[0:01] Thank you.

[0:03] Uh welcome everybody and uh good

[0:05] evening.

[0:06] And uh we'll get into uh the agenda

[0:10] right away. I needed a

[0:12] uh mover and a seconder to adopt the

[0:13] agenda.

[0:15] Willie and Roger.

[0:19] All those in favor?

[0:20] Thank you.

[0:22] Any disclosure of pecuniary interests?

[0:26] Seeing none.

[0:28] So, this evening, there's a public

[0:30] hearing scheduled for one zoning bylaw

[0:32] amendment. It is application number ZBA

[0:36] 26-07FR,

[0:40] John Reed.

[0:42] The Planning Act requires that a public

[0:43] hearing be held before council decides

[0:46] whether to pass a zoning bylaw

[0:48] amendment. The public hearing serves two

[0:50] purposes. First, to present to council

[0:53] and the public the details and

[0:54] background to a proposed rezoning, and

[0:58] second, to receive comments from the

[1:00] public and agencies before council

[1:02] decision is made.

[1:04] Mr. Desmeaux will provide a summary of

[1:07] the application. From there, the

[1:09] applicant will be requested to make a

[1:11] presentation if he wish,

[1:14] followed by questions from the public

[1:15] either in favor or against the proposal.

[1:19] Council will then have the opportunity

[1:20] to question the applicant, the director

[1:23] of planning, or anyone giving

[1:26] presentations.

[1:27] The zoning bylaw amendment will be

[1:29] considered by council later tonight.

[1:33] Mr. Desmeaux, would you please advise

[1:35] how the public notice was provided?

[1:38] Thank you. So, notice of public hearing

[1:40] was posted in the municipal office and

[1:42] was sent by mail to the assessed owners

[1:44] within 120 m of the subject property for

[1:47] the proposed zoning bylaw amendment

[1:49] application tonight. And to those uh

[1:51] people and agencies likely to have an

[1:53] interest in the application. So, the

[1:56] notices were sent on April 7th of 2026,

[1:59] being 20 days prior to this evening's

[2:01] meeting. Included with the notice was an

[2:03] explanation of the purpose and effect of

[2:05] the proposal only bylaw amendment

[2:06] application and a key map showing the

[2:08] location of the subject property.

[2:12] I now declare this

[2:14] portion of the hearing to be a public

[2:16] hearing to deal with application number

[2:18] ZBA

[2:19] 26-07FR.

[2:23] John Reed, Mr. Desmo, will you please

[2:25] summarize the purpose and effect of the

[2:27] proposed zoning bylaw amendment and

[2:30] provide any additional information and

[2:32] correspondence relevant to the

[2:34] application? Thank you. So, this evening

[2:36] we have John Reed who's the owner of the

[2:38] subject property and we also have Steve

[2:40] MacArthur who is a registered

[2:42] professional planner with Tulloch

[2:43] Engineering in the North Bay office. So,

[2:45] with that said, I'll provide a brief

[2:47] description of the application and speak

[2:49] to the official plan and zoning bylaw

[2:51] and then I'll circle back to agency

[2:53] comments part of the process. So, this

[2:56] evening there's the rezoning application

[2:58] and tomorrow night there's going to be

[2:59] the severance application. So, there

[3:01] two applications submitted at the same

[3:03] time.

[3:04] So, as a condition of approval which has

[3:07] been recommended for support from the

[3:09] severance perspective will be the zoning

[3:11] which is just going beforehand than the

[3:13] severance is. So, Sudbury Planning Board

[3:16] has received an application to create

[3:17] one new residential rural lot on

[3:20] Therrien Road in the Municipality of

[3:21] French River. The intent of the

[3:23] application is to rezone the proposed

[3:25] severed lot only.

[3:27] So, from waterfront residential zone to

[3:29] residential rural zone. So, the proposed

[3:32] severed lot is going to be quite

[3:34] generous in size. It's uh

[3:36] 1.93 hectares in area and it has

[3:39] approximately 64 m of frontage and is

[3:44] currently vacant. The proposed retained

[3:47] lot is approximately 1.96 also very

[3:50] generous in the area. Hector's has

[3:53] approximately 31.89 m of road frontage

[3:56] and also has water frontage on Ranger

[3:58] Bay of the French River, which is 37.9

[4:01] m. So, the lot is also currently vacant,

[4:04] so both properties are currently vacant.

[4:06] The retained lot

[4:08] will maintain its current waterfront

[4:10] residential zone. So, if you looked on

[4:12] CGIS mapping today, it's the whole thing

[4:14] is waterfront residential zone. Um

[4:17] sorry, how do you pronounce the road? Is

[4:19] it Turenne or Turenne.

[4:22] Turenne? Okay. Thanks.

[4:25] I just wanted to double-check on that.

[4:27] So, access to both proposed severed lot

[4:29] and retained lot is provided by a

[4:31] publicly maintained road named Turenne

[4:33] Road. So, in terms of the official plan,

[4:37] we're touching on two different

[4:38] designations here. We got the rural and

[4:41] the waterfront designation policy areas,

[4:43] which

[4:44] are aligned in the sense that they

[4:46] provide limited growth primarily in the

[4:48] form of locally appropriate residential

[4:51] uses is what we're here this evening

[4:53] for. In in the sense of seasonal or

[4:56] permanent residential

[4:58] development that's on private services.

[5:00] So, this from from a severance

[5:02] perspective, which will be brought

[5:04] forward tomorrow night, this is a

[5:05] perfect example of minor infill and

[5:08] rounding out of an existing development.

[5:10] Turenne Road has historically been

[5:11] developed as waterfront residential area

[5:14] with existing lots primarily located

[5:16] along the shoreline. The lands north of

[5:19] Turenne Road remain largely undeveloped

[5:21] and are the rural side of

[5:23] the the lands.

[5:25] So, the subject property is large as a

[5:28] large vacant parcel

[5:30] of land that has a turnaround of the

[5:32] municipality maintained road and

[5:35] represents the appropriate location.

[5:36] Now, I did get a phone call from

[5:39] I'm just going to hold on. I made a

[5:41] couple notes here.

[5:42] I did get a phone call from 654 Turenne

[5:45] Road

[5:46] from Kathy who had some questions and

[5:48] concerns about

[5:50] the road. So, I did flip an email to

[5:53] Martin as well as the agent. So,

[5:56] everybody's been just just in terms of

[5:59] openness and understanding what their

[6:01] questions were. So, that the really the

[6:03] question was she's right at the end of

[6:05] the road on the south portion of it.

[6:07] So, she's been there for many many

[6:09] years. She has an existing road, but

[6:11] just right beside her property just

[6:13] slightly to the north there's an

[6:14] existing like driveway gravel driveway

[6:17] there. So, her concern was

[6:21] what happens if somebody buys the

[6:22] property because she's of the

[6:24] understanding, you know, being there for

[6:25] for so many years that she understands

[6:28] that that existing driveway kind of

[6:31] meanders on to maybe in her opinion the

[6:35] the severed portion of the lot and then

[6:37] it comes back on to the retained lot.

[6:39] So, she was kind of concerned about like

[6:42] how people going to access the property

[6:44] and I just kind of like let her know

[6:46] like from a planning perspective and why

[6:49] we're here this evening from our our

[6:51] role is just to say hey, at the end of

[6:54] the day from a land use perspective

[6:56] Tutteran Road is publicly assumed by the

[6:57] municipality and there's legal frontage

[7:00] along the north side of it for both the

[7:03] severed and the retained land. So,

[7:05] that's all in the lens of looking at it

[7:07] that that's all I could focus on and

[7:10] support from that perspective. Beyond

[7:12] that have a conversation with maybe I

[7:15] said with Martin when it comes to

[7:16] entrances and locations of that. So,

[7:19] Martin

[7:20] is

[7:21] understands that. So, again, that's more

[7:23] building further processes. I could just

[7:25] focus on our process. So, that's what I

[7:27] shared with Cathy at the time.

[7:30] So, just wanted to give you that

[7:31] perspective as well on that

[7:33] conversation.

[7:34] Going back to the OP on on on

[7:37] again it's creation of one lot

[7:39] constitutes limited growth.

[7:41] So, no no no concerns there. The severed

[7:44] and retained parcels exceed the minimum

[7:46] lot area requirements of the zoning

[7:47] bylaw and are appropriate in size and

[7:49] dimensions to support, uh, future uh,

[7:52] future home on on each property. So, um,

[7:55] basically, uh, there's also like like

[7:58] again on the road because there's a lot

[7:59] of conversation on the road, I also

[8:01] advise that the creation of this lot is

[8:03] not going to create a new public road or

[8:05] more or less an extension of road that's

[8:08] existing and turn around there. Um, so I

[8:12] said both res- uh, resulting lots will

[8:13] have direct frontage onto the rain road,

[8:16] um, and the development represents an

[8:18] orderly and efficient use of land. So,

[8:20] therefore, uh, there's no um,

[8:22] requirement of any extension here, uh,

[8:25] with respect to access and entrances.

[8:28] So,

[8:29] uh, with respect to servicing, uh,

[8:31] Sudbury District Health Unit provided

[8:32] both the support comments for the

[8:34] severed and retained lots, no concerns

[8:36] there.

[8:37] Uh, they also provided root well

[8:38] drilling for uh, the ground water supply

[8:41] is available in the area. And fourth,

[8:44] Noelville Sanitation has also confirmed

[8:46] pump out uh, services to be provided for

[8:48] each lot. So, all the servicing letters

[8:50] have been provided as part of the

[8:51] process, everything

[8:53] uh, is a go on that end. And, um, yeah,

[8:56] it will not negatively basically impact

[8:58] the future development uh, of the

[9:00] retained lands. So, there are no

[9:01] concerns. So, overall, it supports uh,

[9:03] and conforms to the official plan. Now,

[9:05] with respect to zoning, why we're here

[9:07] tonight, I just to touch on it. So, two

[9:10] things will happen. One, the proposed

[9:12] severed lot is going to change from

[9:13] waterfront residential to the

[9:16] residential rural zone, so that's one.

[9:18] Two, uh, the retained lots, just more of

[9:21] a housekeeping item, is they don't have

[9:25] like you need 60 m of frontage, and you

[9:27] have road frontage and you have water

[9:29] frontage, and I know like realistically,

[9:32] uh, that floods obviously we had a lot

[9:34] of water, so it's really not water

[9:35] frontage, but like from uh, a surveying

[9:38] perspective I have to treat it as

[9:40] waterfontage. So, I'm putting both

[9:41] measurements into the bylaw just just to

[9:44] be safe just to say hey minimum

[9:47] frontages for water and road are 37 and

[9:49] 31 m. So, it's more of a housekeeping

[9:51] item to keep that in place for the

[9:53] bylaw. And

[9:56] yeah, a lot area no issues for that. So,

[9:58] overall it's just more of a technical in

[10:01] nature than anything. So, no concerns

[10:03] and everything conforms other all the

[10:06] other standards conform to the uh

[10:09] both the residential rural and

[10:10] waterfront residential zone. And I'll be

[10:12] at special provisions with special

[10:14] provision 115. It's just going to speak

[10:16] to specifically the frontage

[10:18] waterfrontage and the lot frontage where

[10:21] 60 m is required. And lastly, we

[10:23] circulated to we also circulated to your

[10:27] municipality. And this is more just

[10:29] noted for the severance application

[10:31] tomorrow night where it's kind of

[10:33] standard practice from your municipality

[10:36] just speaking to

[10:37] the road if it happens to be in someone

[10:39] else's name. It's more of a housekeeping

[10:41] item just to have that transferred over

[10:43] when they do the surveying for the

[10:45] severed lot.

[10:46] And parkland dedication it's just a

[10:49] contribution. It's a set fee bylaw that

[10:51] you guys have in place and it's going to

[10:53] be used in the future for

[10:55] anything recreational purposes. It's

[10:57] like a fund that kind of builds up. And

[11:00] that's that's about it in terms of like

[11:03] the severance aspect and the conditions

[11:04] that will be attached to that along with

[11:06] why [snorts] we're here tonight which is

[11:07] the zoning application.

[11:10] And just the one phone call

[11:12] was from Kathy and no other phone calls

[11:14] in the area. And considering all the

[11:16] context of everything here,

[11:19] yeah, everything

[11:21] conforms or is consistent with the

[11:23] provincial planning statement as well as

[11:24] our official plan and zoning bylaw for

[11:26] the municipality of French River and it

[11:28] can be supported this evening.

[11:30] Thank you.

[11:32] Does the applicant John or Steve wish to

[11:34] make a presentation or

[11:36] uh, say a few words? It's up to you. You

[11:39] don't have to.

[11:40] Thank you very much. Uh,

[11:42] I guess first and foremost to introduce

[11:43] myself, Steve McCarthy, senior planner

[11:46] with Tulloch Engineering out of the

[11:47] North Bay office as Matthew has

[11:50] introduced me. Um, I'm the agent on this

[11:52] file. I I concur with with everything

[11:55] that's uh,

[11:57] that he's uh, presented to you this

[11:58] evening and I I have made notes and we

[12:01] um,

[12:02] will ensure that um, the the driveway

[12:06] accesses are noted as part of the site

[12:08] as part of the uh, consent work that we

[12:11] have to do, the survey work on site. And

[12:13] we will further as Matthew alluded to,

[12:16] um, if any parts of

[12:19] a terrain road are are meandering onto

[12:22] the property, we will create parts for

[12:24] that and turn it over to the

[12:25] municipalities to ensure that uh,

[12:28] that it's 100% owned by the

[12:29] municipality. This is standard practice

[12:31] when dealing with a consent on a rural

[12:34] lot.

[12:35] Uh, happy to answer any other questions

[12:37] if there are any from council.

[12:39] Thank you. Um, is there any questions

[12:41] from council?

[12:43] Roger?

[12:46] Through you, Madam Mayor.

[12:48] Uh, as I'm looking at the uh, layout,

[12:53] on the I have it right the north uh,

[12:56] uh, southeast corner.

[12:59] That's water park, isn't it?

[13:02] That is correct, sir.

[13:04] Yes. I When That's

[13:07] >> And probably a little bit on the

[13:09] » And probably a little bit on the

[13:09] southwest corner.

[13:11] But you know, the this drawing is very

[13:13] small, so it's hard to see.

[13:15] Yes. Um,

[13:16] What would be the benefit

[13:19] of changing

[13:21] from waterfront to rural?

[13:24] Would Did the taxes any?

[13:26] >> No.

[13:27] » No.

[13:27] Uh Matt? Um thank you, Mr. Chair. So,

[13:30] from a from a tax uh

[13:33] from an

[13:34] impact assessment perspective,

[13:38] I'm not qualified to speak to that. So,

[13:41] that's more maybe a question to

[13:45] um maybe for for impact uh associate or

[13:47] even a tax would be more directed to

[13:50] staff, but don't know the answer to

[13:52] that. Um just going back to what you're

[13:56] looking at from the southeast corner, so

[13:59] the total line that you see from

[14:02] um Talex plan shows about it shows 67.22

[14:06] m

[14:08] and um for that water, but a portion of

[14:11] that 31 is touching Ranger Bay.

[14:15] Um but again, it comes back to a

[14:17] functionality,

[14:19] uh but from a from a technicality

[14:21] perspective, I we have to from uh And

[14:24] and the other thing here is this is

[14:25] already existing waterfront residential

[14:28] zone, so we want to keep that in mind

[14:30] here that

[14:31] um

[14:32] that it's appropriate cuz it's already

[14:35] existing. The only reason we're changing

[14:37] it from from the other end is because

[14:40] the property is so large. It's over like

[14:43] I'd say 1 plus

[14:45] I'll do some quick math. Almost 4 ha in

[14:47] size that the north end of the property

[14:51] um because it's such a generous size lot

[14:55] that it no longer serves a purpose of

[14:57] waterfront. Like it doesn't touch like

[14:59] it doesn't have a water's edge to it.

[15:00] So, because of that that's north portion

[15:03] of it is being rezoned to the

[15:04] residential world while maintaining

[15:06] what's

[15:08] was one day always has been like a

[15:10] 4-acre parcel which touched the Ranger

[15:12] Bay which why it was uh waterfront

[15:14] residential for a long time.

[15:17] Okay, right right now I'm looking at two

[15:19] different uh layouts.

[15:21] Are we correct if we say that the

[15:25] southeast

[15:28] will be affected

[15:30] by this change?

[15:31] Where there where it touches the water?

[15:33] Or is it

[15:35] a parcel

[15:36] that is higher up?

[15:39] So what I could do is maybe I could show

[15:41] you like I I could walk over there if

[15:43] you're okay with that. Can I walk over

[15:45] just So So Roger, the part that they're

[15:48] asking to sever

[15:51] and for the

[15:52] change from

[15:54] water frontage, that's not on water. Get

[15:57] your glasses there cuz there's a lot of

[15:58] fine print here. So this dark bold line

[16:02] here to the north is the residential

[16:04] rural seven parcel. The

[16:07] the balance, see this dashed line here?

[16:11] Like

[16:12] Right.

[16:14] That's what's being retained waterfront

[16:16] residential.

[16:17] So waterfront. So this balance which is

[16:20] just for the little southeast corner

[16:21] that you're talking about

[16:24] is touching Andrew's Bay which has

[16:26] always been waterfront. Okay. That's not

[16:27] helpful. So this is the area we're

[16:29] talking to. Not this lot. Not just this

[16:32] one. Just this this lot here. Just this

[16:34] this one here.

[16:35] >> Yeah. So this is a lot this was one

[16:38] » Yeah. So this is a lot this was one

[16:38] random piece of property just at the

[16:39] end.

[16:40] >> Yeah. I know I was cuz I was there this

[16:41] » Yeah. I know I was cuz I was there this

[16:41] afternoon looking at it.

[16:43] So just this one. That's Catherine's

[16:45] property right here. This is also

[16:47] vacant. That's Yeah. And and the road

[16:49] comes right there. Yeah, exactly. Yeah.

[16:52] And here there's a house or something.

[16:53] Yep. Yep. Okay, thank you. Thank you for

[16:56] that. So does that make sense, Roger?

[16:58] But it's still it's still I I consider

[17:00] it still waterfront.

[17:02] It's not touching any water so it's not

[17:03] water frontage.

[17:05] The north part

[17:07] is not that's being that's the part

[17:08] that's being severed.

[17:10] >> at the south part.

[17:11] » at the south part.

[17:11] South part is it goes It's it retains.

[17:14] Madam Mayor

[17:15] Yeah. I have a better diagram

[17:19] showing the separation. It's not what

[17:21] we're looking at. It's the north part.

[17:22] It's the north part.

[17:23] >> Yes. Yeah. Well, one more map. One

[17:27] » Yes. Yeah. Well, one more map. One

[17:27] Like this this one's for tomorrow's

[17:29] agenda shows the separation. There's the

[17:31] aerial imagery.

[17:32] >> That part. The solid line separated

[17:34] » That part. The solid line separated

[17:34] that's not going to be touching water.

[17:36] Okay. So, right here is what he's

[17:38] saying. Right here is what we're

[17:39] discussing.

[17:41] Okay, that's I don't see a

[17:43] a line where it severs. Down down on the

[17:45] thing.

[17:46] So, it is a lower garden the water

[17:48] separation and it is water. Okay, hang

[17:51] on a second everybody.

[17:52] Hang on. Wait, sorry. So, the area that

[17:55] we're speaking about that's being

[17:57] severed is the is not touching water.

[18:01] It's the red zone. So, it's not touching

[18:04] water.

[18:07] But, that's not what you're showing me.

[18:10] Your Your worship I I don't know if we

[18:13] have the ability to share screens, but I

[18:14] do have the sketch which will probably

[18:17] clear up the counselor's questions

[18:19] directly. Yeah, cuz right now I'm

[18:21] looking at probably

[18:22] >> Yes, you can go

[18:23] » Yes, you can go

[18:23] you can go ahead Stephen share your

[18:24] screen. Thank you.

[18:30] On page 16.

[18:32] So, um if I could

[18:34] can you

[18:36] just give me a second?

[18:39] Can everyone see my screen?

[18:42] Yeah.

[18:43] Okay. So, and I'll zoom in here for the

[18:45] benefit it is a large one.

[18:47] Uh counselor the the the proposed

[18:50] severed area here is in the north side

[18:53] of the road and it has no

[18:56] um

[18:57] water frontage whatsoever. The retained

[19:00] does have a small portion of water

[19:02] frontage on Ranger Bay. The

[19:06] the portion that's being proposed to be

[19:08] rezoned is the the proposed severed.

[19:12] Uh okay.

[19:13] And and um

[19:15] just ironically to answer your question,

[19:18] I worked for MPAC for 8 years. To answer

[19:20] your question about how MPAC would treat

[19:21] that,

[19:23] the it's still waterfront property on

[19:25] the proposed retained. It would be taxed

[19:27] at a waterfront residential rate.

[19:30] Um a vacant waterfront residential rate

[19:33] at this time until such time as it's uh

[19:35] it's built upon.

[19:38] Okay.

[19:39] I was just I was just concerned about

[19:41] the waterfront and the taxes.

[19:43] Um

[19:44] Yes, I understand. Yeah, thank you.

[19:47] Yeah.

[19:49] All right. Does that answer your

[19:50] question, Roger?

[19:51] >> Yes, yes, it does. Okay, good. Any other

[19:53] » Yes, yes, it does. Okay, good. Any other

[19:53] questions, concerns? Okay. Uh seeing

[19:56] none, then um

[19:59] I declare this uh public hearing to be

[20:01] concluded, and it's now in order for

[20:04] council members to uh make a motion for

[20:07] to consider the application. So, I would

[20:09] need a mover and a seconder. Bob and

[20:11] Dave.

[20:15] I moved and seconded if you resolve that

[20:16] bylaw 2026-25 being a bylaw to amend

[20:19] zoning bylaw 2014-23

[20:22] as amended, John Reed, be read a first,

[20:24] second, and third time and finally

[20:25] passed. Thank you. All those in favor?

[20:29] Thank you.

[20:30] Um if there's no further question, I

[20:32] declare this public hearing to be

[20:34] concluded. Uh the zoning amendment bylaw

[20:37] the zoning amendment bylaw has passed.

[20:40] Please be advised that there is a 20-day

[20:42] appeal period during which time a

[20:44] specified uh specified person, public

[20:48] body, or registered owner may appeal the

[20:51] bylaw to the Ontario Land Tribunal by

[20:55] filing a notice of appeal with the clerk

[20:57] of the Municipality of French River.

[20:59] The notice of appeal must set out the

[21:01] reasons for the appeal and must be

[21:03] accompanied by a fee, which is

[21:05] prescribed under the Ontario Lands

[21:07] Tribunal

[21:09] Act uh

[21:10] 2017. The fee should be made payable to

[21:13] the Minister of Finance. All comments

[21:16] will be treated as public record and

[21:18] given out upon request.

[21:21] So, this time I need a motion to

[21:23] adjourn. Good Annie and Dave.

[21:26] All those in favor?

[21:28] Thank you.

[21:29] Thank you and thank you

[21:31] for coming tonight.

[21:33] Thank you. Thank you very much.

SPECIAL MEETING - ZBA - 06 May 2026

Transcript