[0:00] Thank you for your patience, everyone. This morning and I will confirm that we are

[0:04] recording and live streaming on the town's website.

[0:07] Chair Ash, the time is now 10:00 and I can confirm

[0:10] that this meeting is being recorded and webcast on the town's website.

[0:26] Public hearings are held in a hybrid format with members of committee and

[0:30] the audience attending, both in person in the council chambers,

[0:34] as well as electronically using a Zoom

[0:38] webinar. The video from this meeting is being live,

[0:41] webcast, and recorded for future viewing.

[0:43] Displayed on the screen is the electronic meeting etiquette

[0:47] to be followed by those addressing committee electronically.

[0:50] For any individual watching the webcast who is interested in providing

[0:54] comments on applications being considered today,

[0:57] please visit www. Dot Bracebridge Dot CA

[1:01] to view the participation details and link contained in

[1:05] the meeting agenda. The following maximum time limits

[1:09] are applicable. The applicant and or their agent may

[1:12] make a presentation of up to ten minutes.

[1:15] Members of the public may also make a presentation of up to five minutes

[1:20] when instructed to do so by the chair. Members of the public who are participating

[1:25] electronically should click the raise hand button in Zoom

[1:28] to indicate their desire to speak. Those calling into the meeting

[1:32] by telephone are to press nine on your device to raise your electronic

[1:36] hand. Members participating in person will

[1:39] be recognized by the chair and invited to the microphone.

[1:44] Any disrespectful, inappropriate or derogatory behavior

[1:47] may result in expulsion from the meeting in accordance with section 241

[1:51] two of the municipal act. Thank you, chair Ash.

[1:55] Thank you very much. I realized I didn't have my microphone on at the beginning,

[1:59] so. Yes, this is the town of Bracebridge. Committee of Adjustment hearing

[2:03] for August 9. Moving ahead, does any member have

[2:06] a pecuniary interest on any matter being discussed today?

[2:10] No, seeing none. Thank you. I will

[2:14] provide the land. Acknowledgement. We want to acknowledge that

[2:17] we are on lands traditionally occupied by indigenous peoples. They continue to

[2:21] care for this land. They continue to shape bracelets today, and we want

[2:25] to show our respect hundreds of years after the first

[2:28] treaties were signed, they remain relevant today in guiding

[2:32] our decisions and actions.

[2:36] So I'm looking for minutes of the previous meeting.

[2:40] Do we have. Are those on the agenda for today

[2:43] to move in second? Okay. Do I have a mover and a

[2:47] seconder for the minutes? I would so

[2:50] move. Thank you. Do we have the seconder? I will second. Thank you very much.

[2:54] All in favor? The minutes are approved. That was a

[2:58] motion made by member Beaumont and seconded by member Franklin.

[3:03] Are there any requests for withdrawal or deferral?

[3:11] Thank you, chair Ash. There have been no requests for withdrawal

[3:14] or deferral. Thank you very much and could you please advise how the notice of

[3:18] the public hearings were circulated? Notices for the minor variance

[3:22] applications were sent by first class mail to the assessed owners

[3:25] within 60 meters of the properties and

[3:29] to those persons and agencies likely to have an interest in

[3:32] the applications. The notices were provided a minimum

[3:36] of ten days prior to this meeting in accordance with the provisions of the Planning

[3:40] act. Persons wishing to receive notice of the decision of

[3:44] committee must submit a written request to the Secretary treasurer by

[3:47] email to planningeracebridge, CA.

[3:52] Thank you very much. We will now hold the public

[3:55] hearing for application D 1321 24

[4:00] by 689-1535 Canada,

[4:03] Inc. And Miss Peters, can you provide a quick

[4:06] summary of the application please? Thank you

[4:10] chair ash this

[4:33] minor variance application was considered by the committee in July.

[4:36] However, after that hearing, a a landowner near the subject property

[4:40] advised staff that they had not received a copy of the public notice in

[4:43] the mail. Upon further investigation, it was found that there

[4:46] was an error made when generating the mailing list for the circulation as

[4:51] set out in item seven of the staff report. While posting the sign on the

[4:54] property and posting the notice for that July hearing

[4:58] on the town's website would have satisfied the planning act circulation

[5:02] requirements, staff determined that recirculation was appropriate in

[5:05] order to ensure that the town's standard practices for public notification

[5:09] were consistently applied. As not all of the committee members

[5:13] here today were present at the July 8 hearing, I will provide

[5:16] a full presentation while keeping it as brief as possible.

[5:21] The subject lands are located at 76 covered bridge trail.

[5:27] The minor variance application was submitted in order to change the way lot frontage

[5:31] is measured for certain lots within a draft plan of subdivision and

[5:35] to exempt one lot from the minimum setback for a driveway

[5:38] to interior side lot lines. Specifically, the applicant

[5:42] is requesting that the following definition of lot frontage apply to proposed lots

[5:47] 8935, 36, and 38.

[5:50] Lot frontage shall be measured along the front lot line except

[5:54] where multiple lot lines above a street or where the side lot lines are not

[5:58] parallel, in which case the lot frontage is to be measured as a distance

[6:02] of 6 meters at a distance of 6 meters or 19.7ft

[6:06] back from the straight line cord where the two side lot lines meet the

[6:09] lot lines abutting the street. The applicant is also requesting that

[6:13] section 5.10, subsection four of comprehensive

[6:17] zoning bylaw 20 1688 not apply to

[6:21] proposed lot 36. This zoning bylaw provision

[6:24] requires a driveway to be set back a minimum of 1.2

[6:28] meters or 3.9ft from any interior side lot line

[6:32] except on a lot with a frontage of less than 8 meters where adjoining

[6:36] driveways are permitted. The overall minor variance sketch

[6:39] is shown here. On this slide

[6:43] is an enlargement showing proposed lots eight and nine with the alternative

[6:47] frontage measurements shown,

[6:50] and this enlargement shows lots 35,

[6:53] 36, and 38 with the alternative frontages shown.

[6:59] Some relevant background information on this property is that

[7:03] a rezoning application was received by the town in 2011 and

[7:07] associated applications for draft plan of subdivision approval and

[7:10] draft plan of condominium approval were submitted to the District of Muskoka

[7:14] at that time. The applications were updated in 2019

[7:18] and a concurrent public meeting for consideration of the three

[7:22] planning applications was held jointly by the town and district.

[7:25] The minutes of that meeting are available online through a link in the staff

[7:29] report. The applications were deferred at that time

[7:33] to allow for consideration of comments received at the public meeting and until

[7:37] any items identified in the peer reviews of technical reports had been

[7:40] addressed. The applications were subsequently

[7:43] appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal in 2022

[7:47] due to lack of decision within the statutory timelines.

[7:51] Through the appeal process, a settlement was reached and was accepted by

[7:54] the Ontario Land Tribunal with a final decision issued in October

[7:58] 2023. The OLT decision includes

[8:02] conditions of draft approval for the plan of subdivision and common element condominium,

[8:06] as well as a site specific zoning bylaw applicable to the

[8:10] subject property. The decision can be viewed online.

[8:13] Differences between the draft plan of subdivision referenced in the OLT

[8:17] decision and the draft of survey plan of the Plan of subdivision

[8:21] for final approval have resulted in certain proposed lots not meeting

[8:24] the minimum frontage requirement. The variance related to

[8:28] the driveway setback is an administrative correction. It does appear

[8:32] that this was inadvertently omitted from the zoning bylaw prepared by OLt,

[8:36] and staff would note that the online version of that decision does include

[8:40] lot 36 in the list of proposed lots to be exempt

[8:43] from the driveway setback. However, the PDF version that

[8:46] the town received does not the

[8:51] subject property is currently vacant. The interior of the property is

[8:55] well treed and mainly flat. The property abuts the

[8:59] Beaver creek and contains slopes along the north,

[9:02] south and east portions down to the creek.

[9:08] These are some photos of the subject lands. The top photos

[9:12] show a view into the property from the street and

[9:15] the opposite view out toward the street along what would be the

[9:18] proposed entrance way into the development. The bottom photos are

[9:22] views along covered bridge trail to the north and south of the entrance

[9:26] to the subject lands.

[9:31] The subject lands are designated residential within the urban

[9:34] center designation of the town of Bracebridge. Official plan a

[9:38] number of relevant official plan policies are set out in the staff report in items

[9:43] 31 through 36, they emphasize that the majority

[9:46] of residential growth shall be directed to the urban center to utilize

[9:50] full municipal services, that an emphasis should be placed on growth

[9:53] within the built up area as identified in the official plan

[9:57] and that a mix of housing types at varying densities, tenure,

[10:00] and affordability should be provided. Staff are of the

[10:04] opinion that the requested variances, which would enable the development to proceed

[10:07] as planned, meet the general intent of the town's official plan.

[10:14] The property is zoned residential type four special

[10:18] 35 in part, residential type four special 36 in part,

[10:22] environmental protection one in part and open space one

[10:25] in part. According to comprehensive zoning bylaw 20 1688,

[10:30] the zone schedule included in the OLT decision is shown here,

[10:33] with the innermost area, which is outlined in red,

[10:37] being the r 435 zone where buildings and

[10:40] driveways would be located. The r 435

[10:44] special provisions include a reduced lot frontage of 7 meters

[10:48] for end unit road dwellings, a reduced front yard

[10:51] setback of 6 meters for road dwellings,

[10:54] and that section 510, subsection four of the

[10:58] zoning bylaw does not apply to lots eight, nine, and 35.

[11:02] As noted, there has also been a variance request to

[11:06] exempt lot 36 from that driveway setback provision, and the online version

[11:10] of the decision does include lot 36.

[11:14] The proposed change to the lot frontage definition would result in

[11:17] all of the proposed lots meeting the minimum lot frontage requirements.

[11:22] Alternate lot frontage definitions have been used in previous subdivision developments

[11:26] for similar reasons of irregularly shaped lots, and staff

[11:29] are of the opinion that this approach is sound and that the development as a

[11:32] whole will not be negatively impacted by the variance.

[11:36] Staff are of the opinion that the variances meet the general intent of the zoning

[11:39] bylaw.

[11:42] The proposed development has received approval through an OLt decision,

[11:46] and the variances will facilitate the development of a historically vacant property

[11:50] with a medium density housing form that will increase the housing stock

[11:53] within the town's urban center on full municipal services. Staff are

[11:57] of the opinion that the variances are desirable for the appropriate development or use of

[12:01] the land. The variances to the lot

[12:05] frontage definition for specific proposed lots are not anticipated

[12:09] to have any negative impact on properties abutting the subject lands. On future

[12:13] abutting lots within the proposed subdivision or on covered bridge trail,

[12:17] the development will require satisfying conditions of draft approval that

[12:21] will result in development agreements prior to the construction of dwellings

[12:25] and driveways, ensuring a further opportunity for staff to

[12:29] provide feedback to the developer and ensure that each proposed lot has safe and

[12:33] appropriate access to the internal road.

[12:36] As noted, the variance request related to the driveway setback on

[12:39] lot 36 is an administrative correction and upholds

[12:43] the intent of the OLT decision. It is the opinion of staff that

[12:46] the variances are minor in nature.

[12:51] Comments received from the town's public works department indicate no

[12:54] concerns with the minor variance application.

[12:58] Comments in opposition to the application were received from Ilmar

[13:02] Kentz of 184 covered bridge trail prior to

[13:05] the July 8 hearing. The concerns noted include traffic

[13:10] levels on covered bridge trail, a potential parking lot on the subject

[13:13] property near covered bridge trail, the suitability of the

[13:17] ground for construction, the style of the proposed, and the

[13:20] style of the proposed dwellings being suited for a city rather than for

[13:24] the town of Bracebridge. As a brief response, staff would note

[13:28] that several studies were submitted with the applications for rezoning,

[13:32] draft plan of subdivision approval, and draft plan of condominium

[13:36] approval, including a traffic brief, slope stability

[13:39] study, and geotechnical report, and these studies were

[13:42] all part of the appeal package provided to the OLT.

[13:46] Staff are not aware of any plans for a centralized visitor parking area

[13:50] on the subject lands. A draft grading plan is attached to

[13:54] the staff report to provide the general layout

[13:57] of the proposed development and the external

[14:01] appearance of the proposed dwellings is not germane to the variance

[14:05] requests, which are for lot frontage and driveway setbacks.

[14:09] No further comments. Public comments were received either prior

[14:13] to the July 8 hearing or prior to this hearing

[14:17] and no supporting documents were submitted with the application.

[14:23] Should the committee approve the application, staff would recommend the following condition

[14:27] that the minor variance sketch in Appendix A of the staff

[14:31] report be attached to the decision and that the configuration of lots

[14:35] 8935, 36, and 38 be in

[14:38] accordance with that sketch.

[14:43] In conclusion, as set out more fully in the staff report and subject

[14:46] to the recommended conditions, staff are of the opinion that the variances could be

[14:50] deemed to meet the four tests of a minor variance and that concludes my presentation.

[14:54] Chair Ash thank you very much Miss Peters.

[14:57] Committee members, any questions for Miss Petersen?

[15:00] No, seeing none. Okay, thank you and I will turn

[15:03] it over to the committee clerk to bring on the applicant

[15:07] or agent. Thank you. The applicant or their agent

[15:10] are reminded to use the raise hand button in Zoom to be brought into

[15:14] the meeting, and I do see that Andrew has raised his hand.

[15:17] Andrew, I will now add you to the meeting.

[15:36] Welcome to the meeting, Andrew. We ask that you please turn on your video and

[15:39] your microphone, state your full name with your mailing address,

[15:43] including your postal code, and then you may begin your comments.

[15:49] Good morning, madam chair and committee members. Can everybody hear me? Yes,

[15:53] we can. My name is Andrew Pascuzzo. I am a registered professional

[15:57] planner. My address is 173 St.

[16:01] Marie street in Collingwood, Ontario.

[16:04] L, nine, Y, three, k, four.

[16:07] I am here this morning representing the

[16:10] numbered company, the Canada, Inc. Numbered company, which was referenced previously.

[16:15] Obviously, my client has had a fairly lengthy approval

[16:19] process. We've already received

[16:23] approval for this minor variance and understand that there

[16:26] was an administrative error.

[16:29] I would like to thank Kelly for her very detailed

[16:33] presentation and assistance throughout the

[16:37] process here. She hit a home run on our presentation again,

[16:41] so I'm not going to say much here. I would just.

[16:45] Obviously, I'm asking for the committee again to approve

[16:48] the minor variance application. It is my professional opinion

[16:52] that the minor variance meets the four tests.

[16:56] The reason for the request is because of the irregular

[17:00] shape of the proposed lots, as well as the site itself,

[17:04] which sits on a peninsula around the river.

[17:08] Yeah, so that's basically all I have to say.

[17:11] My client is obviously. And his consulting team

[17:14] is proceeding through to satisfy the conditions of draft

[17:18] approval because he would like to move ahead with

[17:22] construction as soon as possible on the property.

[17:24] So if there are any questions, I'm more than happy to

[17:28] respond. I'm also here to listen to any comments from

[17:31] additional neighbors that may have been caught within the recirculation.

[17:36] Thank you very much, madam chair. Thank you very much,

[17:39] Andrew. Committee members, any questions at this time? No,

[17:43] we don't have any questions for you right now, so if you

[17:46] want to hang back, that's great.

[17:52] We'll now look for member or comments from the public.

[17:56] Are you here to speak to this application?

[18:00] No, you're just here to listen. Okay, thank you very much.

[18:04] Then we can proceed to members who might be available on

[18:08] Zoom. Thank you. And, chair Ash, I can confirm

[18:11] that we have no members of the public attending the meeting by Zoom.

[18:16] Thank you very much. That will conclude.

[18:20] Any further questions from the committee that you want to ask?

[18:24] No, thank you. All right.

[18:30] Could you please put the recommended, the recommendation by staff up

[18:34] on the screen for us? Thank you. Thank you, chair Ash. One moment,

[18:37] please.

[18:50] So there. We have the recommendation as provided by staff.

[18:54] I am looking for a motion on this application,

[18:58] member Beaumont. Chair, I would move that

[19:02] we accept this minor variance with the conditions supplied

[19:06] by staff. Thank you very much. Do I have a seconder for that?

[19:09] I'll second it. Thank you, member Franklin. All those in

[19:13] favor? All in favor? Your application has

[19:17] been approved, Andrew, with the stated condition. Thank you

[19:21] very much.

[19:23] And I'll now declare this public hearing

[19:27] concluded. And that is

[19:31] it. I'm looking for a motion to adjourn.

[19:36] Thank you, member Franklin. Thank you, member Beaumont.

[19:41] All in favor? We're adjourned. Thank you very much.

Untitled meeting

Transcript