Committee of Adjustment Minutes

Thursday, February 08, 2024 at 4:00 P.m. - 8:00 P.m.

Council Chambers

Guelph City Hall, 1 Carden Street

Members Present

• G. Sayer, Vice-chair
• A. Balaban
• J. Goodfellow
• J. Smith
• R. Speers

Staff Present

• T. Di Lullo, Secretary-Treasurer
• M. Masic, Planner
• E. Rempel, Planner
• J. Robinson, Engineering Technologist
• A. Sandor, Council and Committee Assistant
• J. Tang, Legislative Coordinator

---

Call to Order

Vice-chair G. Sayer called the meeting to order. (4:00 p.m.)

Opening Remarks

Vice-chair G. Sayer explained the hearing procedures and quorum was confirmed.

Indigenous Territorial Acknowledgement

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

There were no disclosures.

Approval of Minutes

• Moved by: J. Smith
  Seconded by: J. Goodfellow

  That the minutes from the January 11, 2024 Regular Hearing of the Committee of Adjustment, be approved as circulated.

  Carried

Requests for Withdrawal or Deferral

There were no requests.

Current Applications

A-6/24 1888 Gordon Street

Owner: Tricar Developments Inc.

Agent: Jay McGuffin and Martha Paluch, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants

Location: 1888 Gordon Street

In Attendance: Martha Paluch, Jay McGuffin, Gary Horvath

Secretary-Treasurer T. Di Lullo noted correspondence was received after the comment deadline from G. Horvath, R. Fiedler, and C. Kaner expressing concerns with the application, and that correspondence has been circulated to the Committee members and staff. In addition, revised wording has been submitted for condition two as proposed on the staff comments, and that revised wording has been sent to the Committee members and applicant. 

Vice-chair G. Sayer questioned if the sign had been posted in accordance with Planning Act requirements and if the staff comments were received. M. Paluch, agent, responded that the sign was posted and comments were received. M. Paluch and J. McGuffin explained the general nature of the application.

G. Horvath, resident of Gordon Street, expressed concerns with traffic congestion, loading and unloading of delivery vehicles and their impact on parking, lack of commercial parking spaces, the parking ratios proposed on the application, the location of refuse storage, and the reduced number of parking proposed for the site. G. Horvath further expressed further concerns with controlled access and underground visitors access on site.

• Having considered whether or not the variance(s) requested are minor and desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land and that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and the Official Plan will be maintained, and that this application has met the requirements of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.13 as amended,

  Moved by: R. Speers
  Seconded by: A. Balaban

  That in the matter of an application under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P13, as amended, a variance from the requirements of Sections 4.13.4.3 and 4.13.6 of Zoning By-law (1995)-14864, as amended, for 1888 Gordon Street, to permit a minimum of 96 visitor parking spaces for all three apartment buildings located on the subject property, when the By-law requires that, in addition to the requirements of Section 4.13.4.3, a minimum of 20% of the calculated total required number of parking spaces shall be provided for the use of visitors to a residential building [being 135 parking spaces], and a variance from the requirements of Table 5.3 Row 2 of Zoning By-law (2023)-20790, as amended, for 1888 Gordon Street, to permit a minimum of 96 visitor parking spaces for all three apartment buildings located on the subject property, when the By-law requires that a minimum of 20% of the required parking spaces shall be for the use of visitor parking [being 135 parking spaces] be refused.

  Reason: 

  This minor variance request is refused, as it is the opinion of the Committee that this variance request does not meet all four tests under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, specifically being that the requested variance is not minor in nature and not desirable for the appropriate development of the lands, as conflicting information about parking space access was provided, the requested variance pertains to the entirety of the site, and that some of the underground visitor parking spaces would not be immediately accessible and available.

  Any and all written submissions relating to this application that were made to the committee of Adjustment before its decision and any and all oral submissions related to this application that were made at a public hearing, held under the Planning Act, have been, on balance, taken into consideration by the Committee of Adjustment as part of its deliberations and final decision on this matter.

  Carried

A-8/24 93 Hayes Avenue

Owner: David Ing

Agent: Bill Birdsell, J. William Birdsell, Architect

Location: 93 Hayes Avenue

In Attendance: Bill Birdsell

Secretary-Treasurer T. Di Lullo noted that an additional condition was recommended by Planning staff regarding protection of City trees, and that the additional condition has been circulated to Committee members and the applicant. 

Vice-chair G. Sayer questioned if the sign had been posted in accordance with Planning Act requirements and if the staff comments were received. B. Birdsell, agent, responded that the sign was posted and comments were received. B. Birdsell explained the general nature of the application. 

No members of the public spoke.

• Having considered whether or not the variance(s) requested are minor and desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land and that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and the Official Plan will be maintained, and that this application has met the requirements of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.13 as amended,

  Moved by: J. Smith
  Seconded by: J. Goodfellow

  That in the matter of an application under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P13, as amended, variances from the requirements of Table 5.1.2 Row 7 and Table 4.7 Row 12 of Zoning By-law (1995)-14864, as amended, for 93 Hayes Avenue, to permit:

  1. a minimum left side yard setback of 0.6 metres for the proposed new detached dwelling, when the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres;
  2. a minimum right side yard setback of 0.92 metres for the proposed new detached dwelling, when the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres; and
  3. a maximum projection of 3.91 metres into the required rear yard for the proposed exterior stairs, when the By-law requires that exterior stairs have a maximum projection of 1.5 metres into the required rear yard [being 6.2 metres],

  and variances from the requirements of Table 6.3 and Table 4.1 Row 7 of Zoning By-law (2023)-20790, as amended, for 93 Hayes Avenue, to permit:

  1. a minimum right side yard setback of 0.92 metres for the proposed new detached dwelling, when the By-law requires a minimum interior side yard setback of 1.2 metres on one side of the dwelling unit and a minimum of 0.6 metres on the other side; and
  2. a maximum projection of 3.91 metres into the required rear yard for the proposed exterior stairs, when the By-law requires that exterior stairs have a maximum projection of 1.5 metres into the required rear yard [being 6.2 metres],

   be approved, subject to the following conditions:

  1. That the proposed dwelling be constructed in general accordance with the public notice sketch.
  2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant makes arrangement for provision of hydro servicing to the parcel, satisfactory to the ICI and Layouts Department of Alectra Utilities. The servicing costs would be at the applicant’s expense.
  3. The subject property is less than 0.2 hectares in size and therefore not regulated by the Private Tree Bylaw. However, there are City owned trees on the adjacent property and consistent with the Official Plan, trees and shrubs within the City lands need to be appropriately considered and protected during any type of construction/works within the dripline. Protection of City trees must be optimized as injury or destroying a City tree may not be granted by the City. Any proposal to injure or destroy a tree must be accompanied by a Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Parks. Please contact Timea Filer, Forestry Technologist at 519 822 1260 x3352.

  Reason: 

  This application is approved, as it is the opinion of the Committee that, with the above noted conditions of approval, this application meets all four tests under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

  Any and all written submissions relating to this application that were made to the committee of Adjustment before its decision and any and all oral submissions related to this application that were made at a public hearing, held under the Planning Act, have been, on balance, taken into consideration by the Committee of Adjustment as part of its deliberations and final decision on this matter.

  Carried

A-3/24 49 Amsterdam Crescent

Owner: Kendall Wayow and Juiseppina Giampletro

Agent: N/A

Location: 49 Amsterdam Crescent

In Attendance: Steven Burrows

Vice-chair G. Sayer questioned if the sign had been posted in accordance with Planning Act requirements and if the staff comments were received. S. Burrows, agent, responded that the sign was posted and comments were received. S. Burrows explained the general nature of the application. 

No members of the public spoke.

• Having considered whether or not the variance(s) requested are minor and desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land and that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and the Official Plan will be maintained, and that this application has met the requirements of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.13 as amended,

  Moved by: J. Goodfellow
  Seconded by: A. Balaban

  That in the matter of an application under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P13, as amended, a variance from the requirements of Section 4.15.1.6.2 of Zoning By-law (1995)-14864, as amended, for 49 Amsterdam Crescent, to permit the proposed additional residential dwelling unit in the basement of the existing dwelling to contain a maximum of three bedrooms, when the By-law requires that an additional residential dwelling unit within a primary dwelling unit shall not contain more than two bedrooms, and a variance from the requirements of Section 4.12.1 (b) of Zoning By-law (2023)-20790, as amended, for 49 Amsterdam Crescent, to permit the proposed additional residential dwelling unit in the basement of the existing dwelling to contain a maximum of three bedrooms, when the By-law requires that an additional residential dwelling unit shall not contain more than two bedrooms be approved, subject to the following condition:

  1. That issued Building Permit file 2020 004875 000 02 PR be cancelled prior to Building Permit file 2023 005769 000 00 BRX being closed.

  Reason: 

  This application is approved, as it is the opinion of the Committee that, with the above noted condition of approval, this application meets all four tests under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

  Any and all written submissions relating to this application that were made to the committee of Adjustment before its decision and any and all oral submissions related to this application that were made at a public hearing, held under the Planning Act, have been, on balance, taken into consideration by the Committee of Adjustment as part of its deliberations and final decision on this matter.

  Carried

A-9/24 19 Westmount Road

Owner: Maria and Vasile Fodor

Agent: Rob Sajkunovic, JR Design and Consultants

Location: 19 Westmount Road

In Attendance: Rob Sajkunovic

Secretary-Treasurer T. Di Lullo noted that correspondence was received after the commenting deadline from C. Vogel expressing support for the application, and that the correspondence was shared with Committee members and staff.

Vice-chair G. Sayer questioned if the sign had been posted in accordance with Planning Act requirements and if the staff comments were received. R. Sajkunovic, agent, responded that the sign was posted and comments were received. R. Sajkunovic explained the general nature of the application. 

No members of the public spoke.

• Moved by: A. Balaban
  Seconded by: J. Smith

  That minor variance application A-9/24 for 19 Westmount Road, be deferred sine die, and in accordance with the Committee’s policy on applications deferred sine die, that the application will be considered to be withdrawn if not dealt with within 12 months of deferral and that the deferral fee be paid prior to reconsideration of the application.

  Reasons:

  This application is deferred at the request of the Committee to allow the applicant time to update their application to clarify the nature of their request.

  Carried

A-10/24 3 Renfrew Place

Owner: Kim Andrews

Agent: Matthew Fratarcangeli, Tenhouse Building Workshop

Location: 3 Renfrew Place

In Attendance: Matthew Fratarcangeli

Vice-chair G. Sayer questioned if the sign had been posted in accordance with Planning Act requirements and if the staff comments were received. M. Fratarcangeli, agent, responded that the sign was posted and comments were received. M. Fratarcangeli explained the general nature of the application. 

No members of the public spoke.

• Having considered whether or not the variance(s) requested are minor and desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land and that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and the Official Plan will be maintained, and that this application has met the requirements of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.13 as amended,

  Moved by: R. Speers
  Seconded by: J. Goodfellow

  That in the matter of an application under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P13, as amended, variances from the requirements of Sections 4.5.1.4 and 4.5.1 of Zoning By-law (1995)-14864, as amended, for 3 Renfrew Place, to permit:

  1. a maximum total ground floor area of 94.43 square metres for the proposed accessory building and all existing accessory buildings and structures on the subject property, when the By-law requires that in a residential zone, the total ground floor area of all accessory buildings or structures shall not exceed 70 square metres; and
  2. the proposed accessory building to be located in the exterior side yard with a minimum exterior side yard setback of 4.15 metres, when the By-law requires an accessory building or structure may occupy a yard other than a front yard or required exterior side yard,

  and variances from the requirements of Sections 4.5.2(a) and 4.5.1(b) of Zoning By-law (2023)-20790, as amended, for 3 Renfrew Place, to permit:

  1. a maximum total ground floor area of 94.43 square metres for the proposed accessory building and all existing accessory buildings and structures on the subject property, when By-law requires the maximum total ground floor area of all accessory buildings or structures is 70 square metres; and
  2. the proposed accessory building to be located in the exterior side yard with a minimum exterior side yard setback of 4.15 metres, when the By-law requires an accessory building or structure may be located in a yard other than a front yard or required exterior side yard on a lot

  be approved.

  Reason: 

  This application is approved, as it is the opinion of the Committee that this application meets all four tests under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

  Any and all written submissions relating to this application that were made to the committee of Adjustment before its decision and any and all oral submissions related to this application that were made at a public hearing, held under the Planning Act, have been, on balance, taken into consideration by the Committee of Adjustment as part of its deliberations and final decision on this matter.

  Carried

A-11/24 19 Lynwood Place

Owner: Robert Nixon

Agent: N/A

Location: 19 Lynwood Place

In Attendance: R. Nixon

Vice-chair G. Sayer questioned if the sign had been posted in accordance with Planning Act requirements and if the staff comments were received. R. Nixon, owner, responded that the sign was posted and comments were received. R. Nixon explained the general nature of the application. 

No members of the public spoke.

• Having considered whether or not the variance(s) requested are minor and desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land and that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and the Official Plan will be maintained, and that this application has met the requirements of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.13 as amended,

  Moved by: J. Goodfellow
  Seconded by: R. Speers

  That in the matter of an application under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P13, as amended, variances from the requirements of Sections 4.5.1.4 and 4.5.2.1 of Zoning By-law (1995)-14864, as amended, for 19 Lynwood Place, to permit:

  1. a maximum total ground floor area of 104 square metres for the proposed detached garage and the existing shed on the subject property, when the By-law requires the total ground floor area of all accessory buildings or structures shall not exceed 70 square metres; and
  2. a maximum height of 4.2 metres for the proposed detached garage, when the By-law requires an accessory building or structure shall not exceed 3.6 metres in height

  and variances from the requirements of Sections 4.5.2(a) and 4.5.2(b) of Zoning By-law (2023)-20790, as amended, for 19 Lynwood Place, to permit:

  1. a maximum total ground floor area of 104 square metres for the proposed detached garage and the existing shed on the subject property, when the By-law requires the maximum total ground floor area of all accessory buildings or structures is 70 square metres; and
  2. a maximum height of 4.2 metres for the proposed detached garage, when the By-law requires the maximum height of an accessory building or structure is 4 metres,

  be approved, subject to the following conditions:

  1. That the proposed garage be constructed in general accordance with the public notice sketch.
  2. That the sheds not shown on the public notice sketch be removed to ensure compliance with the requested maximum accessory structure lot coverage of 104 square metres.

  Reason: 

  This application is approved, as it is the opinion of the Committee that, with the above noted conditions of approval, this application meets all four tests under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

  Any and all written submissions relating to this application that were made to the committee of Adjustment before its decision and any and all oral submissions related to this application that were made at a public hearing, held under the Planning Act, have been, on balance, taken into consideration by the Committee of Adjustment as part of its deliberations and final decision on this matter.

  Carried

A-12/24 280 Speedvale Avenue West

Owner: Linamar Corporation

Agent: Eileen Costello, Aird and Berlis LLP

Location: 280 Speedvale Avenue West

In Attendance: E. Costello

Vice-chair G. Sayer questioned if the sign had been posted in accordance with Planning Act requirements and if the staff comments were received. E. Costello, agent, responded that the sign was posted and comments were received. E. Costello explained the general nature of the application. 

No members of the public spoke.

• Having considered whether or not the variance(s) requested are minor and desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land and that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and the Official Plan will be maintained, and that this application has met the requirements of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.13 as amended,

  Moved by: R. Speers
  Seconded by: J. Goodfellow

  That in the matter of an application under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P13, as amended, a variance from the requirements of Table 10.3 of Zoning By-law (2023)-20790, as amended, for 280 Speedvale Avenue West, to permit a minimum 0 metre wide buffer strip adjacent to the left side yard lot line, when the By-law requires a minimum 3 metre wide buffer strip adjacent to interior side and rear lot lines, be approved, subject to the following condition:

  1. Any future re-development of the parking lot area requiring Site Plan Approval may not rely on this variance and may therefore require relief from the Zoning Bylaw regulations in effect at that time.

  Reason: 

  This application is approved, as it is the opinion of the Committee that, with the above noted condition of approval, this application meets all four tests under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

  Any and all written submissions relating to this application that were made to the committee of Adjustment before its decision and any and all oral submissions related to this application that were made at a public hearing, held under the Planning Act, have been, on balance, taken into consideration by the Committee of Adjustment as part of its deliberations and final decision on this matter.

  Carried

Chair and Staff Announcements

Updates to Committee of Adjustment Fee Refund Policy

Secretary-Treasurer T. Di Lullo briefly explained the policy updates.

• Moved: A. Balaban
  Seconded: J. Goodfellow

  1. That the proposed updates to the Committee of Adjustment Fee Refund Policy related to waiver of deferral fees related to tie votes, included as Attachment-1, dated February 8, 2024, be approved.
  2. That the proposed updates to the Committee of Adjustment Fee Refund Policy related to refund requests for previously deferred applications that are withdrawn, included as Attachment-1, dated February 8, 2024, be approved.
  Carried

Adjournment

• Moved: R. Speers
  Seconded: A. Balaban

  That this hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be adjourned. (5:42 p.m.)

  Carried