[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