[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