[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.