Thank you.
Uh welcome everybody and uh good
evening.
And uh we'll get into uh the agenda
right away. I needed a
uh mover and a seconder to adopt the
agenda.
Willie and Roger.
All those in favor?
Thank you.
Any disclosure of pecuniary interests?
Seeing none.
So, this evening, there's a public
hearing scheduled for one zoning bylaw
amendment. It is application number ZBA
26-07FR,
John Reed.
The Planning Act requires that a public
hearing be held before council decides
whether to pass a zoning bylaw
amendment. The public hearing serves two
purposes. First, to present to council
and the public the details and
background to a proposed rezoning, and
second, to receive comments from the
public and agencies before council
decision is made.
Mr. Desmeaux will provide a summary of
the application. From there, the
applicant will be requested to make a
presentation if he wish,
followed by questions from the public
either in favor or against the proposal.
Council will then have the opportunity
to question the applicant, the director
of planning, or anyone giving
presentations.
The zoning bylaw amendment will be
considered by council later tonight.
Mr. Desmeaux, would you please advise
how the public notice was provided?
Thank you. So, notice of public hearing
was posted in the municipal office and
was sent by mail to the assessed owners
within 120 m of the subject property for
the proposed zoning bylaw amendment
application tonight. And to those uh
people and agencies likely to have an
interest in the application. So, the
notices were sent on April 7th of 2026,
being 20 days prior to this evening's
meeting. Included with the notice was an
explanation of the purpose and effect of
the proposal only bylaw amendment
application and a key map showing the
location of the subject property.
I now declare this
portion of the hearing to be a public
hearing to deal with application number
ZBA
26-07FR.
John Reed, Mr. Desmo, will you please
summarize the purpose and effect of the
proposed zoning bylaw amendment and
provide any additional information and
correspondence relevant to the
application? Thank you. So, this evening
we have John Reed who's the owner of the
subject property and we also have Steve
MacArthur who is a registered
professional planner with Tulloch
Engineering in the North Bay office. So,
with that said, I'll provide a brief
description of the application and speak
to the official plan and zoning bylaw
and then I'll circle back to agency
comments part of the process. So, this
evening there's the rezoning application
and tomorrow night there's going to be
the severance application. So, there
two applications submitted at the same
time.
So, as a condition of approval which has
been recommended for support from the
severance perspective will be the zoning
which is just going beforehand than the
severance is. So, Sudbury Planning Board
has received an application to create
one new residential rural lot on
Therrien Road in the Municipality of
French River. The intent of the
application is to rezone the proposed
severed lot only.
So, from waterfront residential zone to
residential rural zone. So, the proposed
severed lot is going to be quite
generous in size. It's uh
1.93 hectares in area and it has
approximately 64 m of frontage and is
currently vacant. The proposed retained
lot is approximately 1.96 also very
generous in the area. Hector's has
approximately 31.89 m of road frontage
and also has water frontage on Ranger
Bay of the French River, which is 37.9
m. So, the lot is also currently vacant,
so both properties are currently vacant.
The retained lot
will maintain its current waterfront
residential zone. So, if you looked on
CGIS mapping today, it's the whole thing
is waterfront residential zone. Um
sorry, how do you pronounce the road? Is
it Turenne or Turenne.
Turenne? Okay. Thanks.
I just wanted to double-check on that.
So, access to both proposed severed lot
and retained lot is provided by a
publicly maintained road named Turenne
Road. So, in terms of the official plan,
we're touching on two different
designations here. We got the rural and
the waterfront designation policy areas,
which
are aligned in the sense that they
provide limited growth primarily in the
form of locally appropriate residential
uses is what we're here this evening
for. In in the sense of seasonal or
permanent residential
development that's on private services.
So, this from from a severance
perspective, which will be brought
forward tomorrow night, this is a
perfect example of minor infill and
rounding out of an existing development.
Turenne Road has historically been
developed as waterfront residential area
with existing lots primarily located
along the shoreline. The lands north of
Turenne Road remain largely undeveloped
and are the rural side of
the the lands.
So, the subject property is large as a
large vacant parcel
of land that has a turnaround of the
municipality maintained road and
represents the appropriate location.
Now, I did get a phone call from
I'm just going to hold on. I made a
couple notes here.
I did get a phone call from 654 Turenne
Road
from Kathy who had some questions and
concerns about
the road. So, I did flip an email to
Martin as well as the agent. So,
everybody's been just just in terms of
openness and understanding what their
questions were. So, that the really the
question was she's right at the end of
the road on the south portion of it.
So, she's been there for many many
years. She has an existing road, but
just right beside her property just
slightly to the north there's an
existing like driveway gravel driveway
there. So, her concern was
what happens if somebody buys the
property because she's of the
understanding, you know, being there for
for so many years that she understands
that that existing driveway kind of
meanders on to maybe in her opinion the
the severed portion of the lot and then
it comes back on to the retained lot.
So, she was kind of concerned about like
how people going to access the property
and I just kind of like let her know
like from a planning perspective and why
we're here this evening from our our
role is just to say hey, at the end of
the day from a land use perspective
Tutteran Road is publicly assumed by the
municipality and there's legal frontage
along the north side of it for both the
severed and the retained land. So,
that's all in the lens of looking at it
that that's all I could focus on and
support from that perspective. Beyond
that have a conversation with maybe I
said with Martin when it comes to
entrances and locations of that. So,
Martin
is
understands that. So, again, that's more
building further processes. I could just
focus on our process. So, that's what I
shared with Cathy at the time.
So, just wanted to give you that
perspective as well on that
conversation.
Going back to the OP on on on
again it's creation of one lot
constitutes limited growth.
So, no no no concerns there. The severed
and retained parcels exceed the minimum
lot area requirements of the zoning
bylaw and are appropriate in size and
dimensions to support, uh, future uh,
future home on on each property. So, um,
basically, uh, there's also like like
again on the road because there's a lot
of conversation on the road, I also
advise that the creation of this lot is
not going to create a new public road or
more or less an extension of road that's
existing and turn around there. Um, so I
said both res- uh, resulting lots will
have direct frontage onto the rain road,
um, and the development represents an
orderly and efficient use of land. So,
therefore, uh, there's no um,
requirement of any extension here, uh,
with respect to access and entrances.
So,
uh, with respect to servicing, uh,
Sudbury District Health Unit provided
both the support comments for the
severed and retained lots, no concerns
there.
Uh, they also provided root well
drilling for uh, the ground water supply
is available in the area. And fourth,
Noelville Sanitation has also confirmed
pump out uh, services to be provided for
each lot. So, all the servicing letters
have been provided as part of the
process, everything
uh, is a go on that end. And, um, yeah,
it will not negatively basically impact
the future development uh, of the
retained lands. So, there are no
concerns. So, overall, it supports uh,
and conforms to the official plan. Now,
with respect to zoning, why we're here
tonight, I just to touch on it. So, two
things will happen. One, the proposed
severed lot is going to change from
waterfront residential to the
residential rural zone, so that's one.
Two, uh, the retained lots, just more of
a housekeeping item, is they don't have
like you need 60 m of frontage, and you
have road frontage and you have water
frontage, and I know like realistically,
uh, that floods obviously we had a lot
of water, so it's really not water
frontage, but like from uh, a surveying
perspective I have to treat it as
waterfontage. So, I'm putting both
measurements into the bylaw just just to
be safe just to say hey minimum
frontages for water and road are 37 and
31 m. So, it's more of a housekeeping
item to keep that in place for the
bylaw. And
yeah, a lot area no issues for that. So,
overall it's just more of a technical in
nature than anything. So, no concerns
and everything conforms other all the
other standards conform to the uh
both the residential rural and
waterfront residential zone. And I'll be
at special provisions with special
provision 115. It's just going to speak
to specifically the frontage
waterfrontage and the lot frontage where
60 m is required. And lastly, we
circulated to we also circulated to your
municipality. And this is more just
noted for the severance application
tomorrow night where it's kind of
standard practice from your municipality
just speaking to
the road if it happens to be in someone
else's name. It's more of a housekeeping
item just to have that transferred over
when they do the surveying for the
severed lot.
And parkland dedication it's just a
contribution. It's a set fee bylaw that
you guys have in place and it's going to
be used in the future for
anything recreational purposes. It's
like a fund that kind of builds up. And
that's that's about it in terms of like
the severance aspect and the conditions
that will be attached to that along with
why [snorts] we're here tonight which is
the zoning application.
And just the one phone call
was from Kathy and no other phone calls
in the area. And considering all the
context of everything here,
yeah, everything
conforms or is consistent with the
provincial planning statement as well as
our official plan and zoning bylaw for
the municipality of French River and it
can be supported this evening.
Thank you.
Does the applicant John or Steve wish to
make a presentation or
uh, say a few words? It's up to you. You
don't have to.
Thank you very much. Uh,
I guess first and foremost to introduce
myself, Steve McCarthy, senior planner
with Tulloch Engineering out of the
North Bay office as Matthew has
introduced me. Um, I'm the agent on this
file. I I concur with with everything
that's uh,
that he's uh, presented to you this
evening and I I have made notes and we
um,
will ensure that um, the the driveway
accesses are noted as part of the site
as part of the uh, consent work that we
have to do, the survey work on site. And
we will further as Matthew alluded to,
um, if any parts of
a terrain road are are meandering onto
the property, we will create parts for
that and turn it over to the
municipalities to ensure that uh,
that it's 100% owned by the
municipality. This is standard practice
when dealing with a consent on a rural
lot.
Uh, happy to answer any other questions
if there are any from council.
Thank you. Um, is there any questions
from council?
Roger?
Through you, Madam Mayor.
Uh, as I'm looking at the uh, layout,
on the I have it right the north uh,
uh, southeast corner.
That's water park, isn't it?
That is correct, sir.
Yes. I When That's
>> And probably a little bit on the
» And probably a little bit on the
southwest corner.
But you know, the this drawing is very
small, so it's hard to see.
Yes. Um,
What would be the benefit
of changing
from waterfront to rural?
Would Did the taxes any?
>> No.
» No.
Uh Matt? Um thank you, Mr. Chair. So,
from a from a tax uh
from an
impact assessment perspective,
I'm not qualified to speak to that. So,
that's more maybe a question to
um maybe for for impact uh associate or
even a tax would be more directed to
staff, but don't know the answer to
that. Um just going back to what you're
looking at from the southeast corner, so
the total line that you see from
um Talex plan shows about it shows 67.22
m
and um for that water, but a portion of
that 31 is touching Ranger Bay.
Um but again, it comes back to a
functionality,
uh but from a from a technicality
perspective, I we have to from uh And
and the other thing here is this is
already existing waterfront residential
zone, so we want to keep that in mind
here that
um
that it's appropriate cuz it's already
existing. The only reason we're changing
it from from the other end is because
the property is so large. It's over like
I'd say 1 plus
I'll do some quick math. Almost 4 ha in
size that the north end of the property
um because it's such a generous size lot
that it no longer serves a purpose of
waterfront. Like it doesn't touch like
it doesn't have a water's edge to it.
So, because of that that's north portion
of it is being rezoned to the
residential world while maintaining
what's
was one day always has been like a
4-acre parcel which touched the Ranger
Bay which why it was uh waterfront
residential for a long time.
Okay, right right now I'm looking at two
different uh layouts.
Are we correct if we say that the
southeast
will be affected
by this change?
Where there where it touches the water?
Or is it
a parcel
that is higher up?
So what I could do is maybe I could show
you like I I could walk over there if
you're okay with that. Can I walk over
just So So Roger, the part that they're
asking to sever
and for the
change from
water frontage, that's not on water. Get
your glasses there cuz there's a lot of
fine print here. So this dark bold line
here to the north is the residential
rural seven parcel. The
the balance, see this dashed line here?
Like
Right.
That's what's being retained waterfront
residential.
So waterfront. So this balance which is
just for the little southeast corner
that you're talking about
is touching Andrew's Bay which has
always been waterfront. Okay. That's not
helpful. So this is the area we're
talking to. Not this lot. Not just this
one. Just this this lot here. Just this
this one here.
>> Yeah. So this is a lot this was one
» Yeah. So this is a lot this was one
random piece of property just at the
end.
>> Yeah. I know I was cuz I was there this
» Yeah. I know I was cuz I was there this
afternoon looking at it.
So just this one. That's Catherine's
property right here. This is also
vacant. That's Yeah. And and the road
comes right there. Yeah, exactly. Yeah.
And here there's a house or something.
Yep. Yep. Okay, thank you. Thank you for
that. So does that make sense, Roger?
But it's still it's still I I consider
it still waterfront.
It's not touching any water so it's not
water frontage.
The north part
is not that's being that's the part
that's being severed.
>> at the south part.
» at the south part.
South part is it goes It's it retains.
Madam Mayor
Yeah. I have a better diagram
showing the separation. It's not what
we're looking at. It's the north part.
It's the north part.
>> Yes. Yeah. Well, one more map. One
» Yes. Yeah. Well, one more map. One
Like this this one's for tomorrow's
agenda shows the separation. There's the
aerial imagery.
>> That part. The solid line separated
» That part. The solid line separated
that's not going to be touching water.
Okay. So, right here is what he's
saying. Right here is what we're
discussing.
Okay, that's I don't see a
a line where it severs. Down down on the
thing.
So, it is a lower garden the water
separation and it is water. Okay, hang
on a second everybody.
Hang on. Wait, sorry. So, the area that
we're speaking about that's being
severed is the is not touching water.
It's the red zone. So, it's not touching
water.
But, that's not what you're showing me.
Your Your worship I I don't know if we
have the ability to share screens, but I
do have the sketch which will probably
clear up the counselor's questions
directly. Yeah, cuz right now I'm
looking at probably
>> Yes, you can go
» Yes, you can go
you can go ahead Stephen share your
screen. Thank you.
On page 16.
So, um if I could
can you
just give me a second?
Can everyone see my screen?
Yeah.
Okay. So, and I'll zoom in here for the
benefit it is a large one.
Uh counselor the the the proposed
severed area here is in the north side
of the road and it has no
um
water frontage whatsoever. The retained
does have a small portion of water
frontage on Ranger Bay. The
the portion that's being proposed to be
rezoned is the the proposed severed.
Uh okay.
And and um
just ironically to answer your question,
I worked for MPAC for 8 years. To answer
your question about how MPAC would treat
that,
the it's still waterfront property on
the proposed retained. It would be taxed
at a waterfront residential rate.
Um a vacant waterfront residential rate
at this time until such time as it's uh
it's built upon.
Okay.
I was just I was just concerned about
the waterfront and the taxes.
Um
Yes, I understand. Yeah, thank you.
Yeah.
All right. Does that answer your
question, Roger?
>> Yes, yes, it does. Okay, good. Any other
» Yes, yes, it does. Okay, good. Any other
questions, concerns? Okay. Uh seeing
none, then um
I declare this uh public hearing to be
concluded, and it's now in order for
council members to uh make a motion for
to consider the application. So, I would
need a mover and a seconder. Bob and
Dave.
I moved and seconded if you resolve that
bylaw 2026-25 being a bylaw to amend
zoning bylaw 2014-23
as amended, John Reed, be read a first,
second, and third time and finally
passed. Thank you. All those in favor?
Thank you.
Um if there's no further question, I
declare this public hearing to be
concluded. Uh the zoning amendment bylaw
the zoning amendment bylaw has passed.
Please be advised that there is a 20-day
appeal period during which time a
specified uh specified person, public
body, or registered owner may appeal the
bylaw to the Ontario Land Tribunal by
filing a notice of appeal with the clerk
of the Municipality of French River.
The notice of appeal must set out the
reasons for the appeal and must be
accompanied by a fee, which is
prescribed under the Ontario Lands
Tribunal
Act uh
2017. The fee should be made payable to
the Minister of Finance. All comments
will be treated as public record and
given out upon request.
So, this time I need a motion to
adjourn. Good Annie and Dave.
All those in favor?
Thank you.
Thank you and thank you
for coming tonight.
Thank you. Thank you very much.