Good evening everyone and welcome to the city of Richmond Hills Committee of Adjustment meeting on this 6th day of August 2026. It's 7:00 p.m. I'd like to call the meeting to order and I will begin with the reading of the land acknowledgement statement. We are gathering on lands that have been home to First Nations people from time immemorial. We acknowledge that what we now call Richmond Hill is on the treaty lands and territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nations and the Mississauga and Chippewa nations of the Williams Treaty. We also recognize that we are on part of the traditional territories of the Hodenausanee and the Huron-Wendat. We would also like to acknowledge all First Nations, Inuit and Métis people from across North America, also known as Turtle Island, who now reside in the city of Richmond Hill. We are committed to rebuilding constructive and cooperative relationships. I would ask for the reading of the preamble, please. >> Good evening. In the event of an emergency, please exit this room. Outside of the double doors are two stairwell exits. The one on the right exits to the south side of the building and the one on the far side of the elevators exits to the main lobby. Do not use the elevators or return to the building until directed. We ask all committee members, city staff, and members of the audience to please silence your cell phone. The Committee of Adjustment for the City of Richmond Hill has been appointed by Council to consider applications for minor variance and consent within the jurisdiction of the Planning Act. The chair will call the applicant to the podium to present their application and will and will allow members of the public to comment. When members of the public approach the podium, please do so one person at a time. Please note the public deputation form beside the podium. Please clearly write your name and email address and indicate on the form if you wish to be added to the notification list for the application you are speaking for. State your full name and address to the committee before speaking. When speaking, please address all comments through the chair. Once the committee makes a decision on an application, no further discussion is allowed inside Council Chambers. No one other than the applicant, the municipality, certain public bodies, and the minister will be allowed to appeal municipal decisions to the tribunal within 20 days of the making of the decision. All appeals and associated fees must be filed directly with the secretary treasurer in accordance with the Planning Act. Thank you. >> Thank you. Our secretary treasurer this evening is Ms. Courtney Column. Assisting her is Alea Timothy. And from our planning department, we have Melissa Giardinapapa. Do we have any conflicts of interest from our members? >> No. >> No conflicts? Uh in that case, I would like to call the first application on our agenda is located at 389 Becker Road. This is uh a consent application and couple of minor variances. B-032-22, A-071-22, and A-092-22. Please come forward. And state your name and address for the record if you don't mind. Do we have any additional correspondence on this application? >> Through the chair, we have received two letters of opposition from the owner of 385 Becker Road. >> Thank you. I also acknowledge that committee members do have a corrected staff report. So, we are all have all seen that and are in possession of that. Please proceed. Thank you. >> From Urban Congruence. I'm the registered professional planner representing Mr. Silly Young, the owner of 389 Becker Road. My email address is clurbancongruence.com. My address is 371 Federton Road, Richmond Hill. >> Thank you. >> Oh, okay. They already show my slides, so I can begin, right? >> Yes. >> Yeah, thank you. Yeah, the first page, this is a perspective view of the proposed development. And this is an accessory zone analysis. Among the 1,164 detached residential lots west of Bayview Avenue between the Major Mackenzie Drive East and the Elgen Mills Drive Road East, only three lots, including the subject size, have a frontage of around 24 m. Amongst the three properties, the subject size have the largest lot area and the deepest the lot depths. This exceptional site characteristic makes the subject property well suited for the proposed land severance. Next, please. Next page, please. >> [clears throat] >> This is the urban context analysis. The subject site is located within the established detached dwelling neighborhood with convenient access to public transit. It is well served by a well wide range of public facility and community amenities. Commercial and employment areas are located nearby, providing convenient access to shopping and employment opportunity. The full municipal servicing is available from Back Road. Next, please. This slide illustrates the official plan land use designation. The subject site is designated neighborhood and the proposed land severance will maintain this designation. The proposal also preserves the existing pattern of street streets and the block consistent with the official plan. Next, please. The existing lot area and the frontage are 1.68 times the required minimum. The proposed consent application will create only one additional lot. Both lots will have frontage of about 80% of the required minimum and each lot each lot area will exceed 80% of the required minimum. Giving the unusually large existing lot, the proposed reduction in lot area and the frontage are relatively minor. Next, please. The pro- proposal including two similar detached dwellings. The dwellings on part two fully compliant with zoning bylaw requirements. For part one, due to the shape of the lot, only one variance is request to reduce the easy side yard setback from the required 1.2 m to 0.93 m. Importantly, the side yard setback adjacent to the existing neighboring property compliance with the zoning bylaw. The privacy and separation from the neighboring dwelling are maintained. Next, please. Although the zoning bylaw permits dwellings up to three stories and 11 stories 11 m in height, the proposal is limited to only two stories with a height of 9.2 m. The pro- proposed dwellings are therefore compatible with the existing neighborhood built form. Next, please. In summary, the proposal satisfy four tests of a minor variance. It presents appropriate form of gentle residential intensification that maintains the character of the neighborhood while creating the a creating one additional dwellings to help meet the city's housing needs. The city planning staff report supports the proposal and no objections have been raised by the other departments. In my professional planning opinion, the consent application and two minor variance application should be approved. Thank you. Any questions? >> Thank you. Um I would like to check to see if there is anyone in our audience that would like to speak to this application. If so, please come forward. >> It's only a >> Okay. No, that's fine. There There is nobody. Um do we have any additional comments from our planning department? >> Through the chair, I have no comments. >> No comments, thank you. And our members, any comments, questions, concerns? >> Yes. >> Yes. Member Payne. >> So, basically, you're looking for variances after a consent um variances to the new consolidated bylaw 9325. >> Yeah. >> Which reduces considerably many of the um parameters of of previous bylaws in some cases, perhaps not all. Um how long has the owner um owned this property, if I might ask through through you, Mr. Chair? >> Oh, may I ask the owner here? >> Sure. >> Yeah. I have to use Chinese, okay? He owned this uh 4 years. >> 4 years. And does he live there? >> Oh. >> Uh he temporarily moved to a new uh new house. He just built a new house. Temporarily he moved there and uh he will return there. Uh then the two the two houses will be occupied by the same family numbers. >> Um I asked because I found the house upon inspection to be in quite a dilapidated state and the backyard was overgrown. Uh those are just my observations. Uh I Is anyone living there? >> Currently no. At this moment, no. They just move away. They just built a new house and uh but later for the case study, they will re-return here. >> And um when um this individual purchased the property, it was in the shape and configuration that it is now. >> [snorts] >> Yes. Okay. Thank you. I can't support this uh application. I think 10 ft off each property is is too much for this area and um given the concerns of the individual who wrote in, um uh I can't support this application. >> Okay. Thank you. Any >> Oh, also >> Oh, yes. >> Um Do you have a count of the number of mature trees on this property? There looks to be one that's over 100 years old in the backyard, at least one, perhaps two. And what will happen to these trees if you are building two homes and taking up a lot of the property space? >> Uh it's in the backyard, the tree will be preserved uh because we we did not build uh we we did not propose uh current's weight in the backyard. >> Okay. >> Uh, only in the um I think uh in even in the front yard uh they designed the driveway to fix the tree protection zone. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And how many of the trees in the front yard will be protected? >> Uh, I think um I I I did not bring that material, but I submit that to the uh to the committee. Could you please bring uh the uh arborist the tree protection uh plan? >> Uh, through chair um and to the agent here, it'll take us a couple minutes. We only have the presentation as submitted prepared >> Oh, okay. >> present, so you'll just have to give us a second if you would like to present that. >> Yeah, okay. >> Through you, Mr. Chair, do you mind if I make my comments while waiting for that? >> a virtue. Thank you for that. We might as may as well. >> No problem. Save us a bit of time. Uh, through Mr. Chair, just my comments on the application and the emails received to to this committee from one of the neighbors. Uh, I recognize their their large concern is about the side yard setback here. Um, they're also concerned about the smaller lot sizes, but to me the side yard is perhaps what they're mostly uh highlighting in their email here and it looks like the side yard setback is going to be between the two new buildings, not with any existing neighbors, so to me that um that that makes a lot of sense. Um, I do walk in this neighborhood a lot and I've seen a lot of redevelopment and revitalization. I think it's been great to see a lot more development coming in and I think additional housing units is something we're definitely looking for in the city. I appreciate that you've kept the buildings at a very reasonable height. The 9.24 m is very nice to see that you're not trying to go up to the 11 m or even exceed that. And the the lot areas and the frontages themselves, I don't see any problem with the a little bit more density than than what is there now with the large bungalow that's unoccupied. >> Thank you for that. >> Thank you. >> Okay. We have the Arborist report on the plan. Thank you for that. Uh member Payne, are you satisfied with the uh drawing that you see on the screen? Does that answer your questions? >> I wouldn't mind having an explanation of the drawing on the screen. >> Okay. But, could you um perhaps go through an explanation of what we're looking at here on the screen for uh >> Okay. I'm over there. Make make me closer to the to drawing. I Can I walk there? >> Um >> Oh, I can here. >> Yeah. I see that you have made some concessions with the shape and configuration of your driveways to protect some of the trees. I see tree protection fencing >> Yeah. >> the municipal side as well as on the private side as well as protection fencing in the rear that's I delineated in green. So, I understand that. And you have some trees that appear to be designated for removal. >> Yeah. The trees on the driveway location have to be removed. >> Okay. Um the driveway itself, do you know if it's going to consist of a porous pavement or will it be asphalt? Do you know? >> Yeah. >> Porous pavement or asphalt? >> Uh I think it's asphalt. >> Okay. >> And uh they they make the uh driveway narrower because they want to preserve more trees. >> Okay. One one moment, sorry. And where is that on this plan? >> I think it's this one. >> Okay, so that there is a tree at the back of the property which is on the west side of the property uh that is a fairly large tree that is designated for removal. >> Yeah. >> Um do you know the condition of that tree? Is it Is it a healthy tree? Is it in poor condition or is it just because the house is in that area? >> I think it's house house it's occupied there. >> Okay. We recognize that trees will have to be removed to accommodate the housing. >> Yeah. But anyway, uh the the the owner have to pay the compensation. Yeah. >> Correct. And will there be any uh other plantings? This shows preservation. It doesn't I >> [clears throat] >> It does show some new plantings. Okay. Very good. >> Oh, yeah. I think so. >> Yeah. Remember, the circles in black are additional trees that are going to be planted. >> Okay. >> Yeah, the new trees there. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. Member Payne, you're satisfied? >> I think it's very hard to replace a 100-year-old tree. And there are two of them that are marked here to be removed. And I think the current property as is has two lovely very mature trees in the back and many in the front. So, I can't support this. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you for that. Um I do have a a couple of comments of of my own. Um perhaps uh staff can or yourself can uh confirm this. I noticed in the request for the variances in frontage one is 39.2 and the other one is 39.37. Uh yet on the plan that I see uh for the consent the frontage is 41.6 and 39.36 if I calculate. So, is the required uh reduction in frontage measured at the setback? >> Oh, in the uh zoning bylaw definition if the uh the side yard property line are parallel so we measure the front uh the along the uh property line at the uh in front of the building. Yeah. >> Right. >> Yeah, but if this not parallel, we have to measure the front of the 6 m setback. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay, I just wanted to confirm that, point that out to uh to uh our audience and our members. So, technically we're dealing with a 41.6 uh foot lot and a 39.36 according to my calculations. >> Mhm. >> Um which is good. >> Mhm. >> Um I also notice that uh you've maintained the setback in the bylaw, which is also good. You've done a a good a reasonable job in um not extending these houses into um the uh the line of the projected line of the two houses on either side of you. So, so that was good. Um your interior side yards between the dwellings, you have a combined uh 1.2 m and uh 0.93 m for a total of 2.1, which you in in some of the newer developments uh they're getting away with 1.3, like 65 on either side. So, I think uh that was a good job uh as well to to ensure that the interior sideyards were a little bit wider. So, >> Thank you. >> Um I I'm pleased with that. Uh at at the end of the day uh I have to consider what the um what the impact would be uh and and I I quite honestly don't see this as being any kind of a negative impact. So, um I I I can support this. >> Thank you. >> Okay. If there aren't any other questions or concerns, if I could uh have a motion. >> Uh through you, member Oh, Mr. My apologies. Let me get oriented before I make the motion. Uh through Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion for file numbers B032/22, A071/22, and A092/22 for the consent and minor variances uh located at uh 389 Becker Road uh to be approved subject to the terms and conditions in the city's staff report. >> Moved by member Calvas, seconded by member Payne. Thank you for that. All in favor? Opposed? One opposed. It's approved. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> The next application on the agenda is uh located at 143 Regent Street. That is minor variance application A038/22. Uh Do we have any additional correspondence on this application? >> Uh through you, Mr. Chair, there was none. >> Thank you. Please proceed. I think we have your name and address for the record. >> Uh good evening, Mr. Chair, members of committee. My name is Joanna Fast. I'm a planner with Groundswell Urban Planners, and I'm here tonight on behalf of the owner of 143 Regent Street. Would it be possible to turn on the camera above um the podium? So, I'm here this evening um requesting a minor variance to permit a minimum side yard setback of 0.24 m, whereas the bylaw requires a setback of 1.2 m. Um it's important to note that um this is essentially uh an accessory structure. It's for a cabana. Um however, that cabana is it's right up against the house. So, technically, it's considered part of the main building. An accessory structure would be permitted a side yard setback of 0.6, but because this structure is directly adjacent to the house, as you can see here on the screen, um the bylaw requires that uh 1.2 m setback, and that was outlined in the staff report. Um so, we're here to >> [sighs] >> I guess um rectify an existing situation. If the committee's been out to the property, um you'll see that the the cabana structure was already constructed. It was actually constructed about 5 years ago um during you know, the this time of COVID. Um and uh my client uh hired a a contractor to complete the work, obtain all the necessary permits. Thought everything was fine. Unfortunately, a compliance issue after the construction happened was flagged by the city. And so my client's been trying to rectify that situation. Unfortunately, the contractor wasn't able to we weren't able to get a hold of the contractor after they did the work. And so my client was left to make those adjustments after the fact. Um I can show you a picture of the existing situation. I took that picture this afternoon. It shows the cabana. Not sure if the committee was able to enter. There was a gate, but maybe you've been able to when you went to the site you were able to get an idea of what it looks like. And then here's a picture of the side yard situation. So on this side is my client's property and then this is the neighbor's. So there's my my client's neighbor also has a structure that's very close to the side yard as well on their side. And I believe this application was before the committee in the fall of last year. I think it was October. Um and there were some concerns raised just about encroachment and so my client went back with her surveyor and did some additional work. Sorry. I'll leave I'll leave I'll leave that one on. If that's okay. Um the surveyor has gone out, re-surveyed everything. My client made some adjustments to the eaves of the the building. There's no further encroachments. And we did obtain a letter from the surveyor. I I show you that um, um, confirms the variance that is being requested this evening. >> [sighs] >> Um, so I think that's, uh, where I'll leave it for now, unless the committee has any other questions. Um. >> Okay, thank you. Is there anyone in our audience that would like to speak to this application? Yes, sir. Please come forward, state your name and address for the >> Brian Price. I live in uh, 141 Regent Street in in Heritage Estates. I live in a development where my house is probably about 20 ft away from the one on the left and one on the right. I have a uh, cabana that was built, which I have no control over what other people do in their backyards. So, so not so now that this cabana has been built up in my backyard, I've lost part of that 20-ft look of of houses far apart, but I have no control under what's the law of Richmond Hill. Now that a cabana's been built, which I have to accept, but the cabana is is actually on the the property line. And and not only is it is it on the property line, it oversees the property line line the hangover. The only thing that that they've corrected was the shed a plain wooden shed that that is not an issue at all because it can be lifted up and moved over. The shed is not the issue at all. And not only that, there's pipes coming out of the ground, which again are on the property line. And and this is not the first time that I've been here. This is the second time that I've been here because the first time it was voted three to two that that I was in the right that the cabana is too far to the too close to the property line. And this is not a cabana this is a full-size house that was built with with a foundation, with electricity, water, without any permits at all. And I and I and I accept the fact that they they built the cabana again is it's their own property, but at least be what the what the rules demand of Richmond Hill that it should be a certain distance away from the property line. And it's not. And I'm not I'm not the bad guy. I'm just I didn't call the town of Richmond Hill to complain. I never said a word. I was told by the town of Richmond Hill. This is a situation that there's no winners at all. We're both losers in the end. But the problem is does it really bother me? Not directly bothers me. What bothers me is is that when I come or I should die and leave the this property to my children, they will have a hard time when they someone wants to buy it and they do a survey and they say, "Hey, look at this. Everyone else has three or four feet in their backyard and your and your neighbor's go right against your fence. Well, we're taking off money off the price of your house cuz it's lost its value." I I I and and not only that well, there's other things too, but those are the main the main items really. >> Thank you, sir. >> That I feel. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Do you understand how I explained it? I do. Thank you. Okay. >> Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this application? Okay, I see none. Any further comments from our planning department? >> Through the chair, I have no comments. >> Thank you. And our members. Any further comments? Questions? Concerns? No? Member Calvis, anything? >> Through you, Mr. Chair. Um Could the applicant please really clarify what has been done since you were here in October? As you noted, there was a a three to two vote on the application on in the negative direction. So, what has been done? I'm not quite clear. >> I'm sorry to interrupt. I believe this was deferred, was it not? >> Yes. >> Yes, thank you. >> So, so it was a the the vote was to defer. You're telling me it was a three to vote to defer. >> No. Unanimous. >> Okay, so then there could not have been a vote. >> Right. >> Yeah, okay. Thank you. Please proceed. >> So, since that time um Sorry. Just wanted to make sure it was out of the picture. Um since that time, um my client uh has had her surveyor out. There was some encroachment of the eaves of the building. And so the the eavestroughs were changed. Um as well, there's a small um utility shed, I guess you could call it, um right here. And uh they made some changes to that um so that it wasn't an accessory structure. It's technically now considered a fence because it it it isn't enclosed anymore. So, there were some changes to that. That does uh sort of enclose the um the pumps and some um other utilities. You can see it on this picture, actually. Right there. And staff have confirmed that um that is acceptable and meets all of the bylaw requirements, but it does um kind of shield that um those uh um utilities in there. Um on the plan, you can see that there's an eavestrough here, and then it was kind of uh disconnected and changed here um so that there was no more uh encroachment on the neighbor's property. Um so, my owner uh sorry, my client had her surveyor out there. They were very diligent and made sure that um that this the setback requested is correct. And and there's no more encroachment. >> Okay. Thank you. Um >> [clears throat] >> Amber Galvin >> Thank you. That's very helpful. And to you, Mr. Chair, just to confirm you have mentioned that there if the cabana was not directly adjacent to the house that the requirement would be 0.6 m. >> That's correct. Yeah, that's also stated in the staff report. >> All right. And you're asking for 0.24 m. >> That's right. >> So even if it wasn't touching the house, you would still be asking for a variance. >> That's correct. Thank you. Um in in response to some of the concerns that were raised, I'm not sure if you're able to focus in on the survey or if you're able to bring it up. There we go. Oh. Sure. Yeah, or if you have it um uh in the submitted submission materials. Um so as I mentioned in my presentation, um my client does have an existing garage that's also located close proximity to their property line. Um in terms of the views of the structure, my client's cabana is beyond that if you can see it on the screen. It's further I guess we'll call it south. Um and so from their property, you really can't see it. Um my client has worked with the building department to rectify any outstanding concerns with respect to the construction of this accessory structure. Um and there's no outstanding concerns in terms of drainage uh or or anything else. We just have to get this minor variance to um resolve this matter. >> Okay, thank you for that. Uh, I just have a few comments myself. You you you can remain there if you wish. Um, I do remember this um in in detail. I had some concerns at that time with respect to drainage, but um based on the site visit and some elevations I believe that were provided at that time. It looks like the drainage is split at that point. It some of it goes to the to the other direction of the property towards the pool and the rest will travel along the side of the garage. So, that was not a concern. Engineering, there were no comments and as noted in the staff report, only the comments only the departments that actually have comments are listed in the staff report. So, engineering doesn't have a concern. Um, but I it looks like I am looking at a a plan that is not accurate. Um, so I would like to take a look at that survey if you don't mind if you could bring it to me because the architectural plan shows .09 meters setback and you're asking for .24. So, I think that we're dealing with an old architectural site plan and you have an updated survey. So, I don't really have the information in front of me to to review. So, let me just give me a second to zoom in over here with my uh magnifying glass and see if I can determine >> Mr. Chair, I think you are correct that the site plan that was included in the the staff report is an older plan that was submitted and now we're going off of the survey plan that is the most accurate, reflects everything on the site um that is surveyed in detail. >> Okay. Oh, I'm looking for the dimension .24 and um I don't see it. What I do see is a .42 and I'm wondering if the .24 is actually measured from the overhang to the property line as opposed to the wall to the property line. >> Yes. >> I don't see that. Oh, there's Yeah, actually >> Staff did ask for clarification. >> see. Is that Yeah, take a look at that. >> Oh. >> No. >> This is different from what >> It is? Okay, so This is dated April 6th, 2026 and that is October 17th, 2022. So >> Our surveyor did provide that letter that um I provided to you confirming that they went out to the site and they confirmed that setback. >> Well, and you have a letter. >> Yes. >> From the surveyor. At the time we find found the closest building corner the frame and aluminum sunroom had a setback tie of .24 m to the westerly property line. Okay, it's just not identified on the plan. >> It's my understanding that building staff went out and did verify that. >> Mhm. I'm seeing quite a few other dimensions .47 .29 63 42 just not the 24 that you're requesting. Okay, uh we have a surveyor's letter. Um at this point this surveyor is uh on Ontario licensed Ontario land surveyor. So, we're we're going to um accept the letter at face value. That's all we can do at this time. Um Any other further comments, concerns by our members, please? >> I I I do. Um through you, Mr. Chair. If this owner was applying for a permit today, uh [clears throat] what sorts of changes would the city expect in in your opinion? >> Um well, Member Payne, as I mentioned, um my client has worked with uh the building department to satisfy any engineering concerns in that regard. Um but the city would require a minor variance, as Member Kelvis pointed out, because the we are not meeting that side yard setback. >> Cuz if I were the person living beside this property, I I would have serious concerns about how it would impact um my ability to even sell my home at any point because you've got this overbuilt complex next door that doesn't make any any sense at all. Um so, >> Would it be possible to bring up the picture on um on the camera again that's shown? Or maybe if you wouldn't mind, uh Member Payne, if I could bring this up to you or or if >> Well, I have my own picture, too, and it contributes to my >> So, as you can see from that picture, I took that this afternoon. Um the neighbor has a large garage that is also similarly um, set back. It's it it's not the same setback, but it's a similar condition in that it's right up to the side yard. Um, and in terms of, you know, >> No one's going to be going through that narrow little corridor. >> Yes. Uh-huh. >> I I under- I understand your point, but I also understand >> Neither property uses it for amenity area or amenity space. It's purely, you know, access to the side of their building for any minor repairs. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, just one other comment. Correct me if I'm wrong. Once the variance um, once you obtain the variance for the side yard, your client will be required to submit a building permit for this because >> They they have, but they cannot get their permit until >> until this is approved. Okay, so a permit even though it was built perhaps without a permit at that time, they're going through the permit process to make sure all of the other issues have been addressed. >> Yes, and that's why there's no other comments or concerns noted here as we have been my client has been working through that. >> Understood. Thank you. Okay. If there aren't any other questions or concerns, I would ask the members to um, give a motion. Member Calvis. >> Um, through you, Mr. Chair, noting that the uh, building is right along the side of an existing brick garage as well, so it's not like it's blocking something else on the property line. Um, I'm inclined to provide a motion to approve the application, so I'd like to make a motion for 143 Regent Street uh, to uh, file number A038/22 22 uh, to be approved subject to the terms and conditions in the city staff report. >> Moved by member Calvis, seconded by member Payne. All in favor of the application? Opposed? Two in favor, one opposed. It's approved. Thank you. That concludes uh this evening's meeting. You're all welcome to leave if you wish. And do we want to deal with any other business or we're waiting? >> We allowed to comment? >> No, that's it. >> Uh no, after an application has been decided upon, there's no more further discussion inside council chambers. >> Thank you for coming. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anything we can do for you, sir? Is there >> Yeah, there is another case for today, right? >> I don't believe there is. >> Yeah, there is. 16 Kimberly Court. >> Uh there were only two applications on the agenda. Uh >> I have the agenda from City of Richmond, yeah. >> Uh that uh application was deferred from the agenda and the notices were updated. >> Can I show you that? >> Yes, that's the notice of hearing. The application was deferred from the agenda and it was only updated on the webpage where we publish the notices. This that did not have a direct notification list. >> It won't be heard this evening. >> It won't be heard this evening. >> If it won't be heard, it means it's approved or rejected. >> It's deferred. >> It's deferred. >> Are there dates? >> Yeah, correct and you'll be notified. >> But how do you notify the neighbors? I received this letter by the city clerk. another letter >> If it were to be scheduled for another meeting, you would receive another letter. >> I will. >> Yes. >> After today. But I put my time to come here today. It's not fair. >> Unfortunately, we it's because of the paper notices we do update our webpage with the notice of deferral. >> They are not acceptable. >> Thank you, sir. >> May I make a suggestion for future? Uh I suggest at the beginning of every meeting you mention the list of the items of the day. If I knew at the beginning, I would have got right? >> Thank you. >> Does it make sense? >> Yes, thank you for that. >> Thank you. >> Okay, do we have any other business? >> Through you, the chair, there's no new business. >> No other business. Uh do we have any comments on the minutes or we don't take comments anymore on the minutes? Or we're approving the minutes. Right? >> Correct. >> If you choose to approve, yes. >> [laughter] >> Okay. Minutes are okay? Any comments? Questions on the minutes? >> I'd like to make a motion to accept the minutes of the meeting of Thursday, July 16th. >> Move. >> 2026 >> Okay, moved by member Payne, seconded by member Calvis. All in favor. Minutes are approved. And we would need a motion to adjourn this evening's >> If I may make a motion to adjourn the meeting. >> Moved by member Payne, seconded by member Calvis. All in favor?