That's carried Mr. Chair. Thank you. Your application
[38:09] has been approved. Thank you. Thank you very much. Madam
[38:14] Secretary Treasure, may we have the, uh, next applicant, please.
[38:22] The next application is file B - 44 - 26
[38:27] consent to create one new residential lot with one retained
[38:30] residential aut at 40 Ridgeway Avenue. I'll note for those
[38:34] attending remotely if you wish to speak to this application,
[38:38] you can do so by calling the number displayed on
[38:40] the screen. The number is 519 - 822 - 1260,
[38:46] extension 2524 and staff will give you instructions on how
[38:48] you can delegate remotely. Is the applicant present? Yes. Please
[38:56] come forward. Welcome back. Can you state your name and
[39:04] your relationship to the application, please? Thanks, Mr. Chair. My
[39:08] name is Colin Vanderturving. And I'm the, uh, the agent
[39:11] for this application. Thank you. And can you tell me
[39:14] if the sign was posted as per the planning act?
[39:17] It was. And have you read staff's comments? I have.
[39:21] And are you in agreement. At this point, as you
[39:25] understand, you have 10 minutes to address their committee. So
[39:28] please go ahead. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Um, this application proposes
[39:33] a severance to create two residential lots, or sorry, one
[39:37] new residential lot. Um, both lots meet the requirements of
[39:42] the, uh, RL1 zoning. Um, and are intended to facilitate
[39:48] the development of, uh, a semi - detached dwelling. Um,
[39:53] a form of housing that has already permitted within both
[39:56] the zoning and the official plan designation. Planning staff have
[40:01] completed a reveal of the proposal concluded that the development
[40:05] is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood maintains the low density
[40:09] residential character of the area and represents an appropriate form
[40:13] of intensification. Um, the staff comments concluded that the proposal
[40:20] satisfies the applicable official plan policies consent policies and the
[40:24] planning act criteria and have recommended approval subject to conditions.
[40:30] We recognise that some residents have raised concerns regarding traffic,
[40:34] parking, drainage, tree preservation and the cumulative effects of development
[40:38] within the neighbourhood. He's concerns, our understandable and have been
[40:43] reviewed, um, through the city's review and our addressed by
[40:48] the conditions of the severance. The conditions recommended by staff
[40:55] require a tree inventory and preservation plan, water balance analysis,
[40:59] stormwater management review. Um, agreeing a drainage plan, servicing review
[41:06] and others prior to the finalization of the severance. Our
[41:11] opinion is that these conditions provide, um, framework to ensure
[41:15] that the development precedes, uh, in a manner satisfactory to
[41:19] staff. Um, engineering staff, I'd just like to point this
[41:23] out too, that engineering staff have, um, reviewed the proposal
[41:26] and determined that the application does not trigger a traffic
[41:32] study under the city's guidelines. Uh, I found the comments
[41:36] were quite clear and identifying what things would trigger an
[41:40] impact study. And they state that this application does not
[41:44] trigger that. So they support this, uh, application subject to
[41:48] the conditions. Uh, we respectfully request that the committee adopt
[41:55] the staff recommendation and approve this application subject to the
[41:59] conditions. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. And
[42:04] if you want to, uh, wait right there. We'll go
[42:07] through perhaps some comment from city staff as well as
[42:12] some questions from the public. Uh, City staff is, do
[42:15] you have a presentation? Yes. Mr. Rembel, please go ahead.
[42:19] Through you, Mr. Chair, uh, the applicant is proposing to
[42:21] sever the existing single detached lot to facilitate the creation
[42:24] of two semi - detached residential lots. Staff's understanding is
[42:29] that each semi - detached unit would have 280Us in
[42:32] the main structure for a total of six units between
[42:34] the two lots. The proposed lots conform with all the
[42:37] zoning requirements of the 2023 zoning bylaw and do not
[42:40] require any minor variances. Additionally, the proposed development provides five
[42:46] legal parking spaces per lot for in the driveway and
[42:49] one in the attached garage. Whereas the zoning by law
[42:53] requires, uh, two parking spaces per lot if the maximum
[42:56] number of allowable ADUs is included in the development. Staff
[43:02] note that similar proposals adjacent to this site at 34
[43:05] and 36 Ridgway have been approved previously. These developments have
[43:08] been able to satisfy engineering and environmental planning concerns about
[43:12] stormwater management, grading and drainage and water balance. For this
[43:16] reason, staff are confident that the applicant will be able
[43:18] to satisfy these requirements for this site. However, if the
[43:21] applicant is unable to clear these conditions for whatever reason,
[43:25] uh, the severances would not be finalised. Additionally, concerns have
[43:29] been raised about the safety of Ridgway Avenue and Malveren
[43:33] Crescent given the width of the roadway and lack of
[43:35] sidewalks. Um, so engineering staff are aware of these road
[43:39] conditions. The city conducted a sidewalk needs assessment back in
[43:44] 2016, grading the need for new sidewalks across the city.
[43:49] Um, scoring was out of a potential maximum of 51
[43:52] points. And using this, uh, this city or city staff,
[43:56] uh, created a list of the top 100 streets that
[43:59] need sidewalk improvements. Melvin Crescent is identified on that list
[44:03] with a score of 17. And currently the city is
[44:06] working on constructing sidewalks that scored between 20 and 25.
[44:10] So they are working their way down that list. Um,
[44:12] but Malvin and Ridgway haven't, uh, gotten their time yet.
[44:18] Additionally, the city has plans for a new pedestrian master
[44:21] plan in the next few years that would likely look
[44:23] at sidewalks as part of that study. Additionally, this proposal
[44:28] was reviewed by traffic engineering staff who did not deem
[44:31] traffic study necessary at this time. That being said, as
[44:36] development continues in the area, the need for a traffic
[44:38] study may be triggered based on the cumulative effects of
[44:42] all the development that has taken place, uh, in the
[44:45] area. So the city's traffic guidelines include criteria for when
[44:49] a traffic study is required. And currently those guidelines are
[44:52] geared towards, uh, much larger individual projects, uh, rather than
[44:56] the proposals that we are seeing today on, uh, Ridgway
[45:00] Avenue and kind of across the city as infill development
[45:02] becomes more popular. So as these projects become more common
[45:06] in Guelph City staff will have to start evaluating based
[45:09] on the cumulative impacts, uh, rather than just the impacts
[45:12] of individual applications. Uh, so while staff did not, uh,
[45:17] traffick staff did not deem, uh, traffic brief necessary for
[45:20] this particular application. We will be monitoring this area. And
[45:24] for future applications traffic brief may be required. Thank you
[45:32] very much. Um, Committee members, um, I'm going to, um.
[45:37] Uh, at this point, go to, um, comments from the
[45:41] public. And then we'll have an opportunity to circle back
[45:45] and ask questions of staff and or the applicant. If
[45:49] need be. So at this point, Madam Secretary Treasurer, are
[45:53] there any registered delegates. Mr. Chair, can confirm there are
[45:58] registered delegates. The first is Jenna Hardy. Yes. Please come
[46:05] forward. Welcome. Can you state your name for the record,
[46:13] please? Yes. My name is Jenna Hardy. And can I
[46:18] ask you just to move a titch closer to the
[46:20] microphone? I'm having these old years are having a little
[46:24] bit of difficulty, I'm afraid. And, um, you may have
[46:29] heard my comments earlier that you have 10 minutes to
[46:32] address the committee. And there will be a chime when
[46:35] you've got 30 seconds left and one when that's completed.
[46:39] And if you don't run away, my colleagues may have
[46:42] questions for you. So when you're ever, you're ready, please
[46:45] go ahead. Sure. That sounds good. Thank you for the
[46:48] opportunity to speak here today. I appreciate your time. So
[46:52] while on the individual merit of this proposal, the request
[46:56] seems very reasonable. It is the cumulative impact that is
[47:00] of concern. So I say, what is the intent of
[47:05] gentle intensification. Based on my letter and the visual images
[47:10] provided, you can see the dramatic effect on the avenue
[47:15] and the fundamental change of the neighbourhood. The population across
[47:19] the three lots of 340 or 32, 34 and 40
[47:25] Ridgway. Has increased by 1200 percent of an increase is
[47:31] difficult to even comprehend. So perhaps we're seven and a
[47:36] half people once lived. We now could have upwards of
[47:39] 100 people living. While each lot change individually may seem
[47:44] reasonable, that cumulative impact on the neighbourhood is large. And
[47:48] we should not assume that studies originally conducted for 34
[47:52] Ridgway or such as just the mention of the traffic
[47:56] study are still relevant and applicable with the additional development
[48:00] that has continued on the street. My next question is
[48:04] who is accountable and responsible to ensure that the housing
[48:09] built meets the needs of the priority populations as listed
[48:13] in the CMHA research study. And Canada's National Housing Strategy.
[48:18] And the type of housing aligns to what has been
[48:20] identified as in need by the housing needs engulfed in
[48:26] 2025. The CMHA identified 11 priority groups of people who
[48:33] require housing. For awareness, the priority group does not include
[48:38] university students. The housing need in Gulf study specifically stated
[48:43] the need for townhouses and apartments. It did not identify
[48:47] duplexes with single bedroom rentals. Across Guelph, developers are purchasing
[48:54] large lots in established neighbourhoods and converting these properties into
[48:59] duplexes with single bedroom units. The committee has approved these
[49:03] changes previously on Ridgeway Avenue. Monticello Crescent, Orchard Crescent, just
[49:09] to name a few. Which brings me to ask, what
[49:13] is the intent of housing at 40 Ridgeway. The developer
[49:18] for the proposal is the same for 36 Ridgway and
[49:22] is putting forward similar specifications as was built. Per my
[49:26] letter in the appendix, you can see that the units
[49:30] at 36 Ridgway are posted on student housing rental websites.
[49:35] Furthermore, the rentals aren't even available for folio terms. It's
[49:40] 10 months. Thus, the developers putting forward housing that does
[49:48] not align to the priority populations, nor does it align
[49:52] to the types of housing that are needed. A quick
[49:57] side part. Do you know how much land the University
[50:00] of Gulf owns in the city. It's about 400 hectares.
[50:05] While some is already developed, others is not. While the
[50:09] university has identified that it can house first year in
[50:12] international students, perhaps it should do more. If university is
[50:18] housing is a need in the city, let the university
[50:21] support the need on its time. On its property and
[50:25] not on the working class or the newcomers or the
[50:29] senior citizens who now have fewer places and options to
[50:33] live. At the last committee hearing for Ridgway, an engineer
[50:38] brought up a point as similarly discussed that broader services
[50:42] concerns is assessed and analysed by the city. Let's talk
[50:46] about sidewalks. While this provided some comfort to the committee,
[50:51] it does not provide comfort to me. Sidewalks is a
[50:56] statement of safety. And personally, I don't feel that safety
[50:59] is something that should be done retroactively. I feel like
[51:02] it is something that should be done proactively. To circle
[51:07] back on the intent, I find it difficult to comprehend
[51:11] that the intent of this committee or of the city
[51:15] is to build off - campus row housing in the
[51:19] middle of established residential neighbourhoods. Because in these situations, the
[51:24] needs of none of the residents are met. Not the
[51:28] needs of the students, and the typical support services that
[51:31] are provided by on - campus housing or the very
[51:34] close proximity to public transportation. Or the needs of the
[51:39] older residents who are concerned about safety and infrastructure. And
[51:44] in the cover letter of this proposal, the developer mentions
[51:47] that if you can also purchase 42 Ridgway, he has
[51:51] worked it in a way that they can combine and
[51:54] divide into four additional watts. Which would then lead to
[51:59] a total of seven duplexes consecutively on the street. This
[52:05] is student campus housing. Not a residential neighbourhood. So to
[52:11] close and to be frank, I am exasperated. When 34
[52:17] Ridgway came to this committee for a proposal, you received
[52:21] 40 letters. 40. Nearly that many individuals came to speak.
[52:28] When it came to 36 Ridgeway, it was only 12
[52:31] letters. And two speakers. And unfortunately I was out of
[52:35] town and could not attend. Now for 40 Ridgeway, four
[52:40] people have submitted letters. Four. It is not due to
[52:45] lack of concern. It is not because it's because people
[52:50] feel that this community no longer has a voice. Our
[52:55] neighbourhood has fundamentally changed. And instead of pausing to assess
[52:59] the impacts, greater development is proposed. The neighbourhood field saddened.
[53:07] We feel disheartened. We write our councillors listen, yet no
[53:12] one takes action. Thus today, I am asking you to
[53:16] take action. I am asking you to defer the ruling
[53:20] on the proposal. Until the developer can submit something that
[53:24] does not further fundamentally change our neighbourhood. Thank you for
[53:30] your time and consideration. Thank you very much for your
[53:34] considered thoughts on the matter and your presentation. Um, if
[53:38] you want to wait right there, my colleagues may have
[53:40] some questions for you. So just a moment committee members,
[53:44] do we have any questions of this applicant. Um, seeing
[53:48] none. I want to thank you sincerely for your presentation
[53:53] today. Um, this file is not new to this committee.
[53:57] And, um, I think, uh, some of your comments will
[54:02] stir some further debate. So let me thank you again.
[54:05] Thank you. Madam Secretary Treasurer, do we have another, um,
[54:10] delegate. Mr. Chair, yes, we do. The next delegate is
[54:16] Mary Reif. Yes, please come forward.
[54:27] Thank you for the adjustment. Um, can you state your
[54:31] name for the record, plead? My name is Mary Reife
[54:35] and I've lived in this neighbourhood 36 years. May I
[54:40] just remind you that you have 10 minutes to address
[54:43] our committee and that there will be a chime after
[54:46] 30 seconds. And if you want to stand by, my
[54:49] colleagues may have some questions for you. So please go
[54:52] ahead when you feel ready. Chair Committee members, thank you
[54:57] for what you do. It's a difficult and time -
[55:00] consuming job. And you do it well. I want you
[55:04] to imagine a big, beautiful house that you've built and
[55:08] it's got everything in it that you want. And then
[55:11] you decide or discover. That it doesn't have a foundation.
[55:16] That's what's happening here. I've lived in the same house
[55:21] for 36 years. I've had three addresses. When I moved
[55:25] there, I was in PussLunch Township. These were country -
[55:29] estate lots. Then I became real - wrote two Gulf,
[55:33] and now I'm 63 Aracle Road, right on the corner
[55:36] of Malvern. I haven't moved. Our neighbourhood has about 60
[55:43] large country lots, because back in the 60s, when it
[55:47] was built, they needed the big lots for wells. And
[55:52] septic beds. According to the Planning Department, when I Googled
[55:58] it, said the road is substandard and narrow. There are
[56:04] no sidewalks or shoulders of any kind. It's lined with
[56:09] drained ditches on both sides. And street parking is prohibited
[56:14] for emergency access. Because there are no storm sewers in
[56:19] our area. The ditches are necessary for the rainfall runoff.
[56:27] We are very close - knit neighbourhood. And yes, we
[56:30] are getting tired of coming here. We are. As property
[56:37] is become available. And we are an aging population. Eventually,
[56:43] I'll probably have to sell mine, not yet. Developers are
[56:46] eyeing them so they can subdivide them into small city
[56:49] lots. And build multiple residents on each one. Two such
[56:55] lots have already been bought and developed. We're talking about
[57:00] taking out two existing houses. And putting 24 on the
[57:05] same. This is variances asking us to do something similar.
[57:12] Cars and pedestrians do not share the same space. But
[57:18] that's what you're asking us to increase the density on
[57:22] that narrow little street that the city calls substandard, not
[57:25] me, the city. You're asking us to share space. It's
[57:31] a recipe for disaster. More cars, more people, more cars,
[57:34] more people. Each lot that gets developed just adds cumulanic.
[57:40] Thank you for your comments. That was exactly right. Um,
[57:45] during construction of the two that have been developed, um,
[57:50] construction crews and equipment parked on our tiny, no parking
[57:54] street made it difficult for residents to access their own
[57:59] properties. And at one point prevented the garbage truck from
[58:02] getting through. It actually had to stop, back up, turn
[58:07] around in a neighbor's driveway and go the other way.
[58:11] That's how congested this street gets. Now imagine if that
[58:18] was your house burning down and you called the fire
[58:21] department. And the same thing happened. That the truck couldn't
[58:26] get through to your place. Imagine if your kid had
[58:31] a medical emergency, asthma attack and couldn't breathe. And you
[58:34] called the ambulance. And it couldn't get through. Because of
[58:39] the construction. You're liable city. You're liable. You're our blocking
[58:45] our only access rope. You cannot continue to do this.
[58:49] That road needs to be widened sidewalks need to be
[58:51] in place. The, um, okay. The other thing is, um,
[59:02] on the two developed lots that have been developed, they
[59:05] house and pave almost the entire thing. There's no green
[59:08] space. There's no trees. There's nothing. They've removed the drainage
[59:12] stitches. So now when it rains hard, where does the
[59:15] water go. On the street. On the neighbor's lots, in
[59:21] their basements, in their wells? And yes, a lot of
[59:24] us are still on wells and septic beds. Again, it's
[59:29] a liability issue for the city. When are you going
[59:32] to stop this. All new subdivisions have the infrastructure in
[59:39] first. Not after, well in advance of housing going up.
[59:45] This should be no different by allowing such a massive
[59:48] infilling one house to 12. You are creating a whole
[59:52] new subdivision. And the infrastructure needs to be in place
[59:55] to support such development. It's too late if the development
[1:00:00] continues to build so close to the existing roadway so
[1:00:04] that the roads cannot be widened. It's too late if
[1:00:07] the neighbor's basements are wells get flooded due to improper
[1:00:10] drainage. Don't say it doesn't happen. It happened on Lowe's
[1:00:14] Road. That road flooded for a long time before the
[1:00:16] city corrected it. It's too late if somebody gets hit
[1:00:19] by a car because they were walking on the road
[1:00:22] because it's the only place to walk. It's too late
[1:00:26] if your house burns down or your child dies because
[1:00:28] the emergency vehicle cannot get through. You will be liable
[1:00:33] City. I'm not ejecting to new development. I know it's
[1:00:38] going to continue. But there should be a more tarmy
[1:00:41] on any new development until the city does its part
[1:00:45] and puts a proper infrastructure in place. You're asking us
[1:00:50] to change our neighbourhood. We're saying, yeah. When it is
[1:00:54] safe to do so. Thank you. Thank you very much
[1:01:00] for your thoughts and your presentation. If you want to
[1:01:03] wait right there, I'll see if my colleagues would have
[1:01:06] any questions for you. Committee members. Yes. Remember good fellow.
[1:01:10] Yes. Through the chair to the, um, delegate. I just
[1:01:12] have one question. You mentioned a street survey. Um, that
[1:01:15] you had identified where it was talking about the conditions
[1:01:18] of the street. Do you have a date on that?
[1:01:21] Just I'm trying to put it in the timeline between
[1:01:23] when, you know, some of these applications started coming forward.
[1:01:27] And when some of these reports have been written. So
[1:01:31] I'm not sure what you're referring to. Okay. My apologies.
[1:01:34] I must have misheard it then. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
[1:01:36] Thank you. Any other questions for this applicant. Seeing none.
[1:01:43] I want to thank you sincerely again for your presentation.
[1:01:47] Um, I'm sure that, um, our committee is going to
[1:01:50] have something of a conversation about it. And what you've
[1:01:55] said to us has, has been very insightful. So thank
[1:01:59] you very much again. Madam Secretary Treasurer, do we have
[1:02:03] any other registered delegates. Mr. Chair, yes, we do. The
[1:02:08] last registered delegate is you made ARMUS and that individual
[1:02:12] is appearing online. Hello. Can you hear me? Hello, uh,
[1:02:18] can you state your name for the record plead. Yes.
[1:02:22] So my name is Yumei de Armas and I leave
[1:02:24] at Malvern present. So, um, you may have heard with
[1:02:28] the other people who have addressed the committee that you
[1:02:31] have 10 minutes to, um, state your point of view
[1:02:36] on this application. So whenever you're ready, please go ahead.
[1:02:40] Sure. So I leave right on Malver Crescent. We connect
[1:02:44] right into Ridgway. I believe here for about five years
[1:02:47] now. I sacrifice a lot to buy a house in
[1:02:50] this area. This used to be such a quiet, peaceful
[1:02:53] neighbourhood to raise a family. I know the rules that
[1:02:57] you have to follow. And I'm well aware that the
[1:02:59] old T previously approved a single severance on our street
[1:03:03] at 34 Ridgway. But back then, that was treated as
[1:03:06] a standalone one time in field case. After that, the
[1:03:10] Committee of Adjustment approved another one. And now we are
[1:03:14] looking at yet another one at Fori Ridgway. This makes
[1:03:18] three lots in a row. What makes this completely unacceptable
[1:03:22] is that this is no longer a one - time
[1:03:24] infield. We're watching a systematic takeover of our street. In
[1:03:30] fact, developer's own cover letter explicitly lays out how easily
[1:03:35] this will continue. Stating that they can take part of
[1:03:39] the side yard at 40 stitches together with 42. A
[1:03:44] manufacturer, a massive frontage just to squeeze former logs in.
[1:03:49] It is a compounding runaway loop of continuous teardowns. We
[1:03:55] have already said by and watch other single homes during
[1:03:59] to multi - unit conversions, bringing clothes to 80 rooms
[1:04:03] right into our immediate pocket. Now developers want to do
[1:04:08] it again, which is going to flood our tiny street.
[1:04:12] What's the limit 200 people, 300 people. That's more than
[1:04:16] the population of the holes street. In three or four
[1:04:20] single lots. What's their plan? More rooms. This continues destruction
[1:04:26] of our neighbourhood character. It's actively hurting existing homeowners. Traditional
[1:04:32] family homes put up for say on and around our
[1:04:35] street. Start sitting on the market for over a year.
[1:04:39] And are now selling for around 750K. So 33 rich
[1:04:43] way was sold after two years in the market, a
[1:04:46] house in a lot of 14, 000 square feet way
[1:04:50] lower than they should have been gotten. Nobody except developers
[1:04:54] are interesting. These lots anymore. Worse than that. The city
[1:04:59] keeps green lighting all of these without fixing the basic
[1:05:03] safety of our street. Readway and Malbor, an exceptionally narrow
[1:05:08] rose as you have here already from a few people.
[1:05:11] Tarkin is not allowed on the street. So emergency cars
[1:05:15] cannot go back. And there are no sidewalks. My house
[1:05:20] sits right on a corner with mature trees and terrible
[1:05:24] visibility, which means my kids have to step directly into
[1:05:29] the road just to walk to school. I am not
[1:05:33] exaggerating when I say that they're having multiple terrifying moments
[1:05:37] where I have physically had to show them into the
[1:05:39] ditch just to dodge and common traffic. And yes, like
[1:05:43] I know in some of the papers on paper, it
[1:05:46] might look like the traffic's non - increased match because
[1:05:49] some of these rooms, those people, they don't have a
[1:05:51] car, but they do order their Amazon. They do or
[1:05:54] they. And we are talking about 80 more people that
[1:05:57] we have right now. Doing delivery. So we see cars
[1:06:02] go by really quickly. Since these applicants started coming. So
[1:06:07] I'll try reaching out to traffic services and councillors to
[1:06:10] get safety fixes for almost two years now. I keep
[1:06:14] begging. I keep asking for speed bumps or lower speed
[1:06:17] limits because the science has 40, but most cars were
[1:06:21] to 50 or 60. And just keep getting a no.
[1:06:26] The City tells me that the traffic common requests are
[1:06:28] paused. The speed limits won't change because it's not in
[1:06:32] a school area. And the mystery has to wait in
[1:06:35] AQ indefinitely. How can the city justify refusing to make
[1:06:40] the street safe while simultaneously approving massive population and traffic
[1:06:45] spikes. I understand that on paper traffic studies might not
[1:06:50] be needed. But reality what I see every day, it's
[1:06:54] very different. I get a previous cases where pushed through
[1:06:58] or approved. But these applications relies on the idea that
[1:07:02] nearby spaces can just absorb the overflow. The logic only
[1:07:07] work when you spew as a nice related incident. Now
[1:07:11] that is happening over and over again on a narrow
[1:07:15] street where packing is strictly prohibited. It is breaking the
[1:07:19] physical space of our neighbourhood. And for some context, when
[1:07:24] the first application went to the OLT, one of the
[1:07:27] reasoning behind was that they could actually park on the
[1:07:31] street behind ours. I don't remember Oak Rich. That's no
[1:07:36] longer applicable cars keep coming. So if the applicant was
[1:07:40] to take this to the OT, let them go. This
[1:07:43] is a brand new application. And it is a systematic
[1:07:45] takeover of our street. Not an isolated infield. We cannot
[1:07:51] keep rubber stamping this high density severance. As without putting
[1:07:54] proper pedestrian safety pairs first, please. Step back. Look at
[1:07:59] the big picture of what's happening to us and refuse
[1:08:02] this application. Thank you very much. Thank you very much
[1:08:07] for your, um, presentation. And if you want to write
[1:08:11] right there, um, we may have some questions. Committee members,
[1:08:14] do you have any questions for the delegate. Um, seeing
[1:08:22] none, you did mention the OLT. And, um, the decision
[1:08:28] that was made on earlier applications, um, and. You may
[1:08:32] also be aware that, uh, this committee, um, rejected initially
[1:08:38] a similar proposal that was overturned at the OLT. I
[1:08:43] wonder if you, um, thought about how that would impact,
[1:08:49] um, our decisions. And what do you mean. About the
[1:08:57] old T? I mean, um, this committee has, um, has
[1:09:00] looked at similar applications on the street. And initially we
[1:09:08] did not agree with the application as being minor in
[1:09:11] nature. However, the Ontario Land Tribunal did, um, in their
[1:09:16] wisdom, um, uh, agree with the applicant. And I'm wondering
[1:09:21] if that factors into any of your comments. Yes. So
[1:09:26] when we did the OLT and I helped with the
[1:09:29] neighbourhood to get a traffic expert and different experts. And
[1:09:33] he went to the OLT. The case was approved because
[1:09:37] at the end of the day, we were only talking
[1:09:38] about one lot. So the judge kept talking about how
[1:09:43] this could be able any extra cars that they need
[1:09:46] to park. Since they are not allowed to park on
[1:09:49] that street, they will overflow into the street behind, which
[1:09:52] I think was O - Rich. And they even represented
[1:09:56] the amount of spaces that there is in this street.
[1:09:59] I don't have the design right now, but they show
[1:10:02] like a design how it will support up to like
[1:10:05] five, six extra cars on that street. And that isolated
[1:10:09] only one case was approved. But my point is the
[1:10:13] second one, it didn't even go to the OLT, Committee
[1:10:15] of Adjustment approved. So now it duplicates. So the amount
[1:10:19] of cars also duplicated. And now we're going to the
[1:10:23] third. So whatever the OLT said, the first time is
[1:10:26] no longer applicable. This is not the case of one
[1:10:28] single application in an existing neighbourhood that may be cool
[1:10:32] tolerate only one. Now we're asking for more. And in
[1:10:35] the cover later from the applicant, you can look at
[1:10:39] the cover letter from the application. You can specifically see
[1:10:42] how they are talking about the extra space that they
[1:10:45] are living next to the 42, which by the way,
[1:10:48] it's renounced save. So the 42 and the 44, it's
[1:10:51] also on sale. And they are talking about doing former
[1:10:55] nodes on the 42. So I think they are living
[1:10:57] that space in between. So in the future, they could
[1:11:00] also do formal lots. Now we are talking about one,
[1:11:03] two, three, four, five lots in a row. The equilibrium
[1:11:07] having like more than 300, 400 people. Like again, I'm
[1:11:11] not against any development, but that kind of intensification doesn't
[1:11:15] belong as 3 that it doesn't have any sidewalks. That
[1:11:18] the lightning is not great. My kids every time they
[1:11:21] stay out, like it's really dangerous. Like I'm telling them
[1:11:23] to walk on the beach. Winter time when they are
[1:11:26] like a snow there. That's not even possible. So we
[1:11:29] are driving more or less walking. And so anyhow. Um,
[1:11:35] I, I hear your point of view about the sidewalks
[1:11:40] and everything else. And wonder if you have, um, spoken
[1:11:45] to your, your city representatives on this issue. I have,
[1:11:49] many times, um, I got redirected to the traffic experts.
[1:11:54] They told me we're going to do like a study
[1:11:57] soon. And they kept saying soon. And I kept reaching
[1:11:59] out. They said fall. I reached out in winter time.
[1:12:03] Like look, I'm a scared. Am I kids like the
[1:12:05] amount of traffic? It's carrying by. Can I just interrupt
[1:12:09] for a second and ask you specifically I'm talking about
[1:12:13] your elected representatives. Have you spoken to them about this.
[1:12:17] Oh, no, sorry. Alida councillors. And the major. I reach
[1:12:21] out to the major ones as well. Um, my word
[1:12:25] councillors. Yeah. I did talk. Okay. Thank you. That's what
[1:12:30] I was getting at. You may be aware the city
[1:12:33] election coming up. So maybe you want to raise it
[1:12:35] with some of the candidates as well. Thank you very
[1:12:41] much. Um, unless my colleagues have any other questions for
[1:12:44] you. Um, thank you very much for your views. Thank
[1:12:49] you so much. Madam Secretary Treasurer, do we have any
[1:12:53] other delegates. Mr. Chair, we don't have any other registered
[1:12:58] delegates, but I don't know if there's any in the
[1:12:59] audience that wish to speak. Okay. Is there anyone in
[1:13:03] the chamber who would like to speak to this application.
[1:13:09] Seeing none. Um, at this point I would ask the
[1:13:13] proponent to the application to come forward. If they wish
[1:13:18] to, um, speak to any of the issues that have
[1:13:21] been raised today. Thanks, Mr. Chair and members of the
[1:13:29] committee, um, for reviewing this and your time on this.
[1:13:34] Um, I don't have too much more to add. We
[1:13:36] also support save streets and are aware that, um, sidewalks
[1:13:42] would, would improve those neighbourhood. Um. Recognise that, that this,
[1:13:49] uh, the number of people have mentioned that this is
[1:13:53] high density, but I just like to clarify again, that
[1:13:55] the zoning bylaw says this form of building is low,
[1:13:58] low density residential. Um, and it is a bit of
[1:14:01] an adjustment in this neighbourhood. I'm happy to answer any
[1:14:05] questions. Thank you. Um, Commit members, any further questions either
[1:14:11] for staff or the applicant. Remember Ross. Uh, through you,
[1:14:21] Mr. Chair, this question is to staff. So I gather
[1:14:25] that, um, there was a sidewalk study done in 2016.
[1:14:32] And that's the sort of the, the blueprint for when
[1:14:38] sidewalk improvements are made throughout the city. I hope I'm
[1:14:43] correct in what I'm saying so far. Uh, so to
[1:14:47] the, in 2016, uh, that would be, uh, 10 years
[1:14:51] ago, um, so my question to staff is there an
[1:14:56] opportunity to revisit that study. Uh, or to look at
[1:15:00] certain communities that are under pressure from intensification as a
[1:15:06] result of, um, the provincial legislation that certainly wasn't contemplated
[1:15:12] into 2016. Through the chair to member Ross.
[1:15:22] Currently through discussion with transportation, there is plans to commence
[1:15:28] a pedestrian master plan. Um, that may take some time,
[1:15:35] maybe a few years. And at that time, depending on
[1:15:38] what happens with that master plan, there could be a
[1:15:42] reevaluation. Of sidewalk, uh, needs. And that reevaluation can be
[1:15:50] scored. In different ways that we don't know at this
[1:15:53] point. And there be public consultation to work through that.
[1:16:01] Remember Odds? Uh, just in response. So, uh. So no
[1:16:09] immediate opportunity to, um. The vehicle at this point. That's
[1:16:18] probably the wrong terminology. There's, there's no, uh, mechanism at
[1:16:20] this point for staff to, um, revise the 2016 study.
[1:16:27] That's what I'm, I'm hearing. So, uh. In the interim
[1:16:35] then we continue to approve these applications or we continue
[1:16:40] to support the minor variances or they go to the
[1:16:44] OLT and the OLT supports the minor variants. So it
[1:16:49] does seem that the community is, is left. Trying to
[1:16:53] deal with a situation that's not of their making. Um,
[1:16:58] and that, uh, it's one of the fallouts I'm concluding
[1:17:03] from legislation to permit, uh, the gentle intensification that we're
[1:17:08] seeing across the city. So my final question is when
[1:17:14] approximately when, I don't know if you can answer this
[1:17:16] question without, um, perhaps going into your falls. But is
[1:17:20] there a sense of when this particular street might see
[1:17:23] a sidewalk. Through the chair, uh, that is difficult. Question
[1:17:30] and answer. Um, if you look at our webpage, uh,
[1:17:34] golf. ca get involved cycling and walking or cycling in
[1:17:38] pedestrian. Um, there is a list of current projects underway
[1:17:42] for sidewalk construction, current projects in design and current projects
[1:17:47] planned for the future. Um, we have that list of
[1:17:50] top 100 sites. Through the sidewalk study that was done
[1:17:55] in 2016. Um, currently we're at 20 to 25, um,
[1:18:01] where that score of, of, um, Psywalk need, um, curly
[1:18:06] Malveren sits at 17. So there is no plans at
[1:18:10] the moment. For works. Um, on, uh, Ridgeway.
[1:18:20] They're potentially plans for some work on RCAL, but that's
[1:18:22] also not in, in the budget as I understand. At
[1:18:28] the moment. Just a point of order, remember Ross. This
[1:18:35] isn't a minor variance application. This is a, uh, a
[1:18:38] consent agenda item. So, um, I just wanted to make
[1:18:41] that clear for the record. Uh, thank you for that
[1:18:44] correction, Mr. Chair.
[1:18:57] I do beg your pardon. Um, is there, um, any
[1:19:02] other questions for the applicant. I thought, remember Fritz Patrick,
[1:19:06] I saw your hand earlier. Please go ahead. Thank you,
[1:19:11] Chair, through you too, staff. The delegates raise a series
[1:19:18] of good questions about sort of a creeping intensification on
[1:19:22] the street. And when we step back and look at,
[1:19:28] and I guess I'll preface this by saying I understand
[1:19:30] if they meet all the requirements of this application, we
[1:19:34] can't just reject it because we don't like it. If
[1:19:39] it meets the requirements, enter tied because of the provincial
[1:19:42] government. But is the city actively. Taking sort of. A
[1:19:49] 10, 000 metre view of this and, and seeing where
[1:19:54] this intensification is happening and trying to be proactive in
[1:19:59] making it fit in better with, with the neighbourhood. Through
[1:20:07] the charity member, if it's Patrick. So as I mentioned
[1:20:10] in my presentation, we do have traffic study guidelines. And
[1:20:13] those guidelines were crafted. With larger projects in mind, uh,
[1:20:18] and there's a, uh, variety of reasons why one might
[1:20:22] require a traffic impact study, uh, but one of those
[1:20:25] is the volume of traffic anticipated from the development. And
[1:20:28] I believe the number is something like 100 trips, uh,
[1:20:32] during peak hours per day is kind of the threshold
[1:20:35] needed. And none of these projects individually meet that. Um,
[1:20:39] but recognising that, uh, this style of infill development is
[1:20:43] becoming more common and more popular across the city. Um,
[1:20:47] we are kind of taking a closer look at that.
[1:20:50] And we will be evaluating that on more of a
[1:20:53] cumulative effects basis. Um, so at least I can't speak
[1:20:57] for traffic engineering staff, but they have reviewed this application
[1:21:00] and didn't deem, uh, it to be crossing that threshold
[1:21:03] yet. Um, but if applications continue to come in for
[1:21:07] this street and for this neighbourhood, I would anticipate that
[1:21:09] they would require a traffic brief or a traffic study
[1:21:12] of some sort, um, once it reaches a certain threshold
[1:21:17] specifically where that threshold is, I can't say. Understood. Thank
[1:21:22] you. Yes. Remember good fellow. Yes. Thank you, Chair. Maybe
[1:21:30] just a follow up first on, um, the questions raised
[1:21:35] by, uh, member Ross. Um, I guess this, this is
[1:21:40] not something, this is about sidewalk. So this is not
[1:21:42] something that I fully understand. So I apologise if this
[1:21:45] is not, um, a question. But, uh, this is to
[1:21:48] city staff. I notice in other, uh, consent applications. There's
[1:21:54] often a road widening that's included with the conditions. Help
[1:21:59] me understand that in the context of a situation like
[1:22:02] this, you know, there is no road widening that's been
[1:22:06] proposed here. Certainly we're hearing that there is some concern
[1:22:08] about the road. And I guess I've just never asked
[1:22:11] the question to understand why in, in some cases, there
[1:22:15] is a road widening included and in others perhaps not.
[1:22:20] Through the chair. Um, there is, um, some outlined information
[1:22:26] through our official plan that speaks to where road windings
[1:22:32] are necessary. Okay. And that's, and that is usually, um,
[1:22:35] determined in the past by, um, transportation and through consultation
[1:22:40] through different departments. And it's updated over time if needed.
[1:22:47] Okay. Thank you just to follow up on that. Um,
[1:22:50] so in this case, it would not be on the
[1:22:53] official plan because this is still considered low density residential.
[1:22:58] Uh, and maybe not following under, um, a situation where
[1:23:03] road widening would be required or necessary for transportation. I
[1:23:07] kind of following that. Through the chair. Um. Oh, Eric.
[1:23:15] I think you can answer that question. Probably that if
[1:23:18] I may interject, uh, through you, Mr. Chair, so when
[1:23:21] we're talking about road widenings, what's being talked about is
[1:23:26] the width of the right of way. The road right
[1:23:28] away. So the right of way, uh, on Ridgeway Avenue,
[1:23:32] I believe is, is 20 metres. Um, but the actual
[1:23:35] physical like asphalted road is about seven metres to seven
[1:23:39] to eight metres in width. So I think the problem
[1:23:42] here is the width of the right of way, which
[1:23:44] is what, what is being talked about when, uh, road
[1:23:47] widening is being contemplated. It's adding to the right of
[1:23:50] way of the roadway. Um, I think the concern here
[1:23:53] is the construction of the roadway itself. Um, considering it
[1:23:57] still has that, uh, more roll cross section with ditches
[1:24:00] on either side rather than sidewalks. Okay. Thank you. I
[1:24:03] really appreciate that helpful clarification. Was it something that I
[1:24:07] had ever asked before? Um, can I ask another question?
[1:24:11] Okay. Thank you. Uh, so through the chair again, I
[1:24:14] believe to City staff. We were talking about traffic volumes,
[1:24:18] um, and the conditions that would trigger a traffic impact
[1:24:21] study. I think that makes sense to me. Um, but
[1:24:24] I was wondering with the prevalence of delivery vehicles rising.
[1:24:29] And my own street, they seem to be everywhere. Some
[1:24:32] houses seem to be getting, you know, two deliveries, three
[1:24:35] deliveries a day. How is that accounted for in the
[1:24:39] traffic assessment? Yeah, I think you mentioned, you know, a
[1:24:43] hundred additional net new trips in your notes. So our
[1:24:47] delivery vehicles considered to be part of that assessment.
[1:24:58] Through the chair. So my understanding is, is, uh, that,
[1:25:01] uh, that criteria of the 100 trips was based on
[1:25:04] AM and PM peak flow time. So that would be
[1:25:07] primarily considering, um, immuters going to and from work or
[1:25:11] school or whatever engagements they have throughout the day. I'm
[1:25:14] not sure if delivery vehicles are contemplated through that, uh,
[1:25:20] criteria specifically. But if there is a traffic study that's
[1:25:23] done, obviously it would measure any traffic that passes through
[1:25:25] the area. Um, that being said, I'm not sure if
[1:25:29] with the rise of things like Uber Eats and Amazon
[1:25:32] deliveries, whether or not that has been taken into account
[1:25:35] for traffic engineering studies. That's something that I can't speak
[1:25:39] to. I'm not sure if, uh, Jamie can clarify that.
[1:25:44] Okay. Okay. I think that's something that neither of us
[1:25:46] were neither of us are professional transportation engineers. So I
[1:25:49] don't think we can answer that for you, unfortunately. Okay.
[1:25:51] Thank you. Uh, follow a question on traffic studies, please.
[1:25:56] I also noted, um, I guess I didn't see and
[1:26:00] have an encountered kind of the outcome of traffic impact
[1:26:04] study. Can you just talk in general terms when a
[1:26:07] traffic impact study is completed for a new development? And
[1:26:12] there are concerns raised by the traffic engineer what kind
[1:26:16] of consequences? What kinds of changes modifications revisions may come
[1:26:23] out of that? I'm just not familiar enough with traffic
[1:26:26] impact studies to understand that. Through the chair. Um, yeah,
[1:26:31] these traffic impact studies are usually sculpt by traffic engineering,
[1:26:35] uh, when they are required. There will be a meeting
[1:26:38] to discuss with the applicant at that time what would
[1:26:41] need to be looked at. Where would what intersections would
[1:26:44] have to be looked at in a certain scale of
[1:26:48] that depending on the actual application? Um, through the, through
[1:26:52] that study, there may be requirements for cross sections or
[1:26:56] crosswalks. Um, signalization at intersections. Um, general improvements to, to
[1:27:03] the, to the, to the route. Usually crossings and, and
[1:27:07] signalization. Okay. Thank you. And a follow up question. So,
[1:27:13] uh, through the chair, back to staff. So in this
[1:27:17] case where there is a narrow road, is it the
[1:27:21] case that the traffic PAC study might identify that the
[1:27:26] roadway is narrow and that improvements might be recommended? Is
[1:27:32] it that kind of thing that might crop up. Or
[1:27:36] is that going beyond the typical scope of a trafficked
[1:27:39] impact study. Through the chair, my understanding is that's beyond
[1:27:42] the scope of the impact study. The impact study looks
[1:27:44] more towards the signalization, um, line paintings, um, crossings, whether
[1:27:51] it be a signalized crossing or just a regular pedestrian
[1:27:54] crossing, um, things of that nature. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
[1:27:59] Um, and I finally, sorry, I have one additional question.
[1:28:03] I kind of went deep into traffic. Um, you're making
[1:28:06] my job a lot easier. Go ahead, please. Uh, so
[1:28:10] through the chair back to staff, there was one bullet
[1:28:14] that I thought was interesting in the triggers for a
[1:28:17] traffic impact study, um, and I'll just read it here
[1:28:20] that the development is not envisioned by land use plans.
[1:28:25] And, um, I guess when the original, uh, planning was
[1:28:30] done for this neighbourhood, there was no, but you know,
[1:28:34] it was an envision that there would be this much
[1:28:36] traffic because it was just single family dwellings. And so
[1:28:40] I think my question here is, um, in this case,
[1:28:45] I do believe that this development was not envisioned when
[1:28:47] the land use was originally planned. So how is that
[1:28:51] accounted for in the, uh, assessment of whether a traffic
[1:28:55] impact study would be relevant here? Uh, through the chair,
[1:29:03] um, I can't speak directly to transportation engineering's rationale behind
[1:29:08] what they believe, um, when a TIS or a traffic
[1:29:13] brief is required. They did take a look at the
[1:29:16] site. Normally these traffic studies are looking at larger. Developments,
[1:29:23] including, um, medium density, large density. In this case, it's
[1:29:27] a small density. Um, site, um, so at this time,
[1:29:32] it was not. A requirement, but maybe, um, a requirement
[1:29:37] in the future if there are future applications and development
[1:29:40] in this area. Okay. I have, I was, I apologise.
[1:29:44] That was very helpful, but it triggered one additional question.
[1:29:47] So through the chair, um, they, my question is whether
[1:29:51] a traffic impacts study done today would be then helpful
[1:29:56] in future developments on this street. Because I think we
[1:30:00] are hearing that there could be more of these types
[1:30:03] of infill developments coming in the neighbourhood. And is it
[1:30:07] the case that having that document now could help inform
[1:30:11] that future applications, which would almost certainly be coming to
[1:30:15] the committee. Through the chair, transportation is already aware of
[1:30:23] the applications that are coming in through this, um, on
[1:30:28] the street and through in this neighbourhood. So they do
[1:30:31] know, um, what's occurring. So that is part of their
[1:30:35] scope that they look at when, when they're assessing, um,
[1:30:39] the needs for any sort of study. Um. Whether or
[1:30:43] not a study now would help. Any more information could
[1:30:48] would currently help. But at this time, it's not needed
[1:30:52] for the site. And perhaps just one clarification on that.
[1:30:57] So it's not needed for this particular standalone development or
[1:31:00] it is not needed for the cumulative impacts on this
[1:31:04] street. Through the chair at this time. With the cumulative
[1:31:09] impacts, it's hard work for me to say, um, it
[1:31:12] is not needed. But in future, um, applications, if there
[1:31:17] are any. Those cumulative impacts would be assessed. And we
[1:31:23] would determine at that time whether a traffic study brief
[1:31:27] or assessment would be needed. Okay. Uh, thank you. I
[1:31:32] really appreciate the clarity with which you've been able to
[1:31:34] answer those questions. So thank you. Thank you. And remember
[1:31:39] Goodfellow. And remember Spears wants to jump in. Yes, go
[1:31:44] ahead. Do you miss your chair to staff again? I
[1:31:47] want to look at this just a question from a
[1:31:49] much higher level. We talked earlier about infrastructure and projects,
[1:31:55] larger projects that may be net new. And when they're
[1:32:00] planned and contemplated, I'm curious about what responsibility the developer
[1:32:04] has to pay for the infrastructure that has to be
[1:32:08] built in order for them to do their business. We're
[1:32:12] talking about townhouse developments, streets have to be built schools
[1:32:15] have to be built. What proportion of that infrastructure is
[1:32:20] carried by the developer. I don't know if you know
[1:32:24] that, but I certainly don't. Are you asking about development
[1:32:29] charges, member Spears? Sure. Through the chair to member Spear,
[1:32:37] um, yes, development charges are a mechanism that can help
[1:32:40] pay for growth. But when you're talking about larger developments
[1:32:43] like subdivisions and whatnot, there are subdivision agreements, uh, and
[1:32:47] draft plan approvals of subdivisions have a long list of
[1:32:50] conditions, um, and a lot of those conditions involve cost
[1:32:53] sharing or the developer paying for some or all of
[1:32:57] certain bits of infrastructure that are necessary to service that
[1:33:00] development. Um, so there are mechanisms in place for those
[1:33:04] larger style developments. Uh, I think kind of the, what
[1:33:08] the city is struggling with here is that those type
[1:33:10] of mechanisms weren't originally envisioned for developments of this scale,
[1:33:14] right? So that's something that the city is having to
[1:33:15] adapt to, um, and that's something that we're actively working
[1:33:18] on. Okay. Because where I'm headed here is this, and
[1:33:24] it's this, it's the creeping nature of this. Sure, we
[1:33:27] have one, we have two, we have three. Maybe we
[1:33:29] have seven eight or nine. And we're, it's not just
[1:33:31] Ridgway. Clearly, we're seeing this all over the place. When
[1:33:35] do they have to step up and start paying for
[1:33:36] this? When does the development charge kick in? Because it
[1:33:41] seems obvious that it's happening. And I'm really asking the
[1:33:45] question, are they paying for it? Is there any way
[1:33:48] that we as the citizens of wealth get our money
[1:33:52] back. That's with the chair to member spears again. So
[1:33:58] there has been discussions with, with transportation staff, I was
[1:34:01] speaking with the manager of transportation engineering, uh, earlier. Um,
[1:34:07] and this unfortunately isn't something that we have a mechanism
[1:34:10] in place right now to ask for, uh, money from
[1:34:14] developers for individual severances. Um, but that's something that, uh,
[1:34:20] staff are considering and might be something, uh, that we
[1:34:23] have to explore in the future. Or rather, it is
[1:34:25] something we are exploring and something that might be in
[1:34:27] effect in the future. Um, but in terms of development
[1:34:30] charges, that's something that is typically applied at building permit
[1:34:33] stage for all developments, regardless of their scale. Uh, I
[1:34:37] believe there are some exemptions, um, for certain types of
[1:34:41] development. But, uh, all scales of development, uh, would theoretically
[1:34:46] have to pay development charges? Yes. Thank you. That answers
[1:34:50] my question. Any other, um, questions for staff or for
[1:34:56] the applicant. Seeing none, I want to thank our Committee
[1:35:00] members, uh, for robust discussion on this at this point.
[1:35:05] I think, um, it's up to us to come to
[1:35:08] some decision. So I would like to entertain a motion
[1:35:12] committee member.
[1:35:26] For approval with condition. Thank you. And do we have
[1:35:29] a seconder. Remember Ross. Is there any discussion on the,
[1:35:37] uh, motion before us. Member Spears? Yeah, I think that
[1:35:44] we're talking about the traffic study. And while I understand
[1:35:47] from staff that this particular situation at this very moment
[1:35:51] doesn't require traffic study. All of these things take forever.
[1:35:57] And even if we said as a condition, that it's
[1:36:00] required, like I'm not sure when that would get done.
[1:36:05] Would it be, would it, I don't know how to
[1:36:06] phrase this, but I would like to bundle some protection
[1:36:11] for the, for the community in here, because it's not
[1:36:14] going to stop. I thought it was one off fine,
[1:36:16] but it isn't. It's clearly not. You know, drive down
[1:36:20] the street, see the for sale science. It's going to
[1:36:21] keep happening. So we need to figure out a way
[1:36:24] to insert a condition that protects them and gets this
[1:36:28] thing moving faster than it appears to want to move
[1:36:31] right now. Because I'm hearing years before this is even
[1:36:34] contemplated. So I know I can't change your, you made
[1:36:38] a motion. And we'll see how that goes. But maybe
[1:36:42] we make another motion, which adds a condition. And we
[1:36:45] have to figure out how to word it that forces
[1:36:48] traffic study. And I don't, and I say that knowing
[1:36:53] that city staff just said, we don't need one. Which
[1:36:57] says to me that city staff won't support this and
[1:36:59] it puts us right back in this, this cycle of,
[1:37:02] we can say no, but then city staff won't support
[1:37:04] us when it goes to the OT. So it's just
[1:37:07] wasted time. So I'm not sure how to go forward
[1:37:09] with this. So, um, yes, remember good for. Yes. I
[1:37:16] actually was thinking perhaps along the same lines. And I
[1:37:19] am mindful that, um, for Edinburgh where there was again,
[1:37:24] granted, a much larger thoroughfare. But there was a traffic
[1:37:27] impact study done on the earlier applications, which then was
[1:37:32] re - upped or updated and came back to us
[1:37:35] and was actually somewhat reassuring when we saw it that
[1:37:39] it had been considered a traffic engineer had reviewed it.
[1:37:42] And so I think that's kind of where I was
[1:37:43] thinking, um, was that perhaps a condition here would make
[1:37:47] sense because at least then when the next one comes
[1:37:49] and the next one comes, frankly, it gives the developer,
[1:37:53] but also the city and us a formal basis on
[1:37:56] which we can then review and evaluate the next and
[1:37:59] the next and the next application. So that was be
[1:38:01] my perspective. Thank you. So. The discussion on the motion,
[1:38:09] um, a possible amendment. And so, um, I'd like to
[1:38:15] address the amendment first. And so I think, um, I'm
[1:38:19] going to turn to our secretary treasure for some assistance
[1:38:24] on this. Um, were we to consider an amendment? Can
[1:38:28] we do that without addressing the motion before us. Through
[1:38:36] you, Mr. Chair, if the mover member wishes to amend
[1:38:40] their app, um, motion, they could, um, do so. I
[1:38:44] would recommend if the committee is looking at maybe imposing
[1:38:49] a traffic impact study condition, you might want to consult
[1:38:52] with staff to get a bit more of their feedback
[1:38:54] or, um, feedback from the applicant as well. I was
[1:38:57] going there next, but I, I just wanted to get
[1:39:00] the sort of parliamentary rules of order, um. Benefit. The
[1:39:06] whole process. So let me first go to member Mir
[1:39:10] and say, um, would you be, um, would you consider
[1:39:14] a friendly amendment to speak to something about a traffic?
[1:39:20] I would say it will not add any value for
[1:39:23] this special purpose. It's an overall city, a traffic management
[1:39:30] and the whole system has to become at a very
[1:39:32] higher level. From their specialized traffic and all these people
[1:39:38] to find the ways and meals, we should remain focused
[1:39:41] on what has been placed on us as a variates.
[1:39:45] And whether within that scope, we are approving with the
[1:39:52] required condition. And while we wish, which can be done
[1:39:58] anyway that the, uh, this congestion and the traffic should
[1:40:02] be managed. But I think it's, it's beyond the scope
[1:40:06] within which we are talking. It should be taken and
[1:40:09] by the city. We can only recommend them that such
[1:40:12] things should be taken as a outside this scope which
[1:40:17] we are thinking. So I would say we maintain and
[1:40:19] approve this while we can consider and discuss together also
[1:40:24] how that can be presented to them. Because it's not
[1:40:28] this isn't it's many. So it's not and each has
[1:40:31] it so merit. Each area will have its own married.
[1:40:36] It's not so it's a broad discussion. I think I
[1:40:41] have not even sure it comes within our band -
[1:40:44] aid to put such parts than many things will come
[1:40:48] future. Then the street will come that the snow will
[1:40:52] count that the other. So you are opening a window
[1:40:56] unnecessarily beyond your scope of area. So it's I take
[1:41:01] your point. Um, and, uh, I think that, uh, remember
[1:41:05] good fellow pointed out that, um, we had proceeded in
[1:41:09] a similar fashion with a similar project, albeit a larger
[1:41:12] project, um, and, uh, we, we did impose that, uh,
[1:41:17] kind of a, but I'm taking your point that as
[1:41:22] the mover, you're not comfortable with a friendly amendment. Yes.
[1:41:27] Okay. And remember Ross would like to speak. Through you,
[1:41:36] Mr. Chair. I think, um, what member Spears is addressing
[1:41:41] is, is, is very important given the kinds of applications
[1:41:45] that we see before us on a regular basis. And
[1:41:49] it points to, um, a gap. And who pays for
[1:41:54] Intensification. Uh, so, you know, we don't really have the
[1:42:00] answer for that. The whole purpose of the provincial legislation
[1:42:05] is to create more units faster. And when individual applications
[1:42:13] come forward for severances, that's indeed what, uh, is achieved.
[1:42:19] So staff pointed out that for larger projects, there's cost
[1:42:25] sharing. So there are possibly multiple landowners involved in paying
[1:42:30] for things like traffic studies. And certainly for paying for
[1:42:34] things like road improvements or creating roads, but here we
[1:42:39] have an evolving situation where in certain communities, um, they
[1:42:46] are unfairly asked, um, not that, you know, the remedy
[1:42:51] immediate remedy for this, but from their point of view
[1:42:54] unfairly asked to take on the burden of intensification without
[1:42:59] any mechanism, uh, to achieve the level of like a,
[1:43:05] uh, an urban road to support. The cumulative effect. Of
[1:43:12] the intensification. So some of these communities like this particular
[1:43:15] one are harder hit with this than others. And so
[1:43:20] I support what, um, member Speer says intending there that
[1:43:27] how best to address this gap. And for us as
[1:43:31] a committee, it would seem that, um, we're having a
[1:43:34] conversation here about our actual role is, is quite limited
[1:43:41] in terms of, um, it being anything more than a,
[1:43:45] than a suggestion. And to, I think it's probably very
[1:43:49] clear to stop that we struggle with how to go
[1:43:54] about, um, discussing this with the communities that come forward
[1:44:00] expressing the concerns that we've held here today. Uh, so
[1:44:05] I, I understand and support what, um, member Spears Intention
[1:44:10] is I also understand what member Mir is saying in
[1:44:15] terms of is this really the place. Is this really
[1:44:18] the motion for us to come up with some way
[1:44:21] to address this gap. Thank you member Rosh. That's given
[1:44:30] me some, um, considerations as well. But I think, remember
[1:44:33] before I chime in, uh, member, mayor, please. I think
[1:44:38] the linkage with the street congestion, we are making, then
[1:44:46] we are tying the approval with it. And if I
[1:44:49] understand from the staff, it may take four year, five
[1:44:52] years before they will address that part. So should we
[1:44:55] hold and connect it with it? Or should we leave
[1:44:58] it this. And see how city, because it comes a
[1:45:03] hundred percent of the city itself, of their department specialized
[1:45:10] in this, how traffic moves, what are the constituents. But
[1:45:14] approving this, which is within the bylaws which we are
[1:45:18] doing, linking will not, will, are we stopping that disapproval
[1:45:27] is now linked with that. That it is four year,
[1:45:30] they will be putting forward. So how we are doing
[1:45:34] that, I think we should live here, approve this as
[1:45:38] we have done before three, four. And more will be
[1:45:41] coming to us. But this address separately and how we
[1:45:47] can send a separate letter saying we are frequently receiving
[1:45:52] this thing of the consults of, so this should be
[1:45:57] disconnected and take her separately with the city by us
[1:46:01] that we are free quality facing. It's very difficult for
[1:46:04] us because we are very concerned out there. And that
[1:46:09] is a special letter for the community can give for
[1:46:13] them to be taking care of. That how we should
[1:46:16] be addressing these situations, what is the bad date? Is
[1:46:21] it possible, whatever, but not linking. I think we will
[1:46:25] be having more with different concerns. People are concerned, worried.
[1:46:31] But that is a linking with our approvals of this
[1:46:35] should be strictly on the bylaw, which we are facing.
[1:46:39] Okay. And, um, I think, um. I think there's something
[1:46:46] to be said to speaking to staff about the. Legitimacy
[1:46:51] or the efficacy of such an amendment, um, were it.
[1:47:00] Not an amendment, but, uh, were it considered as part
[1:47:03] of a, uh, different motion. So, um, what I'd like
[1:47:08] our committee to consider is that we, um, as member,
[1:47:13] Mir has said we consider this motion. And it passes
[1:47:17] her in fails. And if it does fail that potentially
[1:47:21] we could have another motion and address some of the
[1:47:25] concerns that, uh, members have made, um, about the traffic
[1:47:30] study in a separate motion. What are your thoughts? Member
[1:47:35] spears. I think a member may is probably on the
[1:47:39] money here with, with his perspective. And it also, I've
[1:47:43] been thinking about this as in terms of this creeping
[1:47:45] development as if it's one thing. And the problem is
[1:47:51] that it isn't every one of these things is in
[1:47:53] fact a completely independent. The owners are different. The applicant
[1:47:56] is different. We can't say to this applicant who wants
[1:47:59] to do this property. Oh, you have to do a
[1:48:01] traffic study because it doesn't, it just doesn't reflect reality.
[1:48:05] It's a, it's a larger beast here. And I, and
[1:48:08] I, I, well, I want it to happen. It probably
[1:48:12] isn't the right thing to try and do it this
[1:48:13] way to try and tie cost of a traffic study
[1:48:17] into this particular application. I just, it doesn't sound, it
[1:48:22] doesn't seem practical, even though I want it to happen.
[1:48:27] I hear that. Um, it is, it is essentially cumulative.
[1:48:33] In my estimation. But like you say, we're talking about
[1:48:37] a severance application. Creating, um. A couple of, uh, additional
[1:48:45] buildings. And, um. I, I think at this point it
[1:48:51] would be best if we, um, unless there's any pressing
[1:48:55] concerns that we call to vote. And, uh, take our,
[1:49:00] um, take our chances from there. I think that's been
[1:49:05] a good discussion. So with that, Madam Secretary Treasurer, um.
[1:49:13] Before I turned to you, I'm just going to say
[1:49:14] that I'm uncomfortable, um, with this application. Um, it's a
[1:49:21] severance and it's straightforward. And that lines up and everything's,
[1:49:25] everything's copacitic. Um, that being said, my comment about cumulative
[1:49:31] effect. I'm, I'm concerned. This committee rejected the first application
[1:49:36] on Ridgeway because we, we saw where this train was
[1:49:41] going, um, and their wisdom, the Ontario Land tribunal said,
[1:49:47] um, that no, this, this is acceptable. Um, additionally, as
[1:49:53] I mentioned to one of the delegates, um, this is
[1:49:57] what city council has, uh, has said the direction the
[1:50:01] city's going in. And I followed that discussion quite closely.
[1:50:07] So it's, it's, it's really, um, I'm not going to
[1:50:11] say our hands are tied. They're not. Um, in some
[1:50:16] ways they are. So, um, reluctantly I would support this,
[1:50:22] this motion. Remember Goodfilm. Yes. I wanted to add a
[1:50:27] couple of words as well because I do think that
[1:50:29] I am hearing from city staff and perhaps I am
[1:50:33] over interpreting what I'm hearing. But I think my perception
[1:50:36] of what we've talked about tonight is that there aren't
[1:50:40] these mechanisms that we've been talking about. And, um, yeah,
[1:50:44] I agree, member spears to your point that, you know,
[1:50:48] burdening one applicant with a cost isn't truly fair. But
[1:50:52] neither is it fair to burden the community with the
[1:50:56] cost of this cumulative effects. And neither is it fair
[1:51:00] to burden the city and the rest of the taxpayers
[1:51:03] with doing a traffic impact study when it is such
[1:51:06] a localized, uh, event. And so I think I am
[1:51:10] just, you know, trying to look at ways where we
[1:51:13] can get good and perhaps it's the engineer in me,
[1:51:16] but I am looking for good data and trying to
[1:51:18] understand from a pragmatic point of view, is there an
[1:51:22] opportunity here for us to get decent data on which
[1:51:25] the city and everyone involved applicants us, everyone has some
[1:51:30] information then instead of us speculating about the cumulative impacts,
[1:51:35] then, you know, there is an opportunity. We have the
[1:51:37] data. So for all of that reason and because it
[1:51:40] sounds like the boat's going to go the other way,
[1:51:43] I'm going to be opposed to this one. And mostly
[1:51:45] as an indication that I think the city, the applicant
[1:51:50] and us are all in a bad position here. And
[1:51:54] nobody is, unfortunately, able to transfer the costs to where
[1:51:57] it probably should be allocated. And so that's for that
[1:52:00] reason I'll be opposed. Thank you, member Goodfellow. You almost
[1:52:04] convinced me to change my mind. Any other comments or
[1:52:09] questions on the motion before us. Seeing none, Madam Secretary
[1:52:14] Treasure, would you call to vote, please? Thank you, Chair
[1:52:17] Committee members. Please indicate your vote by responding in favor
[1:52:20] or opposed to the motion, which is to approve the
[1:52:23] application with the recommended conditions by staff. Chair Smith in
[1:52:28] favor. Member Fitzpatrick. In your favor. Member Goodfellow. Opposed. Member
[1:52:38] Mir in favor. Remember Ross in favor. Member spears. Reluctantly
[1:52:45] in favor, sorry for the editorial. That's carried, Mr. Chair.
[1:52:51] Thank you. Um, thank you for your patience, your application
[1:52:54] has been approved. I believe Madam Secretary Treasure, we have
[1:53:01] one more application to go. The last file is file
[1:53:08] A dash 28 slash 26 variance to permit reduced exterior
[1:53:12] side yard setback for proposed conversion of existing carport to
[1:53:16] attach garage at 73 Yorkshire Street South. I'll note for
[1:53:20] those attending remotely. If you wish to speak to this
[1:53:22] application, you can call the number displayed on the screen.
[1:53:26] That number's 519 - 822 - 1260 Extension 2524. And
[1:53:31] when you call in staff, we'll give you instructions on
[1:53:32] how you can delegate remotely. Does the applicant president? Yes,
[1:53:38] please come forward. Um. Before you state your name for
[1:53:46] the record, let me thank you for your patience in
[1:53:50] sitting through that last hearing. And with that, can I
[1:53:55] ask for your name and your relationship to this application.
[1:53:59] Bill McFadden from Build Consulting Services and the agent of
[1:54:02] the owner. Thank you. And can you tell me if
[1:54:05] the sign was posted as per the planning act. Yes,
[1:54:08] it was. And have you read Staff's comments on Area
[1:54:11] in agreement. I have and I am. Um, I should
[1:54:16] be have heard. You have 10 minutes to address the
[1:54:18] committee. Uh, good evening. I will try and keep this
[1:54:23] brief. I'm sorry. Uh, we are seeking a reduced side
[1:54:27] yard set back to allow, uh, enclosing the existing car
[1:54:30] port at 73 York Trio Street South, as seen on
[1:54:34] the screen here, uh, where it is six metres required
[1:54:38] setback from the sidewalker from the, uh, on the backside
[1:54:41] of the sidewalk to the building. We have four metres.
[1:54:44] Um, we have had this file previously, uh, for other,
[1:54:47] uh, applications from minor variances, uh, at this site. We
[1:54:51] did have, um, CGH transportation complete a traffic report, uh,
[1:54:58] at the site to get additional comment and support for
[1:55:02] this reduced, uh, setback in order to allow for the
[1:55:05] enclosure of the garage. And, uh, we did, like I
[1:55:09] said, we reviewed staff's comments and we are in support
[1:55:13] and I am available for any questions that, uh, anyone
[1:55:15] may have. Thank you. Um, and are there any, um,
[1:55:24] comments from staff or presentation. Um, seeing none, um, at
[1:55:31] this point, I'll turn to the public. And Madam Secretary,
[1:55:35] is there anyone registered to speak. Mr. Chair can confirm
[1:55:39] no registered delegates for this file. Thank you. And is
[1:55:42] there anyone in the chamber who would like to speak
[1:55:44] to this application? Seeing none. Committee members, do we have
[1:55:49] any questions of the applicant. No, and, um, at that
[1:55:56] point, um, I'm going to entertain a motion. Member Fitzpatrick.
[1:56:05] I motion that we, uh, prove the application as recommended
[1:56:10] by staff. Thank you. And do we have a seconder.
[1:56:15] Five second member. Any discussion on the motion before us.
[1:56:20] Seeing none, Madam Secretary Treasure, would you call the vote,
[1:56:23] please? Thank you, Chair Committee members. Please indicate your vote
[1:56:27] by responding in favor or post to the motion, which
[1:56:29] is to approve the application. Chair Smith in favor. Remember
[1:56:34] Fitzpatrick. Remember, good fellow in favor. Remember Mir in favor.
[1:56:44] Remember Ross in favor. And member spears. In favor. That's
[1:56:50] carried Mr. Chair. Thank you. Your application has been approved.
[1:56:56] Madam Secretary Treasure, I believe that completes our agenda is
[1:57:03] in terms of applications. I do have any staff announcements.
[1:57:08] Mr. Chair, I don't have any staff announcements. Um, at
[1:57:12] that point neither do I. Um, so I would entertain
[1:57:16] a motion to adjourn. So moved. Um, and member spears,
[1:57:22] seconded by member Goodfellow, all in favor. We stand adjourned.
[1:57:27] Thank you very much Committee members. And I would also
[1:57:29] like to thank the new faces at staff for their
[1:57:32] presentation and patients. Thank you.