[0:00] This meeting is being held in person and

[0:02] electronically in accordance with the

[0:04] Municipal Act.

[0:05] There are [snorts] four public meetings

[0:06] being held this evening.

[0:09] If you are joining the meeting virtually

[0:10] and have not yet registered and wish to

[0:12] speak,

[0:13] please email cityclerk@barrie.ca.

[0:17] And staff will email you the information

[0:19] to participate virtually.

[0:22] The first public meeting is to review an

[0:24] application submitted by the Jones

[0:25] Consulting Group Limited

[0:27] on behalf of Global Telecom Inc. for an

[0:30] official plan amendment and amendment to

[0:31] the zoning by-law for 501 to 525 Tiffin

[0:36] Street.

[0:37] The second public meeting is to review

[0:39] an application submitted by Flagship

[0:41] Developments

[0:42] on behalf of St. Joseph Developments

[0:43] Inc.

[0:45] for a draft plan of subdivision,

[0:47] official plan amendment, and amendment

[0:49] to the zoning by-law for 49 Miller

[0:51] Drive.

[0:54] The third public meeting is to receive

[0:55] an application submitted by Derek

[0:58] Battaglia

[0:59] for an amendment to the zoning by-law

[1:01] for 205 Jean Street.

[1:04] The fourth public meeting is to review

[1:06] an amendment to the zoning by-law to

[1:08] support Royal Victoria Regional Health

[1:10] Centre's redevelopment and future

[1:12] expansion.

[1:14] Members of committee will be listening

[1:15] to the presentation and comments

[1:17] received during the public meeting,

[1:19] but will not be making comments or

[1:21] debating the items tonight.

[1:24] Committee members will have an

[1:25] opportunity to provide comments when the

[1:26] staff report is considered by General

[1:29] Committee at a later date.

[1:32] Interested persons wishing to receive

[1:35] notification of the staff report

[1:37] can sign the notification form at the

[1:38] back of Council Chambers or by emailing

[1:41] cityclerk@barrie.ca.

[1:44] Michelle Banfield, Executive Director of

[1:46] Development Services, would you please

[1:48] confirm that the notifications were

[1:50] conducted in accordance with the

[1:51] Planning Act for tonight's public

[1:53] meeting?

[1:54] Yes, Chair Nixon, it was.

[1:57] >> [clears throat]

[1:57] >> Thank you.

[1:59] I will now call upon Amanda Newlove of

[2:02] the Jones Consulting Group to provide

[2:05] the presentation concerning the official

[2:06] plan amendment and amendment to the

[2:08] zoning by-law for 501 to 525 Tiffin

[2:12] Street.

[2:15] Nope, go ahead.

[2:18] Yes, good afternoon. My name is Amanda

[2:20] Newlove and I am a senior planner with

[2:23] the Jones Consulting Group and we

[2:25] represent the owner of the lands at 501

[2:28] and 525 Tiffin Street who have submitted

[2:31] an official plan amendment and zoning

[2:33] by-law amendment application for an

[2:35] industrial development. I am also joined

[2:38] today by the project engineer, Duncan

[2:41] Richardson, and traffic engineer, John

[2:43] Northcote.

[2:47] So, the subject lands are outlined in

[2:48] red with a lot area of approximately 6.8

[2:52] hectares and 209 m along Tiffin Street.

[2:56] The lands are vacant and partially

[2:58] treed. A partial area of the lands has

[3:01] been previously disturbed as shown in

[3:03] the air photo.

[3:04] An environmental impact study has

[3:06] determined the developable limits and

[3:09] the developable area of 2.1 hectares,

[3:11] which coincides with the area that's

[3:13] been generally cleared. According to

[3:16] historical aerial mapping, this area has

[3:18] been cleared for approximately 15 years.

[3:23] So, the lands along Tiffin Street have

[3:25] historically been an employment lands

[3:27] area. The lands to the north and west

[3:30] consist of industrial and commercial

[3:33] uses and the lands to the south and east

[3:36] are vacant environmental lands. The

[3:38] Barrie-Collingwood Railway is also

[3:41] located directly along the south border.

[3:46] So, this is the proposed site plan.

[3:48] There are three industrial buildings.

[3:51] The largest building is to the

[3:53] southeast, which is approximately 3,000

[3:56] sq m in size.

[3:58] The building to the northeast is about

[4:01] 1,400 sq m in size and these buildings

[4:04] have been designed to be more spacious

[4:06] for manufacturing type uses. The third

[4:10] building along the west border is

[4:13] proposed to contain seven units for

[4:16] seven different types of industrial

[4:18] uses.

[4:19] In accordance with the zoning by-law

[4:21] proposed zone of general industrial uses

[4:24] that are proposed to go within these

[4:26] units could be a custom workshop, self

[4:29] storage, office

[4:31] uses along that nature.

[4:34] The environmental impact study

[4:37] defined the developable limits. So, the

[4:39] green line along the site plan is the

[4:42] limit of the features and the red line

[4:45] is the limit of that buffer. So, only

[4:48] within the red line is where development

[4:50] is proposed, which coincides with the

[4:53] area that's been previously disturbed.

[4:57] So, 2/3 of the property will remain

[5:00] designated natural heritage and zoned

[5:03] environmental protection.

[5:06] There are two accesses proposed from

[5:08] Tiffin Street to coincide with the city

[5:10] standards and accommodate emergency

[5:13] vehicles. The eastern access will cross

[5:16] through the limits of the environmental

[5:18] features and this has been reviewed and

[5:21] supported by the environmental impact

[5:23] study

[5:24] and is being reviewed by the city and

[5:26] the LSRCA. It should be noted that the

[5:29] environmental impact study also

[5:31] concluded that that area

[5:33] where the east access is proposed has

[5:36] been previously disturbed from the

[5:38] construction and maintenance of Tiffin

[5:40] Street and there will be a 5-m road

[5:43] widening along the frontage of Tiffin

[5:45] Street as well.

[5:49] So, these are some renderings showing

[5:51] more images of the proposed development

[5:53] concept. Elevation drawings will be

[5:55] provided through site plan control, but

[5:58] the buildings are proposed to comply

[6:01] with the general industrial zone, so the

[6:02] maximum building height is 12 m.

[6:05] All landscaping and the naturalization

[6:09] buffer to the limit of the feature will

[6:12] be further reviewed through site plan

[6:13] control.

[6:17] So, the purpose of the official plan

[6:18] amendment is to redesignate that portion

[6:21] within the red boundary

[6:23] to employment area industrial and the

[6:26] purpose of the zoning by-law amendment

[6:28] is to rezone that portion to general

[6:30] industrial and the remainder of the

[6:32] lands will remain environmental

[6:34] protection.

[6:36] So, as submitted in our planning

[6:38] justification report, it is our opinion

[6:41] that the applications are consistent

[6:43] with the provincial planning statement.

[6:45] The lands are located within the City of

[6:47] Barrie settlement area and directly

[6:49] adjacent to the built-up area.

[6:51] The uses proposed will continue to add

[6:53] to the city's diverse economic base and

[6:56] provide employment opportunities while

[6:58] remaining compatible with the

[6:59] surrounding uses.

[7:01] The development will introduce

[7:03] industrial uses into an area that the

[7:05] city has identified as employment lands

[7:08] in the City of Barrie.

[7:09] The majority of the corridor along

[7:11] Tiffin Street has been identified as an

[7:14] employment area in the city and the

[7:16] development of the property with the

[7:18] less intense industrial uses will

[7:20] further secure this area as an

[7:22] employment area in the long term.

[7:25] As noted, only approximately 1/3 of the

[7:28] lands will be developed while the rest

[7:30] will remain in their natural state to

[7:33] protect the environmental features to

[7:34] the south of the property.

[7:36] The site is located on an arterial road

[7:39] of Tiffin Street providing easy access

[7:42] to Highway 400 and the site will be

[7:44] serviced with municipal services without

[7:47] requiring an extension.

[7:51] So, the lands are currently designated

[7:53] natural heritage system in the City of

[7:55] Barrie official plan. As one can see,

[7:58] the surrounding lands are an employment

[8:00] area with the employment area

[8:02] designation industrial and

[8:04] non-industrial to the north and west and

[8:06] east.

[8:08] To be consistent with this, the

[8:09] developable area is proposed to be

[8:11] designated employment area industrial to

[8:14] permit these industrial uses.

[8:17] So, similarly, the lands are zoned

[8:20] environmental protection, but one can

[8:22] see the general industrial zone is

[8:24] located directly north and west of the

[8:26] lands.

[8:28] And as such, the zoning by-law amendment

[8:30] is proposed to rezone the developable

[8:32] area to general industrial as well.

[8:40] So, in terms of servicing, there is an

[8:43] existing city water main and sanitary

[8:45] sewer along Tiffin Street, which the

[8:47] lands are proposed to connect to.

[8:50] There has been a stormwater management

[8:52] plan prepared, which includes the use of

[8:54] one dry pond, a storm sewer system, two

[8:58] underground ADS StormTech systems, three

[9:01] rooftop water storages, three oil grit

[9:04] separators, and one storm filter to

[9:06] address both quality and quantity

[9:08] control.

[9:10] A variety of low impact development or

[9:12] LID measures are also being implemented

[9:15] to address the runoff volume and the

[9:18] lands will be serviced by secondary

[9:20] utilities.

[9:23] In terms of traffic and the other

[9:25] studies, as I've noted, a 5-m road

[9:27] widening will be provided along Tiffin

[9:30] Street. The traffic impact study did

[9:32] complete an intersection operation

[9:34] analysis and no additional

[9:36] infrastructure improvements are

[9:38] recommended.

[9:39] The traffic impact study also

[9:41] recommended a temporary transit stop

[9:44] either on the north or south side of

[9:47] Tiffin Street

[9:48] to provide facilitate access to

[9:52] pedestrian and cycling infrastructure

[9:54] ahead of the planned infrastructure in

[9:56] the area. City staff have provided

[9:58] transit comments which the applicant is

[10:00] reviewing.

[10:02] The proposed parking supply will meet

[10:04] the parking requirements in the zoning

[10:05] by-law and bicycle parking has also been

[10:08] provided. And a number of additional

[10:10] studies and reports have been provided

[10:13] such as our planning justification

[10:15] study, functional servicing report, etc.

[10:18] which are being reviewed by the city and

[10:20] conservation authority.

[10:24] So, in conclusion, the proposed

[10:25] applications will facilitate the

[10:27] development of three industrial

[10:29] buildings on a site that is within the

[10:32] settlement boundary of the city of

[10:33] Barrie and directly adjacent to the

[10:35] built-up area and on lands identified as

[10:38] an employment area.

[10:40] The development proposes to intensify

[10:42] vacant land that otherwise would remain

[10:44] underutilized.

[10:46] Extensive environmental work has been

[10:48] completed to determine the developable

[10:50] area to ensure the natural heritage

[10:52] features will be protected and

[10:54] appropriate buffers are being provided.

[10:57] The site will be connected to full

[10:58] municipal services without requiring any

[11:00] extensions.

[11:02] The proposed development will not add

[11:04] any significant delay or congestion to

[11:06] the local roadway network or any

[11:08] operational issues.

[11:10] The proposed buildings are compatible

[11:11] with the industrial nature of the

[11:13] neighborhood. The uses will continue to

[11:15] add to the city's diverse economic base

[11:17] and will provide employment

[11:19] opportunities for residents.

[11:21] So, it is our opinion that the proposed

[11:23] applications are consistent with the

[11:25] provincial planning statement and meet

[11:27] the intent of the city's official plan

[11:29] and comprehensive zoning by-law. So,

[11:31] thank you so much and happy to answer

[11:34] any questions.

[11:36] Okay, thank you. We'll now move to

[11:38] public comments.

[11:39] >> [clears throat]

[11:39] >> If there are any members of the public

[11:41] who wish to provide comments regarding

[11:43] our first presentation, please approach

[11:45] the podium and begin by stating your

[11:46] first and last name and address for the

[11:49] record.

[11:55] Seeing none.

[11:56] Um

[12:01] Okay, as we have no

[12:03] um

[12:04] members of the public wishing to join in

[12:06] virtually, I will ask members of

[12:08] committee, do you have any questions uh

[12:10] of clarification?

[12:16] Seeing none.

[12:18] Okay.

[12:19] We will um

[12:25] Oh.

[12:26] Councilor Nagusi, yeah, go ahead, sir.

[12:28] Thank you, uh Chair Nixon. Uh quick

[12:30] question to staff, probably Miss

[12:32] Banfield.

[12:34] Is the house at 485 Tiffin Street, uh

[12:38] near to the proposed location,

[12:40] condemned? Can you give us a little bit

[12:43] background on that?

[12:45] Through you, Chair Nixon and Councilor

[12:47] Nagusi, uh that building is not

[12:49] condemned at 485 Tiffin. Okay, thank

[12:52] you.

[12:53] Uh to the presenter, uh that was a great

[12:56] presentation. Thank you for your time.

[12:58] In terms of parking and access,

[13:01] is the proposed parking sufficient for

[13:04] all uh employees and visitors? And

[13:08] how will the vehicle, you know,

[13:10] circulation, including trucks, can be

[13:13] managed

[13:14] to prevent conjunction on Tiffin Street?

[13:20] Thank you. So, through the chair, there

[13:21] is 168 parking spaces proposed which

[13:25] meet the requirements in the zoning

[13:27] by-law. Uh traffic impact study has been

[13:29] prepared to review congestion and

[13:32] operations and there's been uh there's

[13:34] no issues identified. The traffic

[13:36] engineer is here in attendance if you

[13:38] would like further uh clarification on

[13:40] that.

[13:41] Yeah, I'll I'll I'll be happy if I

[13:55] Thank you.

[13:55] So, through you, Chair, uh to Councilor

[13:57] Nagusi, yes, we did a traffic impact

[13:59] study and that included a parking

[14:00] justification for it. Um and we also did

[14:03] a swept path analysis that showed the

[14:05] movement of passenger vehicles, trucks,

[14:08] and waste vehicles going through the

[14:09] site. And all movements can can occur as

[14:12] required. Okay.

[14:14] And the other thing is, I know I saw the

[14:16] document, but I I I really want you to

[14:18] talk about the storm water and the

[14:21] drainage issue.

[14:23] Uh I'm not quite sure what kind of

[14:25] measures are being implemented for storm

[14:28] water management.

[14:30] And how will the

[14:32] they prevent, you know, run-off from

[14:35] impacting adjacent land or natural

[14:37] areas?

[14:42] Through the chair, yes. So, a storm

[14:43] water management report was also

[14:45] prepared and the project engineer is

[14:48] also in attendance to provide more

[14:50] information on on drainage.

[15:01] Through the chair to Councilor

[15:04] the system is underground storage tanks

[15:08] on site

[15:09] uh matching the pre-to-post run-off

[15:11] volumes and flow rates.

[15:14] Uh there is a couple quality control

[15:17] structures on site as well.

[15:19] And then there is roof top storage as

[15:22] well that's

[15:23] helps to achieve that pre-to-post

[15:25] balance.

[15:27] Okay, thank you, Chair Nixon.

[15:33] Uh are there any other members, any

[15:35] non-members of committee uh that have

[15:37] questions of clarification?

[15:42] Seeing none.

[15:44] We will move to our second public

[15:46] meeting.

[15:47] I will now call upon Cameron Sellers of

[15:49] Innovative Planning Solutions to provide

[15:51] the presentation concerning an amendment

[15:53] to the zoning by-law for 49 Miller

[15:57] Drive.

[16:11] Okay, good evening, everyone.

[16:13] Thank you very much for attending this

[16:15] uh public meeting. My name is Cameron

[16:16] Sellers. I'm a partner with Innovative

[16:17] Planning Solutions here on behalf of the

[16:19] owners of uh lands located at 49 Miller

[16:22] Drive in Barrie.

[16:23] So, the purpose of tonight's meeting is

[16:25] to uh provide project details to

[16:27] everyone and to obtain feedback uh to be

[16:30] considered along with comments received

[16:31] from city staff in order to move this

[16:34] project forward.

[16:38] So, the the subject property is outlined

[16:40] here in red on this slide. The site's

[16:43] located north of Dunlop Street with

[16:45] approximately 300 m of frontage and east

[16:48] of Miller Drive with approximately 380 m

[16:51] of frontage on Miller.

[16:52] Uh the site is relatively flat in nature

[16:55] and it covers approximately 18.1 ha

[16:58] or 45 acres. The lands are vacant and

[17:02] are significantly underutilized.

[17:07] In terms of surrounding uh uses, uh you

[17:09] can see on this slide here to the north,

[17:12] there's residential subdivision

[17:14] characterized predominantly by single

[17:16] detached dwellings along with uh Pringle

[17:19] Park.

[17:20] To the south, there's existing

[17:22] commercial and future residential uses

[17:24] along Dunlop Street West. Further to the

[17:27] south lies general industrial uses along

[17:29] Tiffin Street and environmental

[17:31] protection lands as well further south.

[17:34] To the east, uh there's general

[17:36] commercial and industrial uses along

[17:38] Dunlop Street, Ferndale Drive, and

[17:41] Tiffin Street as well.

[17:43] To the west, there's a service station

[17:44] including a gas bar, a car wash, and a

[17:47] restaurant. Um further west are highway

[17:49] commercial uses including self-storage

[17:52] facility, Access Storage, and uh a wood

[17:55] supplier, Miller Lumber.

[17:59] So, this slide illustrates the current

[18:01] official plan designation of the subject

[18:03] lands. The lands are designated

[18:04] neighborhood area, employment area

[18:07] non-industrial,

[18:08] natural heritage system, as well as

[18:10] green space.

[18:12] Um of note, the city's recent official

[18:14] plan amendment uh for PPS conformity for

[18:18] um employment area

[18:19] uh proposes to change the designation

[18:21] from employment area non-industrial to

[18:24] business commercial.

[18:30] So, this slide illustrates the current

[18:32] zoning of the subject lands. They're

[18:33] outlined in red again.

[18:35] Um the lands are zoned residential hold,

[18:38] you can see in yellow,

[18:40] uh open space hold in light green,

[18:43] general commercial in pink, and then

[18:45] environmental protection in the dark

[18:47] green in the northwest corner northeast

[18:49] corner.

[18:54] So, this brings us to the development

[18:56] proposal shown here. The development

[18:58] includes a total of 447

[19:01] new residential dwellings in differing

[19:03] built forms including single detached

[19:05] homes, town homes, and back-to-back town

[19:08] homes plus a medium density block

[19:10] subject to future development

[19:12] applications.

[19:13] Access to the development is by way of

[19:15] two new municipal streets connecting to

[19:18] Miller Drive at the north and the south

[19:20] limits of the development leading to an

[19:23] internal municipal road network as shown

[19:25] here.

[19:26] All internal uh roads will have

[19:29] sidewalks

[19:30] um throughout throughout the whole

[19:31] development.

[19:33] And there's a storm water management

[19:34] pond you can see here in the southwest

[19:36] portion of the site

[19:38] um along with a large natural heritage

[19:40] block in the northeast portion of the

[19:43] site.

[19:47] So, this slide highlights the the

[19:48] purpose the proposed built forms

[19:50] throughout the site um just for ease of

[19:52] reference when when viewing the

[19:53] development concept. So, the single

[19:55] detached dwellings have been positioned

[19:57] adjacent to the natural heritage lands

[19:59] along the east, each with frontage of

[20:01] approximately 12 uh 12 m or 40 ft.

[20:05] The townhomes have been positioned

[20:07] around the perimeter of the balance of

[20:09] the site, each with frontage of about

[20:11] 5.5 m or 18 ft. And then there's

[20:14] back-to-back townhomes positioned

[20:15] internal to the development with a

[20:17] frontage of 7 m or 23 ft. And then you

[20:20] can see the uh future uh future uh

[20:23] medium-density block in the middle there

[20:25] in the pink. And then the um natural

[20:28] heritage block, the large natural

[20:29] heritage block to the east.

[20:34] So, this slide provides uh a couple of

[20:37] architectural styling samples um that

[20:39] could be pursued through this

[20:40] development um just to give people sort

[20:42] of a flavor of the the the townhouses.

[20:45] Um, it should be noted that there's no

[20:47] floor plans or elevations at this point

[20:49] uh in the process. But the owners are

[20:51] committed to work with city staff to

[20:53] achieve a high level of urban design and

[20:55] architecture for the new homes.

[20:59] So, in order to accommodate the uh

[21:01] proposed development, an official plan

[21:02] amendment is necessary redesignating

[21:05] various portions of the property

[21:07] as detailed here. I won't go through

[21:09] them individually, but I will show you

[21:11] this slide.

[21:13] So, this illustrates the official plan

[21:16] land use changes proposed by these

[21:18] applications. A majority of the site

[21:20] will remain um as currently designated.

[21:22] The the neighborhood area, you can see

[21:24] there without any hatching, that's

[21:25] already designated neighborhood area.

[21:28] Um, portions of the site would be

[21:29] redesignated from green space and

[21:31] employment area non-industrial to

[21:33] neighborhood area, while other portions

[21:35] will be redesignated from employment

[21:36] area non- non-industrial to natural

[21:39] heritage systems.

[21:40] Um

[21:42] and it should be noted I'll note here

[21:43] that the um the natural heritage systems

[21:46] designation is proposed to be

[21:47] substantially increased um through these

[21:50] applications.

[21:54] So, we've also applied for a zoning

[21:56] bylaw amendment that's necessary to uh

[21:58] support the proposed development uh

[22:00] rezoning the property to RM2 with

[22:03] exceptions, uh R4 with exceptions, as

[22:06] well as environmental protection.

[22:10] » [gasps]

[22:11] >> So, this slide illustrates the varying

[22:13] zones that are being applied for through

[22:15] these applications.

[22:16] Simply stated, the single-family

[22:18] dwellings are proposed for the R4 with

[22:20] exception, the townhomes uh back-to-back

[22:23] towns, and the medium-density block are

[22:25] proposed for the RM2 exception zone, and

[22:28] the natural heritage lands are proposed

[22:30] for the EP zone.

[22:35] So, in summary, this development

[22:36] represents an appropriate level of

[22:38] growth on lands that are currently

[22:40] underutilized within the city.

[22:42] The development efficiently utilizes the

[22:44] land and municipal municipal

[22:45] infrastructure while providing a

[22:47] reasonable transit supportive density

[22:50] and enhancing natural heritage features

[22:52] on the lands.

[22:53] The technical studies that were

[22:54] completed and submitted in support of

[22:56] this development demonstrate that it can

[22:57] be serviced, accommodated from a traffic

[23:00] perspective, with environmental

[23:02] characteristics being addressed through

[23:04] retention, buffering, mitigation,

[23:06] offsetting, and future design work.

[23:09] This proposal overall introduces

[23:11] much-needed new housing options and

[23:12] opportunities to the area while also

[23:14] respecting and integrating with the

[23:16] surrounding neighborhood.

[23:19] And that concludes my presentation.

[23:20] Thank you very much for your time

[23:21] tonight.

[23:24] Uh thank you.

[23:25] Um, we will now move to public comments.

[23:29] Um, if there are any members of the

[23:30] public who wish to provide comments

[23:32] regarding the second public meeting,

[23:34] please approach the podium and begin by

[23:35] stating your first and last name and

[23:38] address for the record.

[23:45] Seeing none.

[23:49] Okay.

[23:50] As there are no uh virtual members

[23:53] waiting to join us?

[23:56] Um, members of committee, do you have

[23:58] any questions of clarification?

[24:01] Deputy Mayor Thompson.

[24:03] Thank you, Chair Nixon. Uh through you

[24:05] to staff. Um, when we talk about the

[24:07] technical um

[24:10] reviews and stuff, and I understand this

[24:11] is a zoning application, but um

[24:13] sometimes that site plan questions are

[24:16] unable because it's delegated authority

[24:19] to staff. So, I just uh get some

[24:21] clarity and maybe for residents watching

[24:23] and paying attention to this. Um

[24:26] so, 40 Miller

[24:28] is an approved development on Miller of

[24:30] about 200 units.

[24:32] 156 to 152 Miller, I believe um was 100,

[24:38] and then I think they've come back and

[24:40] they're probably about 160 in units.

[24:43] And then we have 180 Ferndale, which is

[24:45] about 350.

[24:47] And 49, this proposal would be about

[24:50] 600.

[24:52] I think 620, 611, or something like

[24:54] that. Um, so when we're looking at

[24:56] infrastructure,

[24:58] uh water, sewer, and stuff like that.

[25:00] So,

[25:01] because these lands are fed by the

[25:03] aquifers and not in the our new water

[25:05] treatment plants and stuff, um sometimes

[25:08] we find water pressure's a little bit

[25:09] low and not as robust as some of our new

[25:13] subdivisions. So,

[25:15] is it a first-come, first-served? Like,

[25:17] you know,

[25:18] I believe these people have done their

[25:19] due diligence and realized it is

[25:21] serviceable. But if if every one of

[25:23] these developments were to go ahead next

[25:26] year, would the existing neighborhood

[25:29] suffer like in water pressure or

[25:33] is that a a consideration that service

[25:35] capacity is looked at um in

[25:39] a high level of every development that's

[25:41] proposed and approved could be

[25:44] compensated?

[25:47] Through you, Chair Nixon, to the Deputy

[25:50] Mayor. So, uh generally speaking in

[25:53] terms of the studies that you are

[25:55] talking about, generally speaking when

[25:57] an application comes in, um all of the

[26:00] other applications need to be considered

[26:03] in in the new person's technical work.

[26:07] Um, now that as you said, every

[26:08] application that you gave as an example

[26:10] is at a different stage. Um, but at the

[26:14] um application stage, um

[26:16] the the new applicants uh consulting

[26:18] team um is told that they have to

[26:21] incorporate kind of all of the other

[26:23] developments at the same time. Um, at

[26:25] the official plan and zoning stage, I

[26:27] would say that the servicing review is a

[26:30] little bit higher level. Like, it is

[26:31] that what you said, is there are there

[26:33] pipes there? Is there servicing there?

[26:35] And then as um you move through what we

[26:38] call a detailed engineering design, that

[26:41] happens both at the site plan stage and

[26:44] the draft plan of subdivi- subdivision

[26:46] stage, um that's when you get a little

[26:49] bit more detail about all the things

[26:51] you're talking about. Um, in terms of,

[26:53] you know, what the existing residents um

[26:57] will experience, um

[26:59] we we need to kind of hear that from the

[27:01] existing residents because we don't

[27:03] necessarily know what everybody's water

[27:06] pressure um is like. Um, but um fire and

[27:10] this is an example, fire flow um

[27:12] hydrant, that has to happen every single

[27:14] time. And so, people have to do flow

[27:16] tests and all those sorts of things. And

[27:18] sometimes there is work required um for

[27:21] them to do in and around the hydrant to

[27:23] make sure that fire would get the

[27:24] appropriate pressure. So, at this stage

[27:27] um tonight, we, you know, as I said, we

[27:29] would be like, are the pipes there? Uh

[27:31] whereas as we get into that more

[27:32] detailed engineering design, all of

[27:35] those factors get looked at.

[27:37] Perfect. And and I oh

[27:40] obviously, sorry, through you, Chair,

[27:42] just as a supplementary. Um

[27:44] that was some of the comments made at

[27:46] the neighborhood meeting, the uh the one

[27:48] we had on online that some of the

[27:50] concern was on the infrastructure. And then just maybe uh another one that

[27:55] is

[27:56] a growing concern in the neighborhood.

[27:57] And look,

[27:59] for 8 years I've been working on it, and

[28:01] I know staff have done everything in

[28:03] their power to help me achieve things

[28:06] with like the opening of Sproul, um

[28:08] sidewalk connecting this existing

[28:10] neighborhoods to the rest of the city,

[28:13] which, you know, some of this

[28:14] development would achieve in gapping

[28:16] that as they would have those townhomes

[28:18] on Miller, which is a great additive.

[28:21] Um,

[28:22] but one of the concerns is because there

[28:24] is only two entrances in, which would be

[28:26] from Edgehill or Miller.

[28:28] And you know, we've had some incidents

[28:31] um Highway 90, County Road 90,

[28:34] being

[28:35] you know, a a major arterial road that

[28:37] brings people into our city. And there's

[28:39] been some horrific accidents at the

[28:40] corner, and then it backs up. And people

[28:43] trying to get home from work or to work

[28:45] are suffering. When we did the repaving

[28:47] last year,

[28:49] you're looking at 2 3 hours. And I

[28:50] noticed this development, both entrances

[28:53] are on Miller. And uh so,

[28:57] maybe this isn't to staff and maybe to

[28:59] the presenter. Um and anybody from your

[29:02] team can that is

[29:04] willing to look at this. Um

[29:07] that I know in the public meeting, there

[29:09] was a real concern with the traffic of

[29:12] both entrances on Miller. And you know,

[29:15] further to that, we've got a brand new

[29:17] building, which is going to create 150

[29:19] jobs right on Dunlop with um

[29:24] Sherwin-Williams now moving and

[29:26] relocating to Barrie.

[29:28] So, there is some safety concerns in the

[29:30] neighborhood already that I've had with

[29:32] that. You know, you're talking big

[29:33] trucks entering a road that people are

[29:36] doing 80 km and slow pace coming out of

[29:39] their driveway. I was just wondering in some of the questions of where the

[29:43] building was placed, and I know this is

[29:45] all zoning, but I just thought if if you

[29:47] guys had taken any of the comments made

[29:49] in the neighborhood meeting to consider,

[29:52] you know,

[29:53] relocating some of the design of your

[29:56] thing or looking at an entrance to maybe

[29:59] work with our staff to have a signalized

[30:01] intersection on the Dunlop side to enter

[30:04] in on this subdivision, also eliminating

[30:07] the safety concerns that with the

[30:09] Sherwood Williams, you know, big trucks

[30:12] and it's a distribution center, so it's

[30:13] going to be heavy flow of trucks, and I

[30:15] was just wondering there is some area

[30:18] there, I know it's

[30:20] in this proposal it's going to be

[30:21] environmental, but if there was an

[30:23] opportunity maybe

[30:25] to maybe move that over some commercial

[30:27] over on that side and maybe moving the

[30:29] building closer to the Dunlop. I was

[30:31] wondering if you took any of those

[30:32] comments and if there was an

[30:34] opportunity, I understand that you had

[30:35] to submit a proposal and waited on

[30:37] comments, which I don't know if you

[30:39] received from staff,

[30:41] um, preliminary comments from our

[30:43] meeting.

[30:44] And I was just wondering if, uh, there

[30:46] was any consideration of some of the

[30:47] comments made in that neighborhood

[30:48] meeting.

[30:50] Through you, Chair Nixon and Deputy

[30:51] Mayor Thompson. Uh, yes, certainly. So,

[30:53] we, uh, we did the neighborhood meeting.

[30:55] It was It was well-attended. It was very

[30:57] cordial, very professional, and we got a

[30:59] lot of good feedback there.

[31:01] Um, we proceeded to submission and we're

[31:02] still collecting, um, the comments. We

[31:05] have some of them, we don't have all of

[31:07] them. And then, of course, tonight. Um,

[31:09] so, gaining all of that feedback, we

[31:11] certainly are not married to the concept

[31:12] plan as is, and we're we're definitely

[31:14] going to look at, um,

[31:15] how to best address the comments to the

[31:17] extent possible. So, so, the answer is

[31:19] yes.

[31:21] Perfect. And, uh, thank you. And And

[31:24] look, um,

[31:26] I don't think anybody in the public

[31:27] meeting was against development. Yes,

[31:29] some people looked at, uh,

[31:30] the existing, [snorts] you know, wooded

[31:32] area, and, you know, I I fielded some

[31:34] calls today understanding and explaining

[31:36] to residents that it's privately owned

[31:37] land and it's not a city property where,

[31:40] you know, if we chose to leave it as a

[31:42] park or something, so, you know, we

[31:43] can't tell people what to do with their

[31:44] assets. You know, and but I I actually

[31:48] appreciate, you know, the back and forth

[31:50] and the the open dialogue with,

[31:52] you know, your clients where they they

[31:55] are understanding, they want to be good

[31:56] neighbors, you know, keeping a mature

[31:58] tree line,

[32:00] considering, you know, looking at some

[32:02] of the concerns of the residents. So, I

[32:03] appreciate that and I look forward to

[32:06] the opened, um, dialogue back and forth

[32:09] so that we can move this along and and

[32:13] make everybody in the neighborhood feel

[32:15] that their voice was heard and, uh, you

[32:17] know, we can continue to be good

[32:18] neighbors. So, thank you. Absolutely.

[32:24] » [clears throat]

[32:24] >> Uh, are there other members of committee

[32:26] that have questions of clarification?

[32:31] Any non-members of committee?

[32:34] No? Okay. If anyone has any further

[32:37] written comments, you can submit them to

[32:38] Michelle Freethy, senior planner at

[32:41] michelle.freethy@barrie.ca.

[32:45] We will now move to our third public

[32:47] meeting.

[32:48] I will now call on Derek Battaglia,

[32:50] owner and applicant to provide the

[32:52] presentation concerning amendment to the

[32:54] zoning bylaw for 205 Jean Street.

[33:12] Okay.

[33:13] Good evening, Mayor, council members of

[33:15] public. My name is Derek Battaglia. I'm

[33:17] here to discuss a residential

[33:18] development opportunity at 205 Jean

[33:21] Street in Barrie.

[33:23] I'm seeking approval for a site-specific

[33:25] zoning bylaw amendment and draft plan of

[33:27] subdivision to permit six new detached

[33:30] freehold homes on a private lane. This

[33:32] presentation will walk you through the

[33:34] site location, our design approach, how

[33:37] we've responded to community feedback,

[33:39] and why this project serves the public

[33:41] interest.

[33:45] This aerial map shows 205 Jean Street in

[33:48] relation to key landmarks for

[33:49] recognition. The subject, uh, site is

[33:52] located near Tyndale Park, Algonquin

[33:55] Ridge Elementary School, and the general

[33:57] Tyndale, uh, neighborhood.

[33:59] This is a well-established residential

[34:01] area with excellent access to amenities,

[34:03] services, and transportation.

[34:05] The location is already fully serviced

[34:07] with municipal infrastructure, including

[34:09] water, sewer, road access, making it

[34:12] ideal for a residential infill

[34:14] development.

[34:18] Here's a closer look at the specific

[34:20] property. The site is outlined in red

[34:22] and is located at the intersection of

[34:24] Cox Mill Road and Jean Street.

[34:27] You can see the surrounding street

[34:28] network, including Bowman Court and Dock

[34:30] Road. The property is currently

[34:32] underutilized, and our proposal will

[34:34] make efficient use of this land within

[34:36] an an established neighborhood. The site

[34:38] has direct access to Jean Street, which

[34:41] will serve as the primary connection

[34:42] point for the private new lane accessing

[34:45] the six proposed lots.

[34:47] This immediate neighborhood, previously

[34:49] part of the town of Innisfil, was known

[34:50] as a cottage area, privately serviced

[34:53] with septic and well on old cottage

[34:55] roads. This area was annexed to the city

[34:58] of Barrie with its zoning reflective of

[35:00] the infrastructure in place at that

[35:01] time.

[35:03] Since then, major infrastructure

[35:04] improvements have been made to bring

[35:05] this area to city standards, but the R1

[35:08] zoning has remained the same.

[35:10] Over time, the cottages have been

[35:11] converted to year-round, and others have

[35:14] been torn down to make way for new homes

[35:16] and/or properties that have been

[35:17] subdivided to create new homes on new

[35:19] lots.

[35:23] This ground-level photo, uh,

[35:24] unfortunately shows a lot of snow, uh,

[35:27] that the site presents an excellent

[35:29] opportunity for sensitive residential

[35:30] infill that will complement the

[35:32] surrounding neighborhood character.

[35:34] In the background, you can see the homes

[35:36] of Bowman Court designs of two-story

[35:39] with walk-out basements, and because of

[35:41] the grade change from Bowman Court to

[35:43] Jean Street, the Bowman homes present as

[35:46] three-story elevations from the subject

[35:48] site on Jean Street.

[35:51] Um, there's This is actually a video. Is

[35:54] there a button to press that, uh, will

[35:56] play the video or

[35:58] If I press the next button, can we see?

[36:01] Okay, great. There it goes.

[36:03] Um, continuing east on Jean Street, the

[36:06] immediate neighboring home being an

[36:08] original 1950s 1,000 square foot brick

[36:11] bungalow with no garage,

[36:13] and we have carefully considered the

[36:14] existing trees and natural features in

[36:17] our planning process.

[36:22] This is our conceptual plan showing the

[36:24] proposed layout of the six new lots

[36:26] and private detached lots here. The

[36:29] homes will be arranged along a new

[36:30] private lane that extends from Jean

[36:32] Street. Each lot labeled one through six

[36:35] will accommodate a detached

[36:37] single-family home.

[36:38] Particular attention to setbacks and

[36:40] green buffers have been considered to

[36:42] maximize privacy for the new homes and

[36:44] existing.

[36:48] The community input has been critical in

[36:50] shaping this this proposal. At the June

[36:52] 19th neighborhood meeting, residents

[36:55] expressed specific concerns, and we

[36:56] listened carefully and made significant

[36:58] changes.

[37:00] Let me highlight what we've done in

[37:01] response. We reduced the total number of

[37:03] units from eight to six, a reduction of

[37:05] 25%. We increased the lot area from 209

[37:09] square meters to 293 square meters.

[37:12] That's a 40% increase. Giving each home

[37:15] more space, lot depth increased from 22

[37:17] m to 26.4.

[37:20] We increased frontages from 9.5 to 10.5,

[37:23] and perhaps most importantly for parking

[37:25] concerns, because of the reduced units

[37:27] and larger lots, we've allowed for the

[37:29] upgrade from single car garages for up

[37:32] to double car garages, and allowing each

[37:34] home to have up to two cars in the

[37:36] driveway

[37:37] in addition to the garage.

[37:39] The gross floor area has also increased

[37:41] from 131.7

[37:43] to 168.5

[37:44] square meters, allowing for larger, more

[37:47] spacious homes. And the bottom line is

[37:49] fewer homes, larger lots, enhanced

[37:51] parking potential, and better layout.

[37:53] All all in direct response to what the

[37:55] community told us mattered most.

[37:57] Garbage and snow services are to be

[38:00] handled privately amongst the individual

[38:02] home owners.

[38:05] So, this table, um, demonstrates how our

[38:07] proposal aligns with the city's zoning

[38:09] framework. The existing property is

[38:11] zoned R1, residential first density. We

[38:13] are proposing to create lots that will

[38:15] be zoned R2 special, a site-specific

[38:18] residential second density designation.

[38:21] Uh, we'll walk through the key standards

[38:23] here. Our frontage lot of 10.5 m meets

[38:26] the standard. All setback require

[38:29] requirements are met at 4.5 m for front

[38:31] yard to dwelling, 7 m to the garage,

[38:35] appropriate side yards, and 7 m rear

[38:37] yards. Our lot coverage will be within

[38:39] the 45% maximum.

[38:42] Building heights will be limited to

[38:43] three stories, consistent with zoning,

[38:45] and our proposal maintains appropriate

[38:47] development standards for the

[38:49] established neighborhood. I would also

[38:51] like to point out that this proposal is

[38:53] fully consistent with federal and

[38:54] provincial planning frame framework

[38:57] under Bill 23, which is aimed at

[39:00] supporting more housing, especially

[39:02] small-scale low-rise projects like this

[39:05] within existing urban areas.

[39:12] Okay, so, this is an,

[39:13] uh, previous house concept, but it gives

[39:15] us kind of a good idea here that here

[39:17] examples of the potential architectural

[39:19] concepts for the new homes. These

[39:21] renderings show attractive contemporary

[39:23] designs that will fit seamlessly within

[39:25] the character of the surrounding

[39:27] neighborhood. The three-story design

[39:29] maximizes livable space while staying

[39:31] within height, uh, height limits.

[39:34] The homes will feature quality materials

[39:36] and elevations to add visual interest,

[39:38] attached garages, and architectural

[39:40] details that reflect both modern

[39:42] preferences and neighborhood

[39:43] compatibility.

[39:45] They will not be cookie-cutter homes.

[39:47] Each will have design variations to

[39:49] create a diverse, appealing streetscape.

[39:54] A key planning principle is

[39:56] compatibility with existing neighborhood

[39:58] character, and our proposal meets this

[40:00] test. First, three-story detached home

[40:03] elevations at the deep Jean Street

[40:04] elevation are already established on the

[40:07] adjacent adjacent Newman Court lots.

[40:09] This is not a new form in the area.

[40:11] There are two three-story dwellings one

[40:13] block away on Grey Lane. Second, the

[40:15] height, massing, and lot pattern of our

[40:17] proposed homes are comparable to the

[40:19] newer homes surrounding the site.

[40:21] Third, we've incorporated design

[40:22] elements specifically to ensure

[40:24] compatibility, and our rear yard depths

[40:26] provide substantial separation from

[40:28] neighboring properties.

[40:30] This isn't a departure from neighborhood

[40:31] character. It's a natural continuation

[40:33] of the existing development pattern.

[40:40] Let me address why this project is in

[40:41] the public interest and what benefits it

[40:43] brings to the community.

[40:45] First, we're adding six high-quality

[40:47] homes in a fully serviced built-up area.

[40:50] This is efficient use of existing municipal infrastructure,

[40:54] water, sewer, roads, transit, that's

[40:56] already in place and underutilized. This

[40:58] is smart growth. Second, we're providing

[41:01] new housing choice in a desirable

[41:03] location close to schools, parks,

[41:05] trails, and transit routes. Families

[41:08] will have access access to excellent

[41:10] amenities.

[41:11] Third, and I want to emphasize this

[41:12] point, our plan and design has been

[41:15] refined in direct response to

[41:16] neighborhood feedback. We didn't just

[41:18] listen to the concerns, we acted on

[41:20] them. We reduced the number of units,

[41:22] increased lot sizes, improved parking,

[41:25] and enhanced the overall layout. This is

[41:27] a collaborative planning that results in

[41:29] a better project for everyone.

[41:33] To summarize,

[41:34] what we're asking for today is approval

[41:36] of a site-specific zoning bylaw

[41:38] amendment for 205 Jean Street to permit

[41:41] six detached dwellings on a private

[41:43] lane.

[41:44] Second, we're requesting approval of the

[41:45] draft plan of subdivision, plan of

[41:47] condominium, implementing the six-lot

[41:49] configuration as shown in the submitted

[41:51] plans.

[41:52] These approvals will allow us to move

[41:53] forward with a thoughtfully designed

[41:55] residential development that serves the

[41:57] community's housing needs, respects

[41:59] neighborhood character, responds to to

[42:02] resident concerns, and makes efficient

[42:04] use of existing infrastructure.

[42:08] Thank you for your time and

[42:09] consideration, and I'm happy to answer

[42:10] any questions you may have.

[42:14] Uh thank you.

[42:15] Um we will now move to public comments.

[42:20] Um

[42:23] There are five members of the public who

[42:25] have pre-registered to speak uh

[42:27] regarding our third public meeting in

[42:28] person.

[42:30] Um I now invite uh Leslie Kucherawy uh

[42:36] if in the building.

[42:39] Okay. Thank you.

[42:41] Yep.

[42:42] Um please begin by stating your first

[42:44] and last name and address for the record. And uh you have 5

[42:50] minutes. Okay, great. Uh Leslie

[42:52] Kucherawy, I live at 206 Jean Street.

[42:56] Thank you for the presentation and for

[42:58] the opportunity to provide feedback.

[43:01] While I appreciate the changes have been

[43:02] made to the proposal,

[43:04] most of my previously submitted concerns

[43:07] remain.

[43:09] We are here this evening because this

[43:11] property is lacking a fundamental

[43:13] characteristic for development.

[43:15] That characteristic is street frontage.

[43:18] This property is landlocked. The parcel

[43:20] does not have direct frontage on a

[43:22] public street, which is required under

[43:24] the Ontario Planning Act for the

[43:26] creation of buildable lots.

[43:30] The proposal attempts to circumvent this

[43:32] deficiency by creating a private

[43:34] laneway, but this is inconsistent with

[43:37] the surrounding neighborhood pattern.

[43:41] The applicant previously proposed this

[43:43] property for development. However, it

[43:45] was denied by the city by the city as it

[43:48] was deemed

[43:49] unsuitable due to the lack of frontage.

[43:52] In 2006,

[43:55] the Ontario Land Tribunal upheld the

[43:57] decision.

[43:59] The zoning bylaw does not support this

[44:01] property for development.

[44:03] The local community does not support

[44:05] this property for development.

[44:08] The Ontario Land Tribunal's rationale

[44:10] for denial stated,

[44:13] "Quote, in particular, the frontage is

[44:15] not appropriate.

[44:17] In addition, the board finds that the

[44:19] variance for the lot frontage does not

[44:21] maintain the general intent and purpose

[44:23] of the official plan and the zoning

[44:26] bylaw."

[44:28] Since then, the characteristics of

[44:30] Barrie, planning considerations, and the

[44:32] need for housing have changed.

[44:34] However, the characteristics of this

[44:36] property have not changed.

[44:40] Circumventing the frontage deficiency by

[44:42] creating a private laneway under a

[44:44] podal, which is a parcel of tied land

[44:46] arrangement undermines the clarity and

[44:49] purpose of the zoning bylaw and creates

[44:51] uncertainty for Barrie residents who

[44:53] rely on R1 zoning to protect the

[44:56] established character of their

[44:57] neighborhoods.

[44:59] Approving this development sets a

[45:01] precedent for landlocked parcels to be

[45:03] developed using private laneways that

[45:05] could lead to further piecemeal and

[45:07] condominium-based intensification in

[45:09] areas that are not designed to

[45:10] accommodate it.

[45:12] The planning justification report makes

[45:15] 35 references to the proposed

[45:17] development as gentle intensification.

[45:20] As an absolute number, six homes is a

[45:23] small number. However, not in the

[45:25] context of Jean Street.

[45:27] The proposed development increases the

[45:29] total number of homes on Jean Street by

[45:31] 40%

[45:32] and increases the total number of homes

[45:34] on the south side of the street by 75%.

[45:38] Regarding the lotting pattern,

[45:40] the proposed lot sizes at 277 square

[45:43] meters represents a dramatic difference

[45:45] between what exists and what is proposed

[45:48] and cannot be characterized as gentle

[45:50] intensification.

[45:52] As such, the proposal does not respect

[45:54] the characteristics of the existing

[45:56] neighborhood.

[45:58] To address any implication that my

[46:00] position is motivated by a not in my

[46:02] backyard attitude, it should be noted

[46:04] that I did not oppose the recent

[46:06] application for the lot severance at 369

[46:09] Tollendal Road.

[46:11] This property is literally in my

[46:13] backyard.

[46:15] Although I was disappointed with the

[46:17] severance decision, I can see that the

[46:19] new lots will maintain a degree of

[46:21] continuity with the surrounding homes.

[46:24] Unfortunately, the same cannot be said

[46:26] for the current proposal.

[46:29] Uh the presentation made several

[46:30] references to the area being fully

[46:32] serviced. I I must point out that some

[46:35] homes on Jean Street lack basic

[46:37] municipal services, mine being one of

[46:40] them as the older homes are not

[46:42] connected to the sewer system.

[46:44] I am concerned that additional

[46:46] development is being considered ahead of

[46:48] ensuring the existing homes have the

[46:51] necessary municipal services.

[46:54] For these reasons

[46:56] and the additional concerns that you're

[46:58] going to hear from uh my community, I

[47:01] respectfully request that the proposed

[47:03] amendment be denied.

[47:05] Thank you.

[47:09] Um I now invite uh Carol Germain.

[47:14] >> [applause]

[47:23] » Would you like to go at the end? That's

[47:25] fine.

[47:26] Um

[47:28] How about uh Rymer Gartner?

[47:31] Mr. Gartner, please uh approach the

[47:33] podium and uh state your first and last

[47:35] name

[47:37] and your address for the record, and I

[47:39] will remind you that you have 5 minutes

[47:41] as well. Thank you.

[47:43] My name is Rymer Gartner. I live at 203

[47:46] Jean Street, Riding Store.

[47:48] >> [clears throat]

[47:50] » I just wanted to highlight two um two

[47:52] items that are particular importance to

[47:54] me.

[47:56] Uh the first one being the the request

[47:58] to rezone this property from R1

[48:01] to a modified R2.

[48:04] I just want to preface what I'm going to

[48:06] say by saying I am not uh

[48:07] anti-development. If this

[48:11] proposal was from R1 to an actual R2, I

[48:15] would be quite for it.

[48:17] Uh the minimum R2 dimensions are nowhere

[48:21] near being met here.

[48:23] What we have is a development that

[48:26] involves lot sizes so small and houses

[48:29] so close together, they don't even meet

[48:31] the R4 minimums

[48:34] for zoning.

[48:36] And the area that we're talking about,

[48:37] South Shore,

[48:39] has no R4 single homes anywhere. They

[48:43] don't have We don't have R3 even.

[48:46] Um

[48:48] so [clears throat]

[48:50] as Leslie mentioned, I don't think this

[48:51] isn't gentle

[48:53] uh intensification.

[48:55] I think that uh this is a radical change

[48:57] from the R1 and R2 that we find

[48:59] ourselves surrounded by,

[49:01] and uh I believe this

[49:04] uh proposal is inappropriate and and uh

[49:07] sets a bad precedent for future

[49:09] development.

[49:11] The other thing um

[49:13] the only other issue that I have is the

[49:15] about the intensification of the actual

[49:17] buildings themselves.

[49:20] The uh the planning uh report states

[49:23] that the proposed dwellings are

[49:24] anticipated to be designed in a manner

[49:27] that allows purchasers

[49:29] the option to incorporate a second

[49:31] residential unit within the home.

[49:35] Uh as I read it, construction for two

[49:38] families under one roof is a duplex by

[49:41] definition.

[49:43] And the report itself says that duplexes

[49:45] are prohibited. So, I just wanted to

[49:47] flag that

[49:48] uh, to make sure that there's not some

[49:50] kind of end run around the the

[49:52] prohibition against multiplexes

[49:55] um,

[49:56] in the end.

[49:58] Thank you very much.

[50:00] Thank you, sir.

[50:01] >> [applause]

[50:04] » I now invite Adam Holman.

[50:12] Please begin by stating your first and

[50:13] last name and address for the record and

[50:18] you'll have 5 minutes. Perfect. Thank

[50:20] you very much. Thanks for the

[50:21] opportunity tonight.

[50:22] My name is Adam Holman and I live at 245

[50:25] Dock Road.

[50:27] I live directly behind the proposed

[50:29] development at 205 Gene Street.

[50:33] I'm not just someone who reviewed the

[50:35] plans online. I back directly onto this

[50:38] property. I see the land every single

[50:40] day through every single season.

[50:43] I experience first hand how the area

[50:46] behaves especially when it comes to

[50:48] drainage and water flow.

[50:51] Over the past week, I started a

[50:53] community petition to better understand

[50:55] how others in the area feel about this

[50:58] development.

[50:59] In just 7 days,

[51:03] we received over 275

[51:06] signatures opposing this project.

[51:11] » [applause]

[51:14] » What's important to highlight

[51:16] is that this wasn't broad random

[51:18] outreach. Over 90% of these signatures

[51:22] came from individuals within the L4N

[51:25] postal code area.

[51:27] Which, of many, live just a stone's

[51:30] throw away from this site.

[51:32] This shows that the concern is local and

[51:35] shared by people who are directly

[51:36] impacted.

[51:39] The concerns were here were here fall in

[51:41] a couple main categories: drainage,

[51:43] safety,

[51:45] and overall fit within our neighborhood.

[51:49] From my direct experience, drainage is

[51:51] already a serious issue in this area.

[51:53] After every rainfall or during spring

[51:56] thaw, there is significant pooling and

[51:58] standing water across the property. Yes,

[52:01] it can be diverted, but my good friend

[52:04] Jason, who lives at the bottom of the

[52:06] hill, is going to have an even bigger

[52:08] issue than he does right now.

[52:11] As a father of two

[52:14] under 10 years old, there's also

[52:16] concerns around safety.

[52:18] Increased density brings increased

[52:20] traffic, strain on infrastructure, and

[52:23] changes to the character of the area.

[52:25] Think about waste collection day. Big

[52:27] trucks, low visibility, and kids walking

[52:31] home on a road without sidewalks.

[52:35] So, I'll wrap up by standing here on

[52:37] behalf of the 276

[52:39] people who signed this petition to

[52:42] oppose this development. Thank you for

[52:44] your time and for taking all this into

[52:46] consideration.

[52:50] » [applause]

[52:53] » Uh, Kate Ellis, I now invite you to um,

[52:57] approach the podium.

[52:59] Again, please begin by stating your

[53:00] first and last name and your address for

[53:02] the record.

[53:06] My name is Kate Ellis and I live at 233

[53:10] Dock Road,

[53:11] um, which is just a few doors down from

[53:13] Adam.

[53:15] Um, good evening Council, Council Chair,

[53:18] and uh, thank you to Mr. Battaglia for

[53:20] presenting an updated proposal for us

[53:22] this evening. I think it's important to

[53:24] recognize that the applicant did listen

[53:27] to a lot of the things we said and in an

[53:30] effort of good faith, I'm assuming made

[53:33] some changes to his proposal and I think

[53:35] that that's important to state.

[53:38] Um, I'm here with the support, obviously

[53:40] you've seen, of my neighborhood to

[53:42] express our collective opposition to the

[53:44] proposed development. We plan to present

[53:46] several and I I plan to speak first,

[53:49] sorry.

[53:50] Um, we have presented several

[53:52] well-researched and carefully

[53:53] thought-out arguments urging our elected

[53:55] officials to carefully evaluate the

[53:57] technical and cultural merits of the

[53:59] proposed development while upholding the

[54:01] planning framework that governs the

[54:03] future of our neighborhoods and broader

[54:05] municipality.

[54:06] I recognize that the province has placed

[54:08] a strong emphasis on increasing housing

[54:11] supply and that municipalities like

[54:13] Barrie are working to respond to that

[54:15] direction.

[54:16] A common and well-supported way to do

[54:18] this is with infill developments. It is

[54:21] seen as an efficient way to increase

[54:22] housing supply while maintaining

[54:24] responsible land use.

[54:26] However, both provincial policy and the

[54:28] City of Barrie official plan are clear

[54:31] that growth must occur in appropriate

[54:33] strategic locations. Increased housing

[54:36] supply does not mean that any form of

[54:38] development is appropriate in any

[54:40] location.

[54:41] In this instance, I'm concerned that a

[54:43] broader push for more housing is being

[54:45] used to justify an infill

[54:47] intensification

[54:49] that despite being proposed as gentle

[54:51] intensification by the applicant and the

[54:53] representatives, is in direct

[54:55] contradiction to the city's own

[54:57] objectives and strategies for growth.

[55:00] The proposed draft plan of subdivision

[55:01] and zoning bylaw amendment request are

[55:03] not only inappropriate giving the

[55:05] significant change in lot characteristic

[55:07] from existing built form, but do not

[55:10] meet the intensification guidelines

[55:12] within the City of Barrie official plan.

[55:15] The official plan states that intimate

[55:17] intensification will be directed to

[55:19] appropriate locations including

[55:21] corridors, nodes, and areas with access

[55:24] to higher order transit.

[55:26] The subject property is not within an

[55:29] identified intensification corridor nor

[55:32] within an urban growth area. It is not

[55:35] in close proximity to a major transit

[55:37] station area and it does not front onto

[55:40] an arterial or collector road.

[55:43] It is not within walking distance of a

[55:45] grocery store, a shopping area, a

[55:47] hospital, a community center, or

[55:50] otherwise employment zone. It is clear

[55:53] that the proposed development of 205

[55:54] Gene Street does not comply with the

[55:56] criteria for intensification set out in

[55:59] the official plan and therefore should

[56:01] not be supported by City Council.

[56:03] The city should seek to approve projects

[56:05] within previously identified

[56:07] intensification corridors corridors and

[56:10] urban growth areas prior to allowing

[56:12] selective infill intensification in

[56:15] neighborhood areas.

[56:17] It is important to note that should this

[56:19] development be approved in its current

[56:21] form, it will set a decent dangerous

[56:23] precedent for speculative purchasing in

[56:25] our neighborhood. There are several lots

[56:27] in the Tollandale area similar to the

[56:29] subject lot that could be purchased and

[56:31] subject to intense infill development

[56:33] proposals resulting in a complete

[56:36] erosion of the existing character and

[56:38] context of our neighborhood.

[56:40] In fact, such lots exist throughout the

[56:42] city in Allandale neighborhoods, the

[56:44] East End and Sunnidale, which could lead

[56:46] to a patchwork of disconnected

[56:48] intensification zones. By approving this

[56:51] development, the city is given giving

[56:53] its stamp of approval for more and more

[56:55] random pockets of infill intensification

[56:58] within quiet residential neighborhoods

[57:00] without a unifying strategy for

[57:02] intentional urban planning.

[57:05] As you have come to learn, our

[57:06] neighborhood is intensely committed to

[57:08] holding the

[57:09] applicant, the representatives, and the

[57:11] Council to the clear and specific

[57:13] standards set out in the current

[57:15] planning framework.

[57:16] We are not broadly opposed to all

[57:18] development in our neighborhood and we

[57:20] have historically been very supportive

[57:22] of other zoning bylaw amendments when

[57:24] they fit with the fabric of our

[57:26] community

[57:27] and uphold the goals of the entire

[57:29] municipality.

[57:30] Should this proposal be approved, we as

[57:33] a neighborhood have every intention of

[57:35] appealing the decision with the Ontario

[57:37] Land Tribunal and retaining outside

[57:39] counsel from a qualified urban planning

[57:41] specialist. Thank you.

[57:46] >> [applause]

[57:49] » Okay.

[57:51] Carol Germain, are you ready?

[57:53] Uh,

[57:55] good.

[57:56] Um, again, please begin by stating your

[57:58] first and last name and address for the

[58:01] record.

[58:03] So, good evening um, members of Council,

[58:06] Mayor. Um, my name is Carol Germain and

[58:09] I live on 17 Bowman Court. Excuse me,

[58:12] I'm not used to public speaking.

[58:14] Um, so you've heard tonight a number of

[58:16] thoughtful concerns and about safety,

[58:20] infrastructure, the environment, and

[58:22] neighborhood fit. And so, I won't repeat

[58:25] them. Instead, I'd like to step back and

[58:28] focus on this decision before you.

[58:31] Planning decisions are meant to ensure

[58:34] that development is compatible and does

[58:37] not create adverse impact, but that

[58:40] standards but that standard can only be

[58:42] met if the full picture is clearly

[58:45] understood.

[58:46] And right now, there are still important

[58:48] questions without clear answers.

[58:52] We all recognize that a property owner

[58:54] has the right to develop their land, but

[58:57] having the right to do something is not

[58:59] the same as it being beneficial or

[59:02] appropriate for the surrounding

[59:04] community.

[59:06] That is why planning exists

[59:09] and we know that good planning carefully

[59:11] weighs individual rights against the

[59:13] collective impact.

[59:16] Excuse me.

[59:18] Um, and that brings me to a simple but

[59:20] critical point. We need to count the

[59:23] cost and fully understand the

[59:25] consequences before moving forward.

[59:28] When risks are not fully evaluated, they

[59:31] don't disappear, They show up later as

[59:34] problem well we'll have to address

[59:36] later.

[59:38] Um so these consequences affect

[59:41] residents, the neighborhood, and

[59:42] potentially the city itself.

[59:45] They appear as pressure on

[59:47] infrastructure, impact on safety, and

[59:50] challenges that complicate long-term

[59:52] planning, issues that are difficult and

[59:55] expensive to resolve once they emerge.

[59:59] So the question is not simply whether

[1:00:01] this project can proceed, it's whether

[1:00:04] it should proceed proceed before the

[1:00:06] costs are fully examined, understood,

[1:00:09] and addressed.

[1:00:11] Responsible planning is not just about

[1:00:13] enabling growth, it's about ensuring

[1:00:16] that growth does not create problem we

[1:00:18] will be left to solve later at a greater

[1:00:21] cost.

[1:00:22] Therefore, I respectfully ask council to

[1:00:25] take the time to ensure that the full

[1:00:27] impact, both immediate and long-term, is

[1:00:31] clearly understood before making a

[1:00:32] decision.

[1:00:34] Because once a decision is made, the

[1:00:36] consequences are real and difficult to

[1:00:38] reverse.

[1:00:39] Thank you very much.

[1:00:42] >> [applause]

[1:00:48] » If there are any other members of the

[1:00:50] public who wish to provide comments,

[1:00:51] please approach the podium and begin by

[1:00:53] stating your first and last name and

[1:00:55] address for the record.

[1:01:01] Seeing none.

[1:01:03] Um

[1:01:04] members of the committee, do you have

[1:01:05] any questions of clarification?

[1:01:10] Councillor Harris. Thank you, Chair

[1:01:12] Nixon. And just want to begin by

[1:01:15] uh thanking all of the residents who

[1:01:17] submitted um um

[1:01:20] to the uh city prior to the meeting. I

[1:01:22] read those quite closely. And all those

[1:01:25] who came and spoke tonight and those who

[1:01:26] have emailed me. Thank you for your

[1:01:28] engagement. It's a really important

[1:01:29] thing to do and and your voice and your

[1:01:32] concerns and interests are are critical.

[1:01:35] Um I also want to remind people there's

[1:01:36] no decision being made tonight. There's

[1:01:38] no vote being made tonight. So um just

[1:01:40] everybody can relax easy that there's no

[1:01:42] vote. Uh so but we're really interested

[1:01:45] in getting information at this point in

[1:01:48] this process. We're getting information

[1:01:50] and hopefully helping inform uh staff as

[1:01:52] they look at this uh in a closer and

[1:01:55] more detail.

[1:01:56] Um and I also want to to say um

[1:01:59] uh thank you to everybody for the

[1:02:01] thoughtful and respectful approach uh to

[1:02:04] the presentations. I think um

[1:02:06] uh

[1:02:07] you know, not not always are

[1:02:08] neighborhoods uh that thoughtful, that

[1:02:11] respectful, and you know, you're as we

[1:02:13] all know, you're speaking to somebody

[1:02:15] from your neighborhood. And I also want

[1:02:16] to recognize that you thanked uh this is

[1:02:19] not the same application we saw at the

[1:02:20] neighbor at the neighborhood, pardon me,

[1:02:22] the neighborhood meeting. So uh you you

[1:02:24] did recognize and appreciate there was

[1:02:25] recognition that this is different. It's

[1:02:27] there's been um whether it's to the

[1:02:29] degree people like or not, it's been

[1:02:31] modified with intention to meet uh

[1:02:34] things that were brought forward at the

[1:02:36] neighborhood meeting. So thank you. That

[1:02:38] was noted to Mr. Battaglia, so thank you

[1:02:39] for that. And uh I also thank you, Mr.

[1:02:42] Battaglia, for actually hearing and and

[1:02:44] responding to those. I think that's an

[1:02:45] important recognition as well. And just

[1:02:47] on that theme, and maybe through you,

[1:02:49] Chair Nixon, um to um

[1:02:52] Mr. Battaglia, there was a comment made

[1:02:54] about the um potential for the six units

[1:02:58] to be duplexes. Want to see you want to

[1:03:00] speak to that just because that comment

[1:03:02] was made and and if you want to clarify

[1:03:03] anything on that regard.

[1:03:05] Um these units are single family

[1:03:07] detached and uh expected to conform with

[1:03:11] uh the zoning um standards of the R2

[1:03:15] with the special provision.

[1:03:18] Thank you. And maybe through you, Chair,

[1:03:20] to Ms. Banfield, um

[1:03:23] with what's proposed, regardless of

[1:03:26] whether it was designed or included as

[1:03:29] part of the selling features, would

[1:03:31] these six units, people who own them be

[1:03:34] able to make them into a secondary units

[1:03:36] if they wanted to?

[1:03:38] Through you, Chair Nixon, to Councillor

[1:03:40] Harris. Because these lots, these new

[1:03:42] proposed lots would be on a private

[1:03:44] road, they would not be able to do the

[1:03:46] accessory dwelling units

[1:03:48] um in the same way that um a lot that

[1:03:52] would be fronting onto a municipal road

[1:03:55] would be able to.

[1:03:56] Okay. And so I I know we're using some

[1:03:59] and a very well-informed group here.

[1:04:01] Accessory dwelling unit, does that mean

[1:04:03] they couldn't put a second suite in the

[1:04:05] basement or could?

[1:04:08] Through you, Chair Nixon, to Councillor

[1:04:10] Harris. So

[1:04:12] right now in this in not to confuse

[1:04:13] things, you could do if you had a single

[1:04:16] detached lot that fronted onto a public

[1:04:19] road, um provided you can meet the

[1:04:21] standards, you could do up to four units

[1:04:24] per lot.

[1:04:25] Um but that doesn't apply when a lot

[1:04:28] fronts onto a private road, which is in

[1:04:31] the case um for this application.

[1:04:34] Okay, thank you. And and

[1:04:37] through you again, Chair Nixon, to Ms.

[1:04:39] Banfield. It was also mentioned, I saw

[1:04:41] on page 15, I think it was the

[1:04:42] justification report that was submitted,

[1:04:44] it talked about the I think I'm quoting

[1:04:46] the surrounding properties consist of

[1:04:48] urban residential developed area, which

[1:04:50] are serviced by municipal water and

[1:04:51] sewers. And I think we've heard tonight

[1:04:53] that's not completely accurate if I'm

[1:04:55] correct, and I know I mean including Mr.

[1:04:57] Battaglia has been an advocate for

[1:04:58] urbanizing this area himself. So and

[1:05:01] there are still

[1:05:03] many, if not most of the homes or all

[1:05:05] the homes on Gene Street would be on

[1:05:08] septics?

[1:05:13] Through you, uh Chair Nixon, to uh

[1:05:16] Councillor Harris. I'm not I'm not

[1:05:18] actually sure of all of the details. I

[1:05:20] just know that in the in the city zoning

[1:05:23] bylaw and and in the official plan, it

[1:05:24] says new development has to be serviced

[1:05:26] by um municipal services, but we could

[1:05:29] certainly take that back and uh respond

[1:05:32] to council on which properties are

[1:05:34] serviced by municipal services versus

[1:05:37] private services. Great, thank you. And

[1:05:39] if I can continue, um

[1:05:41] in the capital plan, I know residents

[1:05:43] have been frustrated over the years with

[1:05:45] the urbanization being moved back in the

[1:05:47] capital plan, and we've advocated. Um

[1:05:50] can you I I saw I should have asked you

[1:05:52] before, so I apologize for putting you

[1:05:53] on the spot. Do you know in the capital

[1:05:55] plan where the urbanization of Gene

[1:05:57] Street currently sits?

[1:06:00] Through you, Chair Nixon, to Councillor

[1:06:02] Harris. I'm afraid I don't, but again, I

[1:06:04] could certainly find that information

[1:06:06] out for you. Yeah,

[1:06:07] there's probably a resident who knows. I

[1:06:09] know it got pushed back. It's uh been

[1:06:10] pushed back unfortunately. Derek, you

[1:06:12] know it's been pushed back, right? Yeah,

[1:06:14] so um that remains a concern for the

[1:06:17] area, uh the urbanization.

[1:06:19] Um

[1:06:20] also, I think you know, when we looked

[1:06:22] at the memo from the city, it talked

[1:06:24] about three key planning matters. One

[1:06:26] was compliance with the provincial

[1:06:27] planning. One was with the city's

[1:06:29] official plan. And the other one, which

[1:06:30] was I think well articulated by

[1:06:32] residents tonight, was the integration

[1:06:34] of the proposed development into the

[1:06:35] existing neighborhood within the

[1:06:36] envisioned development and character of

[1:06:38] the area.

[1:06:41] Sorry, I muted myself. Uh

[1:06:45] maybe if um we could

[1:06:47] again through you, Chair Nixon, to Ms.

[1:06:49] Banfield, when we talk about those three

[1:06:51] key matters, and I know

[1:06:54] um planning is part science, part art,

[1:06:57] and you know, we see in the

[1:06:59] justification report clearly, and we've

[1:07:01] I'm sure everybody's read it, um you

[1:07:03] know, Mr. Battaglia's

[1:07:06] um

[1:07:07] report talks about it meeting provincial

[1:07:09] and city's official plan. Uh however,

[1:07:12] the one thing that seems to be

[1:07:14] really of interest and and and

[1:07:15] highlighted is the is the integration of

[1:07:18] the proposed development into the

[1:07:19] existing neighborhood with the character

[1:07:21] um feature. I wonder if you could speak

[1:07:23] to how staff um kind of manage that

[1:07:27] particular element cuz that seems very

[1:07:29] um a little more um

[1:07:32] subjective in some ways, but also

[1:07:35] you know,

[1:07:36] uh objective in other ways. But I just

[1:07:38] wonder if you can talk a bit about how

[1:07:39] that gets sorted out by the city.

[1:07:43] Through you, Chair Nixon, to uh

[1:07:45] Councillor Harris. So it is tricky in

[1:07:48] the sense that, you know, staff um have

[1:07:51] submit many, many staff reports to

[1:07:53] council to approve applications that are

[1:07:55] much larger than six single detached

[1:07:59] homes. And so

[1:08:01] in in in that instance, and then here

[1:08:03] we're looking at something that is six

[1:08:04] single detached homes that is filling

[1:08:07] the council chambers more than some of

[1:08:09] our bigger projects are. In terms of the matters, the things that you talk

[1:08:13] about um in terms of character and and

[1:08:15] fitting into the community, things that

[1:08:17] planners look at, um is are things like

[1:08:19] the the existing road pattern, the

[1:08:21] existing lot pattern, the size of the

[1:08:23] existing lots, the front yard of the

[1:08:27] existing homes, the rear yard, um mature

[1:08:30] trees. Like there's there's actually a

[1:08:31] whole bunch of things that go into what

[1:08:34] makes a community and what makes builds

[1:08:37] the character of the community. So um

[1:08:39] these would all be things that um

[1:08:41] planning staff would would take a look

[1:08:43] at. And there isn't, unfortunately, a

[1:08:46] magic number to say, you know,

[1:08:49] eight is too much, six is too much, two

[1:08:50] is too little. The these

[1:08:52] all get factored in and looked at. And

[1:08:55] the servicing piece you talked about, we

[1:08:56] know what could actually be serviced.

[1:08:58] There are a lot of inputs to um you

[1:09:01] know, what would bring a staff report

[1:09:03] forward for recommendation for approval.

[1:09:07] Great, thank you. And um

[1:09:10] just and you maybe to help people

[1:09:11] understand what what is weighed, what isn't weighed, um

[1:09:15] there was a really good um detailing of

[1:09:17] the history of this property and efforts

[1:09:19] that have been made uh to um

[1:09:22] utilize it in a different way than it

[1:09:23] currently is.

[1:09:24] Do any of those um

[1:09:27] uh findings or rulings uh factor into

[1:09:31] the decision that is made on this

[1:09:33] application or or if they do, how do

[1:09:34] they?

[1:09:37] Through you, Chair Nixon, to Councillor

[1:09:39] Harris. Um you know, so certainly

[1:09:41] municipal land use planning is governed

[1:09:44] by provincial planning legislation that

[1:09:48] um I think the one application that was

[1:09:49] referenced was in 2006, so almost well,

[1:09:53] exactly 20 years ago. So, we do as a

[1:09:55] municipality have to make sure that our

[1:09:58] planning regime aligns with the

[1:09:59] province. Um now, that being said, um

[1:10:02] intensification in 2006

[1:10:05] um is is very different than the

[1:10:07] intensification that we're seeing in 20

[1:10:10] 26. Um so, the history doesn't

[1:10:13] necessarily reflect you know, how we

[1:10:16] evaluate today. Like, we would never

[1:10:17] look at an application in 2026 and say,

[1:10:20] "Oh, well, in 2006,

[1:10:22] you couldn't do this." Like, we wouldn't

[1:10:23] do it from that perspective. Um but, it

[1:10:26] does talk a lot about, you know,

[1:10:27] intensification

[1:10:29] um in the city can mean different things

[1:10:32] depending on where you are.

[1:10:35] Thank you. And that was a good segue I I

[1:10:36] cuz it was referenced

[1:10:38] the gentle density as a term and the 40%

[1:10:42] on the street as as a whole, the 75% on

[1:10:44] the one side of the street. Just curious

[1:10:46] how I Maybe again, it's it's great cuz

[1:10:48] we have a great crowd here and and

[1:10:49] they're very engaged and interested. Is

[1:10:51] that understanding of

[1:10:53] how does that get assessed and you know,

[1:10:55] when we look at

[1:10:57] you know, the term gentle density. I

[1:10:59] mean, it's uh and what is currently um

[1:11:04] experienced in that neighborhood,

[1:11:05] obviously, it's all I mean, all

[1:11:07] single-family homes, correct? The um I'm

[1:11:09] not even sure if there's accessory

[1:11:11] dwelling units on the street. Um but, um

[1:11:13] or any um

[1:11:15] in-law [clears throat] apartments type

[1:11:15] thing. But, how how does that get for

[1:11:17] maybe for people's benefit, how does

[1:11:19] that get adjudicated by the city or

[1:11:20] assessed?

[1:11:22] Through you,

[1:11:23] Chair Nixon, to Councillor Harris. I

[1:11:25] think what you're pointing at is exactly

[1:11:27] really what the official plan is is

[1:11:29] trying to to do, and that's why there's

[1:11:31] different land use designations. There's

[1:11:33] neighborhood area that's intended to um

[1:11:37] to to still have intensification, but

[1:11:40] it's going to be at a much different

[1:11:41] scale than um a property that's owned um

[1:11:44] high density or or even medium density.

[1:11:47] So, um Council again has heard me say

[1:11:49] many times that intensification in one

[1:11:51] neighborhood could be one more house.

[1:11:55] Our intensification in another

[1:11:56] neighborhood could be a six-story

[1:11:58] walk-up, and in another neighborhood

[1:11:59] could be a 20-story building. And it really does depend on what street

[1:12:05] it's on, what's around it, what

[1:12:07] environmental land is around it. And so,

[1:12:09] there isn't anything um that would say,

[1:12:12] you know, we wouldn't look at it

[1:12:13] instantly and make the same

[1:12:14] recommendation each time just because

[1:12:16] each piece of property is is unique.

[1:12:19] But, but definitely in an area like

[1:12:21] this, um you know, intensification, you

[1:12:23] would expect to see it as

[1:12:26] perhaps more single-detached homes

[1:12:28] versus an apartment building or or

[1:12:31] something higher density.

[1:12:32] Great.

[1:12:33] Yeah, I I got to be careful. I got I got

[1:12:35] to keep going on. There's a lot of

[1:12:37] questions. It's really important. Um

[1:12:40] How is character defined? And is that

[1:12:42] defined by in large by

[1:12:45] you know, the people who live there and

[1:12:46] what they see and experience of the

[1:12:48] neighborhood?

[1:12:49] How or how much does that weigh in to

[1:12:51] the equation of the character definition

[1:12:53] and and assessment of the area?

[1:12:56] Through you, uh Chair Nixon, to

[1:12:58] Councillor Harris. So, character is one

[1:13:01] of those elements that really has been

[1:13:03] um reshaped by the provincial government

[1:13:06] in terms of legislation because there historically the the context of

[1:13:11] character, neighborhood character is

[1:13:13] that nothing should change. The

[1:13:14] neighborhood is as it is, and the

[1:13:16] character is it, and it can't change.

[1:13:18] And so, that is one of the elements of

[1:13:21] um provincial legislation that has um

[1:13:24] has has evolved in in the context that,

[1:13:26] you know, neighborhoods um can change. New homes and new residents

[1:13:31] can move into the areas um if things

[1:13:34] like, you know, buffers between existing

[1:13:36] uses are considered, transition in

[1:13:38] building form or building height, uh

[1:13:40] trying to keep mature vegetation, um

[1:13:43] compatible built forms, those types of

[1:13:45] things. So again, it really isn't a a

[1:13:48] kind of black or white, but but the the

[1:13:50] neighborhood character piece um as I

[1:13:52] said, neighborhoods um community

[1:13:55] building is is actually built by the

[1:13:57] people and the people that live there

[1:13:58] and the people that use the parks and go

[1:14:00] to the schools and and um but, it is

[1:14:02] making sure that that built form um fits

[1:14:05] [clears throat] in as as best as it can.

[1:14:06] But, but neighborhood character, as I

[1:14:08] said, does not necessarily mean that

[1:14:10] nothing is going to change. And and lot

[1:14:12] size and lot configuration is a big part

[1:14:15] of neighborhood character. Um and

[1:14:17] certainly we're hearing that from the community because obviously, the

[1:14:20] smaller the lots, um

[1:14:23] the the built form is going to take be

[1:14:25] take more massing. There's going to be

[1:14:26] fewer setbacks. There's going to be

[1:14:27] smaller setback like front yards and

[1:14:29] rear yards and those sorts of things.

[1:14:31] But, that's actually not unique to just

[1:14:33] this neighborhood. We've heard it um

[1:14:35] across the city as new developments come

[1:14:37] in. So, um but again, all of those

[1:14:39] things factor in, and it is going to be

[1:14:41] a different equation, if you will,

[1:14:43] depending on where you are in the city.

[1:14:46] Thank you. Yeah, this is this is great.

[1:14:47] I maybe I maybe my last question. I'll

[1:14:49] stop myself. Um one more question.

[1:14:52] When you look at the

[1:14:55] what are the sort of top three uh

[1:14:57] factors that would most likely change

[1:15:00] the character of neighborhood? What

[1:15:00] would those top three be?

[1:15:08] Through you, Chair Nixon, to Councillor

[1:15:11] Harris.

[1:15:12] Um so, I don't I don't even know whether

[1:15:14] I could necessarily say a top three.

[1:15:16] But, you know, again, the things that

[1:15:17] I'd already talked about initially, um

[1:15:19] you are going to um the equation's going

[1:15:22] to be different if it's an infill

[1:15:24] project like something like this um

[1:15:27] versus a greenfield project like Kate

[1:15:29] saying our secondary plan areas or um

[1:15:31] even in the new areas to the north end

[1:15:34] of the city. Um

[1:15:36] so, I I mean, I I hesitate to say, but I

[1:15:38] think at the end of it, it's all of the

[1:15:40] pieces. We talk a lot about making sure

[1:15:42] that um the the

[1:15:45] whatever's being proposed um is livable.

[1:15:48] And so, to the greatest extent possible,

[1:15:50] if there is already development in the

[1:15:52] area, you want to make sure that to the

[1:15:55] greatest extent possible, the built form

[1:15:56] is compatible, the the setback from the

[1:15:59] street is compatible, the um as many

[1:16:02] mature trees as can can be kept as

[1:16:03] possible, um

[1:16:05] those types of things, you know, when

[1:16:07] you're looking at infill are are

[1:16:09] important um as well as um

[1:16:12] fundamentally, how are

[1:16:15] how is the existing neighborhood going

[1:16:16] to be impacted by the new development?

[1:16:19] And those things talk about the things

[1:16:20] we've already talked about tonight in

[1:16:21] terms of transportation and servicing

[1:16:24] and um and again, that that is going to

[1:16:26] be different whether you're dealing with

[1:16:28] um an infill project or perhaps

[1:16:30] something that is a little bit more of

[1:16:32] greenfield development.

[1:16:36] Thank you very much. I really appreciate

[1:16:38] it. And thank you, Chair Nixon, for the

[1:16:40] room to ask all those questions. Thank

[1:16:42] you.

[1:16:44] are welcome.

[1:16:46] Um Marinella, I believe you had a

[1:16:48] question of clarification.

[1:16:51] Yeah, thanks so much um Mr. Chairman.

[1:16:53] Thank you for the liberal approach to

[1:16:56] letting me

[1:16:57] um

[1:16:58] ask some things here. Cuz I

[1:17:01] I'm not sure if I'm on the exact. So,

[1:17:03] thank you for that.

[1:17:04] Um

[1:17:06] I actually want to clarify some things

[1:17:08] for members of the public. Uh

[1:17:10] as Mr. Mr. Brooker can probably attest,

[1:17:13] I spent a lot of time walking down these

[1:17:15] streets saying hi to folks when I was

[1:17:17] 18, 21, 25 running for Council in this

[1:17:20] ward.

[1:17:21] And and did so with petitions and block

[1:17:24] development and those types of things.

[1:17:26] Uh

[1:17:28] I want to really hone in on something

[1:17:31] that Ms. Banfield just said, which was

[1:17:33] there is a massive change

[1:17:36] in the way

[1:17:38] a development is interpreted today

[1:17:41] versus 20 years ago.

[1:17:43] Um and so, I really want members of the

[1:17:46] public to walk away with with all the

[1:17:48] information

[1:17:50] so that there's not a position

[1:17:54] that

[1:17:55] you think one thing, but it's something

[1:17:57] else.

[1:17:58] So, I'm going to ask some questions to

[1:17:59] Ms. Banfield just to clarify

[1:18:03] information for the public tonight so we

[1:18:05] don't get here three or four or five or

[1:18:07] six or seven or 10 months or a year from

[1:18:09] now

[1:18:10] uh thinking, "Well, why did I get

[1:18:12] blindsided, and why didn't I know that

[1:18:14] information?" Okay?

[1:18:16] So, um

[1:18:18] the

[1:18:21] current property is one property. It's

[1:18:23] being proposed to be split into

[1:18:26] essentially two properties as viewed by

[1:18:29] the city with then

[1:18:32] multiple dwellings on the second

[1:18:34] property. Is that Am I interpreting that

[1:18:36] correctly, or is there a better way to

[1:18:37] say it than than that?

[1:18:40] Through you, Chair Harris, to Marinella.

[1:18:42] So, you are correct. The existing house

[1:18:45] would be um subdivided off, and then the

[1:18:48] remaining

[1:18:50] proposed six units would be dealt with

[1:18:52] through a condominium, and would

[1:18:54] essentially be on one block. Okay.

[1:18:57] So,

[1:18:58] if we were to pretend for a second

[1:19:01] that

[1:19:02] there was not six units being proposed

[1:19:04] onto a condominium block.

[1:19:07] Um and it was being divided into just

[1:19:11] two lots, one with the existing

[1:19:12] dwelling,

[1:19:14] and then one for a new dwelling.

[1:19:17] Is that Does it meet the qualification

[1:19:20] for that based on the frontage, etc.

[1:19:26] Through you, Chair Nixon, to Mayor

[1:19:29] Neddle. So,

[1:19:31] the crux of that would be if we could

[1:19:33] would be depend on how much frontage is

[1:19:35] on Jean Street. The configuration of the

[1:19:38] existing house is that kind of long,

[1:19:40] which makes it a bit challenging to

[1:19:42] subdivide it just at the house and still actually

[1:19:45] have frontage onto Jean Street, which is

[1:19:48] important for a severance. So,

[1:19:51] in your scenario, without doing kind of

[1:19:53] everything correctly tonight, um most

[1:19:56] likely the existing house would have to

[1:19:57] be demolished to be able to have to

[1:20:00] create two lots that would still have

[1:20:02] frontage on Jean Street.

[1:20:05] Okay, so basically by

[1:20:11] the city wouldn't allow, this is good

[1:20:13] information, the city wouldn't allow

[1:20:15] a

[1:20:16] lot beside it that wasn't essentially a

[1:20:18] straight one back. It wouldn't allow it

[1:20:21] if it went down and off to the side,

[1:20:23] kind of the way that lot is configured.

[1:20:26] Through you, Chair Nixon, to um

[1:20:28] to to the Mayor to Mayor Neddle. So,

[1:20:32] currently the property is zoned R2, so

[1:20:34] we don't believe, again, very quickly,

[1:20:37] looking that the the frontage

[1:20:38] requirement of the R2 for two lots would

[1:20:41] be satisfied um without reconfiguring

[1:20:45] the existing house.

[1:20:47] Yeah.

[1:20:48] Okay, good. That that is a good piece of

[1:20:49] information. Thank you.

[1:20:51] Uh the

[1:20:53] if this were to get sent to the Ontario

[1:20:57] Land Tribunal by

[1:20:59] the

[1:21:00] um

[1:21:01] applicant,

[1:21:02] uh what ability do the residents have to

[1:21:06] uh intervene in that process

[1:21:08] today versus 20 years ago?

[1:21:13] Through you,

[1:21:15] Chair Nixon,

[1:21:16] uh to Mayor Neddle. So, as it relates to

[1:21:19] appeals for zoning bylaw amendments, not

[1:21:22] too much has changed. It's the bigger

[1:21:24] change has been around site plan and

[1:21:26] minor Committee of Adjustment decisions.

[1:21:29] So, depending on how um the application

[1:21:32] got to the OLT, so Council could refuse

[1:21:36] it and the applicant could um appeal it,

[1:21:38] Council could approve it, and the um

[1:21:40] residents could appeal it. So, it would

[1:21:42] depend really on how it got to the

[1:21:44] board, but um

[1:21:46] the easiest probably for this example is

[1:21:47] let's say Council refuses it and the

[1:21:49] applicant takes it to the um to the OLT.

[1:21:52] So, at that point, um the OLT would ask

[1:21:55] the City of Barrie who came out to the

[1:21:57] public meeting, who's been involved, and

[1:21:59] then at that point residents would have

[1:22:00] the ability to to ask to be a part of

[1:22:02] the hearing.

[1:22:04] Okay, so so they have the ability at

[1:22:06] that point to ask to be a part of the

[1:22:07] hearing, not guaranteed or it is

[1:22:09] guaranteed?

[1:22:11] Through you, Chair Nixon, to Mayor

[1:22:14] Neddle. I haven't seen where they

[1:22:16] haven't been able where residents

[1:22:18] haven't been able to. I I suppose it's

[1:22:19] technically possible, but certainly in

[1:22:21] my experience I haven't seen where

[1:22:23] um

[1:22:24] residents have come and asked to speak

[1:22:26] at an OLT or be a part of it. I haven't

[1:22:29] seen a case where they've been refused.

[1:22:33] Sorry, you still had it on. Okay, so

[1:22:35] over the last 3 years,

[1:22:37] uh since the changes with what was it,

[1:22:40] Bill 1

[1:22:42] 19?

[1:22:44] Bill 23 and 119?

[1:22:46] Uh

[1:22:47] Don't trust them. The other the other 22

[1:22:49] bills that changed it. [laughter]

[1:22:51] Um

[1:22:53] We don't go to the OLT very often,

[1:22:55] folks, so so uh through those changes,

[1:22:59] uh that hasn't limited the ability for

[1:23:01] the residents to

[1:23:03] uh go and intervene the

[1:23:06] uh

[1:23:07] OLT on these types of issues, only on

[1:23:09] the site plan and

[1:23:12] uh plan of subdivision.

[1:23:14] Or minor variance. No, you're correct.

[1:23:16] Through through you, Chair Nixon, to

[1:23:18] Mayor Neddle. You're right, I didn't

[1:23:19] actually say draft plan of subdivision,

[1:23:20] but you're right though, that's those

[1:23:22] are the three that um the Committee of

[1:23:23] Adjustment applications, the draft

[1:23:25] plans, and site plans. Okay, great.

[1:23:28] Um

[1:23:29] so that would leave it open for for the

[1:23:31] residents as well. That's good. Uh the

[1:23:33] final piece being

[1:23:35] if the

[1:23:37] if we were in the scenario today where

[1:23:40] the applicant said,

[1:23:41] "I'm actually just going to proceed with

[1:23:43] four as of right."

[1:23:46] And

[1:23:48] are they able to proceed with four as of

[1:23:50] right?

[1:23:51] And for for the public, I know

[1:23:53] Councilor Harris touched on this, Ms.

[1:23:55] Banfield touched on this.

[1:23:57] Uh four as of right is something was um

[1:23:59] pushed by the federal government

[1:24:02] uh on on municipalities. Three as of

[1:24:05] right is embedded, I believe, inside of

[1:24:07] uh Ontario at this point.

[1:24:10] Um

[1:24:11] so would four as of right apply to the

[1:24:13] single property as it is

[1:24:17] configured today?

[1:24:19] Through you, Chair Nixon, to Mayor

[1:24:21] Neddle. So, correct, it would be we we

[1:24:24] the term we use is like four units per

[1:24:25] lot, so there's one existing home, and

[1:24:28] then they could technically have three

[1:24:31] other lot or three other not lot, sorry,

[1:24:33] three other units

[1:24:34] um that could be um either like basement

[1:24:37] suites or like a um

[1:24:39] a detached dwelling unit as well, yes,

[1:24:41] um because this property does have

[1:24:43] frontage onto to Jean, and so they would

[1:24:46] be able to do the accessory dwelling

[1:24:48] units.

[1:24:49] And what's the maximum size of those

[1:24:51] units?

[1:24:52] It's done through a percent through you

[1:24:54] at Chair Nixon to Mayor Neddle. It is a

[1:24:56] percentage, and so while we say four

[1:24:58] units as of right or four units, um

[1:25:01] there still would be standards that

[1:25:02] would have to be looked at, and so it

[1:25:04] would really depend on um whether

[1:25:05] they're internal to the existing

[1:25:07] building or additional, we'd have to

[1:25:08] take a look at that. So, even though you

[1:25:10] could do the four units, sometimes you

[1:25:12] can't do the four units um just because

[1:25:15] of the standards of the zoning bylaw.

[1:25:18] Okay, is there any way that as in your

[1:25:20] uh

[1:25:21] work that's done by the planning staff

[1:25:23] for when this comes back, I'd like to

[1:25:24] know

[1:25:26] uh

[1:25:26] what

[1:25:29] is

[1:25:31] the potential

[1:25:33] without

[1:25:34] uh in the sense that

[1:25:35] I'd like to understand

[1:25:38] if this is a probably a no-go for any

[1:25:40] ancillary structure

[1:25:42] or if somebody could come forward,

[1:25:45] uh Mr. Petalia or someone else,

[1:25:47] and put,

[1:25:49] you know, another structure that's a

[1:25:51] triplex,

[1:25:52] a duplex and a single or three singles

[1:25:55] in place on the same property or

[1:25:58] like what what it it would

[1:26:01] the size of the property would allow

[1:26:03] according to these provincial federal

[1:26:05] regulations.

[1:26:07] Through you, Chair Nixon, to um Mayor

[1:26:10] Neddle. So, that would be like a highest

[1:26:11] and best use kind of calculation of the

[1:26:14] existing zoning, um and we could

[1:26:16] certainly have a have a comment in the

[1:26:18] staff report when it comes back.

[1:26:23] Uh

[1:26:24] thank you. I I really appreciate uh

[1:26:26] that, and I think it's really important

[1:26:27] that that information is taken into

[1:26:29] consideration. I I've not been a fan of of

[1:26:35] some of the city's interactions with the

[1:26:36] applicant, uh to be to be blunt.

[1:26:39] Um

[1:26:41] but I also recognize that like we don't

[1:26:43] love I mean, I don't I'm not saying we I

[1:26:46] don't love four as of right. I don't

[1:26:48] love changing

[1:26:49] units. I think it should be planned out,

[1:26:51] but that's the world we live in, and so

[1:26:52] you need to have the same information

[1:26:54] that we have uh to go forward.

[1:27:01] Uh thank you. Do uh any non-members of

[1:27:04] committee have any questions of

[1:27:05] clarification?

[1:27:17] Yes, you have already spoke.

[1:27:19] I just wanted to say something and to

[1:27:20] clarify what they've been talking about

[1:27:22] the four as of right or whatever. Yeah,

[1:27:24] I'm afraid no. Once you've spoken,

[1:27:26] that's that's it, but thank you.

[1:27:28] Uh

[1:27:29] Councillor Rhema.

[1:27:32] Um thank you, Chair Nixon, and and this

[1:27:35] is also to Ms. Banfield. I'm a little

[1:27:37] confused. Um there's there was uh

[1:27:40] a draft plan of subdivision here, and

[1:27:42] then I also hear condominium plan. So,

[1:27:45] which is it or is it both?

[1:27:48] Through you, Chair Nixon, to Councillor

[1:27:51] Rhema. So, um

[1:27:53] in some cases in the older areas of

[1:27:55] town, um

[1:27:58] you need to do a draft plan of

[1:28:00] subdivision to bring the entire property

[1:28:02] into land titles to be able to then

[1:28:04] condominiumize it to be able to give

[1:28:07] clear title, and I'm so sorry cuz I know

[1:28:09] it's so so technical, um but but that's

[1:28:12] kind of the realities of the draft plan.

[1:28:13] Think of the draft plan as kind of

[1:28:16] the boundary, if you will, and the one

[1:28:18] lot, and then that will create two

[1:28:20] parcels um in a proper land titles

[1:28:23] situation that would then let the

[1:28:25] condominium go on the balance of the

[1:28:27] property. Um that's

[1:28:30] essentially how we would do it um in

[1:28:32] some of these older areas of town. So,

[1:28:34] some of these subdivisions in the older

[1:28:35] areas of town are not even super

[1:28:37] exciting. Like there was a subdivision,

[1:28:38] but it's like one block, but but

[1:28:41] typically that um that's why it's done

[1:28:43] that way.

[1:28:48] Okay, thank you. We will move to our

[1:28:49] fourth public meeting. Uh there'll be no

[1:28:51] presentation this evening as the

[1:28:52] proposed zoning bylaw amendment was

[1:28:54] introduced by Mayor Neddle pursuant to

[1:28:56] Bill 3, the Strong Mayors Building Homes

[1:28:58] Act,

[1:29:00] which amended the Municipal Act, 2001,

[1:29:03] in accordance [clears throat] with

[1:29:04] subsection 284

[1:29:06] uh three, section B, of the

[1:29:12] Municipal Act, 2001,

[1:29:14] SO 2001,

[1:29:17] section 25 as amended.

[1:29:20] The purpose of the amendment is to

[1:29:21] support Royal Victoria Regional Health

[1:29:23] Care's redevelopment and future

[1:29:26] expansion.

[1:29:28] Uh, were there any uh

[1:29:31] public comments?

[1:29:32] Has anyone registered? Has anyone No.

[1:29:36] Okay.

[1:29:37] Uh, members of committee, do you have

[1:29:39] any questions of clarification?

[1:29:43] Seeing none.

[1:29:45] Okay. If anyone has any further written

[1:29:47] comments or you can submit them to

[1:29:49] Michelle Banfield, executive director of

[1:29:51] development services at

[1:29:53] michelle.banfield@barrie.ca.

[1:29:57] Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

[1:29:59] Do I get a chance to ask a question?

[1:30:09] Yes, go ahead.

[1:30:10] Thank you. [laughter]

[1:30:13] I didn't I didn't I didn't want to

[1:30:14] interrupt your flow without you

[1:30:16] realizing it.

[1:30:17] Actually, I thought I turned it to you a

[1:30:18] moment ago and you you did ask your

[1:30:21] question, but anyways, go ahead.

[1:30:23] On on this one, um, just one quick

[1:30:25] question and and that is, um, there's no

[1:30:29] uh drawing attached to

[1:30:31] uh this bylaw and I'm more concerned

[1:30:34] about the area that is um in former

[1:30:37] Springwater

[1:30:38] and that is um

[1:30:40] there are quite a number of trees on

[1:30:42] that property

[1:30:43] and I wanted to find out from you and there's a slope as well

[1:30:48] in part of it. Um, I want to find out

[1:30:51] from uh Ms. Banfield uh what the plan is

[1:30:54] for

[1:30:55] uh for those um sort of environmental

[1:30:58] areas and uh how we'll be protecting

[1:31:00] them if if if that's in the in the

[1:31:02] works.

[1:31:05] Through you, Councillor Nixon and

[1:31:06] Councillor Reimann. So, this really just

[1:31:08] um sets up the zoning for the proposal

[1:31:11] for RVH and uh staff have been in

[1:31:14] contact with RVH team and they'll be

[1:31:16] doing a site plan um application that

[1:31:19] will take a look at um the environmental

[1:31:22] impacts and the tree boundaries and um

[1:31:24] those sorts of things. So, um we expect

[1:31:27] that to move relatively swiftly um but

[1:31:30] all of that work that's going to that

[1:31:32] you talk about the grading and and all

[1:31:33] those sorts of things will be looked at

[1:31:35] through the um the site plan and it is

[1:31:37] actually within the Nottawasaga Valley

[1:31:39] Conservation Authority limits um and

[1:31:41] they've already been in contact with um

[1:31:43] the conservation authority to get that

[1:31:45] um development limit mapped and um and

[1:31:49] so that they can move forward with um

[1:31:51] the overall proposal.

[1:31:54] Okay. Thank you.

[1:31:57] Okay. This concludes the affordability

[1:32:00] committee meeting. The meeting is

[1:32:02] adjourned and we will move to city

[1:32:05] council meeting in

[1:32:08] Give me 1 minute. Yeah.

Affordability Committee

Transcript