[6:01] Good afternoon everyone. I'd now like to

[6:03] call today's meeting of the committee of

[6:05] adjustment to order.

[6:08] We would like to acknowledge that we are

[6:10] meeting on the traditional lands and

[6:12] treaty territory of the sin oji way

[6:15] nation which includes the chipoaz of

[6:18] naywash unseated first nation and the

[6:21] chipawaz of sin first nation. We also

[6:25] recognize the matei whose ancestors

[6:28] shared this land and these waters. We

[6:31] extend our gratitude to all Anishnab and

[6:34] Matei peoples and their descendants

[6:37] past, present, and future who continue

[6:40] to care for and inhabit these lands and

[6:44] tend these waters.

[6:48] The purpose of this meeting is to review

[6:50] applications for minor variants as well

[6:53] as consent to sever applications as they

[6:56] apply to lands within the municipality

[6:59] of Meford. Let me start by first

[7:02] introducing the members of this

[7:03] committee. On my far right is Mr. David

[7:07] Cramp, Mr. Ed Ormsby, on my far left,

[7:11] Mr. Peter Toville, and myself, Terry

[7:14] Williams. I am the chair. I'd also like

[7:17] to introduce the members of the

[7:18] municipal planning staff in attendance

[7:21] here today. Denise McCarl, manager of

[7:24] planning services.

[7:26] Michael Kelly, planner. Helena

[7:29] Fascinado, planner, and Haley Amadi,

[7:32] planning technician and secretary

[7:34] treasurer for this committee.

[7:37] We are legally required to make

[7:39] decisions that conform to the provincial

[7:42] planning act as well as the existing

[7:45] county and local official plans. Based

[7:48] on those documents as well as any

[7:51] additional relevant correspondence, the

[7:54] municipal planning staff have prepared

[7:56] detailed reports and provide this

[7:59] committee with their recommendations.

[8:02] The committee is encouraging everyone to

[8:05] share their thoughts about proposed

[8:07] applications. For those joining us

[8:10] remotely via Zoom, as well as those that

[8:13] are here in person today, you will have

[8:15] the opportunity to speak should you wish

[8:17] to do so. I will call upon you at the

[8:20] appropriate time.

[8:22] It is also appropriate to ask questions

[8:24] that you may have as it relates to these

[8:27] applications because your constructive

[8:30] criticisms and comments to this

[8:32] committee will help us to make informed

[8:35] decisions.

[8:37] The applicant or their representatives

[8:39] will also have the opportunity to

[8:42] respond to any of the questions that are

[8:44] raised either by the committee or by the

[8:47] public.

[8:48] Anyone wishing to receive notice of the

[8:51] decisions of today's applications may do

[8:54] so by calling 519-5381060

[9:00] extension 1120 or through an email

[9:03] request to planning meford.ca.

[9:08] Before we begin today's public meeting,

[9:10] I must ask if any of the members of this

[9:12] committee have any direct personal or

[9:14] pecuniary interests or anything of a

[9:17] general nature thereof as it relates to

[9:20] today's files.

[9:22] Seeing none,

[9:25] have the members of the committee had an

[9:26] opportunity to review the minutes of our

[9:28] last meeting?

[9:30] >> Yes.

[9:31] >> Are there any necessary changes?

[9:36] May I have a motion to approve the

[9:37] meeting minutes of the last meeting?

[9:40] David and Peter. All in favor?

[9:44] That motion is carried.

[9:48] We will now proceed with the public

[9:50] section. Um this is a meeting of the

[9:53] committee of adjustment to consider uh

[9:56] an application for consent as under

[10:00] section 45 of the planning act as it

[10:03] relates to part law 27 concession 7

[10:08] uh in meford formally part of St.

[10:12] Vincent.

[10:13] The requirement to hold this meeting is

[10:15] that there must have been at least 14

[10:18] days notice as prescribed by the

[10:20] planning act. Haley, can you please

[10:22] confirm to me the date of the notice was

[10:25] published and calculate that we've had

[10:27] at least 14 days notice.

[10:30] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the notice was

[10:32] provided on August 7th, 2025, giving

[10:36] more than the required 14 days notice.

[10:39] >> Thank you.

[10:41] Has each member of the committee visited

[10:43] the subject land or had an opportunity

[10:45] to review the file?

[10:47] >> Yes.

[10:49] >> Um then I would ask the uh planner on

[10:54] this file, Michael, if you'd please uh

[10:56] summarize the application and provide us

[10:58] with any comments or comments that have

[11:01] been received.

[11:03] So through you, Mr. Chair, the applicant

[11:06] is requesting consent to sever one

[11:07] residential lot from an existing 7.6

[11:10] seen hector parcel. The lot will be

[11:12] approximately 3.21 hectares in size and

[11:15] have approximately 130 mters of frontage

[11:17] on seventh line. The lands would be

[11:19] serviced by a new private well and

[11:20] septic system and would be accessed

[11:23] again by seventh line and open and

[11:24] maintained municipal road.

[11:27] In addition, the applicant always also

[11:29] proposes to establish an easement across

[11:31] the severed parcel to recognize the

[11:32] hydro lane that services the existing

[11:34] house on the lot.

[11:36] uh the lands are designated rural and

[11:38] environmental protection in the me

[11:39] official plan. So comments were received

[11:41] from Gray County planning ecology and

[11:44] social services staff noting no concerns

[11:46] with the application. After report

[11:48] finalization, additional comments were

[11:50] received from the historic sahi matei

[11:52] who stated they had no objection to the

[11:54] application and additional comments were

[11:56] received from Grace Conservation

[11:58] Authority who determined that there was

[12:00] sufficient room outside the regulated

[12:02] area to establish a new building

[12:03] envelope for a dwelling well and septic

[12:05] system. GSA stated the consent was

[12:08] acceptable provided that the entrance

[12:09] for the new lobby required to

[12:11] demonstrate safe access and that the

[12:12] culvert is appropriately sized to handle

[12:14] storm events. Uh this would be required

[12:17] as part of the standard municipal

[12:18] evaluation for whether or not an

[12:19] entrance permit can be issued and as

[12:21] such is already captured under the

[12:22] requirements uh recommended in

[12:24] recommended condition number three in

[12:26] the planning report. Uh no other

[12:28] comments have been received as of this

[12:30] time and after review of the proposed

[12:33] proposal based on applicable planning

[12:34] policies and documents staff are

[12:36] satisfied that the application is

[12:38] consistent with the policies of the PPS

[12:40] and upholds the intent and purpose of

[12:42] the official plan and zoning bylaw. as

[12:44] Dutch staff are recommending approval

[12:45] subject to the conditions outlined in

[12:47] the report.

[12:49] >> Thank you, Michael. Members of the

[12:51] committee, are there any questions

[12:53] related to this application?

[12:58] » No. Um, would the applicant or his agent

[13:02] wish to say anything on this file?

[13:07] » Yes. Uh, good afternoon. My name is Ron

[13:09] Davidson. I am the planning consultant

[13:11] that filed the application on behalf of

[13:14] Mr. and Mrs. Lane and they're here with

[13:15] me today. I have very little to add.

[13:17] Michael went uh went through that uh

[13:20] everything basically that you need to

[13:21] know. Um it conforms with the official

[13:24] plan both the county level and the local

[13:26] level here. It is consistent with the

[13:28] provincial policy statements. Um just to

[13:31] back up a bit, what the slains are

[13:32] proposing to do is sever so they can

[13:34] downsize. they want to build their house

[13:36] on the severed parcel and sell the the

[13:39] retained parcel that their house is on

[13:41] right now. That's it in a nutshell. Um

[13:44] that's all I need to say. It looks like

[13:45] you've got a lot of things on the

[13:46] agenda, so I'll stop talking now. Thank

[13:49] you. Is there any members of the public

[13:52] either online or here wish to speak on

[13:56] this?

[13:57] Seeing none, um any final comments,

[14:03] members of the committee? No. Then Haley

[14:06] can you please read the suggested

[14:08] decision and conditions for approval?

[14:12] >> So the recommended decision is that the

[14:14] committee of adjustment of the

[14:15] municipality of meford approve consent

[14:18] B14205

[14:20] to sever one lot from an existing parcel

[14:23] and to establish an easement over the

[14:25] proposed lot for the purpose of

[14:27] recognizing an existing hydro easement

[14:30] subject to the following conditions.

[14:32] First that the applicant meets all the

[14:34] requirements of the municipality

[14:36] financial or otherwise for the

[14:38] certificate of consents to be issued.

[14:41] Second payment of cash in lie of

[14:44] parkland dedication for the severed

[14:46] lands. Third confirmation that an

[14:48] entrance permit is available for the

[14:50] road authority and will be provided by

[14:53] the applicant prior to the final

[14:54] approval. enforce that the final

[14:57] reference plan be provided to the

[14:59] municipality for review to the

[15:00] satisfaction of the municipality.

[15:03] >> Thank you.

[15:04] >> May I have a motion on the decision as

[15:06] read by the secretary treasurer?

[15:11] That was Ed and Peter. Any last comments

[15:16] before we take the vote?

[15:19] All in favor?

[15:22] That motion is passed. Can you please

[15:24] outline next steps, please?

[15:29] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the applicant

[15:32] can now take down the sign on their

[15:33] property and I will provide the notice

[15:36] to you by email by Friday and and yeah,

[15:41] that's all. Thank you.

[15:50] We'll just take a 30 seconds to sign

[15:53] that. We may

[16:49] This committee will now consider two

[16:50] applications for consent under section

[16:53] 45 of the planning act for vacant lands

[16:57] on grey road 18 art lot 17 concession to

[17:02] east in Meford. The requirement to hold

[17:05] this meeting is m that there must have

[17:07] been at least 14 days notice as

[17:10] prescribed by the planning act. Haley,

[17:13] can you please confirm to us the date of

[17:15] notice and calculate that we've had at

[17:17] least 14 days?

[17:19] >> Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, the

[17:21] notice was provided on August 7th, 2025,

[17:25] giving more than the required 14 days

[17:27] notice.

[17:28] Thank you.

[17:30] >> Michael, I believe you're the planner on

[17:32] this one again. Can you please summarize

[17:34] the application and any comments that

[17:36] have been received?

[17:37] >> Sure. So, through you, Mr. Chair, uh the

[17:40] applicant is requesting consent to sever

[17:42] two residential building lots from an

[17:43] existing 46.4 hectare vacant parcel. Lot

[17:47] A will be approximately 4.8 hectares in

[17:50] size and have 164.5 m of frontage on

[17:54] Grey Road 18. Lot B will be

[17:56] approximately 5.7 hectares in size and

[17:59] have 197 meters of frontage on Grey Road

[18:02] 18. Uh the lands will be serviced by a

[18:04] new private well and septic systems and

[18:07] would have access on Grey Road 18 open

[18:09] and maintain municipal road. The lands

[18:11] are designated rule and environmental

[18:12] protection in the MER official plan.

[18:15] So, comments from the application were

[18:17] received from Gray County staff who

[18:19] stated that providing the conservation

[18:21] authority is satisfied with the findings

[18:23] of the flood mapping and analysis report

[18:26] and that all lots can be safely

[18:28] accessed, planning, county planning

[18:30] ecology staff's comments are addressed

[18:31] and that the proposed entrances conform

[18:33] to the previous county transportation

[18:35] comments from 2021. County planning

[18:38] staff have no concerns with the subject

[18:39] application. These requirements have

[18:41] been integrated into the recommended

[18:43] conditions of consent. Multiple comments

[18:46] were received from the historic sahim

[18:48] matei. Initial comments stating that

[18:50] they disagreed with the findings of the

[18:51] applicant's EIS and that development

[18:55] findings that development could be

[18:57] accommodated with no negative impacts to

[18:59] identify natural heritage features and

[19:01] related ecological functions. Historic

[19:03] Sahin does not agree with this

[19:05] conclusion stating that all healthy

[19:06] trees and in particular mature healthy

[19:08] trees provide important habitat and

[19:10] ecological functions that cannot be

[19:11] easily replaced. In comments later

[19:13] submitted historic sahim mate further

[19:15] recommended that a 30 m setback be

[19:17] maintained between the waterway and any

[19:19] disturbance. However, ultimately the

[19:21] historic sahim stated they had no

[19:23] objections to the severances as

[19:25] presented.

[19:26] Finally, comments were received from

[19:28] Grace Conservation Authority stating

[19:30] that the previous comments provided for

[19:32] the applications are still valid. These

[19:34] comments were included in the planning

[19:36] report as appendix 5 and the

[19:38] recommendations of these comments have

[19:40] also been integrated into the proposed

[19:41] conditions of consent. No other comments

[19:44] have been received as at this time and

[19:46] after review of the proposal based on

[19:48] applicable planning policies and

[19:49] documents, staff are satisfied that the

[19:51] application can be made consistent with

[19:53] the policies of the PPS and to uphold

[19:56] the intent and purpose of the official

[19:57] plans and zoning bylaws if the

[20:00] recommended conditions are implemented

[20:02] and as such staff are recommending

[20:04] approval.

[20:05] >> Thank you. Members of the committee, do

[20:08] you have any questions, comments,

[20:10] concerns?

[20:14] No. Um, is the applicant or their agent

[20:18] here? And if so, do they want to speak

[20:21] on this file online? If you would

[20:24] identify yourself, please.

[20:27] >> Um, my name is

[20:30] Hi, my name is Don Scott uh with Quest

[20:34] of Planning Consultants. We have been

[20:36] working with with Mr. and Mrs. back

[20:39] along this application for some time.

[20:41] I've reviewed Michael's uh report. We

[20:45] don't have any additional comments and

[20:48] we are uh supporting the recommendations

[20:50] that he provided the committee. I'll

[20:54] answer any questions if the committee

[20:56] has any uh questions.

[21:02] » Committee members, do you have any

[21:04] questions for this individual? No.

[21:06] >> Thank you. Thank you. Um, is there any

[21:10] member of the public that wishes to

[21:12] speak on this file?

[21:15] No. Last opportunity, questions,

[21:18] comments. Um, since this is two

[21:22] consents,

[21:23] um, they will be handled separately in

[21:26] two votes. So, if you could read the

[21:29] suggested decision.

[21:32] >> Yeah. Or B 01 first.

[21:36] Um so the recommended decision is that

[21:38] the committee of adjustment of the

[21:40] municipality of Mayford approve consent

[21:42] B012025

[21:45] to sever the lot from an existing vacant

[21:48] parcel. Uh should the committee decide

[21:51] to grant approval of consent B01 2025

[21:55] parcel A on the site plan staff

[21:57] recommend the following conditions be

[21:59] included.

[22:01] One that the applicant meets all the

[22:03] requirements of the municipality

[22:05] financial or otherwise for the

[22:07] certificate of consents to be issued.

[22:10] Second, payment of cash in lie of

[22:12] parkland dedication for the severed

[22:14] lands. Third, that a well test is

[22:17] conducted to demonstrate the severed lot

[22:19] can be adequately supported by on-site

[22:22] water servicing to the satisfaction of

[22:24] the municipality.

[22:26] Fourth, that evidence be provided by a

[22:28] qualified professional that on-site

[22:31] wastewater servicing can be accommodated

[22:33] in areas outside of any areas

[22:36] susceptible to flooding. Fifth,

[22:39] confirmation that an entrance permit is

[22:42] available from the road authority will

[22:44] be provided by the applicant prior to

[22:46] the final approval. Six, that written

[22:50] confirmation is received from the county

[22:52] of Gray that any required road widening

[22:55] has com has been completed to the

[22:57] satisfaction of the county of Gray.

[22:59] Seven, that the severed lot is

[23:01] appropriately reszoned by application of

[23:04] the property owners to the municipality

[23:07] to accurately represent the actual

[23:09] Hizard land limit as established in the

[23:12] letter provided by Grace Conservation

[23:14] Authority on November 7th, 2024 and to

[23:17] implement the recommendations of the

[23:19] submitted scoped environmental impact

[23:21] study provided by roots environmental

[23:24] and dated May 20th, 2025. And lastly,

[23:28] that the final reference plan be

[23:30] provided to the municipality for review

[23:32] to the satisfaction of the municipality.

[23:35] >> Thank you. Any comments, questions?

[23:40] May I have a motion then to uh accept

[23:44] the decision?

[23:46] Mo Peter and Ed, all of those in favor.

[23:51] That motion is carried. Uh we'll proceed

[23:54] with P 02 first. Next.

[23:58] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, should the

[24:00] committee decide to grant approval of

[24:02] consent B 02205

[24:05] parcel B on the site plan, SAP recommend

[24:08] the following conditions be included.

[24:10] One, that the applicant meets all the

[24:12] requirements of the municipalities

[24:14] financial or otherwise for the

[24:16] certificate of consent to be issued.

[24:18] Two, payment of cash in of parkland

[24:20] dedication for the severed lands. Three

[24:23] that a belt test is conducted to

[24:25] demonstrate that the severed loss can be

[24:27] adequately supported by on-site water

[24:30] servicing to the satisfaction of the

[24:31] municipality or that evidence be

[24:34] provided by a qualified professional

[24:36] that on-site wastewater servicing can be

[24:38] accommodated in areas outside of any

[24:41] areas susceptible to flooding. Five,

[24:44] confirmation that an entrance permit is

[24:46] available from the road authority and

[24:49] will be provided by the applicant prior

[24:51] to final approval. Six, that written

[24:53] confirmation is received from the county

[24:55] of Gray that any required road widening

[24:58] has been completed to the satisfaction

[24:59] of the county of Gray. Seven, that the

[25:02] severed lot is appropriately reszoned by

[25:04] application of the property owners to

[25:06] the municipality to accurately represent

[25:09] the actual hazard land limit as

[25:10] established in the letter provided by

[25:12] Grace Conservation Authority on November

[25:15] 7th, 2024 and to implement the

[25:18] recommendations of the submitted scoped

[25:20] environmental impact study provided by

[25:22] roots environmental and dated May 20th,

[25:25] 2025. Eight that as part of any zoning

[25:28] ball amendment for this parcel, a

[25:30] holding symbol be established over the

[25:33] western portion of the parcel to ensure

[25:35] geotechnical information is provided

[25:38] regarding slope stability prior to a

[25:40] dwelling being constructed being

[25:43] constructed on the upper lands of parcel

[25:45] B. nine that the t that at the time of

[25:49] time parcel B is developed a detailed

[25:51] engineers grading and drainage plan be

[25:54] provided to demonstrate how drainage can

[25:56] be accommodated through the lower

[25:58] portion of parcel B and lastly that the

[26:01] final reference plan be provided to the

[26:03] municipality for review to the

[26:05] satisfaction of the municipality.

[26:08] >> Thank you. May I have a motion relative

[26:11] to this decision as read by the

[26:13] secretary treasurer?

[26:16] Ed and David.

[26:19] Any discussion, comments, concerns?

[26:24] All in favor?

[26:26] That motion is carried. Can you please

[26:29] read the next steps on that file?

[26:34] Uh now the applicant can take down the

[26:36] sign on their property and I will

[26:38] provide a notice to them by Friday and I

[26:41] will circulate it to them by email.

[26:43] Thank you.

[27:55] Next on the agenda is application file

[27:58] A0 2025.

[28:04] The committee of adjustment will now

[28:05] consider an application for a minor

[28:07] variance under section 45 of the

[28:10] planning act for the property known as

[28:13] 63 Bridge Street in Meford. Um under

[28:18] section 45 planning act the requirement

[28:21] to hold this meeting must that there

[28:23] must have been at least 10 days notice

[28:25] as prescribed. Can you please confirm

[28:28] the date of the notice was published and

[28:30] calculate that we've had at least 10

[28:32] days notice? Thank you, Mr. Chair. The

[28:34] notice was provided on August 7th, 2025,

[28:37] giving more than the required attendance

[28:39] notice.

[28:40] >> Thank you, Elena. I believe you are the

[28:43] planner on this file. If you could

[28:45] please summarize it and outline any

[28:47] correspondence or that has been

[28:49] received.

[28:50] >> Yes, thank you. Through you, Mr. Chair.

[28:52] Um so the property owners would like to

[28:54] construct a detached garage containing

[28:56] an additional residential unit or ARU on

[28:59] their property at 63 Bridge Street. Um

[29:03] so for properties in the residential

[29:05] three or R3 zone, the required front

[29:07] yard setback for new accessory buildings

[29:10] is equal to the existing setback from

[29:12] the main wall of the main house um to

[29:16] the front property line. So this is to

[29:18] recognize the layout of those

[29:19] established neighborhoods and the more

[29:21] compact urban areas of town. Um and to

[29:24] ensure that accessory buildings don't

[29:26] significantly alter or impact the street

[29:29] view of the existing neighborhood. Um so

[29:32] for example, if all the build all the

[29:34] main houses are 10 m back and you put an

[29:37] accessory building a meter away, it

[29:40] alters that street view. Um, so in this

[29:42] case, the main house on the property is

[29:44] set back 13.9 m from the front property

[29:47] line. Um, and the owners are requesting

[29:50] a front yard setback of 7.5 m for the

[29:52] ARU.

[29:54] So, looking at the neighborhood, most of

[29:56] the houses are situated closer to the

[29:58] property line than this proposed ARU.

[30:01] Um, with a significant portion of the

[30:03] existing homes along St. Vincent Street

[30:05] located closer than 5 m from the front

[30:08] property line.

[30:10] Um, and then I also note that the as of

[30:12] right setback for main dwellings within

[30:14] this zone is 7.5 m. Um, so if you were

[30:18] building a main house on a property

[30:20] there, it could be 7.5 m from the front

[30:23] property line as a rate. Um, so in

[30:26] consideration of this and noting that

[30:28] all other zoning provisions will be met,

[30:30] uh, staff are of the opinion that this

[30:32] variance is minor and recommend

[30:34] approval. and comments were received

[30:36] from county planning and ecology

[30:38] departments who noted no concerns. And

[30:41] then following agenda circulation, we

[30:43] did receive comments from Grace Aubble

[30:44] and the historic Sagine Matei who also

[30:47] noted no concerns. Thank you.

[30:49] >> Thank you. Members of the committee, are

[30:51] there any questions, concerns, comments?

[30:54] Peter

[30:56] >> for Helina. Um Helen, is there adequate

[30:59] visibility sight lines between the

[31:01] corner of the proposed garage and the

[31:03] next house over? It's not shown where

[31:05] exactly next building is.

[31:08] >> Yes. Yeah. So, it'll be it does meet the

[31:10] provisions uh for the interior sideyard

[31:13] setback and it actually exceeds those

[31:15] provisions. Um

[31:16] >> because it's on a corner.

[31:18] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[31:20] >> Yeah. So, we do have for those corner

[31:22] lots sight triangle provisions and so

[31:25] it's 5 by 5 m and it's well away from

[31:28] that that corner line. Yeah. Thank you.

[31:33] Are there any members? Any other

[31:35] questions? Um Helena, I have one. Um how

[31:39] close is the proposed garage to the

[31:43] property line?

[31:44] >> It's 1.499

[31:47] m from the interior from sorry from the

[31:50] interior side

[31:52] >> yard

[31:53] >> relative to the first street north I

[31:57] guess it is or whatever direction on St.

[32:00] Vincent. How far does that garage come?

[32:05] Because to me, that house is sitting

[32:07] back a fairways from the street and a uh

[32:12] whatever it is, a 23 foot, 24 foot high

[32:16] garage sitting right beside their uh

[32:19] front porch isn't terribly attractive.

[32:24] >> Right. So, the the height for the ARU,

[32:27] it can be up to six meters. I realize

[32:29] that it's perfectly acceptable in terms

[32:31] of height, but I think it's a question

[32:33] of where does it sit relative to the

[32:37] house next door and their front porch.

[32:40] >> So, it sits um and it is an irregular

[32:43] lot for sure, this this lot at 63 Bridge

[32:46] Street. Um, so it'll sit um and the

[32:50] property owner is here as well who may

[32:51] be able to provide some more info, but

[32:54] um it'll be

[32:57] beside the house to

[33:01] side.

[33:02] >> Does it actually go closer to the road

[33:05] than than the porch of the house next

[33:07] door?

[33:09] >> No. From looking at aerial photos, no.

[33:12] Um

[33:14] >> um

[33:16] perhaps if the applicant is here um you

[33:19] can speak to that.

[33:22] >> Sure. I turn this on.

[33:24] >> Yes, please. And if you'd identify

[33:26] yourself.

[33:27] >> Yes. My name is Alan Reed. I'm the owner

[33:29] of 63 Bridge along with my wife.

[33:32] >> So the uh intention is not to disrupt

[33:35] the street the streetscape whatsoever.

[33:38] uh considerable efforts going into

[33:40] making sure that it reflects the street

[33:42] in terms of quality of product that's on

[33:45] the street. Um we have spent a fair

[33:48] amount of time with our neighbor Jeff

[33:50] Fletcher who was in the adjacent house

[33:52] that you referenced. He sees no issue

[33:55] with it. The only the only item he

[33:58] referenced was that he wanted to make

[34:00] sure that his side door could be opened

[34:03] because the lot line is so close. We

[34:06] gave him assurance that that would not

[34:07] be an issue. Um, but the intention is to

[34:11] make sure that it is not further forward

[34:13] than his front porch or any of the front

[34:16] porches that form that part of the

[34:17] streetscape.

[34:19] Thank you. Appreciate it. Um, are there

[34:22] any members of the public and wishing to

[34:25] speak on this?

[34:27] Many members any additional comments or

[34:30] questions?

[34:32] No.

[34:34] Haley, can you please provide us with

[34:36] the suggested decision and conditions

[34:38] for approval?

[34:39] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the recommended

[34:41] decision is that committee of

[34:43] adjustments approve minor variance

[34:45] A082025

[34:47] for the lens at 63 bridge street

[34:50] providing relief from zoning bylaw 60209

[34:54] to permit a front yard setback of 7.5 m

[34:59] where section 4212D

[35:02] requires a minimum front line setback of

[35:05] 13.9 m which is the setback of existing

[35:09] front yard of the main dwelling for an

[35:12] additional residential unit in the

[35:14] residential tree or tree zone

[35:17] subject to the following condition. That

[35:19] the proposed development shall occur

[35:21] substantially in accordance with the

[35:23] site plan and elevations provided with

[35:26] minor variance application A08 2025 and

[35:30] attached to the report.

[35:33] >> Thank you. May I have a motion on the

[35:36] decision as writed by the secretary

[35:38] treasurer?

[35:41] David and Peter.

[35:44] All of those in favor?

[35:46] That motion is carried.

[35:50] » Can you please outline the next steps?

[35:54] >> Uh, so the applicant can now take down

[35:56] the sign on their property and I will

[35:58] provide a notice to you by email by

[36:01] Friday.

[36:07] Could you repeat that please?

[36:15] » Uh you can now you you're aware that you

[36:18] can take down the sign on the property

[36:21] and the notice of the decisions will be

[36:24] signed and I will send it to you by

[36:26] email by Friday this week.

[36:29] >> You're welcome.

[36:31] There has to be an appeal period, which

[36:33] is why there's

[36:36] a slight delay, if you will, in final

[36:38] approval.

[37:32] The committee will now consider an

[37:34] application for minor variance file

[37:37] A092025

[37:40] under section 45 of the planning act

[37:43] known as

[37:46] 203776

[37:48] highway 26.

[37:51] The requirement to hold this meeting is

[37:52] that there must have been at least 10

[37:55] days notice as prescribed in the

[37:57] planning act. Can you please confirm to

[37:59] us the notice the date the notice was

[38:01] published and calculate that we've had

[38:04] at least 10 days notice.

[38:05] >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Yes, the notice was

[38:08] provided on August 7th, 2025 giving more

[38:11] than the required 10 days notice.

[38:14] >> Thank you Elena. I believe you are the

[38:16] planner on this pilot again as well.

[38:18] >> Yes, thank you Mr. chair. Uh so the

[38:21] property owner would like to build a

[38:22] sugar shack with st sap tanks on the

[38:26] property at 203776

[38:28] highway 26 uh for maple syrup processing

[38:32] uh which is a permitted use in the rural

[38:34] area. The property is accessed by an

[38:37] established right of way over a

[38:38] neighboring property which provides

[38:40] legal access to the lands. uh staff

[38:43] would note that the subject property has

[38:45] an approved entrance permit issued

[38:47] through MTO and maintains a civic

[38:49] address. So at the time of building

[38:52] permit submission review, it was noted

[38:54] that the proposal did not comply with a

[38:56] portion of section 4.8 of the zoning

[38:59] bylaw. Uh so section 4.8 notes that

[39:02] prior to building um a property shall

[39:06] abut on and obtain legal access from a

[39:10] street. So although the property obtains

[39:12] legal access, uh it does not have

[39:15] technical frontage on a street. So the

[39:18] property owner is requesting relief from

[39:20] this provision. Um our official plan

[39:23] policy support driveway access by right

[39:25] ofways for existing landlock parcels

[39:28] such as this one with the intent being

[39:29] to not sterilize existing lots um that

[39:33] are within zones that permit these type

[39:35] of uses um such as the rural zone. And

[39:39] the way that the the zoning bylaw is

[39:41] worded uh does require planning approval

[39:43] prior to building on landlock parcels.

[39:46] Um and in this case, the property is

[39:48] viable for building. Um and both the

[39:52] county planning and ecology and grace

[39:54] conservation authority uh have no

[39:57] concerns with the proposal. Um and in in

[40:00] consideration of this staff do recommend

[40:02] approval of this this minor variance.

[40:04] Thank you.

[40:05] >> Thank you. Members of the committee, do

[40:08] you have any questions for the planning

[40:09] staff relative to this file?

[40:13] >> Yes, Mr.

[40:14] >> Hi, Helena. Yes, through you, Mr.

[40:16] Chairman. Um, the fact that it's going

[40:18] to be is it going to be retail or

[40:21] commercial? Like, are you going to be

[40:22] able to drive in there and buy certain?

[40:24] Does that make a difference in terms of

[40:26] access through this road allowance? So

[40:29] it'll be for the processing, so tapping

[40:32] the trees and and um

[40:35] collecting the sap, but it won't be um

[40:38] for any commercial uh retail sales on

[40:41] the property.

[40:42] >> So it it doesn't affect the access to

[40:44] the right of way in any way in terms of

[40:48] what what what's happening back in the

[40:50] landlock property doesn't affect the

[40:53] access to the highway.

[40:55] >> No. And it'll be similar to any other

[40:57] agricultural use where there may be

[40:59] some, you know, trucks,

[41:01] >> right,

[41:01] >> going in and out or tractors, that kind

[41:03] of thing. But, um, any any commercial

[41:06] use would need to go through site plan

[41:08] approval as well and and all of that.

[41:11] But no, it'll it won't affect affect it.

[41:15] >> Any other questions from the committee

[41:17] members?

[41:19] >> Is the applicant here? Uh, and if so, do

[41:22] they what? Would you like to speak on

[41:24] this or

[41:26] you quite comfortable with letting the

[41:28] committee make the decision from here?

[41:31] >> Thank you.

[41:32] >> Any public?

[41:33] >> No. Committee members, last chance and

[41:37] Haley, can you please provide a

[41:39] suggested decision and conditions?

[41:43] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the recommended

[41:45] decision is that the committee of

[41:46] adjustment approve minor variance A9205

[41:51] for the lands at 203776

[41:54] highway 26 providing relief from section

[41:58] 48A of zoning bylaw 60209

[42:02] to allow for the construction of

[42:04] buildings andor structures on a property

[42:07] that does obtain legal access from a

[42:10] street by way of right of the way

[42:12] easement over the lands. at 203816

[42:17] Highway 26 but doesn't front on street.

[42:22] >> Thank you. Um may I have a motion on the

[42:27] decision as suggested Peter and and

[42:31] all those in favor?

[42:33] >> Sweet.

[42:36] Motion carried.

[42:40] » All right. So, um, now you are aware

[42:43] that you can take down the sign on your

[42:45] property and I will provide a notice to

[42:48] you within a couple of days by email.

[42:52] Thank you.

[43:46] And now for what the majority of people

[43:49] here have been waiting for. Uh the

[43:51] committee will now consider an

[43:53] application for a minor variance for

[43:56] under section 45 of the planning act for

[43:59] lots 1 to 18, 23 to 26 and 94 to 97

[44:07] um plan 16M89

[44:10] in the in meford. The requirement to

[44:14] hold this meeting is that there must

[44:15] have been at least 10 days notice. Um

[44:18] since this was pre uh deferred from a

[44:21] previous meeting, we know that indeed uh

[44:24] we have had more than 10 days notice.

[44:27] Normally what would happen when we got

[44:30] to a file like this is we would simply

[44:33] um

[44:36] address any information that has come

[44:39] since the the file was originally

[44:41] discussed in our last meeting. I think

[44:44] given the interest and um the

[44:50] application

[44:52] uh or the letters that have been

[44:53] written, I think it's appropriate that I

[44:56] ask Michael to review the entire file

[45:00] and detail the correspondence that has

[45:02] been received at this time. Thank you.

[45:06] >> So through you, Mr. Chair. So this

[45:08] application was deferred at the July

[45:10] 23rd meeting. Uh original comments were

[45:12] received from the historic sahim matei

[45:14] and the town of the blue mountains uh

[45:16] grey county planning and ecology staff

[45:18] and grey level conservation authority.

[45:20] All were received stating they had no

[45:21] concerns. Uh after the deferral as was

[45:24] mentioned uh we received quite a few

[45:26] letters from members of the public

[45:28] including from Imagine Meford, Roy

[45:30] Meredith, Christine Meredith, Justin

[45:32] Crouch, uh Chris Webb, Nicole Nicole

[45:36] McGill, Nikki, sorry, Nicole, and uh

[45:39] Brian Martin all voicing concern with

[45:41] the application. Uh concerns that are

[45:44] generally related to loss of green

[45:45] space, traffic safety, street parking,

[45:47] increased density, and snow removal and

[45:50] storage. I will note that all of these

[45:52] letters have been provided to committee

[45:54] members prior to this meeting. Uh so

[45:56] just to orient oursel the request is

[45:59] that the uh the application is that the

[46:03] applicant be granted relief from the

[46:04] zoning bylaw uh parking requirements of

[46:07] section 5.5B to permit a building with

[46:10] three or more dwelling units to allow

[46:11] parking in the front yard. Uh the

[46:14] original evaluation was out done was

[46:16] done in the original planning report. As

[46:18] part of this return to the committee,

[46:20] staff uh wrote an addendum report which

[46:23] was added to the original report and I

[46:26] think at this time we'll just go through

[46:27] a bit of that addendum now. Um so staff

[46:30] want to clarify the scope of the

[46:32] applicant's request. So once as I said

[46:35] the application is requesting relief

[46:36] from the zoning bylaw to permit a

[46:38] building with three or more dwelling

[46:39] units to have parking facilities in the

[46:41] front yard. Uh the purpose of this

[46:44] request would be to allow single

[46:45] detached or semi- detached homes to have

[46:47] driveways in front of the home rather

[46:49] than along the side into the backyard.

[46:52] And this request is the only thing under

[46:54] review. Uh staff want to clarify the use

[46:56] of the term front yard. Though in common

[46:59] language, a front yard generally refers

[47:00] to a landscaped area in front of a

[47:02] building. From a zoning perspective, it

[47:05] only refers to the area of a parcel

[47:07] between the street and the front wall of

[47:09] the main building. So requesting parking

[47:11] to be allowed in the front yard does not

[47:13] mean a property owner is permitted to

[47:15] park their cars on grass or anything

[47:16] like that. It simply means that a

[47:18] driveway can be located between the

[47:20] front of the home and the road. Uh

[47:23] during the initial meeting, staff

[47:25] addressed concerns about uh addressed

[47:28] questions about section 4.2 of the

[47:30] zoning bylaw which permits up to two

[47:32] additional residential units per

[47:33] property. However, in reviewing the

[47:35] meeting, staff later noted it could have

[47:37] been clear that this provision stems

[47:39] from provincial requirements. Uh changes

[47:42] to the planning act through Ontario

[47:44] regulation 29919 maintain mandate that

[47:48] municipalities allow up to two ARUS as

[47:51] of right on urban residential lands. Uh

[47:55] the municipality then amended its zoning

[47:57] bylaw to affect to reflect these

[47:59] requirements and has no authority to

[48:01] override them. I also want to clarify

[48:04] that during the last meeting I used the

[48:05] phrase municip municipally initiated to

[48:08] describe this amendment. Uh in hindsight

[48:11] that phrase is a bit jargony. Um

[48:13] municipally initiated simply refers to

[48:15] an amendment that is not brought forward

[48:17] by an application by a private citizen.

[48:20] It does not necessarily mean that it's

[48:22] the municipality's idea to do it. Oftent

[48:24] times it can be because we're just

[48:25] implementing things that have already

[48:27] been implemented by the province.

[48:30] So concerns were raised during the

[48:32] meeting regarding street parking.

[48:33] Meford's parking bylaw, which is

[48:35] available on the municipal website,

[48:36] regulates parking within the

[48:38] municipality. Anyone hoping to park on a

[48:40] public street would have to would be

[48:41] required to follow the rules of this

[48:43] bylaw. Some of these rules include no

[48:45] street parking during winter months, no

[48:47] blocking of driveways, no blocking of

[48:49] the path of travel on the roadway or

[48:50] sidewalks, amongst others. Anyone in

[48:53] contravention of this bylaw is subject

[48:54] to uh the specific penalties which

[48:57] include ticketing being towed as

[48:59] applicable. Uh it should be further

[49:01] noted that this bylaw will be infect at

[49:04] the time the road is assumed by the

[49:05] municipality. If at the time the streets

[49:08] within the subdivision are assumed by

[49:09] the municipality and the parking

[49:11] situation is deemed to be an issue, the

[49:12] municipality can update its parking

[49:14] bylaw to greater or restrict parking in

[49:16] this area.

[49:17] So after reviewing the meeting, staff

[49:20] also believe it would be helpful to

[49:21] provide members of the public with some

[49:23] additional context as to how the

[49:24] committee of adjustment is required to

[49:26] make decisions on minor variance

[49:28] applications. So the planning act is the

[49:30] provincial legislation which allows

[49:32] municipalities to make decisions on how

[49:34] land is used within their boundaries.

[49:37] Municipalities regulate the use of land

[49:39] through various policy documents,

[49:41] including the official plan, which

[49:43] contains highlevel policies on how the

[49:45] municipality as a whole is intended to

[49:47] develop over an extended period of time,

[49:49] and the municipal zoning bylaw, which

[49:51] contains more specific requirements on a

[49:53] property bypropy basis. It is important

[49:55] to note that any provincial legislation

[49:58] supersedes these two documents. If a

[50:00] property owner wishes to be granted an

[50:02] exemption from one of the requirements

[50:04] of the zoning bylaw, they can apply for

[50:06] a minor variance to be allowed to do so.

[50:09] The planning act permits municipal

[50:10] committee of adjustment to grant a minor

[50:12] variance as long as it meets the

[50:13] following four tests. One, does the

[50:16] variance maintain the general intent and

[50:17] purpose of the official plan? Two, does

[50:19] the variance maintain the general intent

[50:20] and purpose of the zoning bylaw? Three,

[50:22] is the variance desirable for the

[50:24] appropriate development of lands? And

[50:25] four, is the variance minor? The role of

[50:28] staff is to interpretate municipal

[50:29] policies passed by council as well as

[50:31] the applicable legislation by the

[50:32] province of Ontario and using the four

[50:34] tests provide the committee with a

[50:36] recommendation based on interpretation

[50:38] of this policy. It is the role of the

[50:40] committee members to decide whether they

[50:42] agree or disagree with staff's

[50:43] interpretation of the four tests and

[50:44] either improve and deny the application

[50:46] as applicable. It is important to note

[50:48] that the decisions of the committee are

[50:50] only able to be made based on

[50:51] interpretations of the four tests and

[50:53] only for the application in question and

[50:55] only within the scope of what the

[50:57] application is requesting. Though staff

[50:59] is sympathetic that members of the

[51:01] public may have concerns regarding

[51:02] density or street parking, these

[51:04] concerns are beyond the scope of the

[51:05] submitted application. As outlined in

[51:08] the original report, staff are of the

[51:10] opinion that this application meets the

[51:12] four tests of minor variance and as such

[51:14] staff recommend the committee of

[51:15] adjustment approved the application for

[51:16] minor variance. That's it.

[51:19] >> Thank you. Members of the committee, do

[51:21] you have any questions?

[51:27] » Through you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I

[51:29] apologize I wasn't at the last meeting.

[51:31] So Tom, a lot of this is the information

[51:34] that I've taken out of the of the file

[51:36] and tried to absorb everything that

[51:38] you've been telling us, Michael. Um, a

[51:42] couple of things that came to my mind

[51:43] was one I I took a little tour around to

[51:47] some other developments and I see where

[51:49] they have public parking places in every

[51:53] section of their development. Is that

[51:56] ever been looked at or is it legislative

[51:58] or is that just something that's part of

[52:00] good planning? That was my first

[52:02] question. Um and secondly, how does this

[52:06] impact

[52:08] um these are six plexes I guess are is

[52:11] that what they call these? This these

[52:14] particular buildings are three plexes.

[52:18] They're single dwellings with

[52:20] >> Te technically they are

[52:21] >> technically they're you could say that

[52:22] they are semi- detached or single

[52:25] detached dwellings with additional

[52:26] residential units, right?

[52:28] >> So just to make it Yeah, that's what it

[52:31] is.

[52:32] >> Yeah. So is each one of these people

[52:35] still going to be allowed to park two

[52:36] vehicles?

[52:37] >> No.

[52:38] Okay. Thank you. That answers my

[52:40] question.

[52:42] >> Committee members, any other Peter?

[52:45] >> Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um

[52:47] we received today additional information

[52:49] from

[52:51] planning department on two no three

[52:53] drawings. I wonder is that possible they

[52:55] can be put up so everyone can see what

[52:56] they are

[53:09] » and can someone take us through what

[53:10] they are about?

[53:15] So I will let that leave that up to the

[53:17] applicant who is here today. I can

[53:19] direct as you want but

[53:23] thank you chair. Um yeah we were

[53:25] requesting

[53:26] >> please identify yourself although most

[53:28] people know

[53:29] >> uh Rob Armstrong. I'm a planner

[53:31] representing Nortara who is the

[53:33] proponent of these properties who's

[53:35] looking to develop it. Um at the request

[53:37] of of of Michael, we provided some

[53:40] drawings just to give some context of

[53:43] what's being requested. Um this drawing

[53:47] uh was the original uh drawing I believe

[53:49] that was submitted with the application

[53:51] which shows the uh a semi- detached

[53:56] unit. You're seeing the unit on the left

[53:58] with the four parking spots out front.

[54:01] In accordance with the bylaw, you're

[54:03] required two parking spaces for the main

[54:06] dwelling unit and then one each for the

[54:09] ADU accessory dwelling unit. So those

[54:11] are the four parking spots. Um so that's

[54:14] what you are seeing on that drawing um

[54:20] in within a semi- detached. Um, as

[54:23] Michael noted, uh, the provisions of the

[54:25] bylaw, uh, when you are, uh, have a

[54:30] dwelling unit, so one of those semi-

[54:32] detached, which has three units in it,

[54:35] you're not allowed to have parking in

[54:37] the front yard by virtue of the bylaw.

[54:40] Um those three units as Michael

[54:42] mentioned are legislated that you must

[54:45] allow them within a single detached

[54:48] semi- detached uh type unit which is

[54:51] being considered on that. So they're

[54:52] required to be allowed. So our position

[54:54] is uh we're allowed to have three units

[54:57] but it's unreasonable for us to require

[55:00] us to have parking in the sideyard or in

[55:02] the rear yard for these type of units.

[55:05] Um so that's that's what you're seeing

[55:07] here. Uh the next drawing was just

[55:09] showing context of how it would look

[55:12] with two the two semi- detached. So you

[55:15] can see you have the four parking spots

[55:17] in front of each of the units and uh to

[55:21] take advantage of provided additional

[55:23] green space. Uh you're allowed to

[55:25] connect the driveways uh on a semi-

[55:28] detach. So there's zero lot line allowed

[55:31] when you connect them which will keep

[55:32] the 2 m uh on the opposite side. So 2 to

[55:37] two you'll have 4 meters of green space

[55:40] in between or landscape space in between

[55:42] the parking areas. Um again this is just

[55:45] showing the context when you have four

[55:47] separate units. Um and the last drawing

[55:50] that was uh provided um the provincial

[55:54] legislation allows you to have two ADUs

[55:59] in a dwelling for three units or allows

[56:02] you to have one ADU in the dwelling and

[56:05] one as accessory. you heard an

[56:06] application earlier today where they

[56:08] were uh doing an ADU in an accessory

[56:11] building. So, here's a here's a uh a

[56:14] synopsis where you have um two units in

[56:18] the main building and you have an

[56:20] accessory in the back. We would not be

[56:22] in front of the committee today. They

[56:24] would have a right of approval to do

[56:26] that because you only have two units in

[56:30] the main building, which is the

[56:32] provision of the bylaw that we're

[56:33] running against. uh and therefore we

[56:36] can't do it. So we could do these and

[56:38] have three units on the property uh in

[56:41] accordance with the current bylaw. And I

[56:43] think that was the intent of showing the

[56:45] difference of of of uh what we could do

[56:49] as of right today versus what why we're

[56:51] here on the other scenario. I hope that

[56:54] explains the purpose. Um I can answer

[56:56] that one question that it didn't get

[56:58] answered uh by the member uh Mr. Armsby.

[57:02] Some developments, yes, they do have

[57:04] common parking areas. Those are

[57:06] typically in condominiums or other forms

[57:08] of development where that parking area

[57:11] can be managed by a condominium

[57:13] corporation. This is a standard freehold

[57:16] development. So, the individual will own

[57:18] an individual lot. The roads are all

[57:20] public. There's no common ownership and

[57:23] ability to have common maintenance of

[57:25] those areas. So, it's not uh you cannot

[57:28] do that under a conventional plan

[57:30] subdivision.

[57:32] Are there any additional questions

[57:34] specifically for the planning staff?

[57:39] » Yes, planning staff. Um, if you expand

[57:42] that drawing to the next units across,

[57:45] how many units are we going to get?

[57:46] Parking lot space we're going to get

[57:49] because we're talking how many different

[57:50] lots going to be applied to.

[57:55] » Sorry, how many lots is the minions

[57:56] applied to? You expand this drawing to

[57:59] the real number of of units can be

[58:00] built. How many parking spaces will

[58:02] there be?

[58:03] >> Uh

[58:05] >> in the streetscape

[58:06] >> there is approximately 20 units I

[58:08] believe

[58:10] 30 approximately 30 units. Yeah. That

[58:14] this variance would apply to.

[58:15] >> So how many parking sps would there be?

[58:18] >> 120. In theory there would be permitted

[58:21] to be up to 120. But the just to make it

[58:24] clear, it is already permitted. All of

[58:27] those parking spaces are already

[58:28] permitted.

[58:28] >> I understand that. I understand that.

[58:30] >> Okay.

[58:30] >> My other point is the fact I take it a

[58:32] bit of an issue with your report in your

[58:34] four tests.

[58:36] >> Okay.

[58:36] >> Number three is the variance desirable

[58:38] for the appropriate development of the

[58:39] lands. I think this overdoing it. This

[58:42] is not what the intent original intent

[58:43] was to have single family buildings in a

[58:46] low-rise development. This is now going

[58:48] to look like a big parking lot.

[58:51] My other point is the number four is the

[58:52] variance minor. This is a major

[58:54] variance, not a minor one in my opinion.

[59:03] » It's okay.

[59:04] >> I can that I mean that

[59:07] >> follows with a similar question I had

[59:10] and I discussed previously with you. Um

[59:14] if the developer had come in

[59:17] with a variance request to uh basically

[59:22] reduce the um front yard from because

[59:27] they wanted to go to singles from 11 to

[59:29] 8, reduce the sideyard setbacks

[59:33] and do the uh additional move the

[59:37] parking space. Would you would the

[59:39] planning staff still have considered

[59:41] this a minor variance?

[59:46] So I'll I'll answer that question a few

[59:48] parts if that's all right. So

[59:51] sorry. So

[59:53] to answer to bounce off a little bit of

[59:56] what Peter already said. So the original

[59:58] variance was to allow these lots to be

[1:00:01] changed to allow single detached

[1:00:02] dwellings. when the uh when the

[1:00:05] subdivision was designed, it was

[1:00:06] designed to have semi- detached

[1:00:08] dwellings. So that was what was in place

[1:00:10] before and then that was varied to also

[1:00:13] allow single detached later. Uh whether

[1:00:17] or not staff would still consider this

[1:00:19] minor. So I will start by saying every

[1:00:22] planning application is supposed to be

[1:00:24] taken on its own merit. Um, but as part

[1:00:28] of a

[1:00:30] for a hypothetical sake, I would say in

[1:00:33] my opinion, yes, I would still consider

[1:00:34] this minor cuz the only thing actually

[1:00:37] being requested here is that parking is

[1:00:39] allowed in the front yard. And I would

[1:00:42] say in line with most of the well with

[1:00:45] every other part of this development,

[1:00:47] parking is allowed in the front yard.

[1:00:49] And as such, that request is not minor

[1:00:52] or is minor. Sorry.

[1:00:55] Um I have a couple of additional

[1:00:57] questions. Um has the developer come

[1:01:00] back and asked or had discussions

[1:01:05] relative to any changes in um the

[1:01:10] remaining phases 3 to five other than

[1:01:14] what was approved in the recent uh

[1:01:19] zoning bylaw 2025-30

[1:01:22] in May.

[1:01:26] Look, I'm trying to understand whether

[1:01:28] there's going to be future changes and

[1:01:32] I'm asking the planning staff first.

[1:01:35] >> Mr. Chair, I'll I'll jump in. So, not to

[1:01:38] my knowledge. However, there are there

[1:01:40] is a number of of additional lands to be

[1:01:43] developed and so um it isn't unusual for

[1:01:47] developers over time to request changes

[1:01:51] given the market changes that happen,

[1:01:52] especially in subdivisions that uh build

[1:01:55] out more slowly. So, if something built

[1:01:57] out over over a course of a summer like

[1:01:59] you might see in a big city, then they

[1:02:01] don't need to do that. But what happens

[1:02:02] when it takes several years to build out

[1:02:04] a subdivision? often they realize that

[1:02:06] certain unit types are more desirable to

[1:02:08] the market at that time and they may

[1:02:10] make changes. So it's not unusual. So I

[1:02:12] don't want to say they never will ask

[1:02:14] for anything else and I don't think it

[1:02:15] would be reasonable to expect that they

[1:02:17] wouldn't but at this stage they had

[1:02:20] noticed that certain units were selling

[1:02:22] better than other things and they wanted

[1:02:23] to uh be more adaptable to those changes

[1:02:26] which is why that zoning amendment

[1:02:28] happened in the springtime.

[1:02:31] >> I have one additional uh question.

[1:02:35] there uh concern has been expressed with

[1:02:38] respect to traffic and one of the in one

[1:02:41] of the TIS studies um talked about a

[1:02:45] left turn lane and lights going in at

[1:02:48] Equity Drive um and it would be

[1:02:51] triggered by when for instance Meford

[1:02:54] Haven um started building. Do you have

[1:02:57] any sense of when that is going to

[1:03:01] happen?

[1:03:05] So through you again Mr. Chair. So I was

[1:03:07] dealing with some of these other files

[1:03:09] at that higher level. So I was dealing

[1:03:11] with me for Haven for several years. Um

[1:03:15] at this stage the traffic impact study

[1:03:18] was updated last year and so they can go

[1:03:21] a little bit longer before those

[1:03:22] improvements are needed. So originally

[1:03:24] it was going to be and I think and Mr.

[1:03:26] Armstrong will know better than me

[1:03:28] automatically, but I believe it was 101

[1:03:30] units were permitted in the first um

[1:03:34] phase between both developments before

[1:03:37] they needed to do traffic improvements

[1:03:38] or in improvements and now I believe

[1:03:41] it's 200

[1:03:45] 26 226 between the two developments. So

[1:03:50] if you add in phase one of LON call and

[1:03:53] you take the first phase of bay bounds,

[1:03:57] they're well within that number. They're

[1:03:58] below that. So um it'll be in the

[1:04:02] following phases when they'll have to

[1:04:04] make those improvements.

[1:04:05] >> I I struggled with the um revised uh

[1:04:10] TIS.

[1:04:11] the it showed that when you went from

[1:04:16] single dwelling

[1:04:18] facilities to semi- detached, the

[1:04:22] traffic went down. And and so in a

[1:04:26] sense, I'm looking at this that says

[1:04:30] we're going to go from semi- detached to

[1:04:34] single, which is approved in the

[1:04:37] previous variants, but now we're adding

[1:04:39] three. while we're adding two additional

[1:04:42] units to each of those buildings. So,

[1:04:46] you know, to me, I think we need to to

[1:04:48] take a serious look at at when this

[1:04:52] traffic study gets done, especially with

[1:04:55] the development of Bay Bounds. I mean,

[1:04:57] they're going crazy getting that

[1:04:58] property up and going now. Um just a

[1:05:03] comment from the committee because I

[1:05:05] know traffic and uh is is a serious

[1:05:10] concern and we all know that uh the

[1:05:13] traffic along 26 is getting more and

[1:05:16] more every day.

[1:05:18] Uh is there any additional questions for

[1:05:20] the planning staff specifically? Just a

[1:05:23] comment to what you said. This is 60 new

[1:05:25] units.

[1:05:27] We talked about 30 that were were there

[1:05:29] initially. Now with two additional units

[1:05:32] in or 30 that were proposed, two

[1:05:35] additional new units in each one of them

[1:05:38] is 60.

[1:05:39] >> I think it's only specifically 24 like

[1:05:43] 24. So uh

[1:05:45] >> I know it's 28.

[1:05:47] >> Yeah.

[1:05:51] » Actually, I want us to thank all the

[1:05:53] people who responded the correspondence

[1:05:55] from the neighbors received. Um I think

[1:05:57] they're very good points and well worth

[1:05:59] taking and to me that also and it goes

[1:06:01] to this point about number three that

[1:06:03] this frank is not desirable for the

[1:06:05] appropriate development of the lands.

[1:06:08] >> Um are there any other questions? Um I

[1:06:12] have some for Mr. Armstrong if I may.

[1:06:18] » Um I just want to clarify I also have uh

[1:06:21] Zach Wilshek from Norta who is the

[1:06:23] developer of these units. if I can't

[1:06:25] answer them and they're more on the

[1:06:26] development side, I'll I'll pass it over

[1:06:28] to them. I also want to clarify. Um, so

[1:06:32] Nortara, who is the one looking at to

[1:06:34] develop these, they own some of these

[1:06:37] lots and they also have offers to

[1:06:39] purchase the rest of the lots from M1

[1:06:42] Development Link, Lonall. Lonall is not

[1:06:46] the one that's proposing to do this

[1:06:48] development. They are a townhouse

[1:06:50] developer as per you can see across the

[1:06:53] road. that's what they develop um and

[1:06:55] they're not um the ones doing it. So

[1:06:57] it's most it's Nortara that is looking

[1:06:59] to develop these units uh into these

[1:07:02] tats.

[1:07:04] >> Um I asked the question to planning

[1:07:07] staff. Um is Nortra looking at any

[1:07:13] changes for phases three through five?

[1:07:17] Uh, Nortara does not have any interest

[1:07:19] in any of the the future lots um at that

[1:07:22] I'm aware of. Um, uh, Lon Call is

[1:07:27] proceeding. They've submitted

[1:07:28] applications to proceed with the next 24

[1:07:32] units. Uh, those 24 units are up by the

[1:07:35] storm water management pond, their town

[1:07:37] houses. Uh, they are not proposing uh to

[1:07:40] develop those units in that matter. Um

[1:07:44] basically development will be

[1:07:48] stalled after that point until they deal

[1:07:50] with the turning lane requirements and

[1:07:52] also water main upgrades uh aligned with

[1:07:55] the bay balance development.

[1:07:58] The

[1:08:01] houses that are we're we're dealing with

[1:08:04] today. Will they all not be built and until somebody basically buys them?

[1:08:13] So, are they all guaranteed to have 380

[1:08:17] units?

[1:08:18] >> I think that's a question for Zach. I'll

[1:08:20] pass it over to him.

[1:08:24] >> Hello.

[1:08:25] >> Is that on? There you go.

[1:08:27] >> Yes, it is.

[1:08:27] >> My name is uh Zach Walshuk. I represent

[1:08:29] Nortara Development Group. Um, and yeah,

[1:08:32] so just to specify, um, we're just

[1:08:35] applying for the lots in the

[1:08:36] application. LCDG is listed on there

[1:08:39] because we have an interest in the

[1:08:40] property, um, for future, uh, purchase.

[1:08:44] But yeah, the intent to answer your

[1:08:47] question is to continue to sell these as

[1:08:49] market housing. We wanted to open up the

[1:08:52] option to provide alternative forms of

[1:08:54] housing on the lots. Given the nature of

[1:08:57] the the conflict with the parking, we

[1:09:00] felt we made the application on all of

[1:09:02] the lots, but the intention is not to

[1:09:04] build the entire subdivision with

[1:09:06] triplexes on individual lots. Um, back

[1:09:10] when we made the application to change

[1:09:11] them into singles, that was also the

[1:09:14] intent there. So, ultimately, we're

[1:09:16] opening up the option on the lots to

[1:09:19] appeal to different market uh demands.

[1:09:24] Please correct me if I got this wrong.

[1:09:26] Do I understand that not all of these

[1:09:29] units that you're asking for a variance

[1:09:31] on will be the triplex or is it simply

[1:09:35] um somebody comes in and says I want a

[1:09:38] house on lot one but I don't want it

[1:09:41] built as a triplex. I want it built as a

[1:09:43] single unit. Is that going to happen?

[1:09:46] >> Correct. It's going to continue to

[1:09:47] happen and that's actually the

[1:09:49] preference. We have a handful of

[1:09:51] different models. the majority of them

[1:09:52] are detached or semi- detached and uh if

[1:09:56] that's what they purchase then that's

[1:09:57] what we build.

[1:09:58] >> Okay. So the discussions we've had

[1:10:00] essentially are potentially maximum as

[1:10:04] opposed to

[1:10:05] >> correct. Thank you. Um I have a if if I

[1:10:10] can bring back Mr. Armstrong

[1:10:13] please.

[1:10:16] Um,

[1:10:18] these originally when this subdivision

[1:10:20] was approved,

[1:10:23] um, the driveways were all this the

[1:10:28] width outline here, which I think is 10

[1:10:30] ft or

[1:10:33] whatever it is. I got a little note

[1:10:36] here. Um, the driveway widths have not

[1:10:39] changed.

[1:10:40] >> Uh, I don't believe the driveway widths

[1:10:42] were identified.

[1:10:44] um that I'm aware of. The the bylaw

[1:10:48] requirement is uh 1 m sideyard

[1:10:53] on on each side or if you're doing a

[1:10:56] shared driveway, you can go zero. Um

[1:11:00] that's um that the one of the things

[1:11:03] that has happened, the buildings have

[1:11:04] been pushed back further from the road,

[1:11:06] so they're set back further to allow

[1:11:08] that additional parking than the minimum

[1:11:10] bylaw required. But but in in changing

[1:11:14] from um a D uh semi- detached to a

[1:11:19] detached, you would not change the

[1:11:23] driveway dimensions

[1:11:25] for those buildings.

[1:11:28] >> I don't believe I'm not sure I

[1:11:30] understand the the driveway dimensions

[1:11:33] are controlled by the zoning bylaw. I

[1:11:36] >> I understand there are minimums,

[1:11:38] maximums. All All I'm trying to say is

[1:11:41] the in my mind the change from the

[1:11:46] original

[1:11:48] submission on the subdivision which was

[1:11:50] approved.

[1:11:51] >> Yeah.

[1:11:51] >> Um showed

[1:11:54] driveways

[1:11:56] essentially there. Um, and when you

[1:11:59] applied to go to single detached,

[1:12:03] it was normally would have had 11 m of

[1:12:06] front yard

[1:12:08] and and we approved to eight, which is

[1:12:12] the same as the semi- detached. So, what

[1:12:15] I'm saying is that change has not

[1:12:18] changed anything relative to the

[1:12:21] driveway width other than

[1:12:24] >> that. I Yes, correct. Yes. So, if I

[1:12:28] understand it correctly, um based on the

[1:12:30] lot size, the driveways will take up

[1:12:34] approximately

[1:12:36] 60% of the front yard.

[1:12:40] >> Uh with

[1:12:42] >> 5 1/2 mters out of an 8 mage.

[1:12:45] >> Yes. So 2 and 1/2 mters is uh excess

[1:12:50] space you don't require for parking.

[1:12:51] That's correct.

[1:12:56] All right. Thank you.

[1:12:59] >> Any other

[1:13:01] uh questions, Mr.

[1:13:02] >> Chairman? Through you to to Rob or or

[1:13:05] whoever you indicated that the houses

[1:13:08] have moved deeper into the lot.

[1:13:11] How give me the measurement now from the

[1:13:13] curb to the garage door.

[1:13:16] >> Maybe Michael has it.

[1:13:20] Blow up that.

[1:13:24] I need to get out a magnifying glass,

[1:13:25] too.

[1:13:26] >> Yeah.

[1:13:28] >> So, the normal zoning bylaw requirement

[1:13:30] is 7 1/2 m

[1:13:34] and they're proposing 16.7

[1:13:40] meters or 54 ft versus 25 ft. So, almost

[1:13:47] » Yeah, there's room that we can bring

[1:13:49] them closer to the road, but it was to

[1:13:51] bring them back further. I don't want it

[1:13:52] closer to the road.

[1:13:54] >> Yeah. So, we've doubled the doubled the

[1:13:56] setback. That's

[1:13:57] >> We have a development in town right now

[1:13:59] where you put a fulls size truck in a

[1:14:01] lane weight sticking out on the road.

[1:14:03] >> Yeah. The the the parking spots that you

[1:14:06] see on the drawing are the minimum

[1:14:08] requirements. You can see that there's

[1:14:11] additional area between the garage and

[1:14:13] the front property line, not the road,

[1:14:15] but the front property line to

[1:14:17] accommodate much deeper vehicles in this

[1:14:20] instance.

[1:14:23] questions from the committee? No. Um,

[1:14:27] I'd like to invite the public um to come

[1:14:30] up to the podium and um address your

[1:14:34] concerns. In the interests of time, um,

[1:14:39] because we have all read the letters

[1:14:41] that have been submitted, I would

[1:14:44] suggest, and we're all concerned about

[1:14:46] traffic and parking, um, that we try not

[1:14:51] to repeat what has been said by previous

[1:14:55] people if that if that is possible. So

[1:14:58] feel free if anyone would like to take

[1:15:00] to the podium,

[1:15:03] identify yourself. I think it needs to

[1:15:05] be turned on. I think

[1:15:10] » my name is Brian Martin. I live at 221

[1:15:12] Equality Drive, the balloon subdivision.

[1:15:15] We're talking about parking and this is

[1:15:17] what we're here for. Um me growing up in

[1:15:21] the GTA

[1:15:23] and with this bill that Ford passed,

[1:15:28] this bill 23, it allows builders to

[1:15:30] build multiple dwellings. I get that.

[1:15:33] When Ford was announcing um this

[1:15:36] announcement, he was basically saying

[1:15:39] the greater Toronto area or or big

[1:15:42] metropolitan cities. Not once did I say,

[1:15:46] "Oh, uh horn pain. Now they can go ahead

[1:15:50] and develop homes and have multiple

[1:15:52] dwelling units." Now, I'm all for

[1:15:55] safety. And in Toronto, most of the

[1:15:59] people I talked to that live in uh

[1:16:03] basement apartments,

[1:16:05] uh uh rooming houses,

[1:16:08] uh upper upper level apartments, they

[1:16:12] don't drive. They don't have wheels.

[1:16:15] So when they leave their front door,

[1:16:18] there's a sidewalk.

[1:16:20] Up the street from a sidewalk, there's a

[1:16:23] bus. If there's not a bus, there's a street car. Um, you walk down

[1:16:29] two blocks, there's a subway. So, I'm

[1:16:33] all for this and I'm in the town, they

[1:16:35] should be all for it, too. These

[1:16:36] multiple dwellings, but you have to take

[1:16:39] in consideration the infrastructure.

[1:16:42] Now, do you guys have public transit

[1:16:44] here in Meford?

[1:16:47] Do you? I'm asking a question.

[1:16:50] >> No.

[1:16:51] >> Okay, Michael. Uh, in your plans, do you

[1:16:56] have any specific plans for putting a

[1:16:59] sidewalk from from, let's say, the

[1:17:01] Ultramar where the sidewalk ends to our

[1:17:03] subdivision where you're supposeding

[1:17:06] going to be putting up a set of lights?

[1:17:07] Is there a sidewalk that you've uh in

[1:17:10] the in the works?

[1:17:12] >> Denise,

[1:17:14] >> um, if if we could if we could take down

[1:17:17] any specific questions and not do a bit

[1:17:19] of a back and forth because that will

[1:17:20] take a really long time. Sorry. So, but

[1:17:22] I would be happy to answer questions at

[1:17:24] the end if that's possible. We could

[1:17:26] just amalgamate them all. Um, the answer

[1:17:28] to that is there is a long-term plan for

[1:17:30] sidewalks. It's not part of planning's

[1:17:33] um uh work plan. It's an infrastructure

[1:17:36] project. So, I can't comment on the

[1:17:38] timing of something like that, but it

[1:17:40] would be in the in the future. It's not

[1:17:42] in the five-year capital plan.

[1:17:44] >> Okay. Sorry. Are you allowed to walk on

[1:17:46] Highway 26?

[1:17:49] Am I allowed to ride a bike on Highway

[1:17:50] 26?

[1:17:52] Like the reason why I'm bringing this

[1:17:53] up, if you're going to have rental

[1:17:55] units,

[1:17:57] say you got a family that don't that

[1:17:59] doesn't have a vehicle, how they get

[1:18:01] into town?

[1:18:02] Say there's a mother with two kids,

[1:18:04] one's in a stroller. How is she going to

[1:18:06] get from Lon subdivision in the town?

[1:18:10] >> Can you answer that?

[1:18:14] » No.

[1:18:15] >> There's a lot of questions. That's my

[1:18:17] concern. Safety. I understand your

[1:18:19] questions are related around

[1:18:21] transportation.

[1:18:22] >> The existing bylaw.

[1:18:25] >> Yes.

[1:18:25] >> Which we are

[1:18:29] only empowered to answer to,

[1:18:32] >> right?

[1:18:33] >> Allows the the threelex,

[1:18:36] >> right?

[1:18:36] >> And it says in those instances

[1:18:40] >> there must be four parking spaces.

[1:18:42] >> That's what we're arguing today. two for

[1:18:45] the the principal resident and one for

[1:18:49] each of the additional units.

[1:18:50] >> Sure.

[1:18:51] >> And so what you're suggesting

[1:18:56] um is that there may be multiple

[1:19:00] um cars for the same family. And I

[1:19:05] understand that that is a very valid

[1:19:07] concern,

[1:19:08] >> but I can't I understand that

[1:19:11] >> answer that question and neither can the

[1:19:12] community.

[1:19:13] >> Okay. But the city, they have to look

[1:19:14] into stuff like that. Like you don't

[1:19:15] want to be liable down the road. You

[1:19:17] have to do your due diligence. That's

[1:19:19] all I'm saying. You can't snuff it off

[1:19:20] and say we'll worry about it down

[1:19:22] because there's going to be renters in

[1:19:23] there that aren't going to own vehicles.

[1:19:25] I guarantee that. Guarantee. And you're

[1:19:27] talking about parking. To me, don't

[1:19:29] think parking's an issue. It's about

[1:19:31] safety. like how are these people

[1:19:33] getting into town? And if that's all you

[1:19:35] want me to that's all I'll say. If it's if it's it's not imperative for

[1:19:39] this meeting today, then I'll just sit

[1:19:41] down. I just want to voice my opinion

[1:19:44] because it's going to happen.

[1:19:47] You know, if someone gets hit on the

[1:19:49] highway 26, the the the town of Meford

[1:19:52] is going to be liable.

[1:19:54] Won't be 100% won't be 75, won't be 50,

[1:19:56] but I guarantee it'll be 25% of fault. I certainly understand your concerns and

[1:20:02] I would encourage you to address those

[1:20:07] concerns directly with council because

[1:20:09] they look at long-term capital budgets

[1:20:13] as it relates to sidewalks and so forth.

[1:20:16] Um, but we're here to

[1:20:18] >> I know I'm just all about safety. That's

[1:20:20] the only reason why I came here to put

[1:20:21] this out there about the safety. You

[1:20:23] know, I'm worried about the safety, the

[1:20:25] people walking on 26.

[1:20:26] >> I appreciate your concern. Thank you.

[1:20:29] Is there anyone else that wishes to

[1:20:31] speak?

[1:20:35] » Yeah.

[1:20:43] » Uh good afternoon. My name is Jim

[1:20:45] Sullivan and uh although I live in

[1:20:47] Meford, I don't live in this

[1:20:49] subdivision.

[1:20:50] um additional dwelling units uh gives

[1:20:52] the impression that they are added to an

[1:20:54] existing property and so the intentions

[1:20:56] seem to be a good idea and long overdue.

[1:21:00] However, what we see here is an abuse of

[1:21:04] that idea. These should not be

[1:21:06] considered as ADUs as they are

[1:21:08] purpose-built three-unit multiplexes and

[1:21:12] should face the same scrutiny as other

[1:21:14] multiplexes with three or more units and

[1:21:17] ensure that there is parking in the

[1:21:18] rear. A six-unit semi- detached building

[1:21:22] on a 14 meter lot will have 12 meters of

[1:21:25] ashvault in front of it.

[1:21:28] It'll be difficult to find a pla to find

[1:21:30] a place to plant a tree in the boulevard

[1:21:33] in front of these multiplexes because

[1:21:35] it's all ashvalt. People moved into this

[1:21:38] subdivision expecting more to look at

[1:21:40] and than boulevards full of ashvault.

[1:21:42] Meford should not let these people down.

[1:21:46] The official plan calls for appropriate

[1:21:48] parking. In this case, it should be

[1:21:50] appropriate for what they are. Parking

[1:21:51] in the rear for multiplexes of three or

[1:21:54] more units. The online ads for this

[1:21:57] builder show single driveways, only room

[1:22:00] for one car in front of a single garage

[1:22:02] on a single driveway. And yet they're

[1:22:05] building something completely different.

[1:22:07] Some would call this bait and switch.

[1:22:10] The plan they provided for this meeting

[1:22:12] was so blurry I had to ask for a clear

[1:22:15] PDF copy.

[1:22:17] When provided, I found the measurements

[1:22:19] used did not match the lots. A semi-

[1:22:22] detached building is shown on the plan

[1:22:25] with a much wider frontage than a semi-

[1:22:27] detached lot. It's shown on there as

[1:22:30] being 8 mters. Half of a 14.3 meter uh

[1:22:34] lot is 7.15.

[1:22:38] So if you use the dimensions shown, the

[1:22:40] building would not meet the sideyard

[1:22:42] requirements.

[1:22:43] Okay, this is just an example, but it's

[1:22:46] deceiving. This has little to do with

[1:22:48] driveways, but it might say something

[1:22:50] about the differences in what you are

[1:22:52] shown and what will be built.

[1:22:55] By the way, the driveways are as wider

[1:22:58] or wider than the buildings they're that

[1:23:00] they're in front of. A building on the I

[1:23:03] won't mention that. Um,

[1:23:07] boulevards full of asshalt and cars at

[1:23:10] the entrance of the subdivision will be

[1:23:12] seen from Highway 26 and the western

[1:23:14] entrance to Meford. Is this the luck

[1:23:17] Meford wants? Ashfalted Boulevards full

[1:23:20] of cars will not improve any resale

[1:23:22] value of the properties that have

[1:23:23] already been purchased. The plan of a

[1:23:26] subdivision was approved and registered.

[1:23:28] This is more than a minor vi variance.

[1:23:31] It changes the streetscape of the main

[1:23:33] entrance to this subdivision. Because it

[1:23:35] is approved, another traffic study is

[1:23:38] not needed. The park requirements do not

[1:23:40] change and it is still a single entrance

[1:23:42] subdivision despite having an additional

[1:23:45] 60 units and a lot more cars backing out

[1:23:48] of driveways.

[1:23:50] Newford does not have public

[1:23:51] transportation so cars are needed. Most

[1:23:54] families have two working members and

[1:23:56] two cars to get to work. That is six

[1:23:59] cars in that three-unit multiplex.

[1:24:04] And where is the parking for guests?

[1:24:08] Driveways that are 6 m wide will not

[1:24:10] leave any room on that side of the

[1:24:12] street for parking on the road. And

[1:24:14] there's already very limited parking on

[1:24:16] the other side. Existing homes on the

[1:24:19] other side of the road will pay the

[1:24:20] price for this and lose their extra road

[1:24:23] parking.

[1:24:24] That section 5.5B of the zoning bylaw

[1:24:27] 60-209 is valid. That requirement for

[1:24:31] rear parking of multiplexes of three or

[1:24:34] more units is protection to require

[1:24:37] additional scrutiny to ensure that they

[1:24:40] have as official plan says appropriate

[1:24:43] parking not parking that changes the

[1:24:45] whole streetscape of a main road into a

[1:24:48] subdivision.

[1:24:50] Ideas as significant as this should be a

[1:24:53] part of the planning process, not an

[1:24:56] afterthought where people have already

[1:24:57] invested their future.

[1:25:00] As I've mentioned, the parking for this

[1:25:02] application should be considered for

[1:25:03] what it is and and that is 30 three-unit

[1:25:07] multiplexes requiring rear parking.

[1:25:10] Thank you for the opportunity to present

[1:25:12] this.

[1:25:15] » Yes, sir. Please.

[1:25:22] » My name is Roy Meredith from 219

[1:25:24] Equality Drive. I just wonder if Michael

[1:25:26] could put up the other drawing that

[1:25:28] showed the the other parking on the

[1:25:30] other side.

[1:25:35] I know that uh it was mentioned that

[1:25:36] there were 16 of these units. Um the

[1:25:39] drawing I saw shows 26. I just want to

[1:25:42] get clarification of how many there is

[1:25:43] potentially that would be that could be

[1:25:46] triplexes.

[1:25:48] I believe it's 26 in total.

[1:25:52] I wonder if I could get clarification on

[1:25:54] that. It

[1:25:57] it's it's my understanding that at the

[1:26:00] moment, if I'm doing the math here,

[1:26:03] slots 1 to 18,

[1:26:06] 23 to 26, and 94 to 97. So that's 18,

[1:26:12] 21, 24.

[1:26:14] >> 24.

[1:26:15] >> Yeah.

[1:26:15] >> Okay. So, right there, it shows two on

[1:26:17] that that uh on that um picture there.

[1:26:21] So, there's going to be 24 of them.

[1:26:23] that's going to have all those cars. So,

[1:26:25] it's I know you guys were talking about

[1:26:27] streetscape and we're very concerned

[1:26:28] about it and and I just wanted to like

[1:26:31] show you what it's going to look like

[1:26:32] with all that parking that's going to be

[1:26:34] allowed. I am going to cut I've got a

[1:26:37] statement here. I'm going to cut it

[1:26:38] short. I know a lot of questions have

[1:26:39] been asked, but there's a few things

[1:26:40] that I wanted to talk about that I was

[1:26:42] I've talked to a lot of people and

[1:26:44] they've been talking a lot about Bill 23

[1:26:46] and how the feeling was that Bill 23 is

[1:26:49] what's pushing this to happen and that

[1:26:51] um like Bill 23 is to allow and support

[1:26:54] gentle intensification. This is not

[1:26:56] gentle. This is sudden

[1:27:00] uh

[1:27:02] intensification, not gentle.

[1:27:05] And that bill 23, I know really it it

[1:27:08] doesn't give developers a free pass. Um

[1:27:11] it doesn't uh shift support of power to

[1:27:14] the developers. You know, they still

[1:27:17] have the authority and the duty to

[1:27:18] decide where and how intensification

[1:27:20] fits. You're not required to make

[1:27:23] something fit that clearly doesn't.

[1:27:26] You're not not looking to allow a square

[1:27:28] peg in a round hole.

[1:27:30] You can and you should insist on the

[1:27:32] developments to to

[1:27:35] respect local planning principles. And I

[1:27:37] just want to talk lastly about section

[1:27:40] 45 of the planning act. I know it was

[1:27:43] you guys did talk about it, but it's

[1:27:44] true. It's this is not truly a minor uh

[1:27:47] thing. It's it really is not it doesn't

[1:27:50] maintain the intent of the zoning bylaw.

[1:27:52] It doesn't conform to the official plan

[1:27:55] and it's not appropriate for the land.

[1:27:58] That's all I wanted to say. Thank you.

[1:28:00] >> Thank you.

[1:28:02] >> Um, Mr. Armstrong,

[1:28:06] out of

[1:28:08] all of the

[1:28:11] dwellings that are have been built,

[1:28:15] um, how many of them have single

[1:28:19] driveways? So rather than something like

[1:28:21] this where it's basically two cars can

[1:28:25] be parked side by side.

[1:28:28] >> I couldn't answer that. I'm not too

[1:28:29] sure. Again, that comes down to the

[1:28:31] building permit process um on how that

[1:28:34] goes in. So I'm not too sure how much I know the town houses would be the

[1:28:39] single cuz uh they're singles into the

[1:28:42] garages, but I'm not sure of the the

[1:28:45] singles the larger singles that were

[1:28:47] sold off to another developer.

[1:28:48] >> Yeah. um uplift of of the buildings that

[1:28:52] Nortara has built.

[1:28:56] >> I can speak to that. Um on our semi-

[1:28:58] detached uh uh houses, we make the

[1:29:01] driveway widths 3 m wide to match the

[1:29:04] garage. If we were to have a twocar

[1:29:06] garage, we'd make them 6 mters wide to

[1:29:08] match the garage. Um but yeah, so for

[1:29:12] the majority of the semis, the 3 m wide

[1:29:14] driveway. Yeah. Thank you.

[1:29:22] any

[1:29:28] it we're going to give the online people

[1:29:30] a chance first if I may.

[1:29:44] Ryan Armstrong, if uh you are online and

[1:29:48] wish to speak, could you unmute and go

[1:29:50] ahead, please?

[1:29:58] » Hi. Sorry. Can you hear me?

[1:30:01] >> Yes, we can.

[1:30:02] >> Okay. Hi. Um, yeah, I'm Bren Armstrong.

[1:30:05] So, I'm also an owner of one of the town

[1:30:07] houses on Equality Drive. Um, and yeah,

[1:30:11] I'm just thinking about again like the

[1:30:13] parking, the safety as mentioned, and

[1:30:16] then mainly like looking across the

[1:30:18] street and the view of just the parking

[1:30:21] and minimal green space is kind of an

[1:30:24] issue for me cuz like um Ron was saying,

[1:30:29] I kind of bought the place originally to

[1:30:31] move to Meford to move away from all the

[1:30:33] traffic and whatnot and I was just

[1:30:36] disappointed to hear when this was

[1:30:37] happening and yeah, so I just wanted to

[1:30:39] put in my two cents that I'm against

[1:30:41] this as well.

[1:30:44] >> Thank you.

[1:30:46] >> Thanks.

[1:30:49] » Uh Nicole, are you also online?

[1:30:58] Yeah, you're still muted.

[1:31:06] » Okay.

[1:31:07] >> Sorry. Yeah, if you'd like to speak now,

[1:31:09] please go ahead.

[1:31:12] >> Hi, it's Nicole. Sorry about that.

[1:31:16] >> That's okay. Please go ahead.

[1:31:18] >> Um, hi. Um, so I'll be quick because I

[1:31:21] know we've kind of touched base on

[1:31:22] everything. My name is Nicole Moguli.

[1:31:25] Um, so like everyone said, parking is

[1:31:30] not the greatest. So I I just wanted to

[1:31:33] mention just from the meeting the 24

[1:31:37] lots that will be affected. They they

[1:31:39] mentioned that the developer may ask for

[1:31:42] more changes. So this might not be the

[1:31:45] only ask. So, even if they sell all 24

[1:31:48] lots, they might still continue to

[1:31:51] continue rise up the questions on like

[1:31:54] other lots that they haven't built yet

[1:31:56] because like they said, they want to

[1:31:58] sell off all the lots first and then

[1:32:00] they're going to um and then they're

[1:32:03] going to build more. So, once they do

[1:32:05] build more, are they going to ask for

[1:32:06] more of the zoning? So, that's something

[1:32:09] that we should also consider down the

[1:32:12] line.

[1:32:15] Thank you.

[1:32:16] >> Yeah, I agree with you, which is why we

[1:32:18] asked the question, have they proceeded

[1:32:20] with asking u for any changes? And

[1:32:24] so, um, sorry for holding you up. If you

[1:32:28] please go ahead. Thank you. Um,

[1:32:32] uh, thank I'm not going to reiterate

[1:32:34] everything.

[1:32:35] >> Can you state your name first?

[1:32:36] >> Oh, sure. My name's Reed Barrett. I'm

[1:32:38] not a resident of uh the subdivision,

[1:32:41] but I'm a long time longtime resident of

[1:32:43] Meford. Um the purpose of me speaking

[1:32:47] today is is not the personal interest,

[1:32:50] but the long-term uh I want to avoid

[1:32:53] sort of long-term issues for me. Uh

[1:32:56] something that we have to pick up the

[1:32:58] pieces because of a provincial

[1:33:00] legislation or something that's happened

[1:33:02] and we're going to pay the price of long

[1:33:04] term. Uh if we can prevent that, I think

[1:33:07] that would be great. And I think we've

[1:33:08] heard a lot of good things, and I'm not

[1:33:10] going to reiterate a lot of it. But um

[1:33:13] uh additional dwelling units or ADUs

[1:33:16] really work well in high density areas

[1:33:18] like um Metro Toronto. And so I'm

[1:33:22] certain that when the province

[1:33:24] contemplated

[1:33:26] um additional uh dwelling units um they

[1:33:31] didn't think of the snow uh snow that

[1:33:34] southern Georgian Bay gets and I think

[1:33:37] Meford if they ever had a chance to uh

[1:33:40] push back this would be the time. Um

[1:33:43] when you think about um a community here

[1:33:46] that doesn't have public transit, you

[1:33:48] think about the school buses that have

[1:33:50] to get in there, the garbage pickup and

[1:33:52] the size of lot. This could be a real

[1:33:55] challenge and might be a real mayhem for

[1:33:59] several uh weeks in the winter. Um not

[1:34:02] only that, but it's got one exit onto

[1:34:05] 26. So I think that you know the

[1:34:07] additional cars is definitely a problem.

[1:34:09] The other thing is that

[1:34:12] um it is the gateway to our community.

[1:34:15] So, uh as you drive past this, uh

[1:34:19] subdivision, you don't want it to look

[1:34:20] like a commuter lot or a park and fly.

[1:34:23] This is, you know, it should be the

[1:34:26] serene community of Meford that's on the

[1:34:29] bay. And so I just want to say um I

[1:34:31] think if we could limit some of the

[1:34:35] issues before you know before it happens

[1:34:39] it would be a really good thing for this

[1:34:41] uh community. Thank you.

[1:34:43] >> Thank you. Um, as I stated previously,

[1:34:47] um, these decisions relative to ADUs

[1:34:50] were not made by this committee. And I

[1:34:53] would encourage you to, um, contact your

[1:34:57] local counselor andor members of uh, the

[1:35:01] municipality of Meford and address your

[1:35:03] concerns, let them know. Um because

[1:35:06] obviously with the growth um there's

[1:35:10] going to be other developers that are

[1:35:12] going to be looking to do relatively the

[1:35:15] same thing as it relates to the one

[1:35:19] entrance. Um I know that um the MTO

[1:35:24] wants to limit the number of entrances

[1:35:27] onto the highway. There is actually two

[1:35:30] um but one is designated for emergency

[1:35:33] purposes only. Um but I would think that

[1:35:36] going forward in future um as the number

[1:35:40] of units

[1:35:42] builds in there um that there will be

[1:35:45] more need for a secondary exit as well.

[1:35:50] Is there anyone else that wishes to

[1:35:52] speak? Certainly. Please.

[1:35:59] » Yeah. Good afternoon. My name is uh Rick

[1:36:00] Crouch. I do not live in uh Meford, but

[1:36:03] my uh my son is one of the residents on

[1:36:05] Equality Drive and he is one of the uh advocates that has written a letter.

[1:36:10] So, I'm I'm not going to address some of

[1:36:12] the things he's covered over. In the

[1:36:14] interest of full disclosure, I am a real

[1:36:15] estate broker. I'm with Southern

[1:36:17] International Realy and uh one of my

[1:36:19] colleagues, Matthew Lid Better, is the

[1:36:21] agent for Lonall Development. I have no

[1:36:23] involvement with Loon. I have no

[1:36:25] involvement with uh any financial gain

[1:36:28] from from this subdivision nor from my uh son and his wife's purchase. But

[1:36:32] you know just to address you know some

[1:36:34] of the issues outside some of the norms.

[1:36:36] Somebody on the committee mentioned you

[1:36:37] know that this seemed like it was not a

[1:36:39] minor variance to start with this is not

[1:36:41] a minor circumstance. All of the

[1:36:44] homeowners in there typically bought

[1:36:46] their properties through Loonall

[1:36:47] Development who owned all the properties

[1:36:49] across the road. The game plan has

[1:36:52] changed. Loon call elected to sell those

[1:36:54] properties to Nortara. Nortara, you

[1:36:58] know, has has started to build in the

[1:37:00] area. I commend them for that. Um, but

[1:37:02] now the plan is let's let's let's change

[1:37:05] the plan again going from single family

[1:37:08] uh residential semi- detached homes to

[1:37:12] multi-units. Uh, and you know, again,

[1:37:15] that was not what these people bought

[1:37:17] their homes under the pretense of. So,

[1:37:20] you know, there's no point in belaboring

[1:37:22] what they've already addressed in terms

[1:37:23] of parking and garbage and noise and

[1:37:25] that sort of thing. But I think as as

[1:37:28] Mr. Bear said, it really speaks, I

[1:37:30] think, to a couple things. Uh, one, you

[1:37:33] know, the the basic complexion of of

[1:37:36] meford, the town itself. I've read a lot

[1:37:38] of the correspondence that was supplied

[1:37:40] to me by my son, both from uh the

[1:37:43] planning department as well as Sue

[1:37:44] Travis and associates. Nowhere did

[1:37:47] anything mention affordable housing. All

[1:37:51] of the information I saw was addressing

[1:37:53] investor buyers. Those are not who the

[1:37:56] these people thought were going to be

[1:37:58] their neighbors across the road. You

[1:38:00] know, from the standpoint of the real

[1:38:02] estate market. It has changed

[1:38:03] dramatically in the last two years. And

[1:38:05] I've been in the business here for

[1:38:07] almost 25 years. And I cover from meford

[1:38:09] right through town of Blue Mountains,

[1:38:10] Colliewood, Clear View Township over to

[1:38:12] Wasa Beach. Right now, we have the

[1:38:14] highest level of MLS listings on our MLS

[1:38:17] system that we've had since 2015, 2016.

[1:38:21] So, my question is, there's been no

[1:38:24] mention of these addressing the issue of

[1:38:26] affordable housing. There has been a

[1:38:28] real shift in the market, and this seems

[1:38:30] to be more of a of a a request that's

[1:38:34] being put forward, I think, to address,

[1:38:36] you know, the fact that demand is down.

[1:38:39] In fact, it's reaching out now to

[1:38:41] different buyers, investor buyers, and I

[1:38:44] think they're few and far between. I was

[1:38:46] out last weekend showing clients uh

[1:38:48] duplex, single detached uh and semi-

[1:38:52] detached houses in Collingwood last

[1:38:54] weekend. They're very unckempt. They're

[1:38:56] rented out. The tenants don't cut the

[1:38:58] grass. You know, the garbage cans are

[1:39:01] out in full view of the street. And when

[1:39:04] I read the the various reports how none

[1:39:06] of this was going to change the

[1:39:07] complexion of the street, I can argue

[1:39:10] quite differently. And I think that's

[1:39:11] something the committee really has to

[1:39:13] think long and hard about regardless of

[1:39:16] whether it's addressing what the

[1:39:18] provincial legislation is. You know,

[1:39:19] you've really got to think about the

[1:39:21] existing home orders and what you want

[1:39:23] the municipality to look like and is

[1:39:25] this going to drive and address the

[1:39:27] affordable out of housing issue in

[1:39:29] Meford? To me, the answer is no, it's

[1:39:31] not.

[1:39:33] I did consider exactly your point that

[1:39:37] um is this going to be a

[1:39:40] multi-generational family that moves

[1:39:42] into this and you know they have their

[1:39:44] in-law suite and so forth as opposed to

[1:39:48] how many people will buy it with the

[1:39:50] intention of rental of all or

[1:39:55] some of the units. So I understand your

[1:39:58] concerns. Thank you. Is there anyone

[1:40:00] else that wishes to speak?

[1:40:04] No.

[1:40:07] Any member of the committee have any

[1:40:09] additional comments, questions? Yes. Uh

[1:40:12] Mr. Chairman through the gentleman in

[1:40:14] the hat that made the final

[1:40:16] presentation. Um and I'm sorry I forgot

[1:40:18] to write your name down. I got everybody

[1:40:19] else. Um your last three points on your

[1:40:23] presentation. I wonder if you would go

[1:40:26] to the mic and repeat those and then I'd

[1:40:29] like staff to respond to those. The last

[1:40:33] three comments they have made

[1:40:40] section 45 act was right at the end of

[1:40:44] this presentation

[1:40:48] that one of the comments was that it

[1:40:50] didn't uh adhere to the official plan.

[1:40:57] » Yes. Yes.

[1:41:00] » Okay. Yeah, probably talking I guess I

[1:41:03] was talking about uh section 45 of the

[1:41:04] planning act talking about how uh in

[1:41:07] order to you know for the parking

[1:41:09] variance it must meet the following

[1:41:10] criteria uh be truly minor and in this

[1:41:14] case we've all everyone's in agreement

[1:41:16] that it's not maintain the intent of

[1:41:19] zoning bylaw and it doesn't that's why

[1:41:22] the variance is being requested uh

[1:41:24] conform to the uh with the official plan

[1:41:28] uh which it does not the plan was for

[1:41:29] single family community and be

[1:41:31] appropriate uh for the land. And it and

[1:41:34] it it isn't uh it changes the nature of

[1:41:37] the street and the community.

[1:41:39] Was that was that it?

[1:41:42] I talked about uh um fitting a square

[1:41:46] peg in a round hole. Uh a few times I do

[1:41:49] that. I have to apologize because I had

[1:41:50] a statement and I know that a lot of the

[1:41:52] points were covered. I didn't want to

[1:41:53] repeat them and repeat them again. So, I

[1:41:55] kind of jumped in the middle, but I

[1:41:56] talked about um Bill 23 and that um uh

[1:42:01] Bill 23, I know that people I've talked

[1:42:03] to have said that it's almost like it's

[1:42:04] being pushed upon communities, Bill 23,

[1:42:07] to follow suit, but really um it doesn't

[1:42:11] give the developers a free pass and it

[1:42:14] doesn't shift the balance of power to

[1:42:15] the developers that um that it's still

[1:42:19] with the municipalities and they have

[1:42:21] the authority and the duty to decide

[1:42:22] what and how intens in intensific

[1:42:24] ification will fit and they're not

[1:42:26] required to make something fit that

[1:42:28] clearly doesn't and that you don't have

[1:42:30] to allow and I said it again a square

[1:42:32] peg in a round hole and uh yeah and and

[1:42:37] it must follow the it must the respect

[1:42:39] for local planning principles protect

[1:42:41] green space and environment

[1:42:45] avoid overburdening uh infrastructure

[1:42:48] and reflect the safety and character of

[1:42:50] the community

[1:42:53] >> yeah I'm not trying to cut you off. It

[1:42:54] was it was right at the end of your

[1:42:56] presentation and I thought you'd made a

[1:42:58] comment in there that it didn't

[1:43:00] >> follow the official uh the the town's

[1:43:03] official plan.

[1:43:05] >> Okay.

[1:43:06] >> Um yeah, so that's

[1:43:08] >> you were jumping around. It may not may

[1:43:10] not have been. So

[1:43:11] >> yeah, sorry. But that's yeah, I had a

[1:43:13] really nice story at the end I was going

[1:43:14] to tell, but I

[1:43:20] » Michael, because your initial

[1:43:23] presentation um addressed some of that

[1:43:26] relative to the official plan and so

[1:43:29] forth, um perhaps you could reiterate

[1:43:31] it.

[1:43:33] >> Yeah. So it's staff's interpretation is

[1:43:35] that this variance is in line with the

[1:43:37] intent and purposes of the official

[1:43:39] plan. The official plan designation for

[1:43:41] this area is urban residential area.

[1:43:43] It's meant to be a place that is the

[1:43:45] most densified area of the municipality

[1:43:48] and it's also meant to be a place where

[1:43:50] just where residential uh residential

[1:43:53] uses are allowed. Uh so a driveway for a

[1:43:57] residential use is considered in line

[1:44:00] with the intent and purpose of the

[1:44:01] official plan. I can go through the rest

[1:44:03] of the four tests if you'd Okay.

[1:44:06] >> Any other comments or questions?

[1:44:09] >> Yes, Denise.

[1:44:11] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just going

[1:44:13] to I only ended up writing down one

[1:44:16] question to answer at the end, which I

[1:44:18] I'd suggested we answer at the end and

[1:44:19] it was about whether there was walking

[1:44:21] biking permitted on Highway 26. But I

[1:44:23] was hoping to answer any questions at

[1:44:25] the end when we wrap up so that we're

[1:44:27] not in a back and forth situation. If

[1:44:29] you can think of any other outstanding

[1:44:31] questions, um we're happy to answer

[1:44:33] those. And then we also had a proposed

[1:44:36] um additional condition that we were we

[1:44:38] were going to suggest that might help

[1:44:41] facilitate some of the uh resolution of

[1:44:44] issues. But so the question was about

[1:44:46] whether there's biking or hiking

[1:44:47] permitted on or biking or walking on on

[1:44:49] Highway 26. Obviously, I don't suggest

[1:44:52] people should walk on Highway 26 without

[1:44:55] a sidewalk. And we would identify that

[1:44:58] definitely sidewalks are the preferred

[1:45:00] method of people to to walk, but biking

[1:45:02] is permitted on Highway 26. It's not a a

[1:45:05] 400 series highway. Um, but I think the

[1:45:08] point is well taken that we know that we

[1:45:10] need to provide for pedestrian access.

[1:45:12] Um, however, I think I just want to

[1:45:14] reiterate that the question about

[1:45:16] whether we're permitting three units

[1:45:18] here is the main topic of the concerns

[1:45:21] I've heard with whether this is a good

[1:45:23] idea. It's too dense. There's, you know,

[1:45:25] concerns about safety of people walking

[1:45:27] because there's so many units. But we

[1:45:29] have to remember that's not the question

[1:45:31] before the committee. It is about

[1:45:32] whether or not it can be the parking can

[1:45:34] be in the front yard. Um, because of

[1:45:37] that, we had a condition that we thought

[1:45:39] might help satisfy some of that. if

[1:45:42] you'd like us to propose that.

[1:45:43] >> I I think because the committee has a

[1:45:47] has seen the suggested decision, we will

[1:45:50] take a vote on that first and then look

[1:45:53] at potential if that does not pass, we

[1:45:56] will look at potential addendums to that

[1:45:58] motion time.

[1:46:02] So Haley, can you please read the

[1:46:04] suggested decision and conditions?

[1:46:08] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the recommended

[1:46:10] decision is that the committee of

[1:46:12] adjustment to improve minor variance A07

[1:46:15] 2025 for the lens at lots 1 to 18 23 to

[1:46:20] 26 and 94 to 97 plan 60mm-89

[1:46:26] providing relief from the parking

[1:46:28] requirements of section 5.5B of zoning

[1:46:31] bylaw 60209

[1:46:34] to permit a building with three or more

[1:46:37] dwelling units to allow parking in the

[1:46:39] front yard. As Denise mentioned,

[1:46:42] conditions are to be determined by

[1:46:44] staff.

[1:46:48] » May I have a motion

[1:46:53] » to on the decision as read? I need a

[1:46:57] mover in a seconder before we can vote

[1:46:58] on it.

[1:47:00] >> Okay, I'll move it.

[1:47:01] >> Seconded.

[1:47:05] » We can't vote on it until I get a

[1:47:07] seconder.

[1:47:09] Well, I'll second.

[1:47:10] >> Thank you.

[1:47:12] Is there any discussion on the motion?

[1:47:17] I I would like to add a further

[1:47:20] condition because one of the concerns

[1:47:21] that I have is that um there would be a

[1:47:28] an attempt by some of the owners in

[1:47:31] these new units to even widen the

[1:47:35] driveway further. and basically take

[1:47:38] away any green space that's left. And

[1:47:41] technically, um, you could squeeze in a

[1:47:44] another single car driveway. So, I would

[1:47:47] like to propose that there must be a

[1:47:51] minimum

[1:47:52] because I looked at basically the

[1:47:55] numbers. Um, the driveways would take

[1:47:58] approximately 60% of the frontage. Um, I

[1:48:02] would like to see a minimum standard of

[1:48:05] 35%

[1:48:07] um a green space

[1:48:10] on the lot.

[1:48:14] Is there any discussion on that

[1:48:18] amendment?

[1:48:21] We can vote on the original one first

[1:48:23] and then just

[1:48:26] >> I think that would be

[1:48:27] >> okay. So, um all in favor of the

[1:48:30] original

[1:48:32] motion as read.

[1:48:35] All opposed.

[1:48:37] That motion is defeated.

[1:48:42] Given the addendum, uh would anyone like

[1:48:44] to discuss that further?

[1:48:47] >> Yeah, through you, Mr. Chair. Are you

[1:48:49] talking 35% of the entire lot?

[1:48:51] >> 35% of the front yard.

[1:48:54] >> Of the front yard.

[1:48:59] » The the width.

[1:49:03] >> Yeah. Front yard. Yeah.

[1:49:12] Any additional comments? Anything from

[1:49:16] the planning staff is because I know

[1:49:19] that's one of the considerations that

[1:49:21] you're going through.

[1:49:22] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the one thing

[1:49:25] we and we did discuss this potential

[1:49:27] with the um the applicant as well and

[1:49:29] they were amendable to a minimum

[1:49:31] requirement but when we were measuring

[1:49:33] it it looks like to meet two parking

[1:49:36] space widths which would be um it would

[1:49:39] end up being slightly less than the 6 m

[1:49:42] driveway. So I know um that we heard

[1:49:46] already that a typical double driveway

[1:49:47] is 6 mters. So, in order to meet the

[1:49:50] very minimum of a parking space, which

[1:49:52] is 2.7 m wide, it would be a 4 point or

[1:49:57] a 5.4 m wide driveway, at least at the

[1:50:00] property line. So, what I'm wondering is

[1:50:04] it would be probably to get a double

[1:50:06] driveway plus the green space that

[1:50:08] you're talking about, it would be

[1:50:09] probably closer to 32%.

[1:50:11] Um, something like that. It would be 8 m

[1:50:14] wide lot with um 5.4 4 m for the

[1:50:19] driveway and then the remainder the 2.6

[1:50:22] m for a green space and then if that is

[1:50:26] added with the adjacent lot that'll be

[1:50:29] um quite a bit more. So it will be

[1:50:32] consolidium and that would make a

[1:50:34] difference for the semis um for a single

[1:50:37] if they chose to go with the single

[1:50:38] which they haven't shown us in these

[1:50:40] drawings today but if they were doing

[1:50:42] that it would look a little bit

[1:50:43] different. So, you're proposing that it

[1:50:45] would be 38%.

[1:50:47] >> 32

[1:50:50] >> I think. Um, we'd actually spoken to the

[1:50:52] developer about 30 and 70. So, 70%

[1:50:55] driveway 30% which they've said they

[1:50:58] would be okay with. Um, it's certainly a

[1:51:00] cleaner approach, which is a more than

[1:51:03] the minimum. Now, we don't have a

[1:51:04] minimum size open space in our zoning

[1:51:07] bylaw. Um, but it would prevent the

[1:51:10] situation that you're speaking about,

[1:51:11] Mr. chair which is where they realize

[1:51:13] they need even more space and then they

[1:51:15] decide to pave more. Um this would give

[1:51:18] some open space requirement at minimum.

[1:51:21] >> Yes.

[1:51:24] So so yes Mr. Chair through you it

[1:51:27] would be 30% would be landscaped open

[1:51:30] space and 70% driveway

[1:51:33] >> and that would prevent them from

[1:51:36] essentially

[1:51:37] paving over the entire front yard and or

[1:51:40] moving parking their vehicles on there,

[1:51:43] which in the winter time is a real

[1:51:45] concern obviously because there's no

[1:51:47] overnight parking.

[1:51:50] Any additional comments from Penny?

[1:51:57] May I have a mover and a seconder on

[1:52:01] that motion that that there be a minimum

[1:52:03] of 30% written space?

[1:52:10] 30

[1:52:14] motion

[1:52:17] and a seconder.

[1:52:23] » Okay. All in favor?

[1:52:28] That motion is also defeated.

[1:52:31] Is there any changes to this variance

[1:52:35] request

[1:52:37] um that would meet the acceptability of

[1:52:41] the committee members?

[1:52:46] » Not.

[1:52:47] >> Then may I have a motion to refuse the

[1:52:50] varants as requested?

[1:52:53] May I have a mover and a second Peter

[1:52:56] and David?

[1:52:58] All in favor of the motion to refuse

[1:53:02] this variance.

[1:53:04] That motion is carried.

[1:53:13] So as of now um that is not approved. Um

[1:53:19] understandably

[1:53:21] um there is a right to appeal going

[1:53:24] forward.

[1:53:27] Thank you everyone.

[1:53:43] » That's a refusal.

[1:53:44] >> Yeah.

[1:53:47] And

[1:53:51] >> Yeah.

[1:53:56] Is there any additional new business?

[1:54:01] Then may I have a motion to adjourn this

[1:54:04] meeting? Peter and David, this mo

[1:54:07] meeting is officially a date for the

[1:54:09] next one.

[1:54:10] >> Um it's sometime in September 24th.

[1:54:14] >> September 24th.

[1:54:16] >> Thank you.

[1:54:17] >> And there's one file.

[1:54:18] >> All right. Thank you everyone.

Committee of Adjustment - 27 Aug 2025

Transcript