[0:21] think

[0:40] Works to confirm the finding of the studies notice the public meeting that

[0:44] originally issued on February 4th this year in did not include the requested

[0:49] relief for lot depth of 29 meters and L of 30 met uh for this public park block

[0:55] as well as the lot

[1:14] B

[1:40] two minutes everyone two

[1:58] minutes

[2:28] e e

[3:11] Che

[3:45] good evening everyone welcome and thank you for being

[3:50] here welcome to the woods city of Woodstock Public planning meeting

[3:54] tonight's meeting is an open public meeting as required by the planning act

[3:59] due to the change in meeting venue this meeting will be live streamed to the

[4:03] county of Oxford YouTube channel and a recording of the meeting will also be

[4:07] posted on the city's website following the meeting an agenda of the meeting can

[4:11] be found on the agendas meetings and minutes page of the city's

[4:17] website this meeting is for information and discussion purposes only and no

[4:22] decisions will be made this evening Council will make a decision on these

[4:26] matters at the regular council meeting to be held this Thursday

[4:30] if you wish to address council at that meeting you must submit a delegation

[4:34] form to the city of city clerk no later than 12: p.m. tomorrow

[4:40] Wednesday a delegation form is available on the city's website or sticking around

[4:46] tonight and we may have some if an application is denied only

[4:52] the applicant or the minister May file an appeal with the Ontario land tribunal

[4:57] within 20 days of issuance of the notice of council's

[5:01] decision only specified persons public bodies registered owners of land which

[5:07] the plan May apply the requestor to amend the plan and the minister May

[5:11] appeal the decision of the city of Woodstock to the Ontario land tribunal

[5:16] within 20 days of issuance of the notice of council's

[5:20] decision excluding the minister any party wishing to make an appeal must

[5:25] make written or oral submissions to Council on a public meeting

[5:30] please note that third parties anyone who is not specified persons or public

[5:35] body do not have the right to appeal a decision for an official plan Amendment

[5:39] to the Ontario land tribunal please keep your comments to

[5:44] planning matters only and I'd ask that you avoid repeating comments that have

[5:50] already been expressed if you have not provided oral

[5:53] or written comments but wish to receive formal notice of council's decision on

[5:58] the matter please contact the clerk's Department the notice will provide

[6:03] further information on appealing the decision the planner will be asked to

[6:08] present the planning report for each application the applicant will then be

[6:13] provided an opportunity to make comments followed by those wishing to speak in

[6:17] favor of the application and Then followed by those wishing to speak in

[6:22] opposition of the application I'll call you

[6:26] forward prior to proceeding with the first application does anyone wish to

[6:31] declare a pecuniary interest on any items on tonight's

[6:37] agenda seeing none let's jump into it we do have seven

[6:42] tonight so we'll uh get things going first up item 2A B2 24-

[6:49] 938 application for consent which is 27999 3 onario Inc Mr Gilbert thank you

[7:01] thank you uh this consent application uh seeks to sever um lands that are zoned

[7:08] for commercial purposes from lands that are zoned for residential purposes the

[7:13] lot to be severed has an area of seven uh 2.33 hectares uh with

[7:22] Frontage on Devonshire and Cardinal a Cardinal Drive the lot to be retained uh

[7:28] has Frontage on Dunkirk AV and contains a semi- detached dwelling uh the lands

[7:33] have inadvertently merged uh when the subdivision was drafted approved um

[7:39] these lands containing the semidetached dwelling were subject to an exemption to

[7:43] part law control application uh that bylaw exempts you

[7:47] from the seven process essentially but has a time period associated with that

[7:52] in this case the applicants transferred the lot after that bylaw expired so as

[7:58] such the lands are still considered to be legally merged um the consent

[8:02] application as noted will just separate the commercial lands from the

[8:06] residential lands uh staff have no concerns with the app with the proposal

[8:11] and recommend approval and support subject to the above the four noted

[8:16] conditions in the report thank

[8:21] you thank you any questions of the planner from city

[8:27] council seeing none thank

[8:31] you is the applicant here tonight and wish to speak to

[8:41] this and when coming forward I'd ask that you state your name and address for

[8:45] the record thank you welcome thank you my name is Andrea

[8:50] Sinclair I'm with mhbc planning uh 540 bingaman Center Drive in kitner uh here

[8:57] as the applicant um nothing for further to add I think the staff report was

[9:01] comprehensive as Mr Gilbert mentioned this is more of a technical consent uh

[9:06] it was always intended that the commercial block would be separately

[9:09] developed from the residential but uh they've merged on title so this allows

[9:15] for the commercial lot to be separately conveyed and developed in the future uh

[9:20] again just here in support of the staff report and the conditions and here to

[9:24] respond to any questions that Council may

[9:27] have thank you any questions of Miss stclair the

[9:34] applicant seeing none thank you so at this point I will ask if

[9:39] anybody would like to come forward and speak in favor of this

[9:48] application seeing none I'd ask if anybody would like to speak against this

[9:56] application okay seeing none moving along

[10:07] next up we have op2 23-5

[10:12] d8 uh s SP 23-38 ZN

[10:17] 8-23 d07 application for official plan Amendment draft plan of subdivision and

[10:22] zone change Mr

[10:26] Gilbert thank you uh these applic ations are for official plan Amendment zone

[10:33] change and trft plan subdivision uh the official plan Amendment would

[10:38] redesignate the lands from uh the current designation which is community

[10:42] facility to uh residential uh block one would be uh low

[10:48] density residential block two would be medium density and block uh three would

[10:53] be high density uh with uh block four and block five to be uh open space

[11:01] reflecting the proposed Park use and the storm water management block the

[11:07] proposed official plan Amendment for the medium density block would allow for a a

[11:11] maximum density of 75 units per hectare above the current uh 70 units per

[11:17] hectare maximum and the apartment block block three would allow for a a density

[11:26] of 151 units per hectare 150 units per hectare is the maximum density and high

[11:33] density residential areas as noted the uh sou Vision itself has five blocks

[11:39] including uh one street street a which connects from Lake View Drive uh to uh

[11:45] Oxford Road 59 or van CID Avenue uh with a right in and right out uh access at

[11:51] Street a and Van CID Avenue uh the proposal would have 26 single attached

[11:58] dwellings units uh in the block one AB budding low density development uh to

[12:04] the north and to the east uh stack townhouse development in Block two uh

[12:09] with two uh seven story apartment buildings uh located in block three uh

[12:15] closer to Oxford Road 59 or van card Avenue uh the lands themselves are 9.62

[12:22] acres in size and currently contain an a one-story office building which is

[12:27] proposed to be demolished for the uh proposed development in support of the

[12:32] applications the applicant submitted a number of technical studies including a

[12:35] planning justification report functional servicing report traffic impact study

[12:40] archaeological assessment a tree preservation

[12:43] report um shadowing study for the uh two apartment buildings a parking study a

[12:51] phase one and a phase two environmental site assessment as well as a noise

[12:55] feasibility assessment to measure the um compliance with noise guidelines

[13:00] resulting from uh Oxford Road 59 uh as well uh the traffic impact

[13:06] study in the parking study were peer reviewed by Oxford County Public Works

[13:11] to confirm the findings of the studies uh the notice of public meeting

[13:15] that was originally issued uh on February 4th of this year uh

[13:20] inadvertently did not include the requested relief for the lot depth of 29

[13:24] M and L of 30 m uh for this public uh Park block as well

[13:31] as uh reduced exterior sidey yard width of 3.5 meters uh for the townhouse

[13:38] blocks abing Street a and a rear yard depth of 4.5 MERS which is measured to

[13:44] Street a uh for uh for the townhouse blocks uh staff are satisfied that

[13:50] despite it not being included in the notice uh proper notice was still given

[13:54] as the requested relief is it really technical in in nature and all of the

[13:59] plates that were circulated and reports circulated uh on the public notice and

[14:04] provided to the public uh did include include that relief uh that relief will

[14:10] effectively facilitate what is

[14:16] proposed uh the applicant did host sorry notice the complete application was

[14:21] originally provided uh to uh the public in surrounding residents in October of

[14:27] 2023 with a revised nor comput application in October of 2024 uh

[14:33] following some changes the applicant made uh following an open house that the

[14:37] applicant held in April of 2024 to solicit public input uh the comments

[14:44] received are included as an attachment to the report uh and there's many

[14:49] concerns expressed uh about the density development concerns about compatible

[14:53] surrounding neighborhood and concerns about parking and traffic impacts and

[14:58] safety uh overall with respect to the uh

[15:03] provincial planning statement staff of the opinion that the proposal is

[15:06] consistent with that with that document particularly sections 2.14 and 2.21 to

[15:12] facilitate housing options and choice required to meet current and future

[15:16] residents of the city as well as uh speaking to the development and

[15:20] Redevelopment of underutilized commercial institutional sites for

[15:24] residential uses uh it's important to note that this

[15:28] site currently zoned commity facility uh could be used for a public Hospital

[15:33] could be used for a long-term care facility uh could be used for a number

[15:37] of other uh institutional uh uses uh that could have a density and a far

[15:44] greater impact than what's proposed uh so the uh these applications though seek

[15:48] to uh only permit residential uses on the site the traffic impact study was uh

[15:55] prepared by the applicant uh the findings were peer-reviewed

[15:59] uh by an external peer review consultant who indicated that they were in

[16:04] agreement with the study and the recommendations and the

[16:07] methodology um originally the lands have two accesses from Lake View Drive uh

[16:14] located approximately me here if you can see my cursor uh before the the

[16:20] landscaped median Island and after the landscape media Island uh the applicant

[16:26] uh indicated that it was not preferable to to use this most westerly entrance to

[16:32] facilitate the apartment block um a lot of discussion occurred with Oxford

[16:37] County Public Works about permitting a second access or a sole one access onto

[16:44] Oxford Road 59 uh the compromise that was arrived at was a right in right out

[16:49] to ensure that there aren't cues uh for turning left uh down Oxford Road 59 and

[16:55] that vehicle looking to enter the subdivision from the north would not

[16:59] stop and wait to make a left-hand turn uh and and stop traffic in that area uh

[17:07] the ti uh was revised to um reflect this Arrangement and the the findings confirm

[17:15] that the impacts are minor and they're acceptable uh with respect to other

[17:23] studies that were uh conducted the noise feasibility study uh found that there

[17:29] there would be some dwellings that' be impacted by noise from Ox Road 59 and

[17:34] recommended some standard conditions such as requiring the buildings to have

[17:37] air conditioning and acoustical or noise barrier uh for the dwellings uh located

[17:44] uh directly or near aux Road 59 the these recommendations will be carried

[17:49] forward and implemented through conditions of draft approval and in the

[17:53] approved site plans and the subdivision agreement uh with respect to the the

[17:57] parking that's the uh parking that sought uh the applicants proposing to uh

[18:03] not include or not wave the requirement for visitor parking visitor parking is

[18:09] typically one per 10 space uh of the required parking uh in support of the

[18:15] the parking uh requests they did submit a parking demand study uh which was done

[18:20] for the townhouse and apartment dwelling blocks uh the study concluded that the

[18:25] proposed parking being provided was sufficient to meet the expected parking

[18:29] demand from the land from the proposed units uh as predicted by The Institute

[18:34] of Transportation Engineers it's also noted that the

[18:38] parking that sought is generally in line with uh other approved parking

[18:42] reductions that the city's granted recently for high density development uh

[18:46] in other locations throughout the city uh staff for the proposals

[18:52] consistent with the official plan criteria for infield subdivisions as the

[18:56] design will provide a buffering or miate the impact of the higher density to

[19:01] existing neighborhood uses um there's 26 single or semi- detached dwelling units

[19:07] uh that will back onto the existing low density development as well as the the

[19:12] storm Pond uh these units will provide a buffer a transition to medium density

[19:17] and then the medium density or a transition from the high density to

[19:21] these land uses uh no special zoning reductions or Provisions are requested

[19:27] for the the semi P dwelling block the R2 block so the standard rear yard depths

[19:32] would all apply in that case as well the storm Pond and the the park would uh

[19:37] buffer the uses uh to the South as well as the presence of the uh landscaped

[19:43] Island uh which uh will be um it'll be modified but required to be reinstated

[19:51] uh as a condition of the draft approval as well it's important to note

[19:56] that this subject location also has higher density in the area uh

[20:02] particularly uh to the West there's a a five-story apartment building um at 325

[20:09] Lake View Drive as well as the existing uh PUD 1 zoning uh in this location does

[20:16] provide approvals for up again up to a five-story apartment building would just

[20:21] require uh site plan approval for that uh there are neighborhood serving

[20:26] commercial uses in this uh commercial small commercial development including

[20:31] uh dentist Tim Hortons and a pharmacy that provides uh neighborhood serving

[20:36] commercial uses uh for these residents and for the residents uh in the broader

[20:42] area as well uh uh respecting compatibility Lake View Drive is

[20:48] designated as a minor collector road so it is designated and designed to handle

[20:54] some additional traffic however uh through the TI and and through the the

[20:58] design you know there wouldn't be much um not expect to be much impact to uh

[21:05] properties East of uh the entrance to Street a on Lakeview Drive as uh they'd

[21:10] have a quicker exit to the north uh on the right in right out or they'd come to

[21:15] the light uh to go to the South as well as there's uh plenty of

[21:20] amenity and and Leisure uh Trails Parks um and the the Cowen fields to the

[21:26] north uh there's also a condition in the uh subdivision approvals that speaks to

[21:33] the retention of trees and where trees are to be removed uh compensation is

[21:38] required to PR provided to the city in accordance with the city's tree

[21:46] bylaw with respect to the the zoning that's requested uh staff are supportive

[21:50] of of the requested zoning uh the art the stack tow houses in the medium

[21:55] density block would have a reduced front yard depth the 5.5 m uh to the main

[22:01] building but there' still be the required uh 6 M for the parking in front

[22:06] of the the garages as required they reduced uh rear yard depths and exterior

[22:11] side yard wids to Street a and reduce lot area and uh an increased height from

[22:17] three to four stories are considered appropriate as they'll really only

[22:20] impact the internal uh development of the site and they won't uh impact

[22:26] surrounding uh properties uh the development of those blocks also be done

[22:30] through site plan approval or matters such as grading Landscaping drain engine

[22:36] all those land all those other matters will be addressed to the satisfaction of

[22:40] the of the city and county uh the as noted the the current

[22:45] Community facility zoning uh would permit up to eight stories for a

[22:50] building that's there today so planning staff have looked at the additional

[22:54] height from 3 to four for the medium density block which again is is n really

[22:59] isn't rate AB budding any surrounding existing properties so staff for the

[23:03] opinion that it can be considered appropriate as well as the uh request to

[23:08] relief to the high density block um staff are supportive of of those

[23:13] requests as well uh most of them are designed to site the building closer to

[23:18] um van Avenue to reduce the impacts on on surrounding properties

[23:25] um overall staff are supportive of the application

[23:29] uh we believe there an appropriate balance of um requested relief while

[23:34] providing a variety of of housing types and choice in this area uh this is one

[23:40] of the last this probably is the last large Greenfield site or infield site in

[23:45] the city for uh Asen development as such so staff uh consider this to be an

[23:51] appropriate infill opportunity uh we recommend uh support of the official

[23:57] plan Amendment uh approval and principle of the requesting zoning changes and

[24:01] support of the application uh for draft approval subject to the

[24:07] noted 47 conditions thank

[24:12] you thank you before I uh ask Council for any questions I see we have people

[24:17] outside if you'd like to come in and kind of go off to the sides I'm not sure

[24:22] how well you can hear it all outside you're more than welcome to come in just

[24:27] go off to the sides not standing in front of anybody there might be a couple

[24:30] of seats available but please thank you for being

[24:39] here okay all right thank you uh and with that Council have any

[24:45] questions of the

[24:51] planner councelor

[24:56] shenberg one thing we often talk about is uh parking so from the mayor through

[25:00] to Mr Gilbert U how many parking spots are underground in the apartment

[25:05] building the two apartment buildings in total so that's

[25:08] what 160 units for the apartments uh I have to defer to the

[25:14] applicant I'm not exactly sure how many are underground and and surface um but

[25:19] they are providing the 1.5 spaces per unit just not the visitor parking which

[25:24] is one per 10 spaces and the four story stack town houses will they actually

[25:29] have attached garages that you can be able to I mean this photo here looks

[25:32] nice and pretty but it looks more like a drone shot taken from a mile up as

[25:36] opposed to any kind of elevation shot to give you an idea about uh garages or

[25:40] balconies or what the front doors might look like etc

[25:44] etc uh to make I'll again defer to the applicant about their design for

[25:49] attached garages but again I'll note that they're providing the 1.5 spaces

[25:53] required they're just not providing that one per 10 spaces addition of visitor

[26:03] parking okay anyone

[26:08] else so I just like to ask Mr Gilbert um just want to be clear

[26:13] you there is an opportunity here we've seen many different plans throughout

[26:18] this um but you did mention something that caught my ear about eight

[26:23] stories um under the current zoning there could have been allowed eight

[26:29] zoning or eight stories is that what I heard you

[26:32] say so under the current Community facility zoning the maximum height for a

[26:37] building that's permitted in that which could be a long-term care facility a

[26:41] retirement home a public Hospital a number of other uses the maximum height

[26:47] is eight stories currently today thank you okay any other questions from

[26:54] Council to the planner

[26:59] okay seeing none thank you at this point I'd ask the uh

[27:04] applicant or representative come forward I think Monte

[27:22] Brown welcome and thank you for being here

[27:33] here as well ready for it okay perfect open the

[27:42] file can everyone hear me okay testing testing hello

[27:49] hello I'll try to speak up um as loud as I can um good evening your worship

[27:55] members of council City staff and members of the public in attendance

[27:59] tonight my name is Patrick matkowski I'm a planner with montith brown planning

[28:04] Consultants uh with me tonight is Jay McGuffin president of Monty Brown Planet

[28:09] consultants and we also have Aaron blada in attendance tonight he is the traffic

[28:13] engineer from RC Spencer and Associates uh we're here on behalf of

[28:19] fari Holdings um to provide council with a presentation uh regarding the proposed

[28:24] development at 401 Lake View Drive

[28:30] uh bear with me uh so just who we are uh so far he

[28:36] Holdings is uh one of the largest real estate holdings and development

[28:40] companies in Ontario uh focused on providing homes and Commercial uh space

[28:45] in over 58 Ontario communities which includes

[28:49] Woodstock um and they have a focus on building and developing over, 1500 units

[28:53] across Ontario uh Monte Brown uh is a London based planning firm with over 45

[28:59] years of providing professional land use planning and Urban Design experience uh

[29:04] and we have extensive experience throughout Southwestern Ontario

[29:07] including Woodstock RC Spencer is a windsor based

[29:12] engineering firm with over 35 uh plus years of providing professional

[29:16] engineering experience uh specifically with Transportation Planning and

[29:19] Engineering experience across Ontario which includes Woodstock and Oxford

[29:24] County uh so a bit about the project site I'm sure many of you are um

[29:29] familiar with the site uh but just to provide some background so the site is

[29:34] uh on the northeast corner of uh Lake View Drive and County row 59 uh with

[29:40] Frontage on both roads and forms part of the Alder Grange uh subdivision the site

[29:45] currently does have a one-story uh building um which was uh most recently

[29:51] leased by infrastructure Ontario for offices of the Ministry of Agriculture

[29:55] food and Rural Affairs uh first three-year term uh but that just

[29:59] recently expired in January of 2025 and the property was purchased in

[30:06] uh January 2022 when the property was no longer required to deliver provincial

[30:11] government services and no other levels of government or non for-profit

[30:15] organizations colleges universities Etc expressed interest in the property

[30:21] through the disposition

[30:25] process so this is a little difficult to see uh but just to provide a bit of uh

[30:30] land use context within the 4 800 met radius and for context that would be

[30:35] about a 5 to 10 minute walking distance uh so the subject lands are directly

[30:40] adjacent to single and semi- detached dwellings uh to the north uh which would

[30:44] be along Ridgewood Drive and Court uh and as well as West uh View Court uh to

[30:51] the east uh on Crestwood Court uh we have single detach dwellings uh to the

[30:56] South uh we have single detach dwellings fronting um uh Lake View Drive and to

[31:02] the West uh we have County Road 59 as well as uh the uh the commercial Plaza

[31:08] that Eric alluded to uh which includes the Tim Hortons and the Petro Canada as

[31:12] well as um the pharmacy and the uh uh the dental uh

[31:20] office as well uh to the West we have the five-story apartment building which

[31:24] is known as the greens of Sally Creek Apartments

[31:28] and there are uh a number of uh parks and recreational amenities in the

[31:31] surrounding uh um context including Cowen Sports Park which uh includes a

[31:37] number of soccer fields U multi-purpose uh Fields uh gymnasiums pickleball

[31:42] courts a walking Track we also have a Sally Creek ult Community Center to the

[31:48] Southwest which is a private uh Community Center and then a number of

[31:52] parks and recre uh parks and open space um in the surrounding Community

[31:57] including JJ Williams Park and David Lowe's Memorial

[32:03] Park um so before uh everyone tonight we have uh the proposed planning

[32:09] applications to support the proposed development um as already discussed uh

[32:13] official plan Amendment and Zoning bylaw Amendment are required to rezone and

[32:17] redesignate the subject lands from a community facility uh designation Zone

[32:21] to a mix of residential uh designations and zones uh as well a plan of

[32:26] subdivision application is uh has been submitted as the formal mechanism to uh

[32:31] create the the new development

[32:35] blocks so a bit of project uh history and timeline uh for Council and the

[32:40] members of the public um so the lands were acquired by fari in January of

[32:45] 2022 and shortly after a pre-consultation meeting was held in

[32:49] March of the same year uh to uh discuss the proposed development uh staff

[32:54] confirmed that new planning applications would be filed with additional studies

[32:59] uh to address the proposed development and uh between March and September uh

[33:04] fari and the project team have worked uh diligently to uh uh work towards a

[33:08] complete planning application which was submitted in September of

[33:12] 2023 and ultimately deemed complete in October of

[33:16] 2023 uh following the original submission a number of public comments

[33:21] were received concerning the proposed development and accordingly uh the team

[33:26] uh held an in-person Community Information

[33:28] meeting uh in April at the Reeves Community complex to present the

[33:32] proposed development and uh to receive feedback and input to gauge the level of

[33:38] support from the community and identify concerns or anticipated challenges with

[33:41] the applications uh based on their feedback

[33:44] received by the public uh between April and O uh October of 2024 uh fari had

[33:53] worked extensively with its project team to incorporate the input uh into the

[33:57] design Vision that is will be Illustrated through the revised plan uh

[34:01] on the next slides and so that revised application

[34:05] was submitted October 2024 to amend the original submitted package uh to respond

[34:10] to the comments and concerns raised as well as to address some of the comments

[34:14] that were received by the commenting agencies through the circulation of the

[34:18] original application so the next series of slides

[34:23] are going to outline the development Vision uh for the site uh which will

[34:26] also illustrate uh the original plan and changes that were made based on city and

[34:31] public input but before we go to that I just wanted to outline some of the uh

[34:36] high level guiding principles that influenced our development vision for

[34:39] the site uh starting off with the first one is just identifying an opportunity

[34:44] for the reutilization and intensification of an under uh developed

[34:48] Lance which were considered Surplus to the provincial government second uh

[34:52] providing an opportunity for development within the city's built area boundary

[34:56] which is not on a Greenfield site uh on Municipal services in keeping with the

[35:01] provincial and County official plan policies the F the third is responding

[35:07] to the provincial planning statement direction to accommodate an appropriate

[35:11] attainable and market-based range and mix of residential types to meet the

[35:15] long-term needs fourth providing an opportunity

[35:18] for the extension of existing residential uses and the introduction of

[35:22] new housing forms to contribute to a complete Community the creation of sense

[35:26] of place and age in place opportunities and lastly identifying an

[35:30] opportunity to provide public Parkland and open space and complimentary

[35:34] pedestrian linkages uh to promote interconnectivity outdoor media

[35:39] Recreation pedestrian friendly environment and to have the public

[35:42] Parkland uh serve as a focal point which will be Illustrated on the revised plan

[35:47] in the following slides so I'll turn it over to Jay who's going to provide um uh

[35:53] what the original plan is what comments we've heard and what the revised plan uh

[35:57] provides

[36:00] now thanks

[36:06] Patrick good evening worship uh members of uh Council and members of the public

[36:11] it's a pleasure it's a pleasure to be here this

[36:16] evening uh is this

[36:21] working so in response to um the information tonight first I'd like to

[36:26] start off by thanking Mr Gil for his presentation and uh the information that

[36:30] has been brought forward and like to indicate that we've had the opportunity

[36:33] to review the staff report in detail and all of its recommendations and are in

[36:38] general support of that uh report and its

[36:41] recommendations um as Mr makosi has identified uh this particular plan is

[36:47] coming back to council this is the first time that council is seeing this uh full

[36:51] package um there were invitations sent out to council for a public information

[36:56] center that was held last April of 2024 uh in which we heard from the

[37:01] public uh when we brought out the original submission and we diarised all

[37:06] of the information that we had heard and went back with our client to review the

[37:10] comments that we had heard um that included traffic concerns relating to

[37:15] access onto County Road 59 uh reduction of parking and spillover

[37:20] and adjacent to public roads and a request to increase the amount of

[37:24] parking being supplied there were questions about the location of the

[37:28] storm water management pond and a desire by the general neighborhood to move that

[37:32] Pond North as well as the location of the public park and its size and the

[37:38] location of the apartment building that was running along Lake View Drive it was

[37:44] desired to have that building by the community moved so that it was along the

[37:48] higher order Road County Road 59

[37:58] so we took that plan and um updated all of the various studies that are

[38:03] necessary to support changes in our proposal and as a result went through a

[38:09] redesign process first and foremost rotating the location of the apartment

[38:14] building um moving it off Lake Shore or uh Lake View Drive and moving it onto

[38:20] County Road

[38:25] 59 expanding and enlarg merging the public park to the 5% uh that is

[38:31] required as a statutory requirement not relying on any cash and L of Parkland

[38:36] but rather a full dedication of Parkland to the city extending in a long uh Lake

[38:41] View Drive uh which um mimics the open space that is provided on the older uh

[38:49] Grange open space uh that is identified as a future Park in the city's official

[38:54] plan on the South Side uh of the road in this General

[39:00] location the introduction of a right in right out uh traffic control system at

[39:05] County Road

[39:08] 59 the maintenance of the existing or of the originally proposed uh low density

[39:16] uh semi- detached dwellings uh along the perimeter of the site where it would a

[39:22] butt onto the existing low density residential units uh Beyond this

[39:26] particular site

[39:29] the reorganization of the midrise Town Homes uh the stack town houses in the

[39:35] sitter center of the uh development uh these units uh do not have garages these

[39:41] units are designed for rear

[39:49] access a provision of the 1.5 parking spaces as required by the zoning bylaw

[39:55] and the introduction of underground parking under the two apartment

[39:59] buildings uh one of the councilors asked how many parking spaces were underground

[40:03] that number is 67 and it is within the footprints of both of the

[40:10] towers there were comments received from the public in terms of relocating the

[40:14] storm water management Pond our Engineers identify this is the low point

[40:18] of the area and where the water wants to go to uh and that is the guiding

[40:24] decision on where the storm Pond is uh and the site has to match its topography

[40:30] along the exterior so we have to match grade with the existing lands that are

[40:34] already developed to the north and to the East and that is where the storm

[40:39] Pond is um being directed or the storm water is being

[40:43] directed uh as we move in this is a an aerial view uh looking West towards the

[40:50] intersection of Lake View Drive in Oxford County Road 59 so we're looking

[40:54] at is we're hovering over sort of the corner of the existing residential

[40:58] development looking toward the proposed development you can see the five-story

[41:03] apartment building uh at the very top of the page which is in existence and the

[41:08] relationship of that building to the buildings that are being proposed the

[41:12] open space that's being proposed adjacent that building and the interior

[41:17] development that is being

[41:20] proposed as we walk through these uh particular images have been developed by

[41:26] the Builder who is is going to be building these homes uh that is

[41:29] Millstone homes uh at the time of our original uh submission uh the Builder

[41:35] had not been selected uh so we do now have the Builder and they have developed

[41:39] their floor plans and these are the floor plans these are the semi detached

[41:43] homes that are going to be lining and ab buding the existing low density

[41:47] residential

[41:50] units this is taking a look to the interior of the site from the front of

[41:55] those semidetached units to the stack town homes that are existing on the

[41:59] interior of the site and you can see the effect that that has on blocking out a

[42:04] lot of the apartment building uh to the rear this is at the intersection of Lake

[42:11] View Drive and uh vetar or County Road 59 looking to the

[42:19] Northeast this is looking from one of the existing dwellings backyard as

[42:25] contemplated using uh Google street map and Google aerial

[42:31] photography um from a point of elevation in that property uh looking into the

[42:37] abing low density uh semi- detached dwellings that are proposed so the the

[42:41] roof lines that you are seeing are the proposed

[42:46] development this is an image viewing into and across the storm Pond from the

[42:52] southeast corner of the development uh looking out to the West toward where the

[42:58] fivestory apartment or seven story apartment buildings are along

[43:03] vitart uh Mr Gilbert did an excellent overview of the technical studies that

[43:08] have been undertaken uh just a reminder phase one and two environmental site

[43:12] assessment servicing and storm water management and feasibility traffic

[43:17] impact and assessment and sight line analysis that was also undertaken peer

[43:21] review by I understand County staff and Paradigm Transportation Solutions Inc

[43:26] which is a a third-party consultant retained on behalf of the city of

[43:30] Woodstock a stage three archaeological assessment noise feasibility study tree

[43:35] inventory and preservation plan a street tree planting plan and a shadow study

[43:42] all of those uh materials were not only completed the first time but any of the

[43:46] relevant documents that were necessary to be updated were updated to respond to

[43:50] the changes that we brought back uh for the complete application in October 2024

[43:56] that are in front of this evening uh with that I'd like to uh turn

[44:00] the presentation over to Mr Aaron blat with RC Spencers he's just going to give

[44:06] a quick overview of the uh methodology and findings of his uh traffic

[44:15] study thank you Jay through you your

[44:19] worship my name is Aaron blad and I'm an owner of varcy Spencer Associates

[44:23] Incorporated which is a Southwestern Ontario based company I'm a designated

[44:27] Consulting engineer a professional traffic operations engineer and Road

[44:31] Safety Professional corporately most of my time has spent uh preparing traffic

[44:35] impact studies like these but I also do dabble in some other things like

[44:38] Corridor studies uh larger plans and specifically traffic signal design

[44:43] amongst other things but occasionally I do also offer technical presentations

[44:46] through the University of Windsor as well as through the onario traffic

[44:49] Council and the Canadian Institute for transportation Engineers I do thank you

[44:53] for the opportunity today to present our traffic impact study overview

[45:00] for this project we specifically studied the signalized intersection of Lake View

[45:04] Drive ADV vited Avenue commonly known as Oxford Road 59 we also studied the

[45:09] proposed site accesses at Lake View Drive and at uh vanard

[45:16] Avenue for the purpose of our modeling we referred to the proposed sight plan

[45:21] that was provided to our office and it IND indicated a right in right out

[45:25] control AV in sidart Avenue and you heard some of the permeations of the

[45:28] plan that uh we ultimately arrived at as well as an all directional access at

[45:32] Lake View

[45:35] Drive our trip generation estimates were based on the site plan provided to our

[45:40] office and according to our most current industry references the proposed site

[45:45] plan could generate 25 trips entering and 78 trips exiting during the critical

[45:50] a peak hour and 69 trips entering and 43 trips exiting during the critical PM

[45:55] peak hour at the adjacent signalized intersection

[46:00] the collected turnning movement counts indicated that the westbound volumes

[46:03] totaled 59 during the critical a peak hour this is approximately equivalent to

[46:08] one vehicle per minute and so just to give you a sense I've got a graphic

[46:12] there that shows uh how those totals uh come up

[46:16] together and I also want to point out that during the critical PM PE hour

[46:20] westbound volumes total 39 which was even lower this is approximately

[46:24] equivalent to one vehicle every 1 and a half minutes

[46:27] so that is the current traffic demand that we see on Lake View Drive therefore

[46:31] it is our professional opinion that the subject signalized intersection has

[46:35] plenty of capacity to accept increased peak hour traffic

[46:41] volumes to to be abundantly conservative um traffic was projected to five and 10

[46:46] year Horizons which is standard for our industry uh we applied a 2% growth rate

[46:50] compounded annually and that was applied to the collected traffic volumes and for

[46:55] context a 1% annual growth rate is typical for our tial roadways but to be

[47:00] abundantly conservative the road authority requested that we apply a 2%

[47:03] growth rate to the modeling last year as part of our sensitivity analysis on this

[47:08] site the collected peak hour traffic volumes were increased by a factor of

[47:11] one and a half so took the volumes that were out there multiplied by one and a

[47:15] half and then we further increased it annually by 2% compounded annually to

[47:20] arrive at an overly conservative estimate I would consider that the

[47:23] extreme growth scenario of area uh traffic growth

[47:27] the results indicate the subject signalized intersection has the capacity

[47:31] to accept even an extreme growth

[47:35] scenario so uh without getting too into the specifics of uh of the industry I

[47:40] want to focus on the language a level of service level of service effectively

[47:44] qualifies the metrics outputed by the traffic model it's very similar to what

[47:48] you would see in school uh level service a means that delay is very low while

[47:53] level service f means that delay has reached a state of failure this slide

[47:57] that you see here uh indicates that even in the extreme growth scenario total

[48:02] traffic 2034 uh at worst we're seeing a level

[48:07] service e on the westbound approach nothing reaches critical mass um so

[48:12] clearly there's sufficient capacity within the signalized intersection to

[48:16] accept the additional traffic that's generated by this proposed

[48:21] development as an aside we also looked at the posted speed limit along Lake uh

[48:26] Lake View Drive current industry best practices do

[48:29] suggest the speed limit should be reduced to 40 km an hour from the

[48:32] existing 50 km an hour limit however since speed limit changes are

[48:36] implemented at the city's discretion not at the developer's discretion we have

[48:40] notifi the road authority and await their

[48:43] decision if the speed limit on Lake View Drive is lowered to the recommended 40

[48:47] km an hour along with the proposed median modifications that were discussed

[48:52] the proposed Street a site access poses no undue Hazard to the safety Lake View

[48:57] Drive traffic operations finally as part of our review

[49:02] We explore the technical references available for evaluating Peak parking

[49:05] demand although the city of Woodstock does require one and a half parking

[49:09] spaces per unit which is standard per their zoning bylaw plus the visitor

[49:14] parking that was denoted of one per 10 The Institute of Transportation

[49:18] Engineers has conducted studies and has reported that the average Peak demand

[49:22] rate is approximately 1.27 for lowrise multif family housing and 1.23 for

[49:28] mid-rise multif family housing the developer is proposing 1 and a half

[49:32] parking spaces per unit which is above and beyond the thresholds that we just

[49:35] identified and accordingly we concluded that the proposed parking Supply will

[49:39] sufficiently accommodate the Peak parking

[49:42] demand in conclusion uh it's important to note that all study intersections

[49:47] will operate at good levels of service in all Horizon years post buildout based

[49:52] on the provincial warrants a dedicated eastbound left turn lane is not

[49:55] justified at the intersection of Street a at Lake View Drive the existing

[49:59] conditions are just fine and the sight lines at the proposed Street a site axis

[50:02] appear to be clear of potential obstructions save for the landscape

[50:06] median that is located Southwest of the proposed Lake U Drive site access the

[50:10] developer is proposing that there be a reduction to the East end of that median

[50:15] and will ensure that any vegetation impacting the sight lines will be

[50:18] removed if the speed limit on Lake VI Drive is reduced to 40 km an hour and if

[50:23] that median is modified as prescribed the lake VI Drive site access will po no

[50:27] undue Hazard to Area traffic operations the right in right out AIS at V Avenue

[50:32] exhibits unobstructed sight lines toward the South if you're trying to make that

[50:36] right turn uh restricted access uh s restricted egress from the SES um the

[50:42] proposed parking supply of 102 and 240 spaces should adequately accommodate the

[50:47] Peak parking demand generated by the 68 stack Town Homes and6 apartment units

[50:51] respectively so ultimately uh this is this is a development proposal that

[50:57] matches the intent and uh does not have a significant traffic impact on

[51:02] operations or on traffic safety and uh as mentioned multiple

[51:07] times this evening uh one of our competitors Paradigm Transportation

[51:11] Solutions peer-reviewed our report and concluded that the methodology is

[51:15] consistent with industry best practices and that the conclusions in the report

[51:20] um are understandable so I will uh leave it with that and turn back over to Monte

[51:25] Brown thank you

[51:34] thank you Erin so just in

[51:37] conclusion uh in our opinion the uh application package that is before

[51:42] Council this evening is consistent with the provincial planning statement

[51:45] maintains the general intent and purpose of the Oxford County official plan um

[51:49] you heard U Mr Gilbert um opine on the uses that are currently permitted on the

[51:56] site in terms of the intensity as well as the heights that are currently

[52:00] permitted within the existing zoning on the site um the development that is

[52:04] proposed is less than that height maintains the general intent and purpose

[52:08] of the city of Woodstock zoning bylaw and represents sound landice

[52:13] planning um that concludes our formal presentation uh happy to answer any

[52:17] questions of council uh together with Mr mat kosi and Mr blat thank

[52:23] you thank you very much questions of council councelor Wismer

[52:32] vanir through your worship um just a quick question about the um two

[52:37] apartment buildings that are proposed has there been any consideration given

[52:42] to having commercial um implemented or added into these developments uh

[52:48] commercial is a concern that we hear time and time

[52:52] and time again in this part of the city um I'm just curious that that's

[52:56] something that's been considered or would be

[53:00] considered uh through your worship sorry I was just looking for a photo of the

[53:05] uh of the apartment buildings um commercial was discussed um there is a

[53:10] challenge with the integration of commercial

[53:13] into um multi- rise developments um it is something that I

[53:19] think is best answered by the proponent themselves uh in terms of the market

[53:23] analysis that they had undertaken uh they had under taken significant market

[53:27] analysis in terms of can they support the underground parking can they support

[53:33] uh X number of stories and the development uh the performer work that

[53:37] went into that did not include the provision of commercial um I I wouldn't

[53:41] say that a long term that there couldn't be a consideration for that but it was

[53:46] considered and it was not found to be um contributory to uh the

[53:55] proposal thank thank you anyone else councelor

[54:01] shenberg yeah from the mayor through to uh I guess Mr McGuffin will there still

[54:06] be space to park on the street on Street a will that be a regular street with uh

[54:12] street with sidewalks on on both sides uh it's a reduced width right of

[54:16] way but there will still be space on that street to

[54:20] park I guess a bit of a followup that the traffic Island if you want to call

[54:25] it that on Lake View Drive how much of that would have to be removed for the

[54:29] for this plan to work as far as uh especially having cars coming in and out

[54:34] of Street a from from Lake View with just the one if there was just the one

[54:38] access from Lake

[54:42] View so if you can see on this image uh we have dashed that uh scale back to the

[54:49] central median uh that was a result of the sightline analysis undertaken by Mr

[54:54] blad's firm uh for safe Ingress d i I don't have the specific meter

[55:00] Dimension but it's uh it's not that

[55:08] far anyone

[55:13] else I do have a question myself and I'm going to direct this to Mr blad if he

[55:18] doesn't mind uh the parking study uh I noted was done in 2021

[55:27] of course in the height of covid and and everything else in the world um I think

[55:32] you did a fantastic job and I just want to make sure that the consideration of

[55:38] the time frame that that initially was done and I'm ass may I assume that's why

[55:43] the additional 1.5% and the 2% was added I just want to clarify that if I could

[55:49] through you your worship uh I believe you're referring to the uh the traffic

[55:54] impact study and not the parking study yes thank you uh so regarding the

[55:58] traffic impact study it was based on traffic data that was collected in March

[56:02] 2021 and so um when we started off the process as Patrick had alluded to

[56:08] earlier on in the presentation uh the client purchased the property in 2022

[56:13] and had with them a traffic impact study that was submitted to them from a prior

[56:16] owner and so we identified that we we asked the the city can we use this data

[56:21] or should we be looking to get our on they identifi that we could use the data

[56:25] so we simply use that data and here we are uh 3 years later in 2025 uh postco

[56:31] and um we have also identified that it would be good uh and that was also

[56:35] identified in the perview it would be good to update those counts to to

[56:38] validate however uh given the sensitivity analysis that was conducted

[56:41] the one and a half times multiplier plus the 2% compounded annually for an

[56:44] extreme growth scenario um that we would simply identify that as being part of

[56:50] the site plan control uh application process to affirm that yeah everything

[56:55] that was done prior to was not a problem but all that to say um so my myself I

[57:00] live in uh lemington Ontario which is also same type of uh blue collar type

[57:06] town uh people driving to and from work and during covid we noticed a bit of a

[57:11] dip right when everything shut down but as soon as things open back up traffic

[57:15] largely returned to normal the the biggest significant uh I say was the the

[57:19] most significant uh difference that we saw was actually in the GTA where people

[57:23] were more um typically working from home and continue to do so and then we saw

[57:28] those uh volumes kind of dip back down and stay there um but ultimately even

[57:33] those have started to rebound so in the grand scheme of things we're fairly

[57:36] confident and so is the peer reviewer that the traffic data that was collected

[57:39] at that time uh is sufficient for the purpose of analysis however uh we do

[57:44] fully intend to update those counts but we are waiting for construction uh to

[57:49] stop and for us to get in there to do those counts while uh while construction

[57:53] is shut down for the the various Bridge works that are happening

[57:57] around that was going to lead into my next question how does that affect if

[58:01] that was a factor so thank you very much anyone else councelor

[58:07] shenberg Yeah question again through to the uh developers or the planners the 10

[58:12] units that are drawing backing on the lake VI so I guess if it's a drawn as 10

[58:18] is that actually 40 units as far as being four level stackable tow houses

[58:24] and if so with their elev ation be extremely high compared to the say

[58:29] ranches that are mostly across the street I know there's two story houses

[58:32] across the street as well but there's also a lot of executive ranches across

[58:36] the street so those would be four stories that' be significantly higher

[58:40] than uh some of the houses across the street uh three your worship um they

[58:47] would be uh twostory um pardon me they would be

[58:52] stacked and by that I mean there would be one unit above another unit that's uh

[58:56] what I meant not story but stacked um it actually comes out to three and a half

[59:01] stories and I'm just looking to go back to the

[59:06] imagery that we have on the

[59:11] ground and we don't have a clear image of that uh if I come in on this one you

[59:18] can see it uh so that is sort of the relationship uh Patrick do you recall do

[59:24] we have

[59:32] okay so this is what it would be looking across the street from the proposed

[59:36] semis uh and the relation of of that this would be from a standing height uh

[59:42] average height for this would be 5' 6 in uh in terms of what that view looks like

[59:46] so that is the uh proposed impact at the street

[59:51] level just just to clarify then each unit basically is is two stories you

[59:55] kind of have your living room kitchen on one level then go up to the bedroom so

[59:59] the main floor could in theory have part of the um unit be underground with

[1:00:05] bedrooms on the second floor yes that is

[1:00:13] correct any other questions of

[1:00:17] councel uh we do have a video uh your worship um I'm not sure where it's at on

[1:00:23] the system though

[1:00:28] please

[1:00:41] yesing around thank you uh and just for the benefit of

[1:00:49] the it's not streaming on the screen

[1:00:56] sorry for the benefit of of council this is a video it's been updated with the

[1:01:00] new development proposal but it is a video that was prepared for the public

[1:01:04] meeting back in April of 2024 um and to the counselor's questions

[1:01:09] a moment ago it should speak to that relationship

[1:01:14] of I'm not really sure what we've got going here

[1:01:22] [Music]

[1:01:27] [Music]

[1:02:08] [Music]

[1:02:22] [Music]

[1:02:37] [Music]

[1:02:50] [Music]

[1:03:16] [Music]

[1:03:34] that's the conclusion thank you thank you for sharing that any

[1:03:39] questions of

[1:03:45] councel none thank you very much gentlemen thank

[1:03:54] you so at this point I'd ask anybody that does come up to speak there is a

[1:04:00] signin form I'll ask you to fill that out after you speak but please before

[1:04:06] you sit down again please fill that out that way uh you're insured to be on the

[1:04:12] list at this point I'll ask if anybody would like to come in favor of the

[1:04:22] application that's what I expected it's okay

[1:04:27] uh anybody would like to speak against the

[1:04:31] application okay we'll start one at a time okay thank

[1:04:43] you I just remind you to please state your name Mr Bell for the record and

[1:04:52] address and like I said afterwards I'll ask you to fill out the forms to respect

[1:04:56] everyone's time okay and uh I'd ask that you speak

[1:05:01] into the microphone so everybody has the best chance to hear you as best as

[1:05:04] possible good evening my name is John Bell and I live at 444 Lake View

[1:05:10] Drive I'm one of a team of six who have worked hard over the last 16 months to

[1:05:16] represent our community and keep you and the community informed of their concerns

[1:05:22] with the application joining me tonight are Dan

[1:05:26] major Dave King Bob axon and Ted Young you might want to raise your hands

[1:05:33] fellows they represent various areas of the

[1:05:37] community in preparation for this meeting we met with a community in a

[1:05:41] town hall and they

[1:05:44] ratified and requested that we present the following as representing their

[1:05:49] concerns to you tonight lucky me like last time I again

[1:05:55] drew the the Short

[1:05:58] Straw can I go forward

[1:06:07] here Jeff get me started

[1:06:13] here to go forward just click down oh down okay and we're just going to make

[1:06:18] sure that they're actually share the presentation just give me two seconds

[1:06:22] here okay so to go forward share what click to go forward just button I have

[1:06:27] to click button right there okay so I can't just click the mouse no right

[1:06:33] there yeah okay I know you have heard directly from

[1:06:39] the community about their many concerns and under the planning act many may wish

[1:06:45] to speak tonight as well but is this a you hear me okay right

[1:06:56] many may speak may wish to speak tonight as well but as this application moves

[1:07:01] forward the planning act requires that we make formal representations to you at

[1:07:05] this meeting with regard to land use planning matters in order to participate

[1:07:11] in any future appeal at the Ontario land tribunal and the planning act also

[1:07:17] requires that we present the information pertinent to your pertinent to your

[1:07:21] decision that we would rely upon at the tribun

[1:07:26] additionally due to the changes in Bill 185 we also need to obtain your

[1:07:33] agreement that our concerns are valid and should be and should the applicant

[1:07:39] choose not to address them prior to your consideration of the application we ask

[1:07:45] that you deny the application so our concerns and the expert opinions

[1:07:50] supporting them will be fully examined and arbitrated against those of the

[1:07:55] applicants at the Olt our goal therefore is not to stop

[1:08:01] this development but rather to initiate five changes within the intent of the

[1:08:07] planning act the official plan and our zoning

[1:08:12] bylaws to make this proposal safe and appropriately integrate it with

[1:08:18] our surrounding Community while we recognize that the

[1:08:23] applicant has made some changes to the original

[1:08:26] submission they have given little consideration to our primary concerns so

[1:08:31] we come here tonight to State our five requests to you and ask that they be

[1:08:37] considered as you make your final decision on

[1:08:46] Thursday the planning act in section two also requires that Council shall have

[1:08:52] regard to matters of provincial interest as showing on this chart you fulfill

[1:08:58] these responsibilities by maintaining the official plan and zoning bylaws that

[1:09:04] we rely as a community upon for our continuing protection and quality of

[1:09:13] life the planning act also requires in section

[1:09:18] 5124 that Council in considering a draft plan of subdivision regard a the effect

[1:09:25] of the development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial

[1:09:29] interest as I just showed in section two see whether the plan conforms to the

[1:09:36] official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision if

[1:09:41] any and E the number width location and proposed grades and elevation of

[1:09:48] Highways which means local roads and the adequacy of them are five requests will

[1:09:56] refer to and rely on these

[1:10:04] protections and finally our five requests rely on the county official

[1:10:09] plan which also requires that Council evaluate applications for plans of

[1:10:15] subdivision as being consistent with the objectives and

[1:10:19] policies of the official plan designed to reduce any negative

[1:10:25] effect effect on surrounding land uses the transportation Network or

[1:10:32] significant natural features and lastly designed to be

[1:10:38] integrated with adjacent developments when we purchased our

[1:10:43] subdivision

[1:10:47] properties we did our due diligence and we knew these lands would

[1:10:52] be developed but we also knew that we had

[1:10:56] all of these protections to ensure the quality and

[1:11:00] safety of any new development to ensure a design that would compatibly integrate

[1:11:07] with our surrounding

[1:11:13] Community when Albert Hargraves developed our alter grain subdivision

[1:11:18] plan in 2003 as shown here on our registered

[1:11:23] plan he made full vision for the future development and integration of these

[1:11:28] lands to the

[1:11:32] north such that they could be developed without impact on our community or its

[1:11:42] safety zooming in you can see he made provision for a

[1:11:47] large landscape Center Island on Lake View Drive that the parks department

[1:11:53] classifies as high hor Horticulture on the North side at 1 he

[1:11:59] provided a primary West entrance to the property positioned first of all to

[1:12:06] provide immediate safe access to o59 and ensure no flow of traffic

[1:12:12] through or impact on our subdivision two to be well spaced away

[1:12:18] from the island and three to provide space for

[1:12:22] the necessary left-and turn lane onto southbound

[1:12:27] o59 this exit has been used safely by the government for over 20

[1:12:34] years at two he provided a second yeast entrance to the property positioned

[1:12:39] first of all to meet the city requirement for two exits from a

[1:12:44] property with more than 26 units to position so as not to interfere

[1:12:52] with the island and to operate as a three-way stop just like the one he

[1:12:58] designed by the island at the other end of Lake View

[1:13:02] Drive and lastly together with block 27 to provide for the depth of future lots

[1:13:10] to the north backing onto Lake onto Crestwood

[1:13:14] Drive at 3 he provided water sewer and storm waterer pipe stubs to the property

[1:13:23] line within at East Road allowance to avoid having to later dig up Lake View

[1:13:30] Drive and finally he put in place the 1ot reserves mark one marked four and

[1:13:37] five along the length of the island to preserve and protect it from

[1:13:43] encroachment and to ensure the future location of these pre-planned

[1:13:49] exits from there he went on to develop Alder grains within the require ments of

[1:13:55] the planning act the official plan and the zoning bylaws without

[1:14:02] exception or any special Provisions we rely on these provisions

[1:14:08] and protections as detailed in our registered plan of

[1:14:16] subdivision when the government chose to sell this property in 2021 they too did

[1:14:21] their due diligence and recognized all these protections they applied to rezone

[1:14:27] these lands as low density residential in conformance with the

[1:14:33] surrounding community and they submitted this concept for its future development

[1:14:39] in compliance with those provisions and demonstrating the ability of a plan to

[1:14:44] be created that conforms with our adjacent plan of

[1:14:51] subdivision zooming in at one it respected the reserve protecting the

[1:14:58] island and the road allowances to the property at two it provided an R1 Block

[1:15:05] in conformance with the infill policy of the official plan and the R1 homes

[1:15:11] across the street on our adjacent plan at three it provided an R2 block

[1:15:17] separating the higher density R3 Block in regard of the adjacent

[1:15:23] subdivision at four the balance of the land that provided R3 blocks in

[1:15:28] recognition of the official plan location criteria that new high density

[1:15:34] R4 locations be adjacent to the central area and Community Services rather than

[1:15:42] adjacent to low density areas and in addition to conforming to

[1:15:47] section two and section 51 of the planning act it also conformed to the

[1:15:52] existing official plan and zoning bylaws and increase the County's 30 unit per

[1:15:58] hectare density standard that Council has approved in all the recent

[1:16:03] subdivisions by

[1:16:11] 40% when the applicant chose to purchase this property they too did their due

[1:16:16] diligence and were also aware of these protections and

[1:16:21] Provisions because they even asked the city if they could assume

[1:16:25] the government application instead

[1:16:29] however they chose to proceed on the assumption that they could ignore these

[1:16:34] provisions and substantially override the intent of our official plan and

[1:16:39] bylaws as well as the advice of County staff regarding no access no access

[1:16:46] would be allowed to o59 and they proposed this draft plan of

[1:16:52] subdivision containing the local Street day and five

[1:16:58] blocks our concerns with that plan are as

[1:17:01] marked number one the restricted Northbound exit to R 59 that forces all

[1:17:09] southbound traffic to Traverse Street a to the east exit and then back through

[1:17:14] our subdivisions to reach o59 two the impact of locating the East

[1:17:21] exit across the reserve Block in our subdivision plan

[1:17:26] on Long Lake View Drive three the proposed medium density

[1:17:31] block along Lake View Drive

[1:17:34] four the 14 met four story Heights on the medium density block and five the

[1:17:42] zoning and overdevelopment of the high density

[1:17:49] block zooming in on the proposed o59 Northbound only exit you can see in

[1:17:55] yellow that it is in the middle of the one of the most dangerous Community

[1:17:59] safety zones in the county and you can see in red the illegal left and u-turns

[1:18:07] and the safety impact created at that Northbound exit by drivers willing to

[1:18:12] make illegal left-hand turns for immediate access to southbound

[1:18:19] o59 you may have noticed me chuckle a few minutes ago when the video was

[1:18:23] played because a video uh vide taker actually made an

[1:18:29] illegal leftand turn onto southbound 59 to make his

[1:18:35] video however those illegal turns are happening today at the similar exit

[1:18:43] across the street at the gas station across the road and we also know a

[1:18:48] resident made a submission that's included in the planning report

[1:18:52] expressing the safe same safe concerns with that

[1:18:57] decision similarly as shown in yellow the sight line will be impaired by

[1:19:02] transport trucks parked on the shoulder while their drivers access the

[1:19:07] Tim Horton's Outlet the exit will also marked in

[1:19:13] green take out two of the large public space trees on the property line that

[1:19:19] have been noted in the traffic in the tree report that should be preserved

[1:19:29] of even greater concern to our community is a safety impact with the resulting

[1:19:33] flow of drivers wishing to make legal access to southbound 59 estimated as 85%

[1:19:42] of the 500 residents as shown in red they would have to go around Street

[1:19:48] a which even though the accesses that Mr her Graves

[1:19:54] laid out were 20 M wide The Proposal here is for a narrower I believe 18 M

[1:20:00] wide Road access as showing in red they would have

[1:20:05] to go around Street a and then back through our adjacent subdivision to

[1:20:08] reach o59 rather than exit directly via the

[1:20:13] pre-planned safe exit marked in green as used by the government today

[1:20:19] that adverse flow and its safety impact was a major major concern expressed by

[1:20:25] the community at the April open house we note that the applicant also

[1:20:31] chose to ignore the safe exit onto Lake View Drive near

[1:20:35] o59 contrary to the pre-application advice of County that o59 access was

[1:20:42] prohibited we also note that County staff subsequently design subsequently

[1:20:49] denied the applicant's request for o59 access in the original submission

[1:20:55] but it was rejected by Community planning and subsequently overturned in

[1:21:00] granting that limited oneway Northbound Northbound exit excuse me we see no

[1:21:07] justification for that decision in light of the adverse safety

[1:21:11] impact we request that Council require a draft plan revision as originally

[1:21:18] requested by County staff providing access from the property via the safe

[1:21:24] West exit on Lake View Drive prior to your

[1:21:33] approval zooming in on the proposed East exit on Lake View Drive you can see that

[1:21:40] it crosses the registered Reserve block 29 marked in

[1:21:44] red rather than use the proposed pre-planned location provided in our on

[1:21:51] our adjacent plan of subdivision marked with a

[1:21:55] one this would result in the removal of the end of the landscaped Island Mark

[1:22:01] two and the excavation of Lake View Drive to re relocate the provided

[1:22:07] utility stubs into the new road allowance Mark

[1:22:11] three as that relocation reduces the sight line mark four as shown in yellow

[1:22:18] the applicant now proposes to clearcut 14 of the 15 Tre on the island as we

[1:22:26] will illustrate later and rather than hide the storm

[1:22:30] waterer Pond behind block 27 as per the government proposal outlined in red the

[1:22:38] block five stormwater Pond would now jut out along Long Lake View

[1:22:45] Drive that Reserve block 29 was included in our registered plan

[1:22:52] to locate the East exit and prevent all of those impacts it can only be removed

[1:22:59] by Council passing what is called a deeming bylaw to remove that protection

[1:23:06] from our registered plan a registered plan normally cannot be altered for

[1:23:11] eight years but the planning act allows a council to alter a registered plan

[1:23:17] after that point in time if it is in the interest of the town and the community

[1:23:23] and the community we see no reason for that relocation or

[1:23:28] anything preventing that East exit from being located as pre-planned and in

[1:23:35] Conformity with our adjacent plan of subdivision we request that Council

[1:23:42] advise the applicant that they will not consider a beaming bylaw to remove the

[1:23:48] reserve block 29 in that location as it is not in the interest of the City or

[1:23:55] the adjacent plan to do so and that Council also require a draft plan

[1:24:00] revision showing the use of the pre-planned exit prior to their approval

[1:24:06] of the application we also note that a deeming

[1:24:10] by law is solely at the discretion of city

[1:24:14] council and Council refusal to do so may not be appealed to or ordered by the

[1:24:22] Ontario land Tribunal

[1:24:30] returning to the full draft plan the proposal locates a part of the medium

[1:24:35] density block R3 marked with a three along the north

[1:24:41] side of Lake View Drive this does not conform to the

[1:24:46] infill policies of the official plan and the incompatibility of the proposed

[1:24:51] setbacks and structures particularly those of four stories do not conform to

[1:24:57] those of the one and two stories in our adjacent plan of subdivision or those

[1:25:02] directly across the south side of Lake View

[1:25:06] Drive while the applicant suggest that they would be buffered by the trees on

[1:25:10] the island we now note they are proposed to be

[1:25:14] clear-cut a low density R1 Block in that area with standard setbacks would

[1:25:20] provide that infill Conformity and compatibility

[1:25:24] we requested Council ask the applicant to submit a revised draft plan with an

[1:25:29] infill conforming R1 block on the north side of Lake View prior to their

[1:25:35] approval of the application with regard to the medium

[1:25:40] density R3 block Mark 4 we will just speak to the request to increase the

[1:25:46] height from three stories to four and 11 M to four stories and 14 M apart from

[1:25:53] the privacy and accessibility concerns raised by forcing tenants of stock Town

[1:25:59] Homes to carry themselves and their kids and their groceries up two flights of

[1:26:06] stairs to reach their front doors that increase in height would be contrary to

[1:26:12] not only the characteristics of our surrounding neighborhood but also the

[1:26:17] characteristics of the whole city and would set an unassailable precedent for

[1:26:23] all future infel development throughout the city we request that Council either

[1:26:29] deny the request for four stories or limit the maximum height of any R3

[1:26:35] structure to 11 M finally with regard to block 3 mark

[1:26:41] five the zoning of a new high density location adjacent to low density

[1:26:47] residential development that does not have considerable separation from the

[1:26:52] low density area and is remote remote from the City Corp

[1:26:58] its services and direct Transit would not conform to these multiple policies

[1:27:04] or intent of the official plan reference has been made to the five story

[1:27:10] apartment building to the West as part of the Sally Creek development that

[1:27:16] apartment building though is limited to five stories by the bylaw and is also

[1:27:21] located in the Lo located such that it complies with the official plan complies

[1:27:28] with the official plan requirement for a large uh eye density building to be

[1:27:35] located in an area remote from residential and that building is located

[1:27:41] between a large Park and a and a plaza and a community center across the road

[1:27:49] it fits the official plan the special provisions requested

[1:27:54] for that block to significantly reduce the or 59 setback from 132 to 4 M the

[1:28:03] landscaped open space from 35% to 27% and eliminate parking visitor

[1:28:11] parking would result in the opinion of both of our independent plan planners

[1:28:17] over development of this block there is simply not enough room

[1:28:24] room on this block to contain the requested density and meet the space

[1:28:29] requirements to support it we request that Council deny the request to

[1:28:35] eliminate 30 visitor parking spaces and request a revised draft plan meeting the

[1:28:42] setback and open space requirements and providing a more

[1:28:46] compatible building form than high density apartment blocks

[1:28:56] in particular as showing here the reduced setback along o59 from 13 and a

[1:29:02] half M to 6 M requires the removal of two of the large public space

[1:29:09] trees the ones without the shading can can I point at

[1:29:15] it it's a jumping mouse okay these two large trees the first one

[1:29:22] to the north is largest 10 m diameter tree and this tree is almost as big and

[1:29:30] as you can see because the building is 6 M from the property line the tree canopy

[1:29:38] would bump into the building so they must

[1:29:49] go and they put the Shaded ones the buildings the four other trees are then

[1:29:58] within the critical the building is within the critical root zone of four

[1:30:04] other trees threatening their destruction we also note that the

[1:30:10] proposed tree barrier dotted in yellow there is within the critical root Zone

[1:30:18] contrary to the bylaw requirement for tree protection

[1:30:21] barrier and also note in this illustration down at the

[1:30:27] bottom the clearcut of the 14 trees on the

[1:30:33] island further the noise study requires a 4.2 M

[1:30:39] High brick sound barrier wall to be located outside the critical rud Zone to

[1:30:47] separate the proposed apartment buildings from

[1:30:52] o59 doesn't look like there's too much room

[1:30:55] there if you add the critical root Zone plus the 1ot requirement away from it

[1:31:02] plus 4.2 M assuming you have your walls got to be an equal distance from the

[1:31:09] building as its height the requirement is at least for

[1:31:15] the standard requirement of 13 and 12 M and more likely 15 m

[1:31:29] note the tree bylaw destruction definition on this

[1:31:33] chart disturbance of any part of the critical root Zone such that it is

[1:31:39] likely to be killed is a definition of destroyed and the applican tree

[1:31:45] inventory and preservation plan acknowledges there are several large

[1:31:50] trees lining the western edge of the property along

[1:31:54] 59 and references the proposed damage to their root

[1:31:59] Zone and if the tree should die as a result of the proposed impact it is

[1:32:06] recommended they be replaced in

[1:32:13] situ we request that Council consider either an Environmental Protection ep2

[1:32:19] Zone to protect these boundary trees or ADD them to the protection list in the

[1:32:26] bylaw as for the trees bounding the East perimeter of Alder green as shown on

[1:32:33] this picture here North is that direction in case you're lost you'll

[1:32:38] also note the exit I referred to of at the island at the other end of Lake View

[1:32:46] with the three-way stop which is exactly what was designed in our original plan

[1:32:52] back at the front front of Lake View

[1:33:02] Drive as the government concept demonstrated these lands can be

[1:33:07] developed in Conformity with our existing adjacent plan of

[1:33:12] subdivision with a 40% increase in density without zoning to high density

[1:33:19] and with our existing official plan and bylaws we ask that you support our

[1:33:25] request to have these changes Incorporated in The applicant's Proposal

[1:33:31] either fori either prior to your consideration or through arbitration by

[1:33:36] the by the tribunal should you deny the application

[1:33:41] we ask that you cite our five concerns in the reason for your denial so that

[1:33:47] they may be arbitrated at the tribunal and the applicant required to provide

[1:33:52] their justification for ignoring the advice of County staff

[1:33:56] against exiting toor 59 for ignoring the registered reserve

[1:34:02] on Lake View Drive ignoring the infill provisions of the official plan along

[1:34:08] Lake View Drive ignoring the three-story limit on town homes and ignoring the

[1:34:14] official plan intents and directions regarding the location of new high

[1:34:19] density development our lawyer and planner

[1:34:24] estimate that the tribunal hearing would require three days to educate these five

[1:34:31] concerns we would be happy to answer any questions or provide any in additional

[1:34:37] information you require either now or following our delegation to Council on

[1:34:44] Thursday thank you for your attention we will email these remarks and attachment

[1:34:50] illustrations to each of you

[1:34:58] thank you Mr Bill any

[1:35:01] questions Mr Bell we covered a lot of information there

[1:35:07] so Council have any questions at

[1:35:12] all okay seeing

[1:35:15] none I'd ask that you just remind you Mr Bell to fill out the forms please before

[1:35:22] you sit down will yep thank

[1:35:28] you has mentioned a lot of information was brought forward there so I'd ask to

[1:35:34] respect everybody's time that uh I'm asking not to repeat anything please

[1:35:40] thank you very much name address for the record thank you your worship my name is

[1:35:44] Mike major um I do not live in the area um but I'm a former senior planner with

[1:35:50] the city of Toronto and I was asked by the local residents and my brother who

[1:35:54] lives adjacent to the site to provide a an opinion uh on the appropriateness of

[1:35:59] the de development and I'm going to focus solely on the provincial planning

[1:36:03] statement and the official plan um the 2024 provincial planning statement is

[1:36:09] intended to ensure sufficient land shall be made available to accommodate an

[1:36:13] appropriate range and mix of land uses to meet the projected requirements of

[1:36:18] the current and future residents this does not mean that every redevelop

[1:36:23] opportunity should look to maximize the number of units that can be physically

[1:36:28] be achieved on a site but rather to ensure that the municipality has

[1:36:33] properly considered how it will meet its future housing needs on a Citywide basis

[1:36:40] and in a manner that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding area good

[1:36:45] planning must ultimately Prevail section 7.2.2 of your official plan recognizes

[1:36:53] this and states that it is not intended that residential intensification will

[1:36:58] occur uniformally throughout the city the location form and intensity of

[1:37:04] residential intensification will be determined by the policies of the

[1:37:08] various land use designations with the intention of

[1:37:11] Permitting smaller scale developments such as individual infill Lots in areas

[1:37:16] designated as low density residential and directing larger scale projects to

[1:37:22] areas designated as medium and high density residential and the Central

[1:37:28] Area well most residents I believe are supportive of Resident residential

[1:37:34] intensification of the site we believe that the provincial objectives can be

[1:37:39] met with a less intensive form of development one that is more in keeping

[1:37:44] with the low density character of the surrounding area more in keeping with

[1:37:49] your official plan policies and one that minimizes the impacts on the local

[1:37:55] residents with respect to the official plan section

[1:37:59] 7.1.1 states that the city promotes appropriate infill development and

[1:38:04] intensification of land and buildings in existing builtup areas of the

[1:38:09] municipality the policies of this plan are intended to are designed to

[1:38:14] facilitate intensification while ensuring that new

[1:38:18] development is complimentary to existing development this proposal is not

[1:38:23] compliment complimentary to the existing land use pattern it introduces a form of

[1:38:29] development that does not exist in the immediate area the surrounding Community

[1:38:34] is almost entirely low density residential and future development

[1:38:39] should respect the established character of the neighborhood by maintaining that

[1:38:43] low-scale built form section

[1:38:47] 7.2.1 states that it is council's policy to ensure that new housing is of a human

[1:38:53] scale and is sensitive to and improves the ex existing physical character of

[1:38:58] the area using the criteria established in the official plan to guide new

[1:39:04] development a significant portion of the site is proposed for high density

[1:39:08] residential development with a net density of 150 units per hectare this is

[1:39:14] more than the original proposal that was shown to the community and above the

[1:39:19] maximal maximum allowable density of 150 units per hectare and is excessive given

[1:39:26] the low density nature of the area the proposed net total density of this site

[1:39:33] is is 85 units per hectare which is significantly higher than the

[1:39:38] surrounding neighborhood the density of any new development of the site should

[1:39:42] be reduced significantly to ensure greater compatibility with the existing

[1:39:46] neighborhood where a maximum of uh 30 units per hectar is permitted

[1:39:53] section 7.2.4 point. 1.3 of your official plan

[1:39:58] sets out a number of important considerations when it evaluating

[1:40:02] development proposals on vacant or underutilized sites within established

[1:40:07] residential areas by a plan of subdivision the nature of the proposed

[1:40:11] residential development will be evaluated having regard for the type of

[1:40:14] housing found in the surrounding neighborhood as previously stated the

[1:40:19] proposal introduces forms of development I.E a seven-story apartment building and

[1:40:24] stacked town houses that are not currently found in the area any new the

[1:40:31] other criteria any new resid residential lots with direct exposure to an

[1:40:35] established residential street will be consistent with the size of lots within

[1:40:40] a two block area on the same street and new residential development will

[1:40:45] maintain setbacks and spacing between dwellings consistent with the

[1:40:49] established built form uh established Bill pattern the

[1:40:55] high density nature of the proposed development results in a lot and setback

[1:41:00] pattern that is in consistent with this policy Council should also consider the

[1:41:06] extent to which the proposal proposed development provides for the retention

[1:41:11] of any desirable vegetation or natural features my brother I believe is going

[1:41:15] to speak to a lot of that so I won't go over that um given the development site

[1:41:21] is large with few development constraints greater compliance with the

[1:41:25] existing zoning standards in terms of setback lot size landscaped open space

[1:41:31] and parking is easily achievable and appropriate with respect to medium

[1:41:37] density residential um uh we note that the maximum net residential density

[1:41:43] permitted under uh section 7.2.5 is 70 units per acre the developer proposes

[1:41:50] stacked tow houses with a net residential density

[1:41:53] of 75 units per hectare Additionally the city's official

[1:41:59] plan states that any further medium density residential designations will be

[1:42:04] consistent with certain design criteria sites which but arterial or collector

[1:42:11] roads or sites situated in a manner which prevents traffic movements from

[1:42:15] the site from flowing through any adjoining low density residential areas

[1:42:22] the proposed Street Street a has direct access to Lake View Drive which Services

[1:42:28] an entirely low density residential area this will put additional traffic volumes

[1:42:33] on the local Road um I believe Mr Bell spoke to a lot

[1:42:38] of that so I'll move on any further medium density residential designations

[1:42:43] will be limited to sites which are adjacent to the central area designated

[1:42:48] shopping centers service commercial areas Community facilities high density

[1:42:53] residential districts or uh developed medium density residential districts

[1:42:59] this site again is in the middle of a low density residential neighborhood

[1:43:03] quite distant from many of the above finally with respect to high

[1:43:08] density residential development uh it is generally uh the official plan uh states

[1:43:14] that it will generally be discouraged adjacent to low density residential

[1:43:19] development except where such low density development is proposed for

[1:43:23] redevelopment to higher density land uses or where considerable separation

[1:43:27] between the low density area and the proposed high density development

[1:43:33] exists the official plan further states that the height and density limitations

[1:43:37] applicable to the various forms of development allowed in the high density

[1:43:41] residential district shall be determined on the basis of the nature character and

[1:43:48] scale of adjacent land juices the proposed seven story height limit is

[1:43:54] inconsistent with the surrounding built form which is predominantly one and two

[1:44:03] stories um in conclusion the revised proposal represents only a nominal

[1:44:08] change from their earlier submission with overall density of the site

[1:44:13] remaining a serious concern it still represents an overdevelopment of the

[1:44:18] site located in the middle of a low density residential community

[1:44:23] we believe if if the community's concerns are earnestly considered a

[1:44:28] revised proposal can achieve a reasonable intensification of the site

[1:44:33] that meets provincial and Municipal housing objectives is more consistent

[1:44:39] with the city's official plan and results in a development that is

[1:44:42] compatible with and sensitive to the established character of the surrounding

[1:44:48] neighborhood thank you thank you any any questions of Mr

[1:44:54] major councelor Wismer van Mir through you your worship um Mr major you

[1:44:59] mentioned a few different sections of the official plan I was trying to keep

[1:45:04] up to writing them down um before you leave do you mind just sharing them with

[1:45:08] somebody or just letting us know I just want to go back and just to reference I

[1:45:11] got a few of them but not all of them so I just hope I can grab those from you

[1:45:14] I've I've submitted my uh talking points uh to the counselors perfect and uh the

[1:45:22] mayor perfect I was pretty sure we had some of those but I wasn't sure if

[1:45:24] everything was listed so I appreciate that

[1:45:29] okay any other Council

[1:45:34] questions okay seeing none thank you thank

[1:45:39] you Mr major please state your name and address and i' please ask again try not

[1:45:46] to repeat anything that has been brought forward that's why mine will be fairly

[1:45:50] brief thank you uh my name is Dan major I'm a resident of 16 Ridgewood Court I

[1:45:55] back right on to the proposed uh development site so um so not to

[1:46:02] reiterate a lot of the information that was given uh by the previous presenters

[1:46:08] uh though I totally support what they've said but I'll I'll be looking at the

[1:46:13] environmental aspects so um starting with uh my concerns about

[1:46:22] the uh forestry report in tree

[1:46:26] preservation firstly the excessive density that's being proposed

[1:46:33] cannot uh accommodate any significant tree preservation of the 163 trees that

[1:46:40] they have uh in the inventory they're looking at clear cutting basically 143

[1:46:47] of those trees that's a pretty significant tree loss and for us as

[1:46:52] homeowners in the area you can imagine the impact on our loss of privacy uh the

[1:46:59] dust the noise pollution that we'll probably have to endure over the next

[1:47:03] three years or more as they do site prep and do their

[1:47:09] construction now uh the most disturbing thing really that

[1:47:15] the community as a whole should be thinking about is the environmental

[1:47:21] impact that the REM of these trees will have in the uh it'll be removing

[1:47:28] approximately 2500 kilograms of carbon sequestering potential which is very

[1:47:36] very significant now the developer May argue that they intend to replace each

[1:47:41] of the trees being removed with three 60 mil uh trees as per the city policy and

[1:47:48] this equates to 429 compensatory trees how however it'll take decades to

[1:47:55] replace that bio mass that the larger trees

[1:47:59] will be taken away I might add that the revised concept plan uh submitted by

[1:48:06] fari indicates only 172 new trees

[1:48:13] now here so

[1:48:19] um 172 new trees and this equates to a shortfall of 257 trees that they should

[1:48:28] be compensating for now I know that the parks department uh can take cash and Li

[1:48:36] instead of uh the tree planting on site uh now if this were to be the

[1:48:44] case I would suggest that any of the uh excessed trees be planted on the north

[1:48:52] side sorry the west side of 59 highway

[1:48:55] between Ridgewood Drive and 17 uh to the

[1:49:02] roundabout and uh you know not take the cash and

[1:49:07] L um I'd like to acknowledge that in earlier conversations with the fari

[1:49:12] group uh that they indicated they would address some of our concerns by

[1:49:17] considering the uh preservation of existing vegetation along our adjoining

[1:49:23] properties uh during the site plan process uh is the only uh way that we

[1:49:29] can en assure that we're going to get protection I mean uh having it approved

[1:49:36] now will not give us that assurance and of course as a public uh we won't have

[1:49:42] any input at site plan so um we do realize that growth and

[1:49:49] development is inevitable and there is a need for affordable housing uh

[1:49:55] legislation such as Bill 23 more homes built faster is not perfect and some of

[1:50:02] its policies will likely change or be modified as they find some of the

[1:50:07] shortcomings and flaws in in the bill and uh with government programs such as

[1:50:13] standardized pre-approved catalog of Home Designs being uh

[1:50:19] U I guess put in by the federal government uh will streamline the

[1:50:25] approval process and uh help developers and Builders alike and hopefully provide

[1:50:31] affordable housing so I respectfully and I say

[1:50:37] respectfully uh suggest that it's not the municipal council's job to build

[1:50:43] homes but it is their job to build communities and that's what we're asking

[1:50:48] you to consider as you uh review this application

[1:50:53] and I thank you for your time thank you very much any questions

[1:50:58] of Mr major Deja Vu

[1:51:03] there seeing none I just remind you yeah please fill out the form thank you

[1:51:10] welcome state name and address for the record please Tony 424 Lake through

[1:51:17] Drive okay

[1:51:24] and again I just ask that you respect and uh keep new comments coming forward

[1:51:40] please your

[1:51:44] yeah okay is this it here yeah that's the first one okay and then for the next

[1:51:48] one I just click the next one um the what'll happen is the person who's

[1:51:53] running the the camera they'll click and then you just have to um scroll down oh

[1:51:59] okay yeah it's Buton okay I can just scroll down right yeah

[1:52:08] okay okay this is a a letter to U the U mayor and the council members

[1:52:16] and uh manager development

[1:52:21] planning and uh before I make comments on the new fari

[1:52:27] amended application I'd like to discuss briefly the good draft plan from her

[1:52:32] majesty the king government of province of Ontario GSP group June 23rd

[1:52:39] 2021 and that's the view one it was reasonable for low density

[1:52:46] residential 114 units this would blend in with the alter range as established

[1:52:53] Community around it most of the large healthy trees near Highway 59 can be

[1:52:58] preserved I think it's easy acceptable by the alter Grange Community with the

[1:53:03] residential R1 Zoning for this plant the lot sizes on Lake F drive for the single

[1:53:10] detached were smaller but still Blends in reasonably well with alter Grange

[1:53:16] Community two nice exit entries on 401 Lake VI drive and west end and one and

[1:53:24] East End

[1:53:26] lot that's on view one and two uh the West End first exess near Highway

[1:53:34] 59 I'll put this

[1:53:45] down two nice exit exits on 401 Lake F drive one West End and one East End lot

[1:53:54] the West End first access near Highway 59 will have the brunt of the traffic to

[1:54:00] Highway 59 with much less interference the R1 Zone single detached nine units

[1:54:09] facing Lake View Drive is attractive and blends in with Lake View Drive the

[1:54:13] traffic would be much lower around the island with the 114 units and it's

[1:54:19] manageable with the two exit

[1:54:28] entries the revised application for the official planned amended draft plan from

[1:54:33] fari holding Corporation October 30th 2024 Still

[1:54:40] Remains completely opposite to the original province of antario GSP Group

[1:54:45] Inc for blending in with the established Community around

[1:54:49] it for Lake V Drive I find the plan by GSP group much more acceptable for alter

[1:54:57] Grange Community the

[1:55:00] revised the new revised fari plan still includes two high density apartment

[1:55:05] buildings for 160 units and now includes four story

[1:55:12] stacked town houses for 68 units that do not blend in with the Alder GRE single

[1:55:19] dwelling neighborhood

[1:55:28] the Revis amended version view four and three includes 254 units residence

[1:55:35] compared to the 114 for province of Ontario GSP Group

[1:55:42] Inc finally where I live on

[1:55:48] 424 Drive looking across the street is the exit and at 401 Lake View we will

[1:55:54] face far's latest revised draft plan at four-story 10 stack tow houses for 20

[1:56:01] units this would remain an I saw especially with all Island Trees removed

[1:56:07] like a wall compared to the maximum twostory residential Zone one in alter

[1:56:13] Grange subdivision along Lake View Drive the four stories 10 stacked tow houses

[1:56:19] for 20 units should be replaced with a maximum two story residential Zone one

[1:56:24] or attractive are attractive tow houses

[1:56:28] maximum two stories like the rest of Lake View

[1:56:34] Drive the single

[1:56:43] entrance the single entrance exit to link VI will be too busy

[1:56:55] the two seven story apartment buildings West

[1:56:59] End of Lake View are the highest number of stories for any building north of the

[1:57:05] temps River in Woodstock why why not five stories for Less units that creates

[1:57:11] more manageable traffic and parking especially without visitor parking area

[1:57:16] and the new fari plan that's

[1:57:25] with all the 254 units with possible 500 cars in addition to service Vehicles

[1:57:33] taxis and buses it will be too congested for only one main entrance on Lake

[1:57:42] View Drive since almost all South Pound traffic exiting Highway 59 will use the

[1:57:48] exit on Lake View Drive the other

[1:57:56] exit the other exit and entrance at Highway 59 are only for Highway 59

[1:58:04] Northbound

[1:58:08] traffic in in summary Shar and I would like to thank

[1:58:13] you for considering our comments on the original province of Ontario GSP group

[1:58:19] June 23d 2021 proposal and requests for a few changes on the new Fier draft plan

[1:58:26] regarding firstly reducing traffic flow across our street at Exit 401 Lake View

[1:58:32] Drive for safe traffic around the island second have this four-story stack

[1:58:39] townhouses replaced with twostory homes or semes to blend in with aler Alder

[1:58:45] grange on Lake View Drive reduce the two seven story

[1:58:50] apartment buildings to five stories to provide lower traffic and manageable

[1:58:54] parking achieved from less Apartments units thank you Tony and Sharon n

[1:59:03] likeus thank you very much any questions from

[1:59:11] Council seeing none then I would ask you to fill out the uh the forms there

[1:59:17] before you leave and again with all due respect I'm

[1:59:23] going to ask again to not be repeating things over we' all greatly appreciate

[1:59:29] that

[1:59:33] okay uh good evening good evening thank you for giving me the opportunity to

[1:59:39] speak at this very important meeting uh my name is Paul lank and my wife Kim and

[1:59:44] I have lived on Lake View Drive for over 20 years uh we wrote a letter to all

[1:59:50] counselors and the mayor back in December and I was going to read

[1:59:56] portions of that letter now but due to time I will shorten up

[2:00:01] considerably uh but basically we are opposed to the revised development as

[2:00:06] submitted um we live at 436 Lake View Drive which is directly across from the

[2:00:11] proposed development and while we acknowledge that some revisions were

[2:00:15] made we remain dissatisfied with the revised application the proposal to

[2:00:20] build a four-story stacked town home directly across the street from our

[2:00:24] existing single family homes is unacceptable um it is not compatible

[2:00:30] especially what I'm hearing tonight when they're going to clearcut 14 of the 15

[2:00:34] trees on the island and have no visual barrier between the four-story Stacked

[2:00:39] homes on on Lake View Drive backing onto Lake View Drive and the ranch homes on

[2:00:45] Lake View Drive that are currently

[2:00:48] there when we purchased our property we were aware that the land across from us

[2:00:55] would be developed we trust that members of Woodstock city council as stewards of

[2:01:00] the community's long-term well-being will ensure that any applications are

[2:01:06] carefully considered and developed we rely on Woodstock city council

[2:01:12] commitment to uphold the Integrity of our neighborhood through enforcing

[2:01:17] appropriate zoning regulations bylaws and guidelines that will balance growth

[2:01:23] while maintaining the character and livability of our neighborhood our

[2:01:29] expectation is that any intensification is done thoughtfully in

[2:01:35] a way that protects the quality of life for existing as well as the future

[2:01:41] residents of our neighborhood

[2:01:45] counselors you have a very difficult job I can't imagine the amount of time time

[2:01:52] and effort you put forth in listening to people reading documents trying to make

[2:02:00] the right decisions it must be incredibly

[2:02:04] difficult please listen to the people of this neighborhood there are issues still

[2:02:09] with this plan there are problems with it I know certain groups want to push

[2:02:15] this through and I'm sure you are feeling the

[2:02:18] pressure please do the right thing and consider the application very carefully

[2:02:24] thank you any questions thank you uh any

[2:02:29] questions Mr lck thank you

[2:02:35] sorry seeing none thank you very much don't forget to fill it out

[2:02:42] yep welcome state your name and address and again I will repeat please keep it

[2:02:48] to new information only please I'll do my best Mr Mr Mayor please do my name is

[2:02:54] Dave King and along with my wife Norma we're live at 593 Pine View Drive which

[2:03:01] is off of Ridgewood just in the surrounding

[2:03:07] neighborhood we moved here some 15 years ago and we did our due diligence before

[2:03:14] purchasing the property and satisfied ourselves that the

[2:03:20] subdivision plan had all the protection protection of the official plan and

[2:03:25] necessary bylaws to maintain Alder grade's development as one of the most

[2:03:31] prestigious subdivisions in Woodstock just check our tax

[2:03:37] file they're pretty hefty I know mine's pushing

[2:03:42] 7,000 and I got one of the smaller houses anyway we were fine with the

[2:03:50] existing sub subdivision plan that was brought

[2:03:53] forward and with the higher ratio on the hectars we saw no concern with the first

[2:04:03] application however then came the over densification proposal 85 units versus

[2:04:10] 42 from Far Holdings which will change the fabric of our community stressing

[2:04:16] the traffic safety and Community narrow streets lack of parking greenspace will

[2:04:23] ultimately make the project unsalable maybe

[2:04:27] unlivable this project totally motivated to increase profits as opposed to

[2:04:33] community building I've heard from the mayor and staff that fari needs more

[2:04:38] units to make the development profitable it's not council's job to

[2:04:43] make fari profitable it's your job to follow the

[2:04:47] bylaws and protect the Integrity of the community

[2:04:53] these variance requests aren't minor you can drive a truck through

[2:05:07] them I implore Council to do the right thing turn down this application and let

[2:05:13] the committee assist as a party to the defense at OTL thank you Mr

[2:05:20] Mayor thank you Mr King any questions before he walks away of Mr

[2:05:28] King seeing none thank you yes

[2:05:35] please so again just a friendly reminder uh new information please state

[2:05:40] your name and address for the record welcome um thank you your worship and

[2:05:45] counselors my name is Melanie mcran I live at 11 Cedarwood Street along with

[2:05:51] with my husband and children uh that location is one street

[2:05:56] over from one edge of the proposed development uh we live there on and off

[2:06:01] for 10 years I now summarize my November 5th 2024 letter sent to All of You

[2:06:07] counselors and uh your worship regarding far's then and still most recent revised

[2:06:14] application for redevelopment of 401 Lake

[2:06:17] View far's minor revisions are insufficient in my view as a close

[2:06:23] affected resident to address a number of problems previously raised to it and to

[2:06:28] you I will summarize these now fari has communicated its effort to be responsive

[2:06:33] to its own assessment of Resident concerns by as I understand a aligning

[2:06:40] both slightly smaller footprint seven story are for apartment buildings each

[2:06:46] with 160 instead of the original 196 units along o59 presumably reducing the

[2:06:53] number of occupants by as few as 72 B increasing the number of R34 story

[2:06:59] stacked town homes from 48 to 68 with 10 aligned on the north side of Lake View

[2:07:06] Drive presumably increasing the number of occupants by about 60 assuming three

[2:07:11] residents per town home and 80 assuming four C still failing to provide 30

[2:07:18] required visitor parking spaces D still failing I understand to provide quite

[2:07:25] all of the required Parkland although um I I would like to hear if that's not the

[2:07:30] case and E failing to save all of the large trees along o59 or on the traffic

[2:07:37] the traffic calming Island on Lake View just off

[2:07:42] o59 thus hundreds of residents would still suddenly be added to an area with

[2:07:48] almost no Services they would need and only one infrequently running bus route

[2:07:53] the Northwest route servicing it I'm very concerned that this is a recipe for

[2:07:58] abundant need for cars and parking inadequate park space and crowding in

[2:08:04] general I am also very concerned as a recipe for social ills what is there for

[2:08:09] young people for instance to do in an area mostly occupied by seniors and

[2:08:13] young families and no services for young people and few for anyone else assuming

[2:08:19] fari wasn't made to follow every rule for instance regarding providing the

[2:08:24] required number of visitor parking spaces falling short in this case by 30

[2:08:29] why not weren't all of those rules made for good

[2:08:33] reason 30 absent visitor parking spaces would mean nearby residents like me

[2:08:39] would frequently have cars not our own or those of our own visitors or close

[2:08:44] neighbors parked in front of our houses this would change our whole neighborhood

[2:08:48] for the worse in my view does far imagine its proposed development

[2:08:53] residents won't have the usual number of visitors because if it acknowledges

[2:08:59] these new residents would have visitors where else is fari effectively sending

[2:09:04] them to park similarly with inadequate park space and services wouldn't current

[2:09:10] residents neighborhood parks by definition be overused not by themselves

[2:09:16] and their own visitors or visitors to the city but by new residents who would

[2:09:20] have inadequate other places to play or to serve them Additionally the East End

[2:09:27] of the landscaped traffic calming Island on Lake View at its intersection with

[2:09:33] o59 part of it will still be removed presumably lowering current residents uh

[2:09:39] property values of course but also and concerningly um wouldn't lowering the

[2:09:44] speed limit to 40 kilm an hour there while actually making it

[2:09:49] easier by um decreasing ing the traffic calming Island space to speed in this

[2:09:54] area isn't that at best a naive way to cope with immensely greater traffic

[2:10:01] resulting from hundreds of new residents who need to use their cars because

[2:10:06] there's no Services nearby they can walk to and very little bus service given the

[2:10:10] very high number of small children and seniors in the area might this not be a

[2:10:14] recipe for danger to pedestrians I understand that in far's most recent

[2:10:18] revised application there continues to be no assessment of the safety impact on

[2:10:22] the community of various traffic routing decisions in far's studies and reports

[2:10:28] despite the given area of o59 H to my understanding being a

[2:10:32] declared or posted Community safety zone though if I'm mistaken in this I would

[2:10:37] love to see I would be grateful to see any such safety impact assessment of

[2:10:41] faries I thank Council for considering my

[2:10:46] comments thank you now you did bring up a couple of questions pointed questions

[2:10:50] there I'm going to ask if the planner may be able to speak uh one of them I

[2:10:55] caught was the recreational space is the adequate and I believe it was 5% Mr

[2:11:02] Gilbert can you speak to that

[2:11:05] please I three Mr Mayor the uh Park block that's provided in this plan is

[2:11:12] the 5% that's required so there's there is no further Parkland uh required uh

[2:11:17] for this development okay

[2:11:22] thank you that's what I thought and was there something else

[2:11:27] there seeing none if I if I can ask a question is this is this um I'm not sure

[2:11:33] if I can your word go ahead so is this is this area uh declared as a community

[2:11:40] safety zone uh no I do not believe it is I'm looking at the planer to confirm

[2:11:45] that or engineering no no it's not at least at this point my concern is is

[2:11:51] based on then um there being very many children small children living there and

[2:11:56] uh as well as thank you any

[2:11:59] questions of the

[2:12:03] delegation from Council no okay thank you very

[2:12:08] much now would anyone else like to uh speak out against this

[2:12:19] application seeing none okay thank you very much we will move

[2:12:23] along just remind everybody here that we will be uh having further discussions on

[2:12:30] Thursday and I would ask due to spacing we don't have as much room at city

[2:12:36] council you will be able to watch it live on YouTube if you'd rather stay

[2:12:41] home watch the hockey game and Council thanks everybody for being here

[2:12:45] tonight we'll give a couple seconds to let e

[2:13:27] okay everybody we've still got five more items tonight I'd ask if you'd like to

[2:13:31] talk and visit please go outside so we can continue

[2:13:35] on our meeting please thank you

[2:14:04] than

[2:14:33] ZN 8-24 D28 application for zone

[2:14:40] change Mr Miller thank

[2:14:50] you e

[2:15:22] see my drawings on

[2:15:34] there what's that location number 2428 this

[2:15:40] one 2426 2428 yeah okay

[2:15:48] perfect it's too late for eyes to

[2:15:57] work all right thanks everybody for being patient and sticking around and

[2:16:00] we'll move along Mr

[2:16:04] Miller good evening committee staff and remaining members of the public uh

[2:16:09] application for zone change zn8 2428 in the name of Audrey Harris care of

[2:16:14] Barbara Yonker and Helen Whitehead the subject lands are described as

[2:16:18] concession 13 part lot four five formerly in eora city of Woodstock

[2:16:23] interly known as 231 pitock Park Road the subject lands are designated a low

[2:16:28] density residential in Oxford County's official plan uh are currently zoned

[2:16:32] future development and the zoning request is for them to be zoned

[2:16:35] residential Zone 3 or R3 the application for zone change

[2:16:40] proposes to reone the subject lands for future development to residential Zone 3

[2:16:44] to facilitate the development of 20 townhouse units and four semi attached

[2:16:48] units on the subject lands the proposed will contain four townhouse blocks of

[2:16:52] five units each and two semi detached blocks for a total of 24 units the

[2:16:57] subject lands currently contain single attached dwelling and detached garage

[2:17:01] that's to be

[2:17:07] removed at the time of writing this report one letter of concern was

[2:17:11] received and has been included as an attachment to this report the letter

[2:17:14] raises concerns over only single detached dwellings being permitted on

[2:17:17] adjacent lands zoned r119 lack of sidewalks in the area and

[2:17:22] parking and traffic concerns particular particularly related to pck park traffic

[2:17:28] for Kel's information the city plans to initiate Road Works in this area in 2026

[2:17:33] including sidewalks The Proposal is consistent

[2:17:36] with the PPS policies respecting intensification Redevelopment and

[2:17:40] efficient use of lands and Municipal services within a settlement area the

[2:17:44] Redevelopment of the lands for 24 units replacing the existing single attached

[2:17:48] dwelling is an appropriate reuse and redevelop of under utilized lands and

[2:17:52] will provide additional housing units and types for the current and future

[2:17:55] residents of the city of Woodstock The Proposal is consistent

[2:17:59] with the policies of the low density residential designation the proposal

[2:18:03] represents an appropriate reuse and development of underutilized sites and

[2:18:07] the proposed density of 28 units per hectare is permitted in the low density

[2:18:12] designation the proposal also satisfied criteria for infill proposals as

[2:18:18] contained in the official plan the use of lands for townhouse is a permitted

[2:18:21] use and the subject lands front onto pitock Park Road which is a minor

[2:18:25] collector Road and will be serviced by a single entrance the subject lands are

[2:18:29] also immediately adjacent to pck park and pck Conservation Area this area of

[2:18:33] the city is characterized by a wide variety of lot sizes lot areas lot

[2:18:37] frontages and development types and in and the introduction of 24 dwelling

[2:18:42] units with a common entrance and on an oversized lot will be compatible with

[2:18:46] surrounding development although the area directly

[2:18:49] west of the subject lands is car characterized by very large lots and

[2:18:52] single detached dwellings there are many smaller single detached dwellings and

[2:18:55] Tow houses immediately to the east The Proposal also provides all required

[2:19:00] parking and visitor parking the development will be subject to site plan

[2:19:03] approval where servicing design lot grading storm water management buffering

[2:19:07] and fencing will be required to be designed to the satisfaction of the city

[2:19:12] planning staff of the opinion that the proposed zone change is consistent with

[2:19:15] the provincial planning statement and the official plan policies respecting

[2:19:19] infield development and low density res residential areas and should be given

[2:19:22] favorable consideration as such staff recommend approval of the

[2:19:27] application thank you any questions of Mr

[2:19:31] Miller councilor

[2:19:35] shenberg yeah thanks uh through the planner I guess my best question be

[2:19:40] describ would the Builder be required to or developer be required to to fence the

[2:19:45] entire property both for security of the uh residents but also for uh protection

[2:19:51] between that and the SLI Trail at the city of Woodstock

[2:19:55] Parkland uh through the chair that's not something that is uh it's not a

[2:19:58] requirement through zoning um it is something we look at through site plan

[2:20:02] to make sure that um any concerns that neighbors have through privacy and

[2:20:06] things like that can be taken care of through fencing but it's not something

[2:20:08] that's necessarily

[2:20:14] required Council have any other questions

[2:20:20] none thank you this I would uh point I would invite the applicant to come

[2:20:27] forward please state your name and address in relation to the application

[2:20:32] and uh we'll go from there thank you hello everybody uh Dave Redford 751

[2:20:37] anzio Road in

[2:20:43] Woodstock just here to support the application okay thank you any questions

[2:20:48] of the application or of the applicant

[2:20:55] councelor shenberg yeah sure again it from the

[2:20:58] mayor through to our applicant and delegation I guess the same question to

[2:21:02] you Mr Redford would there be a plan for security purposes just to be able to put

[2:21:06] a a fence around the entire property is that part of the sort of overall plan

[2:21:10] for the uh condominium if that's what the city would require we could

[2:21:15] definitely do that and will each unit be sold

[2:21:19] individually as if they minum units or would they be rentals eventually they'll

[2:21:24] be rentals for now all done by local uh Builders as

[2:21:31] well thank you any other questions for Mr

[2:21:37] Redford thank you very much for being here thank you thanks for your

[2:21:42] patience please y thank you uh at this point I'd ask if anybody

[2:21:47] would like to speak in favor of this application to come

[2:21:53] forward seeing none would anybody like to come forward and speak against this

[2:22:01] application seeing none we'll move along next up 2D which is ZN 8-24 d26

[2:22:10] application for zone change for Callaway Real Estate Investment Trust and

[2:22:14] Canadian Tire Mr Miller thank you

[2:22:39] application for zone change zn8 2426 caway Real Estate Investment Trust Inc

[2:22:44] and cadan higher Properties Inc the subject the subject properties

[2:22:49] is described as 41 M82 Lots 4 7 and N part Lots 5 6 8 and 10 in the city of

[2:22:57] Woodstock and are municipally known as 465 and 499 norch Avenue the subject

[2:23:03] lands are designated Regional commercial node in the County's official plan our

[2:23:07] currently zoned special Regional commercial Zone

[2:23:10] c61 and the applicants are just looking to amend that zone in this

[2:23:19] case the the application for zone change proposes to amend the current zoning

[2:23:22] provisions on the subject lands to permit an LCBO an additional Standalone

[2:23:27] building and a reduced minimum parking standard within the commercial Plaza on

[2:23:30] the subject Lance as the proposal will promote an efficient use of existing

[2:23:34] infrastructure planning staff are satisfied that the proposed development

[2:23:37] is consistent with the PPS with respect to land uses within a designated

[2:23:41] settlement area the regional commercial node

[2:23:44] designation permits a variety wide variety of commercial uses but the c611

[2:23:49] Zone specific spefically prohibits a retail food store or supermarket in this

[2:23:54] case Standalone so I know Walmart has a food market in it but it's it's

[2:23:58] excluding Standalone Food Markets uh a Brewer's retail outlet and an LCBO

[2:24:03] outlet with regard to Prohibition of of an LCBO Outlet this provision was

[2:24:08] originally intended to maintain the LCBO within the city's Central Area however

[2:24:13] the LCBO has since has since relocated from the central area and the increase

[2:24:17] in the city's growing Pro in the increase in the city's growing

[2:24:20] population is able to support an LCBO Outlet within this

[2:24:24] location the requested reduction in parking from one space per 22 square

[2:24:28] meters of gross floor area of structures to one space per 22 per 24 square meters

[2:24:34] is a minor departure from the existing standard and is a resultant from the

[2:24:37] proposed Standalone building which is shown as Building E on the applicant

[2:24:42] sketch no parking issues have been identified on site the subject land

[2:24:46] serviced by public transit and staff are satisfied that the reduction in parking

[2:24:50] will not have a negative impact on the site or adjon

[2:24:53] properties an additional Standalone building is is proposed for the subject

[2:24:57] LS the building is proposed to be located near the South End of the

[2:25:00] subject LS between Walmart and a 3unit commercial structure the building will

[2:25:05] impact some parking spaces but will not impact traffic traffic flow through the

[2:25:09] site the subject lands have reached the maximum gross floor airr structures on

[2:25:13] the site and the proposed 6,000 ft new building means that the maximum gross

[2:25:18] flare on the subject lands will need to be increased from

[2:25:22] 3532 met to 35,9 met the established gross Fair

[2:25:27] floor area was intended to ensure that the intended to ensure that the intended

[2:25:33] to ensure the continued functioning of the site and flow of traffic staff have

[2:25:37] no concerns that the increased maximum gross floor area will impact the subject

[2:25:41] lands or adjacent properties planning staff are satisfied that the proposal is

[2:25:45] consistent with the policies of the provincial planning statement and meet

[2:25:48] the general intent and purpose of the official plan respecting commercial uses

[2:25:51] within the regional commercial no designation and can be given favorable

[2:25:55] consideration as such staff recommend approval of the

[2:26:00] application thank you any uh questions councelor Wismer vanir of Mr Miller of

[2:26:07] course um through your worship to Mr Miller do we know what the Standalone

[2:26:11] building is going to have in it I first I was confused I thought it was the LCB

[2:26:16] LCBO asking to go in there but I can see that it's not it's going into the old

[2:26:20] re's location potentially but this Standalone it just I wasn't sure if

[2:26:24] that's been clarified uh it's probably the best for the appin agent who's here

[2:26:29] to answer that question I believe is something Financial but he might be able

[2:26:32] to confirm for you uh when he comes

[2:26:36] up thank you any other questions or the planner from

[2:26:43] Council seeing none thank you very

[2:26:47] much I believe the agent is here this evening if you'd like to speak to the

[2:27:01] application again please state your name and address for the uh record uh my name

[2:27:06] is Daniel brania thank you um so good evening

[2:27:10] Council uh staff and uh and the public um I'm here today on behalf of

[2:27:16] smart centers who is the owner of the lands for this applic

[2:27:21] and I'm also joined by our planner Kristen barrisdale uh from GSP group

[2:27:25] who's in the audience and uh she can come up if uh if

[2:27:30] needed to provide some additional information uh I'd like to thank Justin

[2:27:35] for giving a comprehensive um review of our application our request

[2:27:40] here tonight and it's great to see that staff

[2:27:44] are recommending approval of our request as indicated in their staff report

[2:27:51] um I can provide some additional background information about smart

[2:27:54] centers our application and then answer any questions you may

[2:28:00] have so smart centers as many of you know are owners and operators of

[2:28:05] shopping centers uh throughout Canada we have

[2:28:10] approximately 195 locations and we always strive to

[2:28:15] provide value and convenience to our customers

[2:28:20] in the city of Woodstock we have been here for over 20 years since we first

[2:28:26] opened our shopping center back in 2002 um that's also when the Walmart

[2:28:31] opened here we're proud to be part of this

[2:28:36] community and um we believe that we offer excellent service and we're

[2:28:42] dedicated to this community as is represented by our

[2:28:45] shopping center but going forward

[2:28:50] we'd like to take this opportunity to further improve our retail offerings by

[2:28:54] opening a second LCBO on the property this is the second LCBO that will be in

[2:29:00] Woodstock and a new 6,000 foot commercial

[2:29:05] building and to facilitate these proposed developments we're just asking

[2:29:09] for some minor amendments to the zoning bylaw which I'll go through now the

[2:29:13] first of which is a minor increase to the total gross floor area permitted in

[2:29:20] the zone to accommodate the new 6,000 ft building this represents less than 2% of

[2:29:26] the overall size of the shopping center and according to population estimates

[2:29:34] the city of Woodstock has experienced robust population

[2:29:39] growth growing by approximately 13.6% from 2016 to 2021 which is our

[2:29:47] census data which is more more than double the

[2:29:50] provincial average it's estimated that the existing

[2:29:54] population of 46,000 will be more than 58,000 within the next 10 years all of

[2:30:01] this is to say all these new residents existing

[2:30:06] residents and new residents are going to need a place to shop and we believe this

[2:30:10] minor 6,000 foot increase in retail will be able to support be be supported by

[2:30:16] the population the second request is a minor

[2:30:20] decrease to the parking ratio which is to accommodate the building footprint

[2:30:26] this is approximately 54 spaces reduction of 54

[2:30:30] spaces but it's important to note that even after

[2:30:35] development we will still be offering over 1,500 spaces to

[2:30:41] Shoppers um the building will be located in a in a portion of the property that

[2:30:46] is underutilized um with um parking spaces

[2:30:51] that are usually unoccupied in general there's throughout the whole shopping

[2:30:57] center there's many parking spaces that are unoccupied indicating that there's a

[2:31:01] surplus of parking there in addition we're finding that

[2:31:07] Shoppers today are choosing other forms of transportation as well including

[2:31:12] public transit which is reducing the Reliance on individual

[2:31:17] Automobiles and parking

[2:31:22] and to add to that for additional context our shopping center immediately

[2:31:28] adjacent to our shopping center there's two public transit routes that are

[2:31:32] easily accessible to Shoppers Route 5 and Route Six that can be

[2:31:38] used our last request is to add a second LCBO in the city of

[2:31:45] Woodstock in today's market alcohol is readily available in

[2:31:50] many locations including grocery stores convenience stores and gas stations so

[2:31:56] in our in our opinion putting an additional location here is

[2:32:03] appropriate this this represents a great opportunity for us at this time to

[2:32:08] enhance our shopping center and provide much needed in demand

[2:32:13] services for the community overall the requested amend

[2:32:18] amendments are quite minor and they will facilitate development

[2:32:23] that's going to be similar to what's already existing on the shopping center

[2:32:26] so we foresee this being as a seamless integration and will maintain the

[2:32:32] existing character of our shopping center therefore when all things are

[2:32:40] considered we believe our request represents good planning and should be

[2:32:47] approved so thank you for taking the the time to listen to this

[2:32:51] presentation and we would be happy to take any questions

[2:32:56] now thank you any questions of Mr bro councelor Wismer

[2:33:03] vanm um through your worship to Mr vcia did you mention what was potentially

[2:33:08] going in that out building um in your presentation so I

[2:33:13] was trying to read some of this smaller print on here with my really bad eyes

[2:33:16] and I'm not sure if you if you mentioned it when I was reading that information

[2:33:21] yeah absolutely through the mayor um it's going to be a financial

[2:33:25] institution perfect thank you so

[2:33:30] much any other questions of the

[2:33:37] applicant seeing none thank you very much for being here tonight thank you

[2:33:45] mayor at this point I'd ask if anybody would like to come forward and speak in

[2:33:49] favor of this

[2:33:53] application seeing none anybody here would like to speak against this

[2:34:02] application seeing none moving

[2:34:12] along next up uh sorry 2 e ZN 8-24 D20

[2:34:20] application for zone change Mr

[2:34:27] Miller application for zone change zn8 2420 name of 10 99979.89116

[2:34:49] first letter is from the landowner and the second letter is from radar Property

[2:34:52] Management Inc outlining improvements to the property uh they've been included as

[2:34:56] attachments six and seven in the report the subject property is described as

[2:35:02] part lot 20 East side of delater street plan 10 as in

[2:35:06] 39779 5 in the city of Woodstock and municipally known as 18 and 20 delater

[2:35:11] Street the subject lands are designated uh Central commercial in the city of

[2:35:16] wood or Central area in the city of Woodstock land use plan and Entre R

[2:35:19] preneurial district and the City of Woodstock Central Area development

[2:35:28] plan the applications for Zone the application for zone change proposes to

[2:35:32] reone the subject lands from special residential Zone r225 to special

[2:35:36] entrepreneurial District c311 to facilitate the addition of four dwelling

[2:35:41] units to an existing three dwelling unit converted dwelling this change will

[2:35:45] result in a development that is consistent with the definition of a

[2:35:48] multiple attached dwelling and is permitted in the C3 Zone the applicant

[2:35:53] proposes an addition to the rear of the existing Residential Building to

[2:35:56] accommodate the four extra dwelling units and proposes to relocate the

[2:35:59] existing accessory structure on the property to accommodate additional

[2:36:03] required parking the applicants intend to retain the accessory structure for

[2:36:08] storage space for the residents and for storage of Maintenance

[2:36:11] equipments as the proposal were promote an efficient use of land and

[2:36:15] infrastructure a mix of range and housing options planning staff are

[2:36:18] satisfied that the proposed development is consistent with the policies of the

[2:36:21] PPS with respect to housing needs within a designated settlement area by

[2:36:25] providing rental housing and Woodstock with regard to the Zone provision

[2:36:29] requesting reduced lot Frontage sard and parking area setbacks these features

[2:36:34] currently exist on site with the existing structures and with the

[2:36:37] exception of the parking area setb have previously been recognized in the

[2:36:40] current r225 Zone the proposed addition or relocation

[2:36:45] of the accessory structure will not further reduce the Zone Provisions

[2:36:48] associated with the existing structure law Frontage Provisions are intended to

[2:36:52] ensure that sufficient space is provided for a building envelope access and off

[2:36:55] street parking side yard Provisions are intended to ensure that adequate space

[2:36:59] is provided for Access and normal maintenance of structures parking area

[2:37:03] setbacks are intended to ensure that adequate space is provided for parking

[2:37:07] and that Vehicles do not trespass onto adjacent properties when parking given

[2:37:11] the long-term existence of the conditions of the development staff do

[2:37:14] not anticipate anticipate a negative impact from the alternative Zone

[2:37:18] Provisions requested resulting from the proposed addition and

[2:37:22] increase in dwelling units the applicants have also requested

[2:37:24] alternative Zone Provisions with respect to lot area per dwelling unit landscaped

[2:37:28] open space and amenity space these Provisions are intended to ensure that

[2:37:32] sufficient space is provided for amenities outdoor space and space for

[2:37:36] drainage the applicants have requested a minimum lot area per dwelling unit from

[2:37:40] 150 dwelling 150 square meters to 141 square meters a minimum required

[2:37:46] landscaped open SP space from 35% to 30 2% and to reduce the minimum required

[2:37:52] amenity space from 30 square met per dwelling unit to 15 Square

[2:37:57] met for the most part these are minor departures from the existing go Zone

[2:38:01] standard and are not anticipated to have an netive impact on the proposed

[2:38:05] development further the subject lands are approximately 17 meters from the

[2:38:09] city's Central area where these Provisions are significantly reduced and

[2:38:12] where the city anticipate in significantly more dense development

[2:38:16] planning staff are satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the policies

[2:38:19] of the provincial planning statement and meets the General intent and purpose of

[2:38:23] the official plan respecting permitted uses and residential in intent

[2:38:28] intensification within the entrepreneurial District designation it

[2:38:31] can be given favorable consideration uh as such staff recommend approval of the

[2:38:38] application thank you any questions Mr Miller councilor

[2:38:44] shenberg yeah from the chair through to Mr Miller the garage at the back of the

[2:38:49] property I think the last time we saw that proposal for the idea was it to

[2:38:52] move it or remove it is it still supposed to be moved to a

[2:38:57] different location or different location on that property yes through the chair

[2:39:01] it's intended to be moved to a different location so that they can incorporate

[2:39:04] all of the required parking um while while retaining the garage on

[2:39:12] site I believe in the sketch that's up on the screen they kind of see a hatched

[2:39:17] area where it is just southeast of words it's shown in the

[2:39:24] drawing I remember asking uh before previously again with the last time they

[2:39:28] were here that the the garage was awfully close or quite close to the sort

[2:39:34] of the loading dock area for a Shopper Drug mark behind it which also thought

[2:39:38] to me was a little bit of a kind of a predicament location for that for that

[2:39:42] garage to even be existing there my next question is how big does a lot have to

[2:39:46] be for low density commercial this is more generic question when you talk

[2:39:51] about 30 units per hectare or 12 units per acre how long how large is a lot

[2:39:56] have to be before some of that math applies does it have to be at least an

[2:39:58] acre I mean obviously this is less than an acre so through the chair there are

[2:40:04] minimum Zone Provisions for minimum lotteries so it depends on what type of

[2:40:08] low density development you're going to do um I can't tell you what those are

[2:40:12] off the top of my head but um they're they're quite small and that's why to

[2:40:18] appropriately design the site uh the way the city

[2:40:22] wants to it's why we establish minimum Lotter are per per dwelling unit so that

[2:40:26] we make sure that there's still a minimum lot size

[2:40:32] provided any other questions of the

[2:40:38] planner just wait I I'll come to you this is for Council right now uh I do

[2:40:43] have a question for you uh going back to the garage that's being moved thinking

[2:40:49] of arus um would it be possible to have

[2:40:53] additional residential units go into this Garage in the

[2:40:58] future not in this case I believe the current aru zoning B only permits arus

[2:41:04] in uh single detached dwelling semi- detached dwellings in Street fronting

[2:41:08] tow houses so because this is a multiple attached dwelling uh it wouldn't be

[2:41:12] eligible for an aru theoretically they could apply for them to be extra units

[2:41:17] but they wouldn't be subject to the same discounts and things like development

[2:41:21] charges that arus typically

[2:41:25] get okay and just to be clear there's no uh intentions of living area within the

[2:41:32] garage area at this point that's accurate um if that was proposed that

[2:41:37] way uh they would be then be deficient on parking further deficient in things

[2:41:42] like uh dwelling unit per square meters which might raise concerns through the

[2:41:47] review process again and I'm asking that for uh residents in the neighborhood

[2:41:52] that have asked me so I just wanted to be clear thank you very much any other

[2:41:56] questions or the planner before I open it to the

[2:42:01] public okay I'm seeing none first I'd like to invite anybody to speak in favor

[2:42:06] of this application to come

[2:42:11] forward applicant thank you or sorry the applicant would the applicant like to

[2:42:17] come forward I'm not sure if they're [Music]

[2:42:20] here miss gearlink say yeah thank you very much for that

[2:42:27] counselor uh seeing no applicant here tonight then I'll open it up to the

[2:42:32] floor I'm sorry no one here just speak in favor of it I

[2:42:37] assume anybody wishing to speak against this application please come

[2:42:46] forward and I would ask that you state your name and address for the record

[2:42:50] when you come to the podium and afterwards I'll ask you to fill out the

[2:42:54] form perfect thank you hi everybody I'm Susan rampersad um

[2:43:01] I spoke at the last meeting so um good evening uh your worship counselors um so

[2:43:09] thank you for allowing me to speak I had a few questions um I ju I'm just before

[2:43:13] I start speaking has there have there been any changes proposed since our last

[2:43:19] meeting everything is the same how many parking spaces are

[2:43:28] there just reading it it's up on the screen yeah thank you

[2:43:34] so through you it's I believe the minimum parking space requirement is 1.5

[2:43:38] spaces per unit and there's seven units so there's seven units and we so we

[2:43:42] would round it up so what's that 14 15 7 plus 3 plus 4 11 spaces and where are

[2:43:48] those 11 space is going to be in front of the

[2:43:51] garage like in that back area has this property including the garage been

[2:43:58] approved for commercial use because I think we heard at the last

[2:44:03] meeting that the garage was rented out to an auto body shop that was being used

[2:44:08] for commercial purposes so through the chair it's not currently approved

[2:44:13] approved for commercial uses the r225 Zone permits uh basically what's this so

[2:44:19] uh just the residential uses um the C3 zone is the in designation is

[2:44:25] an entrepreneurial District which does support some commercial uses but that's

[2:44:29] not what's being applied for here okay right so I I already raised my

[2:44:35] objections at the last meeting I I'm understanding that nothing has really

[2:44:39] changed from a planning perspective so I'm just reasserting the same objections

[2:44:44] that we had before namely density uh parking on the street um disruptions to

[2:44:49] the neighborhood uh traffic and just the fact that on this small City Block we

[2:44:55] already have two high-rise um apartment buildings with

[2:45:00] several units and now it it's the the community the residents are really

[2:45:06] opposed to this because it's just too many people in a small area and again um

[2:45:13] me personally I'm trying to flag an issue

[2:45:16] that the applicant is not here he wasn't here the last meeting it really doesn't

[2:45:21] feel like he cares and at that last meeting I was really shocked to learn

[2:45:25] that the garage was being used for commercial purposes that's shocking and

[2:45:29] would explain why at 3:00 in the morning every morning I'm hearing the sound of

[2:45:33] drilling and sawing why we have so much police involvement um we have uh

[2:45:39] violence and domestic abuse and you know all kinds of things I think the

[2:45:43] community is really in favor of lowincome um affordable housing right

[2:45:49] that's not the issue here the issue is the owner and the landlord we heard of

[2:45:53] cockroaches no Plumbing no ability to flush and I would like to raise that as

[2:46:00] like can we call Public Health can we do something about the situation that

[2:46:05] already exists before we approve this dead beat landlord to add more units and

[2:46:11] create more problems that's it thanks everybody any

[2:46:17] questions before you go away councelor Wismer

[2:46:20] vanir three your worship and Sora I missed your last name so rampersad my

[2:46:25] mom lives we live next door my mom is 92 tomorrow so I'm really here speaking on

[2:46:30] her behalf well I hope she has a great birthday tomorrow um I mean I think and

[2:46:36] I'm not sure if you've had a chance to see the agenda there was some photos

[2:46:39] provided for us from the um property owner as well as the individual that's

[2:46:43] looking after the property now doing the maintenance and stuff um I know um some

[2:46:48] residents that live in this area that had still been sharing some photos with

[2:46:51] me to say this is what's here today this is what's going on so as nice as it is

[2:46:56] to have these photos it's easy for me to send you a photo of when my place looks

[2:47:00] good um I don't suspect they're going to always show us the photos of when things

[2:47:04] are not looking good right um so I do still have concerns um you know when

[2:47:09] neighbors are still sending me photos uh showing that um it's maybe not being

[2:47:14] cared for the way that's being depicted is that something that you're that

[2:47:18] you're or your is witnessing or other people in the neighborhood that you've

[2:47:21] spoken to so since that meeting my mother's property has

[2:47:27] been I guess invaded is the correct word twice from someone coming over from that

[2:47:33] side of the property and stealing all of her furniture specifically like the

[2:47:38] metal furniture presumably to sell she since put up a fence along the wall that

[2:47:44] divides our backyard from their backyard and you know they just people can climb

[2:47:50] over fences so yeah I mean the front porch I mean I'm not inside so at the

[2:47:56] last meeting I was really shocked to learn at the of these horrible

[2:48:00] conditions inside but outside this building looks like it's falling apart

[2:48:03] so I'm not understanding I'm I'm not in favor of adding more

[2:48:08] units um to someone that doesn't care enough to be at these meetings and

[2:48:12] doesn't care enough to improve the living conditions of the people that are

[2:48:15] already there so I would say there's been no change

[2:48:22] any other questions of the

[2:48:27] delegate well please wish your mom a very happy birthday thank you thanks I

[2:48:30] know it's been a long night so thanks for allowing I know we're just The

[2:48:33] Underdogs here the Galler's empty but we still we still count

[2:48:40] right anyone else like to speak against the

[2:48:44] application somebody hiding underneath the bench somewhere no good all right

[2:48:51] moving

[2:48:54] along uh where am I 2f application for zone change ZN 8-4-1

[2:49:01] 16 cach a developments car Road Mr

[2:49:15] Miller applications for zone change zna 24 16 in the name of cachier

[2:49:20] developments Woodstock Inc and zn8 2418 in the name of K Road Land Development

[2:49:26] Corporation uh the subject property is described as

[2:49:31] Lots 14 and 30 plans 16-21 in the city of Woodstock and is applicable to the

[2:49:36] lands within draft approved plan of subdivision SB

[2:49:41] 21138 the subject lands are currently designated residential Environmental

[2:49:46] Protection in open space uh within the within the County's official plan and

[2:49:50] within the residential density plan low medium and high residential density this

[2:49:55] within the city of Woodstock zoning bylaw the existing zoning is

[2:49:58] Environmental Protection two open space one open space two special residential

[2:50:03] Zone r129 special residential Zone r240 special residential Zone 3 r355 and

[2:50:12] r356 and special residential Zone 4 r420 uh the proposed Z zoning seeks to

[2:50:19] amend the r129 Zone amended uh special residential r240 special residential

[2:50:27] r335 r355 and r356 and special residential Zone

[2:50:36] r420 the application for zone change proposes to replace a special provision

[2:50:41] in the r240 zone to clarify the intended setbacks between the dwellings to reduce

[2:50:45] the minimum exterior side yard in the r240 Zone from 4.5 M to 4 M to reone a

[2:50:51] subject ption lands from r129 to r240 and to reduce the site triangles and

[2:50:57] distances from intersection Provisions toit a minimum distance permitted

[2:51:00] between a driveway and intersection of 5 meters within a draft approved plan of

[2:51:05] subdivision last week the applicant's agent provided me with an opinion letter

[2:51:08] requesting a different site triangle and and intersection setbacks then were

[2:51:14] requested through this application unfortunately due to the limited amount

[2:51:17] of time prior to this meeting Sydney City engineering staff who

[2:51:20] planning would rely on to review this information confirmed that they would

[2:51:23] require more time to review the new submission I indicated to the

[2:51:27] applicant's agent that we could defer the application at the applicant's

[2:51:30] request to review the new information however the agent requests that we move

[2:51:33] forward to this meeting for council's consideration the new sub submission

[2:51:37] requests a setback of 7.5 meters for a driveway from an intersection where lots

[2:51:42] that have a frontage of more than 12 meters require 9 meters in the in the

[2:51:46] City Zoning bylaw the applicants have requested that three

[2:51:50] losss in the plan of subdivision losss one to three shown on plate four be

[2:51:54] rezoned from r129 to r240 the effect of this portion of the proposed zoning is

[2:52:00] to permit Lots with narrow frontages reduced lot areas and increased lck

[2:52:04] coverage and decreased sidey yard and decreased interior sidey yard widths

[2:52:09] staff have no objection to the proposed zoning the applicants have requested to

[2:52:14] reduce exterior side yard width in the r240 zone from 4.5 to 4 met the intent

[2:52:20] of the minimum interior side yard with is to ensure that adequate space is

[2:52:23] provided for regular maintenance of the RightWay to provide space for grading

[2:52:27] and drainage and to ensure that buildings are adequately set back to M

[2:52:30] maintain sight lines and a consistent re and a consistent streetcape building and

[2:52:36] uring staff have not identified any safety concerns with the reduced

[2:52:40] setbacks provided sight triangle setbacks are maintained through the

[2:52:44] subdivision review process engineering staff will further ensure the adequate

[2:52:48] grading drainers can be provided to the subdivision based on the approved

[2:52:52] setbacks the applicants have requested the exist that the existing Zone

[2:52:56] provision for interior side yard widths be clarified in the r240 zone the intent

[2:53:00] of this change is to provide Clarity on minimum interior side yard widths to

[2:53:04] facilitate easier interpretation of the Zone Provisions the application the

[2:53:09] applicants suggested clarifi the applicants suggested clarification is

[2:53:13] consistent with staff's interpretation of the existing r240 Zone provisions and

[2:53:18] as such staff have no concern with the proposed changes and have forwarded

[2:53:21] suggested new wording to the applicants agent staff are satisfied that portions

[2:53:26] of the proposal relating to clarification of interior side yard

[2:53:29] setbacks reduced minimum interior side yard setbacks and res zoning of three

[2:53:34] lots from r129 to r240 are in keeping with the intent and purpose of the

[2:53:38] official plan the proposed residential uses are consistent with the policies

[2:53:42] relating to row to low density residential uses the applicants have

[2:53:46] also requested a reduction in setback Backs from required corner lot sight

[2:53:49] triangles and distances from intersections in both cases the required

[2:53:53] setback is 7.5 M and the applicants are requesting a reduction to 5 meters again

[2:53:58] this is different than new information that came to us last week section 5.1.3

[2:54:04] states that a sight triangle a triangular space formed by intersecting

[2:54:07] intersecting Street line of a corner lot shall be measured back 7 and a half

[2:54:11] meters in all residential zones and 9 m in all other zones within site within a

[2:54:18] sight triangle of a corner lot no obstruction higher than 2 ft above the

[2:54:21] grid including any building structure sign landscape planting or parking of

[2:54:25] vehicles is permitted section 5.4.1 point11 establishes driveway standards

[2:54:31] and section 5.4.1 111.6 specifically identifies distances

[2:54:36] from intersections and states that where a lot is greater than 12 M the minimum

[2:54:40] distance from a driveway intersection shall be 9 M and where a lot line of

[2:54:44] buting the street is 12 meters or less the minimum setback shall be 7.5 meters

[2:54:48] as it applies to this subdivision due to the prevalent lost frontages most

[2:54:52] driveways are required to be at least 7.5 meters from

[2:54:56] intersections City and staff city and county staff consider established

[2:55:00] setbacks including distances from intersections and corner lot side

[2:55:03] triangles to be important safety standards to support Road Safety by

[2:55:06] prohibiting driveways or obstructures in close proximity to intersections the

[2:55:10] requested reduction to 5 meters is shorter than one parking space which has

[2:55:13] a minimum length of 5.5 m and is equivalent to less than one car length

[2:55:18] being being provided before a driveway or obstruction at an intersection in

[2:55:22] staff's opinion a new plan of subdivis a new plan of subdivision must be able to

[2:55:26] accomodate the minimum safety standards established in sections 5.1.3 and 5.4.1

[2:55:31] point1 point. 111.6 the port the portion of the

[2:55:36] proposal relating to setbacks from site triangles and distances from

[2:55:39] intersections for driveways is not considered to be in keeping with the

[2:55:42] intent and purpose of the official plan the road section of the official plan

[2:55:45] establishes policies for public roads in the city of Woodstock the roads policies

[2:55:50] direct that that city council shall consider the potential effect of

[2:55:54] development on safety efficiency and volume flow volume and flow on adjacent

[2:55:58] streets through the application process City staff have identified safety

[2:56:02] concerns related to the proposed reduction in sight triangle distance

[2:56:05] from intersection setbacks and do not support this part of the proposal

[2:56:09] planning staff are satisfied that the that this portion of the application

[2:56:13] related to clarification on interior sidey guards re reduced minimum exterior

[2:56:18] sard and the resoning Lots from R1 to r240 is consistent with the policies of

[2:56:24] the PPS and meets the General intended purpose the official plan respecting low

[2:56:27] density residential uses and can be given favorable consideration planning

[2:56:31] staff are not satisfied that the portion of the application related to relief of

[2:56:35] site triangles and distances from intersection for driveways meets the

[2:56:38] General intended purpose of the official plan respecting roads in this portion of

[2:56:41] the application should not be given favorable

[2:56:47] consideration to review the new site triangle intersection setbacks requested

[2:56:51] last week staff had recommended to the applicants that they defer this

[2:56:56] application to allow staff more time to review the new information however as

[2:57:00] requested by the applicant's agent staff are prepared to make a recommendation

[2:57:03] contained within the report without consideration of the newly requested

[2:57:07] intersection and site triangle setbacks in staff's recommendation if staff's

[2:57:12] recommendation is followed as written in the report that you have here the

[2:57:15] applications the applicants will need to make new appliations consistent with the

[2:57:19] request made last week alternativ alternatively staff recommend the

[2:57:24] recommendations that are included in the report okay thank you any questions of

[2:57:30] the Planner councelor shenberg yeah from the mayor through Mr

[2:57:35] Miller I guess the the first thing is try to use an example that you may be

[2:57:39] able to correlate to what they're asking for in this at the top of page page

[2:57:43] number five where they talk about 1.2 meters on one side of the lot line .6

[2:57:48] meters on the other side of the lot line I know in the city of Woodstock on

[2:57:52] Anderson Street there's some areas called zero lot allowance which I think

[2:57:56] are even less than 6 meters on one side of the property I think it's like six

[2:58:00] inches on one side of the property and four feet on the other side of the

[2:58:04] property line as if the house is built on the property line in essence can you

[2:58:09] explain Anderson Street and and explain how this is

[2:58:13] different through the chair I'm not specifically familiar with that I can

[2:58:17] probably look into it before for Thursday's meeting and give you a better

[2:58:20] answer um I'll just write down Anderson Street when I get back to my chair um

[2:58:24] but I don't I'm not aware of anywhere where the city is permitted zero lot

[2:58:28] lines sometimes when we're permitting the

[2:58:31] 0.6 meter setback once you put Eaves and gutters and things like that on you're

[2:58:36] pretty close um but I'm not sure and maybe Craig has a better idea while he's

[2:58:40] here

[2:58:49] Mr chairman through to the question talking about 0.62 foot side

[2:58:55] yards the the question from the counselor was that uh Anderson Street

[2:58:59] and is there a zero zero lot line setback from

[2:59:04] development there yeah that was the shikan subdivision so I forget the exact

[2:59:09] Provisions but uh I believe one House was built on the

[2:59:14] property line but there was an easement created on the adjacent lot which

[2:59:19] allowed that homeowner to go onto the neighbor's property to access the side

[2:59:24] side of the house that's the uh only example that we have in in Woodstock for

[2:59:30] that type of

[2:59:36] situation does that satisfy I guess by followup it' be as long as the fire

[2:59:40] department is is fine with these houses being this close together then i' likely

[2:59:45] would be fine with it as well because we also have the Tom black Boulevard and

[2:59:49] whatnot where some of the houses I think are closer together than what is

[2:59:53] seemingly less than 8 feet Mr chairman if I could just

[2:59:58] continue this so so your concern is the two- foot sidey yard so in

[3:00:05] the rontok uh Champlain subdivision that's a

[3:00:12] I'm just guessing that's roughly 15 years old so from the chicken ants

[3:00:18] subdivision which we didn't like the zero lot lines so I believe it was

[3:00:23] Thomas field Holmes came into Woodstock they introduced the the two foot side

[3:00:29] yard in that subdivision so the one house had to be a minimum of 2 feet the

[3:00:36] lot adjacent had to be a minimum 4 feet so you had six feet between the

[3:00:46] houses this would appear to be the same then so I I say I'm fine with

[3:00:51] it okay any other questions of the

[3:00:57] planner seeing none is the applicant here for

[3:01:05] this and I'll certainly say thank you for sticking around and having a long

[3:01:14] evening so if you don't mind nameing yep thank you you you know the

[3:01:27] drill that's great okay good evening uh my name is

[3:01:31] Brandon fling I'm a planner with GSP group um thank you for your time this

[3:01:36] evening I I will keep this pretty quick it's been uh it's been a long eventful

[3:01:40] night but uh nice to uh be up here when the Galler is empty and not so worried

[3:01:44] about something I'm I'm here for so um I think Mr Miller did a good job of going

[3:01:49] over our request and I just want to hit a few highlights and then talk about the

[3:01:52] one one area where we we did essentially change our request um late in the

[3:01:58] process as he noted so

[3:02:03] um so as noted in the staff report our uh requested amendments look to clarify

[3:02:10] the separation or the distance between dwellings reduce the exterior sidey yard

[3:02:15] setback uh small resoning of three lots from r129 to r240 and then to reduce the

[3:02:21] reduction of a setback of a driveway to an intersection and that's the one where

[3:02:25] we've sort of changed our request Midstream and um I'd like to present

[3:02:29] that to council so quickly um I think perhaps a

[3:02:35] clarification Pro was provided about the separation between dwellings but um is

[3:02:40] really just to clarify the wording so that if it's not Mr Miller or myself or

[3:02:44] or the current developers looking at the application that everyone was clear what

[3:02:47] setbacks apply so 1.2 meters on one side 0.6 on the other side and always a

[3:02:53] minimum of 1.8 between dwellings and that's it's basically the way the

[3:02:58] original bylaw was written but we just it it wasn't perfectly clear for

[3:03:02] interpretation and we wanted to uh to reest that clarification so um we're

[3:03:08] staff has recommended report of this change and uh that that would suit the

[3:03:12] developers needs the next request was a minor

[3:03:16] change of a reduction in the exterior side yard setback so from the 4 and a

[3:03:20] half meters as required down to a 4 meter exterior side yard setback uh

[3:03:24] again staff has recommended approval of this request um and that would that

[3:03:28] would suit the needs of the developer it's really just gives them a bit more

[3:03:32] design flexibility in this neighborhood there are significant topographical um

[3:03:38] changes throughout the neighborhood and just citing the individual Lots having a

[3:03:42] little bit more wiggle room uh helps to make the grading and drainage and site

[3:03:46] design work so that's that request comes from the next one just quickly the The

[3:03:52] Zone changed from the r129 to the r240 um so on the original draft plan

[3:03:58] these Lots were going to be uh 12 meter Frontage Lots so a little bigger Lots

[3:04:02] but through the detailed design uh and the engineering design it was found that

[3:04:06] a bit more flexibility allowing uh smaller frontages for these three lots

[3:04:11] uh would assist with the overall grading design of the subdivision um again

[3:04:15] staff's recommending approval of this request uh um and that will that will

[3:04:19] help the developer and the engineers you know appropriately design and um the

[3:04:23] grading of the site so I think we're we're all good on that one as

[3:04:27] well so the next one is the request for the setback of driveways to

[3:04:32] intersections our original request as noted by Mr Miller was for reduction um

[3:04:37] from the requirement of 9 meters down to five um and this is only applicable to

[3:04:43] Lots with frontages of 12 meters or greater we've since looked looked at the

[3:04:48] detailed design um in more detail and realized when we asked for the request

[3:04:53] of the 5 meter setback the uh the engineers and designers had provided

[3:04:57] double width driveways on those Corner Lots um and that's not it's not

[3:05:02] necessary it's not required as part of their design so we we're really reducing

[3:05:07] our request from five meters or increasing it I suppose up to a seven

[3:05:11] and a half meter setback for lots that are 12 meters or greater so the driveway

[3:05:17] can be within or has to be 7.5 M or greater from the intersection that same

[3:05:23] requirement is actually permitted with lots that have 12 meters Frontage or

[3:05:28] less so say you had an 11 meter lot the the zoning bylaw allows a 7 and a half

[3:05:33] meter setback for the driveway from an intersection it's only when it's greater

[3:05:37] than a 12 meter lot that the increased setback up to 9 meters is required we

[3:05:42] can provide the 7.5 but we can't provide the nine so the request again again has

[3:05:48] increased from five up to 9 I just want to clarify quickly

[3:05:54] through um the zoning bylaw and the actual detailed design what this looks

[3:05:59] like on the ground so on the left side of the screen is the actual zoning bylaw

[3:06:03] and the definition of of Street line is coincident with the definition of

[3:06:09] property line and as you can see in the diagram here the the red dotted line

[3:06:12] would identify the the street line or the property line when you're looking at

[3:06:16] the the zoning law versus the drawing on the right hand side is actually you're

[3:06:22] not following my

[3:06:24] presentation not

[3:06:31] helpful Matt can you uh adjust the um oh yep thank

[3:06:44] you my apologies yeah I suppose I should check my blind

[3:06:50] spots and see what's actually on the screen Kristen you had one

[3:07:10] job I will keep it quick once we have the graphic

[3:07:19] can

[3:07:26] I go okay should

[3:07:33] okay let's try this again okay this is what I'm speaking to

[3:07:39] so the drawing on the left is from the the zoning bylaw and you can notice the

[3:07:43] red dash line I've just added that in to highlight the zoning bylaw identifies

[3:07:48] the street line or the property line as the the same point in um in measured

[3:07:53] scale the drawing on the right is our actual detailed engineering design and

[3:07:58] the important part here to highlight is that the property line again I've I've

[3:08:02] shown it in a red dash line is different from the physical Street line or the

[3:08:06] location of the actual road base so the actual Street line I've shown at the

[3:08:11] edge of the there's a blue line um and the importance is that

[3:08:15] there's a 3 met 3 meter Boulevard in this case there's no sidewalk on this

[3:08:19] corner so it's the the smallest example so therefore the one where the the

[3:08:23] driveway would be the closest to the intersection but there's a 3 meter

[3:08:27] Boulevard that is actually beyond the property line before the physical Street

[3:08:31] Edge versus the drawing on the left which is from the bylaw presumes them to

[3:08:35] be the same the same point um in in plan so our our request is for the the

[3:08:43] driveway setback to be 7 and2 meters from the actual property line or the

[3:08:47] ownership line but in reality there's an additional 3 meters beyond that that is

[3:08:52] the um the actual Street line so the the driveway setback when you add up those

[3:08:57] two numbers is over 10 meters from the actual Street line so again in the

[3:09:02] zoning bylaw the interpretation is that the the road is right at the property

[3:09:06] line um and the the site triangle is measured at that same corner but in

[3:09:11] reality there there is a boulevard uh that's provided beyond the

[3:09:15] beyond the property line and and the physical Street Edge so that that's an

[3:09:20] important point of clarification and I think staff is aware of that but I think

[3:09:25] it's important in reality to understand what this looks like in terms of

[3:09:28] navigating the street and and providing a parking space there or having a safe

[3:09:33] entrance to the

[3:09:36] driveway um quickly as Mr Miller noted we did submit a letter from Paradigm

[3:09:40] Transportation who who reviewed the proposed setback and again they reviewed

[3:09:45] the setback at 7 and2 meters as 7.5 m versus our original request

[3:09:50] which was 5 m they found it's it's reasonable and acceptable based on the

[3:09:56] uh traffic Association of Canada design guidelines um as far as guidelines for

[3:10:01] setbacks from driveways and intersections um and they've also noted

[3:10:06] and as I've highlighted in my presentation the zoning bylaw already

[3:10:10] permits a s in a half meter driveway setback for Lots with 12 meter frontages

[3:10:15] or less we're just asking for it for for the lots that are greater than 12 M and

[3:10:19] really in the context of the subdivision it's the corner Lots it's the corner

[3:10:23] single detached lots that would be impacted by this um further I just

[3:10:27] highlight that other areas nearby uh kitner waterl ingersol and tilsonburg

[3:10:33] all have a 7 and a half meter or less requirement so it's it's not something

[3:10:37] that's out of the ordinary or certainly in the within the county both ingersol

[3:10:41] and tilsonburg uh do permit that 7 and a half meter

[3:10:45] setb so all of that being said I think um certainly appreciate staff's report

[3:10:51] and there three recommendations that recommend approval of our a three

[3:10:57] requests then the fourth one where they had recommended refusal again they were

[3:11:01] looking at slightly different information that then in front of

[3:11:04] council tonight but um I have provided some recommended wording that would uh

[3:11:10] it would suit our request based on the the revised request and it's really that

[3:11:15] um according to that section of the B 541

[3:11:19] 11.6 uh that A reduced setback from 9 M to 7.5 M would be permitted with lots

[3:11:26] with greater than 12 meter Frontage um so I know Council has the

[3:11:31] ability to you know take the staff recommendations to um to make changes of

[3:11:36] what the case might be but um I guess my request going forward would be that um

[3:11:41] perhaps staff consider this request and maybe can come back on Thursday with

[3:11:46] additional information um that Council perhaps consider our

[3:11:50] amended recommendation um and then the third

[3:11:53] option I suppose would be accept the three that staff are recog uh approval

[3:11:58] for and defer this last item so that we could still get the momentum on the

[3:12:01] other zoning items and have those clarified um but if we could do it all

[3:12:05] on Thursday with a revised recommendation that would be more

[3:12:08] efficient um but certainly if if there's an ability to approve the first three

[3:12:13] and defer this this last item uh versus refusing it we would be open to that

[3:12:17] discussion as well so I think that was a lot but

[3:12:20] hopefully you followed along and I'm happy to answer any

[3:12:24] questions any questions from

[3:12:31] Council I guess I do maybe because it's a late night and I'm trying to follow

[3:12:35] the bouncing ball here um and maybe I'm going to direct

[3:12:40] this to Mr Miller if I might with this new information would that or does that

[3:12:46] change any type of recommendations from planning

[3:12:52] department um not from not for me the planner um just because we rely on

[3:13:00] getting that information for what is a safe setback from the city's engineering

[3:13:04] department um the city's engineering department indicated to us that they

[3:13:09] couldn't fit within their timelines a chance to review that letter and respond

[3:13:12] to it prior to this week's meeting so I I as the planner who's a lay person

[3:13:18] can't tell you whether that's a good thing or

[3:13:20] not then maybe I'll direct that to engineering

[3:13:27] then just again to respect timelines and is there any chance to get this all done

[3:13:31] on Thursday or do we look at deferral if we do need more time your opinion please

[3:13:36] through to the chair um yeah I think we can have um a recommendation to staff by

[3:13:43] Thursday by coun to council I mean by Thursday okay well thank you very

[3:13:49] much any other questions oh councelor

[3:13:56] shenberg yeah from the mayor through to Mr fuelling I guess the question is

[3:14:00] related to uh triangles at intersections would would a subdivision never have any

[3:14:05] policies that sort of say you can't put a ornamental Bush or something like that

[3:14:11] that close to the corner either because we've all seen people who like to grow

[3:14:14] Hedges and all of a sudden they may not realize that that hedge is inside the

[3:14:18] traffic triangle thank you through you Mr mer

[3:14:23] the um the zoning byla certainly has those requirements um talks about the

[3:14:27] height of of anything within that visibility triangle um so that does get

[3:14:31] applied to to all of the Lots um I can't say that I've seen it as a specific call

[3:14:38] it call out item in a subdivision agreement but um I guess it's really

[3:14:43] relying on the zoning bylaw for that um you know keeping an eye on it and then

[3:14:48] if it becomes an Enforcement issue the zoning bylaw is the the tool to identify

[3:14:53] it and sorry if I could just perhaps add to that after the detailed design a

[3:14:59] reduction in the the triang corner visibility triangle is no longer

[3:15:03] requested it's just a setback to the driveway in the intersection

[3:15:12] now can you repeat can you repeat that again I'm feeling a little confused

[3:15:18] here certainly our original request looked for a reduction in the corner

[3:15:22] visibility triangle as well as the setback of a driveway to an

[3:15:27] intersection and now that we've done some more fine-tuning and looked at it

[3:15:31] in more detail the corner visibility triangle and the the the requirements of

[3:15:35] that we can satisfy that on each of the Lots it's just the physical separation

[3:15:41] of the edge of the driveway to the edge of the street line that that we're

[3:15:44] requesting reduction in now thank you for that no

[3:15:49] problem any other

[3:15:54] questions seeing none thank you very much with that in case there's some

[3:16:01] people hiding uh anybody like to speak in favor of this

[3:16:05] application going once anybody like to speak against this

[3:16:15] application seeing none

[3:16:22] well that concludes tonight's meeting a decision on these items will be made at

[3:16:26] the council meeting on Thursday and I'm going to look for a mover for

[3:16:30] adjournment councilor leather barel second by councelor Wismer vanm all

[3:16:34] those in favor we are now adjourned thanks everybody have a good night

City of Woodstock Planning Meeting Feb 18th 2025

Transcript