[0:00] good afternoon and welcome to the Comm adjustment meeting for February 20th

[0:04] 2025 Brian I'll be caring the meeting today first order of business is any

[0:09] secary interest by any of the board members take that as a no our first

[0:15] application today is an application for consent 34 call Street East in valvo the

[0:21] owner is Pathways to Independence and staff thank you chair the subject

[0:27] property is located at 34 College Street East

[0:30] and currently consists of a legal non-conforming 4unit dwelling this

[0:34] consent application proposes to sever the northern portion of the property to

[0:39] create a new lot for a one unit detached ding the lot is currently Zone R1 which

[0:45] does not permit the existing four unit dwelling therefore as a condition of

[0:50] consent a resoning is required to reone the lot to an appropriate residential

[0:55] Zone staff notes that the city is undertaking a residential intensive

[1:00] ation project which includes a zoning byw amendment to reone specific

[1:05] corridors within the city from the R1 Zone to the R2 Zone the zoning byw

[1:10] amendment was approved on February 10th and affects this property once the

[1:16] appeal period expires the subject property will be Zone R2 and the

[1:20] associated Provisions will apply to both the severed and retain Lots however the

[1:26] retain lot still does not meet the minimum required lot era for a po unit

[1:30] dwelling within the R2 Zone therefore zoning relief is included as a condition

[1:35] of consent through a future minor variance application at this time no

[1:41] comments have been received from the public regarding this application but

[1:46] thank you okay is there anyone here from pathway for Van Houston

[1:50] to yeah hello my name is Isaac V on of passway any additional question

[1:58] comments no I just think this is just a great example of the way in which

[2:02] Pathways can add to their inventory of affordable residential units that they

[2:08] provide for their clientele which I think is a really good thing it's a

[2:11] great organization uh yeah I think it's pretty

[2:14] straightforward Stu what we're suggesting here is the building going to

[2:20] be used for Pathways yes the new building yeah

[2:23] okay how many units are planned for that it's going to be a single family

[2:28] dwelling with u second resident any any questions for this

[2:34] gentlemen the existing building is

[2:46] Frable yeah uh where's the driveway in this new building uh we're going to do

[2:52] an extensive site plan but we'll probably have it coming it will

[2:55] definitely the new building will be off

[3:01] there's already look like an existing there's like an

[3:04] existing is there an existing one there yeah something something there so

[3:09] that'll leave no parking for the building on the corner the existing

[3:13] building no exist the existing building has on the

[3:19] side and because of the type of residence there there won't be a whole

[3:23] lot of cic Staff other than staff vehicles I mean

[3:28] we recognize it sell anybody in

[3:33] we'll any question for this gent if anyone else wishes to comment on

[3:40] 34 College

[3:43] Street go ahead could the actual uh driveway that's there now could it be

[3:50] used as a place as opposed to North Park well yeah because they own both prop

[3:56] they will own both properties we were thinking maybe we could wrap around

[4:00] um from the backside just to have access on for both of the housing and things

[4:05] like that have offs to get on to college or get on to North Park I mean that

[4:10] wouldn't be something that be transferred my only question is if North

[4:14] or North Park at that place with turn lane going north you've got traffic here

[4:22] traffic there is another I know there's a driveway is there a driveway there now

[4:29] yeah there is we would be right beside the driveway

[4:33] to it's near the tree line then yeah okay

[4:40] that's any other questions if not motion sorry sir have

[4:46] something to say thank you sorry can I say something yeah sorry I'm my name is

[4:50] Chris flurry um I own nine North Park which is it's actually the blue building

[4:56] there on the bottom one on left so where the van is

[5:03] uh so it has been I mean my question uh my

[5:08] reason for coming today was to find out exactly what the building was going to

[5:11] be used for and if it was going to be used for another uh Pathways independent

[5:16] home um I can tell you it's it's very difficult living next to Pathways um

[5:22] there are um my understanding is people who have um uh traumatic brain injuries

[5:29] and and that sort of thing um my wife was chased down the street at one point

[5:35] by one of the residents um resulted in the police being called um she was with

[5:40] her children we have three young children um there's a gentleman who this

[5:44] hasn't happened since last summer it's so cold but he um I don't know how to

[5:50] describe it he sort of shadow boxes with himself outside but it's it's it's

[5:56] frightening it's honestly frightening and uh we had to at one point we had to

[6:00] take our our kids inside because of that um

[6:05] my concern is obviously that right now there's a poer zone

[6:09] between um Pathways and our property but if this goes through it's

[6:15] you know it's a very small property I don't know how you

[6:19] fit um a whole other residents in there I me

[6:24] you probably could but that would mean that it would be within feet of our

[6:31] property I don't know if you get a sense of it sort of looking at that but the

[6:35] property line is right where those trees are so it would be great next our

[6:42] property

[6:47] in my question is will there be a bent down on his side of the property when

[6:55] that building is fil

[7:00] uh through the chair um the chair there's no requirement for offense

[7:04] between a single detached dwelling and another single detached dwelling um we

[7:09] also don't regulate who lives in a dwelling it's essentially what this

[7:13] application is for um so your question be that answered by the applicants but

[7:18] that would be more at their their desire to have that

[7:23] V trees are going to have to come down anyways maybe can yeah I mean I I think

[7:30] you know Pathways always tries to be a very good neighbor we built for them on

[7:35] North part for it's 101 North part we did go that way of putting up fence um

[7:42] just to one her good neighbors so I don't think it's I mean I'd have to

[7:46] discuss that Pathways of course but I don't see that Su the realm so if there

[7:52] was a fence for down where the tree line is there that would probably mitigate

[7:58] some of the issues that you may have some of them yes yeah I know it

[8:04] depends on how far it goes like di it comes all the way to the street well

[8:09] full length of the property I would say if you're going to build it should

[8:12] probably be the full length of the property should not um to the chair

[8:16] there there is some limitations to where fenses can be placed uh there's

[8:20] limitations to once they go into the front yard so pass the building toward

[8:24] between the building and the street uh they're only maximum one meter in that

[8:28] range uh along essentially once it's in that sidey yard and level with the house

[8:35] going back it can be up to eight feet there so can only come the th can only

[8:40] come to the front of the house it can't go right to the line in the front once

[8:44] it extends past the house towards the street line it can only be maximum

[8:48] one oh height not distance correct okay can one

[8:57] thing the pathway have always been very good deal with them my concern is just

[9:03] that there's some um there's an inherent nature to to

[9:09] what you're doing and it is going to be disruptive in to to some of the the

[9:14] neighbors despite sorry L yeah I me you experienced

[9:19] that something I don't think you can put that

[9:24] as the condition of our sence it's not really that got precedent you think that

[9:30] you know we want to be good neighbors so I think that'll

[9:34] go that's

[9:44] for I'm with pathway Independence yeah name I'm the operations manager and like

[9:51] I don't see offense being an issue for us during the bill time if that will

[9:57] help the back of the property all way to the front but with a limitation yeah on

[10:02] the lower one I I we haven't done a site plan yet

[10:11] but that existing drive better yeah well okay any other

[10:20] questions anybody else have any comments questions concerns if not then so to you

[10:27] Mr chair can we as a committee add a variance for this fence to make sure

[10:32] that it can go the length of the property to make sure the this homeowner

[10:37] is uh satisfied well the S can go the length properly just that once it go by

[10:43] the house it can only be one meter it's given permission to make a higher high

[10:48] all the way to

[10:51] the sorry for the chair one the the rationale behind limiting fence height

[10:56] in the front yard is to ensure the pH people back

[11:01] in pedestrian safety andf the

[11:13] reason I'm empathetic sir I I get it and and maybe God knows if that my family

[11:18] been it would be scary to me too but I I I don't want to be put us in a position

[11:23] where we're saying we if if Pathways as a neighbor decides to do so I don't want

[11:30] to put anything that requiring such a b it it it's not

[11:35] it's it's like saying I I don't like this neighbor so the city's making me

[11:40] put up fence I don't want to get back into that corner I'd like to see it

[11:44] happen as a good neighborly decisions rather than something that we're putting

[11:48] in the condition in any way I find

[11:52] that than any further questions comment if not do we have a motion

[12:00] Mo move second by Joe Joe all in favor okay thank you our next application is

[12:09] for minor variant 291 M dve the owner isale and the AG fre engineering and

[12:17] staff um thanks Mr chair um 291 M Drive is located on the north side of M Drive

[12:26] East of Highway 62 and west of red drive this man virus application requests Rel

[12:33] to reduce the minimum required interior sidey WDS from 7.5 M to 1.2 M to

[12:41] recognize the existing interior side yard WS of the existing buildings this

[12:47] relief would facilitate the expansion of the space for warehousing and the office

[12:54] in the north building it is noted that on December the 19th 2024 the committee

[13:01] of adjustment approved three consent applications to allow 285 Midland Drive

[13:08] to sever two pieces of land to 291 Midland Drive although these

[13:14] applications will facilitate 291 Midland Drive to expand towards the north they

[13:21] will not change the interior side yard WDS of the existing buildings and the

[13:28] proposed addition the official plan designation of the

[13:32] property is employment land use prior to this meeting staff have received one

[13:38] phone inquiry regarding this application The Inquirer requested more details of

[13:45] the proposal specifically whether any building would be expanding closer to

[13:51] the east lock line staff clarified the scope of the proposed work and explained

[13:58] that expanded building would not be located any closer to the east L line

[14:05] back to you Mr chair okay thank you is there anyone here Dale D from three Hil

[14:12] engineering have you have any additional questions comments no I

[14:20] think the office Ware work okay yeah we dealt with this back in December I guess

[14:28] anybody have any questions for this G or anybody in the audience have any

[14:33] questions comments concerns everybody's happy then I'll

[14:39] move move by Jack seconded by Robert all in favor thank you thank

[14:46] you okay our next application is an application for consent

[14:50] 837 valario and the owner owner is Lloyd PRS and the

[14:58] opp thank you thank you chair the subject land located at 837 casy road is

[15:06] currently zon as agriculture Z the property is developed with a one unit

[15:10] detou dwelling and several accessory buildings including two barns which are

[15:15] not used for housing lifestock this content application

[15:19] proposes to sever the existing Surplus dwelling along with two accessory

[15:24] buildings onto a separate lot with a lot area of 4,800 squ me

[15:29] and lot Frontage of 30.8 M on casc road this proposed consent would result in a

[15:36] minimum lot Frontage less than required by the zoning bylaw for both the sever

[15:41] and retain Lots in addition the lot area of the retain lot would be less than the

[15:46] required therefore as a condition of consent the corresponding minav variance

[15:51] application has been submitted to address the reduced lot Frontage for the

[15:55] severed lot as well as the reduced lot area lot Frontage for the retain lot

[16:01] additionally a zoning by law amendment is required as a condition of consent to

[16:06] rezone the separate parcel to a rural residential Zone while the retain lot

[16:11] will be reson to a site specific agriculture Zone to prohibit any future

[16:16] residential development on the retain lot and prevent the use of the existing

[16:20] barns for the housing of livestock at this time no comments have been received

[16:25] from the public regarding this application okay is Lloyd here or

[16:32] Watson and not Lloyd Jennifer from Watson answer theirs

[16:37] uh we're the agent for this file just here to answer any questions it seems

[16:41] fairly straightforward we've got a justification report from a professional

[16:44] planner included um for the deficient 30 meters of Frontage from the 45 required

[16:49] for R of Thea so they're basically just separating the house from the

[16:53] agricultural so they can dispose of or do yeah so normally it would be 45 MERS

[16:58] Frontage the we have to do um and in this case the farmer felt very strongly

[17:02] about the crop value of that land and wanted to I'm not sure if it shows up

[17:07] very clear in those pictures but it's it's very much farmed it's even farmed

[17:10] over and they're still going to lose some crops um with this configuration

[17:14] but at least it's better than than losing a lot more of it

[17:19] yeah Surplus F so we've reviewed all the conditions with the landowner and they

[17:24] agree with them any questions for this lady anybody else in the audience wishes

[17:30] to comment on casy Ro this is Sarah she's with me she's a new staff member

[17:35] so she's of here just take not she's learning okay if there's go further

[17:43] question comments motion Michael seconded by sure Scott

[17:49] all in favor par pertaining to the same

[17:54] property so um fa you want to thank you chair this this manav variance

[17:59] application is to facilitate the corresponding content application

[18:03] previously discussed for the subject property as an anticipated condition of

[18:08] consent this manance application requests to reduce the minimum required

[18:13] lot Frontage for the separate lot from 45 M to 30.8 M as well as to reduce the

[18:19] minimum required lot era from 40 hectares to 17.6 hect and lot Frontage

[18:26] from 100 m to 71 3 met for the retain mod uh at this time no comments have

[18:33] been received from the public regarding this

[18:36] application okay thank you no no further comment okay and I guess there's no one

[18:41] there okay motion yeah second by Robert all in

[18:47] favor thank you that that part uh next is to con the minutes of January the

[18:54] 16th motion by Robert seconded by thought all in favor done any other

[19:02] business correspondents next meeting March

[19:09] 20th at 3:30 unless we have another pi and if not an

[19:17] adjournment you that concludes our meeting thank you

[19:22] very much nothing

Committee of Adjustment - Feb. 20 2025

Transcript