[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.