[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.