HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 11, 2021Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 1 of 15
Present
Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair
David Johnson – Chair
Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley
Also Present
Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer
Samantha O’Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Felix Chau, Planner II Isabel Lima, (Acting) Planner II
1.Disclosure of Interest
No disclosures of interest were noted.
2.Adoption of Agenda
Moved by Eric NewtonSeconded by Tom Copeland
That the agenda for the Wednesday, August 11, 2021 hearing be adopted.
Carried Unanimously
3.Adoption of Minutes
Moved by Eric NewtonSeconded by Tom Copeland
That the minutes of the 7th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday,
July 14, 2021 be adopted, as amended.
Carried Unanimously
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 2 of 15
4. Reports
4.1 P/CA 52/21
E. Macaulay
645 Annland Street
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18,
to permit:
• a minimum side yard setback of 0.6 of a metre on the east side yard whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres;
• a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres on the west side yard whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres;
• a maximum lot coverage of 38.1 percent whereas the By-law establishes a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent;
• a maximum building height of 10.3 metres whereas the By-law establishes maximum building height of 9.0 metres; and
• an accessory structure (shed) greater than 10 square metres in area to be set back
a minimum of 0.7 of a metre from the westerly lot line whereas the By-law requires all accessory structures greater than 10 square metres in area to be set back a minimum of 1.0 metre from all lot lines.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to facilitate the construction of a single detached dwelling and to recognize an existing accessory
structure (shed).
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Refusal of the requested variances related to the proposed single detached dwelling, and Approval of the requested variance regarding the existing accessory structure (shed), subject to a condition. The Secretary-Treasurer
outlined that should the Committee find merit in approving the requested variances related to the proposed single detached dwelling and existing accessory structure, that an alternative condition is recommended by City staff.
Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application.
Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should ensure any additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. Consideration for the use of multiple Low Impact Development measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450mm topsoil)
should be made at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 3 of 15
Written comments were received from Durham Region expressing no objection to the application.
Written comments were received from the owners of 641, 643, 644, 646, 647 and
650 Annland Street & 1315 Wharf Street, in support of the application.
Ida Evangelista, agent, was present to represent the application.
Elizabeth MacAulay, applicant, was present to represent the application.
Multiple attempts were made at connecting Mateen & Samina Farooqui, registered
participants in objection, however all attempts at connecting them to the electronic
meeting were unsuccessful. Written comments submitted by Mateen & Samina Farooqu were taken under consideration by the Committee.
No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Ida Evangelista spoke in support of the application and outlined the following:
• in agreeance with some of the comments provided by City staff in the Report to the Committee of Adjustment;
• confirmed the Committee’s receipt of the submission package provided in support of the application;
• outlined the proposal is believed to be in keeping with the current built form of the neighbourhood, as this location is subject to intensification and regeneration;
• indicated the rear yard of the subject property backs onto a park, the view west is a
new home and view east is an existing dwelling;
• the requested variance for an east side yard setback of 0.6 of a metre is a result of the unusual shape of the lot;
• in the past the dwelling on the east side was built over the lot line, which resulted in a loss of a portion of the land
• the second variance request for a west side yard setback of 1.5 metres is to
accommodate the southwest corner of the property;
• the lot coverage variance request for 38.1 percent is to accommodate the covered porch areas in the front and rear of the property for architectural design purposes and outlined that if the applicant were to remove this and the carved-out portion of the land, the lot coverage calculation would be at 31 percent and in compliance with
the By-law;
• if the applicant were to remove only the front and rear covered porches, the lot coverage would be approximately 35 percent
• the surrounding built form has dwelling heights of up to 11.3 metres and that the calculation of the building height is to the mid-point of the roof;
• if the calculation was only done by measuring the height of the dwelling before the roof line, it would be 9.66 metres in height;
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 4 of 15
• the proposed height and positioning of the building along with the terracing at front
and rear of the property has been designed with the intent of maintaining a
favourable relationship with the neighbouring homes, in order to accommodate light, air and maintenance;
• the dwelling is positioned north and south, where the east and west sides will have little to no impact on shadowing and the terracing on the west elevation is designed
to mitigate any height concerns;
• the building height up to the second floor is 4.25 metres, up to the third floor is 7.25 metres, and up to the underside a height of 9.66 metres;
• 7 letters of support have been received from neighbours;
• this proposal acknowledges the existing shed to remain;
• this application will maintain an appropriate relationship with the surrounding area, it
appears to be similar in characteristic of other dwellings, and the roofline design was created with the intent of being similar to other rooflines and built form in the neighbourhood.
Elizabeth MacAulay spoke in support of the application stating an admiration for the neighbourhood and community, with a desire to build their forever home. The proposal
is to facilitate the creation of a dwelling with adequate office space for a studio that provides workshops and training sessions. There is an expectation for a professional setup and delivery of top quality experiences which requires additional space compared to typical home offices. Elizabeth MacAulay added that the additional space will also allow for family visits.
In response to questions from Committee Members, Ida Evangelista stated the current east side yard setback from the property line to the dwelling is 2.05 metres. When asked if the applicants have taken into account the Infill and Replacement Housing Study in their design, Ida Evangelista noted that Elizabeth MacAulay is aware of the
City’s Study and has worked very closely with the Town of Markham on a similar
program. Elizabeth MacAulay is very active in the community and has taken a great deal of care with designing this proposal. When asked why the applicants are unable to design a new dwelling to meet the height requirements of the By-law, Ida Evangelista indicated the requested height facilitates additional space for a more conducive “work
from home” atmosphere on the third floor. Moreover the extra space would allow for a
growing family, more comfortable visits, a place to care for family and a multi-generational home, if needed. When asked what the square footage of the home, Ida Evangelista advised that the above-grade square footage is approximately 3,000 square feet (914.4 square metres). Ida Evangelista indicated that the request to
increase lot coverage is a result of a portion of the property being irregular and that all
covered areas are included. Ida Evangelista advised the proposed dwelling does extend slightly beyond the rear wall of the abutting single-storey property to the east, and it does extend beyond the front wall of the abutting property to the east, which maintains the existing location in the front yard.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 5 of 15
When asked if there were any submitted renderings that show the proposed 3-storey dwelling beside the neighbouring single-storey dwelling for comparison, Ida Evangelista
replied that it is believed to be submitted to the City.
A Committee Member commented on the request for height variance in the neighbourhood stating that this area has been under great review over the years, and the Infill and Replacement House Study enacted by Council restricts building height as a result of concerns by the neighbourhood. In the past, the Committee of Adjustment
has declined applications above 10 metres in the same neighbourhood.
Based on the City Development’s Report deeming the proposed side yard setback of 0.6 metres to be acceptable despite the neighbours concern, the unique property shape, the design illustrating the reduced setback only being a small portion of the dwelling, the City’s report capturing the height request well, noting the step-back design,
and taking into account the transition between the property to the west and the property
to the east, a 10.3 metre height verses the maximum 9 metres appears to be minor and relative to the 11.6 metres in height which is to the west. Taking into account all of these details and the additional description from the applicant and agent, Sean Wiley moved the following motion:
Moved by Sean Wiley
Seconded by Eric Newton
That application P/CA 52/21 by E. Macaulay, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the
Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition:
1. That these variances apply only to the proposed single detached dwelling and existing accessory structure (shed), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated August 11, 2021).
Motion Lost
Vote:
Tom Copeland opposed David Johnson opposed Eric Newton in favour
Denise Rundle opposed
Sean Wiley in favour
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 6 of 15
Given the context of this application being located just outside of the area subject to the Urban Design Guidelines and taking into account those Guidelines based on the
uniqueness of this neighbourhood, recognizing there are a variety of housing styles in
this area, acknowledging this is a 15.24 metre (50 feet) lot, the building height request, the standards on the street, new builds and the proposed 914.4 square metres (3,000 square feet) having plenty of floor space to accommodate a “work from home” situation, and after reading the City’s Report, listening and reading objections from
neighbours, as well as reviewing the comments from the applicant, Denise Rundle
stated her agreement with City staff’s first recommendation.
A Committee Member commented on the points stated and would like to consider the first 4 variances requested by the applicant with the exception of the height variance request, in order to build their forever home within the confines of these limits.
Denise Rundle moved the following motion, as recommended by staff:
Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland
That an accessory structure (shed) greater than 10 square metres in area to be set back a minimum of 0.7 of a metre from the westerly lot line, for P/CA 52/21 by
E. Macaulay, be Approved on the grounds that this variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition:
1. That this variance apply only to the existing accessory structure (shed), as generally
sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in
the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated August 11, 2021).
and
That a minimum side yard setback of 0.6 of a metre on the east side yard, a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres on the west side yard, a maximum lot coverage of
38.1 percent and a maximum building height of 10.3 metres, for P/CA 52/21 by
E. Macaulay, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variances are not be in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
Carried
Vote:
Tom Copeland in favour
David Johnson in favour Eric Newton opposed Denise Rundle in favour Sean Wiley opposed
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 7 of 15
4.2 P/CA 66/21 DWK Holdings Inc.
1735 Orangebrook Court
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit a minimum rear yard setback of 5.6 metres whereas 7.5 metres is required.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to construct
a one-storey addition to an industrial building.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition.
Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing
no comments on the application.
Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application.
Written comments were received from Durham Region expressing no objection to the application.
Morry Edelstein, agent, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Morry Edelstein spoke in support of the application stating that in 2016 the previous owners came to the Committee of Adjustment for the same identical variance request of a 5.63 metre rear yard setback, to construct an addition to the existing industrial
building. The ownership has since changed and the current owner wishes to construct
another addition in line with previous addition and therefore is asking for the same variance of 5.63 metres.
In response to a question from a Committee Member, Morry Edelstein advised that the site is occupied by a drain construction business.
Tom Copeland moved the following motion:
Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley
That application P/CA 66/21 by DWK Holdings Inc., be Approved on the grounds that
the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of
the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition:
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 8 of 15
1. That this variance apply only to the industrial building addition, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, & 5
contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated August 11,
2021).
Carried Unanimously
4.3 P/CA 67/21 L. & D. Comeau
1525 Nipissing Court
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4123/92, to permit:
• a minimum rear yard depth of 5.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres; and
• a maximum lot coverage of 43 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot
coverage of 40 percent.
The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the submission of an Application for Building Permit to permit the construction of a sunroom and uncovered deck.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development
Department recommending Approval subject to a condition.
Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application.
Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application.
Written comments were received from the Region of Durham expressing no objection to the proposal.
Louis Comeau, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
After reading the Report by the City Development Department to the Committee of
Adjustment and reviewing the application, as well as seeing no objections from neighbours, Sean Wiley moved the following motion:
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 9 of 15
Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton
That application P/CA 67/21 by L. & D. Comeau, be Approved on the grounds that the
requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition:
1. That these variances apply only to the proposed sunroom and uncovered deck, as
generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3,
4, 5 & 6 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated August 11, 2021).
Carried Unanimously
4.4 P/CA 68/21
J. Bevan & M. O’Reilly
1791 Spruce Hill Road
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit an
uncovered platform 3.2 metres in height above grade to project 0.25 of a metre into the
required north side yard whereas the By-law only permits uncovered platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 0.5 of a metre into any required side yard.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to recognize
an addition to a rear yard platform.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition.
Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application.
Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department
expressing no comments on the application.
Written comments were received from Durham Region expressing no objection to the application.
Jody Bevan, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 10 of 15
In response to a question from a Committee Member, Jody Bevan stated the addition was built in approximately 2016. The house was purchased with an existing deck in the
rear yard where the addition to the deck was constructed and has remained for
approximately the last 5 years.
The application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, as such Denise Rundle moved the following motion:
Moved by Denise Rundle
Seconded by Eric Newton
That application P/CA 68/21 by J. Bevan & M. O’Reilly, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition:
1. That this variance apply only to the rear yard platform, as generally sited and
outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated August 11, 2021).
Carried Unanimously
4.5 P/CA 69/21
C. & G. Palmer
1599 Seguin Square
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4487/94,
to:
• permit an uncovered and covered steps and platform (rear deck) not exceeding 1.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.4 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not
exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres in any required side yard;
• recognize an accessory structure (existing shed) that is greater than 1.8 metres in
height and is set back a minimum of 0.6 metres from the west side lot line and 0.6 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law requires accessory structures greater than 1.8 metres in height to be set back a minimum of 1.0 metres from all lot lines; and
• permit a maximum lot coverage of 45 percent, whereas the By-law permits a
maximum lot coverage of 38 percent.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 11 of 15
The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for an uncovered and covered deck, and to recognize an existing shed.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development
Department recommending Approval for the variances to permit an uncovered and covered steps and platform (rear deck) not exceeding 1.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.4 metres into the required rear yard and to permit a maximum lot coverage of 43 percent, subject to a condition, and Refusal of the
requested variance to recognize an accessory structure (existing shed) that is greater
than 1.8 metres in height and is set back a minimum of 0.6 metres from the west side lot line and 0.6 metres from the rear lot line. Alternatively, if the applicant were to request that the application be amended to recognize an accessory structure (existing shed) that is greater than 1.8 metres in height and is set back a minimum of 0.6 metres from
the rear lot line only the City Development Department would recommend Approval,
subject to conditions.
Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application.
Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department
stating that there is a 1.2 metre wide easement on the property known as Part 1, Plan
40R-16571. The existing shed is to be located outside of the easement, a minimum of 1.2 metres from the side (west) lot line.
Written comments were received from the Region of Durham expressing no objections to the proposal.
Spencer Joy, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation
was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Spencer Joy spoke in support of the application stating that after consultation with the homeowners, they have decided to remove the shed based on Engineering Services comments and the City Development Department’s recommendation for Refusal.
He further advised that this would reduce the roof lot coverage by 2% and request to
have the application amended to accommodate this request.
In response to questions from a Committee Member, Spencer Joy confirmed the existing shed will be removed.
In response to questions from a Committee Member, Spencer Joy confirmed that the
second variance is withdrawn as the shed will be torn down during the construction of
the deck and roof.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 12 of 15
Committee Members spoke briefly about the conditions of approval as recommended by the City Development Department staff in the Report, given that the application is now
considered revised.
In response to a question from a Committee Member, Spencer Joy clarified that based on the revised request, the lot coverage is now reduced to 43%.
In response to a question from a Committee Member, Spencer Joy stated the owners intend to demolish the shed as soon the Building Permit is approved. This is anticipated
around September or October 2021.
After considering the application, as revised by the applicant to include only the first and third requested variances outlined within the City Development Department’s Report to the Committee of Adjustment, and noting the reduction in lot coverage to 43%, the revised request appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle
moved the following motion:
Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton
That application P/CA 69/21 by C. & G. Palmer, be Approved as modified by the applicant to permit a maximum lot coverage of 43 percent and an uncovered and
covered steps and platform (rear deck) not exceeding 1.6 metres in height above-grade
and not projecting more than 2.4 metres into the required rear yard are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions:
1. That these variances apply only to the proposed uncovered/covered steps and
platform (rear deck), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated August 11, 2021).
2. That the existing shed be demolished prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
Carried Unanimously
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 13 of 15
4.6 P/CA 70/21 to P/CA 72/21 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited
3195 Mulberry Lane
P/CA 70/21 – Lot 278
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law
7857/21, to permit a minimum rear yard of 3.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a
minimum rear yard of 5.0 metres.
P/CA 71/21 – Lot 279
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit:
• a minimum rear yard of 2.4 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 5.0 metres; and
• an attached private garage accessed only by a driveway from the street to be
located no closer than 4.3 metres to the front lot line abutting the street where the wall of the private garage containing the opening for vehicular access faces the lot line abutting the street; whereas the By-law requires attached private garages accessed only by a driveway from a street to be located no closer than 6.0 metres to the lot line abutting the street where the wall of the private garage containing the
opening for vehicular access faces the lot line abutting the street.
P/CA 72/21 – Lot 292
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit a minimum rear yard of 4.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 5.0 metres.
The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to permit the future construction of three detached dwellings within Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP 2009-12.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition.
Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application.
Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 14 of 15
Written comments were received from the Region of Durham expressing no objection to the application.
Andrew Scott, Mattamy (Seaton) Limited, agent, was present to represent the
application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
In response to a question from a Committee Member, Andrew Scott stated the internal roads within this subdivision will be built in the future. Currently only Mulberry Lane
exists, however with the approval of these minor variance applications, Lot 278 and Lot
279 would be on Heartwood Lane and Lot 292 would be on Honey Locust Place.
After having read the Report by the City Development Department to the Committee of Adjustment, and reviewed the drawings provided by the applicant, the applications appear to be minor in nature, especially with the irregular shape of the lots in this new
subdivision, Tom Copeland moved the following motion:
Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley
That applications P/CA 70/21 to P/CA 72/21 by Mattamy (Seaton) Limited, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable
for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and
purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition:
1. That these variances apply only to the three proposed detached dwellings, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated August 11,
2021).
Carried Unanimously
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 15 of 15
5. Adjournment
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Sean Wiley
That the 8th hearing of the 2021 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:02 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, September 8, 2021.
Carried Unanimously
__________________________
Date
__________________________ Chair
__________________________
Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
September 8, 2021