Good afternoon everyone. I'd now like to
call today's meeting of the committee of
adjustment to order.
We would like to acknowledge that we are
meeting on the traditional lands and
treaty territory of the sin oji way
nation which includes the chipoaz of
naywash unseated first nation and the
chipawaz of sin first nation. We also
recognize the matei whose ancestors
shared this land and these waters. We
extend our gratitude to all Anishnab and
Matei peoples and their descendants
past, present, and future who continue
to care for and inhabit these lands and
tend these waters.
The purpose of this meeting is to review
applications for minor variants as well
as consent to sever applications as they
apply to lands within the municipality
of Meford. Let me start by first
introducing the members of this
committee. On my far right is Mr. David
Cramp, Mr. Ed Ormsby, on my far left,
Mr. Peter Toville, and myself, Terry
Williams. I am the chair. I'd also like
to introduce the members of the
municipal planning staff in attendance
here today. Denise McCarl, manager of
planning services.
Michael Kelly, planner. Helena
Fascinado, planner, and Haley Amadi,
planning technician and secretary
treasurer for this committee.
We are legally required to make
decisions that conform to the provincial
planning act as well as the existing
county and local official plans. Based
on those documents as well as any
additional relevant correspondence, the
municipal planning staff have prepared
detailed reports and provide this
committee with their recommendations.
The committee is encouraging everyone to
share their thoughts about proposed
applications. For those joining us
remotely via Zoom, as well as those that
are here in person today, you will have
the opportunity to speak should you wish
to do so. I will call upon you at the
appropriate time.
It is also appropriate to ask questions
that you may have as it relates to these
applications because your constructive
criticisms and comments to this
committee will help us to make informed
decisions.
The applicant or their representatives
will also have the opportunity to
respond to any of the questions that are
raised either by the committee or by the
public.
Anyone wishing to receive notice of the
decisions of today's applications may do
so by calling 519-5381060
extension 1120 or through an email
request to planning meford.ca.
Before we begin today's public meeting,
I must ask if any of the members of this
committee have any direct personal or
pecuniary interests or anything of a
general nature thereof as it relates to
today's files.
Seeing none,
have the members of the committee had an
opportunity to review the minutes of our
last meeting?
>> Yes.
>> Are there any necessary changes?
May I have a motion to approve the
meeting minutes of the last meeting?
David and Peter. All in favor?
That motion is carried.
We will now proceed with the public
section. Um this is a meeting of the
committee of adjustment to consider uh
an application for consent as under
section 45 of the planning act as it
relates to part law 27 concession 7
uh in meford formally part of St.
Vincent.
The requirement to hold this meeting is
that there must have been at least 14
days notice as prescribed by the
planning act. Haley, can you please
confirm to me the date of the notice was
published and calculate that we've had
at least 14 days notice.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the notice was
provided on August 7th, 2025, giving
more than the required 14 days notice.
>> Thank you.
Has each member of the committee visited
the subject land or had an opportunity
to review the file?
>> Yes.
>> Um then I would ask the uh planner on
this file, Michael, if you'd please uh
summarize the application and provide us
with any comments or comments that have
been received.
So through you, Mr. Chair, the applicant
is requesting consent to sever one
residential lot from an existing 7.6
seen hector parcel. The lot will be
approximately 3.21 hectares in size and
have approximately 130 mters of frontage
on seventh line. The lands would be
serviced by a new private well and
septic system and would be accessed
again by seventh line and open and
maintained municipal road.
In addition, the applicant always also
proposes to establish an easement across
the severed parcel to recognize the
hydro lane that services the existing
house on the lot.
uh the lands are designated rural and
environmental protection in the me
official plan. So comments were received
from Gray County planning ecology and
social services staff noting no concerns
with the application. After report
finalization, additional comments were
received from the historic sahi matei
who stated they had no objection to the
application and additional comments were
received from Grace Conservation
Authority who determined that there was
sufficient room outside the regulated
area to establish a new building
envelope for a dwelling well and septic
system. GSA stated the consent was
acceptable provided that the entrance
for the new lobby required to
demonstrate safe access and that the
culvert is appropriately sized to handle
storm events. Uh this would be required
as part of the standard municipal
evaluation for whether or not an
entrance permit can be issued and as
such is already captured under the
requirements uh recommended in
recommended condition number three in
the planning report. Uh no other
comments have been received as of this
time and after review of the proposed
proposal based on applicable planning
policies and documents staff are
satisfied that the application is
consistent with the policies of the PPS
and upholds the intent and purpose of
the official plan and zoning bylaw. as
Dutch staff are recommending approval
subject to the conditions outlined in
the report.
>> Thank you, Michael. Members of the
committee, are there any questions
related to this application?
» No. Um, would the applicant or his agent
wish to say anything on this file?
» Yes. Uh, good afternoon. My name is Ron
Davidson. I am the planning consultant
that filed the application on behalf of
Mr. and Mrs. Lane and they're here with
me today. I have very little to add.
Michael went uh went through that uh
everything basically that you need to
know. Um it conforms with the official
plan both the county level and the local
level here. It is consistent with the
provincial policy statements. Um just to
back up a bit, what the slains are
proposing to do is sever so they can
downsize. they want to build their house
on the severed parcel and sell the the
retained parcel that their house is on
right now. That's it in a nutshell. Um
that's all I need to say. It looks like
you've got a lot of things on the
agenda, so I'll stop talking now. Thank
you. Is there any members of the public
either online or here wish to speak on
this?
Seeing none, um any final comments,
members of the committee? No. Then Haley
can you please read the suggested
decision and conditions for approval?
>> So the recommended decision is that the
committee of adjustment of the
municipality of meford approve consent
B14205
to sever one lot from an existing parcel
and to establish an easement over the
proposed lot for the purpose of
recognizing an existing hydro easement
subject to the following conditions.
First that the applicant meets all the
requirements of the municipality
financial or otherwise for the
certificate of consents to be issued.
Second payment of cash in lie of
parkland dedication for the severed
lands. Third confirmation that an
entrance permit is available for the
road authority and will be provided by
the applicant prior to the final
approval. enforce that the final
reference plan be provided to the
municipality for review to the
satisfaction of the municipality.
>> Thank you.
>> May I have a motion on the decision as
read by the secretary treasurer?
That was Ed and Peter. Any last comments
before we take the vote?
All in favor?
That motion is passed. Can you please
outline next steps, please?
» Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the applicant
can now take down the sign on their
property and I will provide the notice
to you by email by Friday and and yeah,
that's all. Thank you.
We'll just take a 30 seconds to sign
that. We may
This committee will now consider two
applications for consent under section
45 of the planning act for vacant lands
on grey road 18 art lot 17 concession to
east in Meford. The requirement to hold
this meeting is m that there must have
been at least 14 days notice as
prescribed by the planning act. Haley,
can you please confirm to us the date of
notice and calculate that we've had at
least 14 days?
>> Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, the
notice was provided on August 7th, 2025,
giving more than the required 14 days
notice.
Thank you.
>> Michael, I believe you're the planner on
this one again. Can you please summarize
the application and any comments that
have been received?
>> Sure. So, through you, Mr. Chair, uh the
applicant is requesting consent to sever
two residential building lots from an
existing 46.4 hectare vacant parcel. Lot
A will be approximately 4.8 hectares in
size and have 164.5 m of frontage on
Grey Road 18. Lot B will be
approximately 5.7 hectares in size and
have 197 meters of frontage on Grey Road
18. Uh the lands will be serviced by a
new private well and septic systems and
would have access on Grey Road 18 open
and maintain municipal road. The lands
are designated rule and environmental
protection in the MER official plan.
So, comments from the application were
received from Gray County staff who
stated that providing the conservation
authority is satisfied with the findings
of the flood mapping and analysis report
and that all lots can be safely
accessed, planning, county planning
ecology staff's comments are addressed
and that the proposed entrances conform
to the previous county transportation
comments from 2021. County planning
staff have no concerns with the subject
application. These requirements have
been integrated into the recommended
conditions of consent. Multiple comments
were received from the historic sahim
matei. Initial comments stating that
they disagreed with the findings of the
applicant's EIS and that development
findings that development could be
accommodated with no negative impacts to
identify natural heritage features and
related ecological functions. Historic
Sahin does not agree with this
conclusion stating that all healthy
trees and in particular mature healthy
trees provide important habitat and
ecological functions that cannot be
easily replaced. In comments later
submitted historic sahim mate further
recommended that a 30 m setback be
maintained between the waterway and any
disturbance. However, ultimately the
historic sahim stated they had no
objections to the severances as
presented.
Finally, comments were received from
Grace Conservation Authority stating
that the previous comments provided for
the applications are still valid. These
comments were included in the planning
report as appendix 5 and the
recommendations of these comments have
also been integrated into the proposed
conditions of consent. No other comments
have been received as at this time and
after review of the proposal based on
applicable planning policies and
documents, staff are satisfied that the
application can be made consistent with
the policies of the PPS and to uphold
the intent and purpose of the official
plans and zoning bylaws if the
recommended conditions are implemented
and as such staff are recommending
approval.
>> Thank you. Members of the committee, do
you have any questions, comments,
concerns?
No. Um, is the applicant or their agent
here? And if so, do they want to speak
on this file online? If you would
identify yourself, please.
>> Um, my name is
Hi, my name is Don Scott uh with Quest
of Planning Consultants. We have been
working with with Mr. and Mrs. back
along this application for some time.
I've reviewed Michael's uh report. We
don't have any additional comments and
we are uh supporting the recommendations
that he provided the committee. I'll
answer any questions if the committee
has any uh questions.
» Committee members, do you have any
questions for this individual? No.
>> Thank you. Thank you. Um, is there any
member of the public that wishes to
speak on this file?
No. Last opportunity, questions,
comments. Um, since this is two
consents,
um, they will be handled separately in
two votes. So, if you could read the
suggested decision.
>> Yeah. Or B 01 first.
Um so the recommended decision is that
the committee of adjustment of the
municipality of Mayford approve consent
B012025
to sever the lot from an existing vacant
parcel. Uh should the committee decide
to grant approval of consent B01 2025
parcel A on the site plan staff
recommend the following conditions be
included.
One that the applicant meets all the
requirements of the municipality
financial or otherwise for the
certificate of consents to be issued.
Second, payment of cash in lie of
parkland dedication for the severed
lands. Third, that a well test is
conducted to demonstrate the severed lot
can be adequately supported by on-site
water servicing to the satisfaction of
the municipality.
Fourth, that evidence be provided by a
qualified professional that on-site
wastewater servicing can be accommodated
in areas outside of any areas
susceptible to flooding. Fifth,
confirmation that an entrance permit is
available from the road authority will
be provided by the applicant prior to
the final approval. Six, that written
confirmation is received from the county
of Gray that any required road widening
has com has been completed to the
satisfaction of the county of Gray.
Seven, that the severed lot is
appropriately reszoned by application of
the property owners to the municipality
to accurately represent the actual
Hizard land limit as established in the
letter provided by Grace Conservation
Authority on November 7th, 2024 and to
implement the recommendations of the
submitted scoped environmental impact
study provided by roots environmental
and dated May 20th, 2025. And lastly,
that the final reference plan be
provided to the municipality for review
to the satisfaction of the municipality.
>> Thank you. Any comments, questions?
May I have a motion then to uh accept
the decision?
Mo Peter and Ed, all of those in favor.
That motion is carried. Uh we'll proceed
with P 02 first. Next.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, should the
committee decide to grant approval of
consent B 02205
parcel B on the site plan, SAP recommend
the following conditions be included.
One, that the applicant meets all the
requirements of the municipalities
financial or otherwise for the
certificate of consent to be issued.
Two, payment of cash in of parkland
dedication for the severed lands. Three
that a belt test is conducted to
demonstrate that the severed loss can be
adequately supported by on-site water
servicing to the satisfaction of the
municipality or that evidence be
provided by a qualified professional
that on-site wastewater servicing can be
accommodated in areas outside of any
areas susceptible to flooding. Five,
confirmation that an entrance permit is
available from the road authority and
will be provided by the applicant prior
to final approval. Six, that written
confirmation is received from the county
of Gray that any required road widening
has been completed to the satisfaction
of the county of Gray. Seven, that the
severed lot is appropriately reszoned by
application of the property owners to
the municipality to accurately represent
the actual hazard land limit as
established in the letter provided by
Grace Conservation Authority on November
7th, 2024 and to implement the
recommendations of the submitted scoped
environmental impact study provided by
roots environmental and dated May 20th,
2025. Eight that as part of any zoning
ball amendment for this parcel, a
holding symbol be established over the
western portion of the parcel to ensure
geotechnical information is provided
regarding slope stability prior to a
dwelling being constructed being
constructed on the upper lands of parcel
B. nine that the t that at the time of
time parcel B is developed a detailed
engineers grading and drainage plan be
provided to demonstrate how drainage can
be accommodated through the lower
portion of parcel B and lastly that the
final reference plan be provided to the
municipality for review to the
satisfaction of the municipality.
>> Thank you. May I have a motion relative
to this decision as read by the
secretary treasurer?
Ed and David.
Any discussion, comments, concerns?
All in favor?
That motion is carried. Can you please
read the next steps on that file?
Uh now the applicant can take down the
sign on their property and I will
provide a notice to them by Friday and I
will circulate it to them by email.
Thank you.
Next on the agenda is application file
A0 2025.
The committee of adjustment will now
consider an application for a minor
variance under section 45 of the
planning act for the property known as
63 Bridge Street in Meford. Um under
section 45 planning act the requirement
to hold this meeting must that there
must have been at least 10 days notice
as prescribed. Can you please confirm
the date of the notice was published and
calculate that we've had at least 10
days notice? Thank you, Mr. Chair. The
notice was provided on August 7th, 2025,
giving more than the required attendance
notice.
>> Thank you, Elena. I believe you are the
planner on this file. If you could
please summarize it and outline any
correspondence or that has been
received.
>> Yes, thank you. Through you, Mr. Chair.
Um so the property owners would like to
construct a detached garage containing
an additional residential unit or ARU on
their property at 63 Bridge Street. Um
so for properties in the residential
three or R3 zone, the required front
yard setback for new accessory buildings
is equal to the existing setback from
the main wall of the main house um to
the front property line. So this is to
recognize the layout of those
established neighborhoods and the more
compact urban areas of town. Um and to
ensure that accessory buildings don't
significantly alter or impact the street
view of the existing neighborhood. Um so
for example, if all the build all the
main houses are 10 m back and you put an
accessory building a meter away, it
alters that street view. Um, so in this
case, the main house on the property is
set back 13.9 m from the front property
line. Um, and the owners are requesting
a front yard setback of 7.5 m for the
ARU.
So, looking at the neighborhood, most of
the houses are situated closer to the
property line than this proposed ARU.
Um, with a significant portion of the
existing homes along St. Vincent Street
located closer than 5 m from the front
property line.
Um, and then I also note that the as of
right setback for main dwellings within
this zone is 7.5 m. Um, so if you were
building a main house on a property
there, it could be 7.5 m from the front
property line as a rate. Um, so in
consideration of this and noting that
all other zoning provisions will be met,
uh, staff are of the opinion that this
variance is minor and recommend
approval. and comments were received
from county planning and ecology
departments who noted no concerns. And
then following agenda circulation, we
did receive comments from Grace Aubble
and the historic Sagine Matei who also
noted no concerns. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Members of the committee, are
there any questions, concerns, comments?
Peter
>> for Helina. Um Helen, is there adequate
visibility sight lines between the
corner of the proposed garage and the
next house over? It's not shown where
exactly next building is.
>> Yes. Yeah. So, it'll be it does meet the
provisions uh for the interior sideyard
setback and it actually exceeds those
provisions. Um
>> because it's on a corner.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, we do have for those corner
lots sight triangle provisions and so
it's 5 by 5 m and it's well away from
that that corner line. Yeah. Thank you.
Are there any members? Any other
questions? Um Helena, I have one. Um how
close is the proposed garage to the
property line?
>> It's 1.499
m from the interior from sorry from the
interior side
>> yard
>> relative to the first street north I
guess it is or whatever direction on St.
Vincent. How far does that garage come?
Because to me, that house is sitting
back a fairways from the street and a uh
whatever it is, a 23 foot, 24 foot high
garage sitting right beside their uh
front porch isn't terribly attractive.
>> Right. So, the the height for the ARU,
it can be up to six meters. I realize
that it's perfectly acceptable in terms
of height, but I think it's a question
of where does it sit relative to the
house next door and their front porch.
>> So, it sits um and it is an irregular
lot for sure, this this lot at 63 Bridge
Street. Um, so it'll sit um and the
property owner is here as well who may
be able to provide some more info, but
um it'll be
beside the house to
side.
>> Does it actually go closer to the road
than than the porch of the house next
door?
>> No. From looking at aerial photos, no.
Um
>> um
perhaps if the applicant is here um you
can speak to that.
>> Sure. I turn this on.
>> Yes, please. And if you'd identify
yourself.
>> Yes. My name is Alan Reed. I'm the owner
of 63 Bridge along with my wife.
>> So the uh intention is not to disrupt
the street the streetscape whatsoever.
uh considerable efforts going into
making sure that it reflects the street
in terms of quality of product that's on
the street. Um we have spent a fair
amount of time with our neighbor Jeff
Fletcher who was in the adjacent house
that you referenced. He sees no issue
with it. The only the only item he
referenced was that he wanted to make
sure that his side door could be opened
because the lot line is so close. We
gave him assurance that that would not
be an issue. Um, but the intention is to
make sure that it is not further forward
than his front porch or any of the front
porches that form that part of the
streetscape.
Thank you. Appreciate it. Um, are there
any members of the public and wishing to
speak on this?
Many members any additional comments or
questions?
No.
Haley, can you please provide us with
the suggested decision and conditions
for approval?
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the recommended
decision is that committee of
adjustments approve minor variance
A082025
for the lens at 63 bridge street
providing relief from zoning bylaw 60209
to permit a front yard setback of 7.5 m
where section 4212D
requires a minimum front line setback of
13.9 m which is the setback of existing
front yard of the main dwelling for an
additional residential unit in the
residential tree or tree zone
subject to the following condition. That
the proposed development shall occur
substantially in accordance with the
site plan and elevations provided with
minor variance application A08 2025 and
attached to the report.
>> Thank you. May I have a motion on the
decision as writed by the secretary
treasurer?
David and Peter.
All of those in favor?
That motion is carried.
» Can you please outline the next steps?
>> Uh, so the applicant can now take down
the sign on their property and I will
provide a notice to you by email by
Friday.
Could you repeat that please?
» Uh you can now you you're aware that you
can take down the sign on the property
and the notice of the decisions will be
signed and I will send it to you by
email by Friday this week.
>> You're welcome.
There has to be an appeal period, which
is why there's
a slight delay, if you will, in final
approval.
The committee will now consider an
application for minor variance file
A092025
under section 45 of the planning act
known as
203776
highway 26.
The requirement to hold this meeting is
that there must have been at least 10
days notice as prescribed in the
planning act. Can you please confirm to
us the notice the date the notice was
published and calculate that we've had
at least 10 days notice.
>> Thank you Mr. Chair. Yes, the notice was
provided on August 7th, 2025 giving more
than the required 10 days notice.
>> Thank you Elena. I believe you are the
planner on this pilot again as well.
>> Yes, thank you Mr. chair. Uh so the
property owner would like to build a
sugar shack with st sap tanks on the
property at 203776
highway 26 uh for maple syrup processing
uh which is a permitted use in the rural
area. The property is accessed by an
established right of way over a
neighboring property which provides
legal access to the lands. uh staff
would note that the subject property has
an approved entrance permit issued
through MTO and maintains a civic
address. So at the time of building
permit submission review, it was noted
that the proposal did not comply with a
portion of section 4.8 of the zoning
bylaw. Uh so section 4.8 notes that
prior to building um a property shall
abut on and obtain legal access from a
street. So although the property obtains
legal access, uh it does not have
technical frontage on a street. So the
property owner is requesting relief from
this provision. Um our official plan
policy support driveway access by right
ofways for existing landlock parcels
such as this one with the intent being
to not sterilize existing lots um that
are within zones that permit these type
of uses um such as the rural zone. And
the way that the the zoning bylaw is
worded uh does require planning approval
prior to building on landlock parcels.
Um and in this case, the property is
viable for building. Um and both the
county planning and ecology and grace
conservation authority uh have no
concerns with the proposal. Um and in in
consideration of this staff do recommend
approval of this this minor variance.
Thank you.
>> Thank you. Members of the committee, do
you have any questions for the planning
staff relative to this file?
>> Yes, Mr.
>> Hi, Helena. Yes, through you, Mr.
Chairman. Um, the fact that it's going
to be is it going to be retail or
commercial? Like, are you going to be
able to drive in there and buy certain?
Does that make a difference in terms of
access through this road allowance? So
it'll be for the processing, so tapping
the trees and and um
collecting the sap, but it won't be um
for any commercial uh retail sales on
the property.
>> So it it doesn't affect the access to
the right of way in any way in terms of
what what what's happening back in the
landlock property doesn't affect the
access to the highway.
>> No. And it'll be similar to any other
agricultural use where there may be
some, you know, trucks,
>> right,
>> going in and out or tractors, that kind
of thing. But, um, any any commercial
use would need to go through site plan
approval as well and and all of that.
But no, it'll it won't affect affect it.
>> Any other questions from the committee
members?
>> Is the applicant here? Uh, and if so, do
they what? Would you like to speak on
this or
you quite comfortable with letting the
committee make the decision from here?
>> Thank you.
>> Any public?
>> No. Committee members, last chance and
Haley, can you please provide a
suggested decision and conditions?
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the recommended
decision is that the committee of
adjustment approve minor variance A9205
for the lands at 203776
highway 26 providing relief from section
48A of zoning bylaw 60209
to allow for the construction of
buildings andor structures on a property
that does obtain legal access from a
street by way of right of the way
easement over the lands. at 203816
Highway 26 but doesn't front on street.
>> Thank you. Um may I have a motion on the
decision as suggested Peter and and
all those in favor?
>> Sweet.
Motion carried.
» All right. So, um, now you are aware
that you can take down the sign on your
property and I will provide a notice to
you within a couple of days by email.
Thank you.
And now for what the majority of people
here have been waiting for. Uh the
committee will now consider an
application for a minor variance for
under section 45 of the planning act for
lots 1 to 18, 23 to 26 and 94 to 97
um plan 16M89
in the in meford. The requirement to
hold this meeting is that there must
have been at least 10 days notice. Um
since this was pre uh deferred from a
previous meeting, we know that indeed uh
we have had more than 10 days notice.
Normally what would happen when we got
to a file like this is we would simply
um
address any information that has come
since the the file was originally
discussed in our last meeting. I think
given the interest and um the
application
uh or the letters that have been
written, I think it's appropriate that I
ask Michael to review the entire file
and detail the correspondence that has
been received at this time. Thank you.
>> So through you, Mr. Chair. So this
application was deferred at the July
23rd meeting. Uh original comments were
received from the historic sahim matei
and the town of the blue mountains uh
grey county planning and ecology staff
and grey level conservation authority.
All were received stating they had no
concerns. Uh after the deferral as was
mentioned uh we received quite a few
letters from members of the public
including from Imagine Meford, Roy
Meredith, Christine Meredith, Justin
Crouch, uh Chris Webb, Nicole Nicole
McGill, Nikki, sorry, Nicole, and uh
Brian Martin all voicing concern with
the application. Uh concerns that are
generally related to loss of green
space, traffic safety, street parking,
increased density, and snow removal and
storage. I will note that all of these
letters have been provided to committee
members prior to this meeting. Uh so
just to orient oursel the request is
that the uh the application is that the
applicant be granted relief from the
zoning bylaw uh parking requirements of
section 5.5B to permit a building with
three or more dwelling units to allow
parking in the front yard. Uh the
original evaluation was out done was
done in the original planning report. As
part of this return to the committee,
staff uh wrote an addendum report which
was added to the original report and I
think at this time we'll just go through
a bit of that addendum now. Um so staff
want to clarify the scope of the
applicant's request. So once as I said
the application is requesting relief
from the zoning bylaw to permit a
building with three or more dwelling
units to have parking facilities in the
front yard. Uh the purpose of this
request would be to allow single
detached or semi- detached homes to have
driveways in front of the home rather
than along the side into the backyard.
And this request is the only thing under
review. Uh staff want to clarify the use
of the term front yard. Though in common
language, a front yard generally refers
to a landscaped area in front of a
building. From a zoning perspective, it
only refers to the area of a parcel
between the street and the front wall of
the main building. So requesting parking
to be allowed in the front yard does not
mean a property owner is permitted to
park their cars on grass or anything
like that. It simply means that a
driveway can be located between the
front of the home and the road. Uh
during the initial meeting, staff
addressed concerns about uh addressed
questions about section 4.2 of the
zoning bylaw which permits up to two
additional residential units per
property. However, in reviewing the
meeting, staff later noted it could have
been clear that this provision stems
from provincial requirements. Uh changes
to the planning act through Ontario
regulation 29919 maintain mandate that
municipalities allow up to two ARUS as
of right on urban residential lands. Uh
the municipality then amended its zoning
bylaw to affect to reflect these
requirements and has no authority to
override them. I also want to clarify
that during the last meeting I used the
phrase municip municipally initiated to
describe this amendment. Uh in hindsight
that phrase is a bit jargony. Um
municipally initiated simply refers to
an amendment that is not brought forward
by an application by a private citizen.
It does not necessarily mean that it's
the municipality's idea to do it. Oftent
times it can be because we're just
implementing things that have already
been implemented by the province.
So concerns were raised during the
meeting regarding street parking.
Meford's parking bylaw, which is
available on the municipal website,
regulates parking within the
municipality. Anyone hoping to park on a
public street would have to would be
required to follow the rules of this
bylaw. Some of these rules include no
street parking during winter months, no
blocking of driveways, no blocking of
the path of travel on the roadway or
sidewalks, amongst others. Anyone in
contravention of this bylaw is subject
to uh the specific penalties which
include ticketing being towed as
applicable. Uh it should be further
noted that this bylaw will be infect at
the time the road is assumed by the
municipality. If at the time the streets
within the subdivision are assumed by
the municipality and the parking
situation is deemed to be an issue, the
municipality can update its parking
bylaw to greater or restrict parking in
this area.
So after reviewing the meeting, staff
also believe it would be helpful to
provide members of the public with some
additional context as to how the
committee of adjustment is required to
make decisions on minor variance
applications. So the planning act is the
provincial legislation which allows
municipalities to make decisions on how
land is used within their boundaries.
Municipalities regulate the use of land
through various policy documents,
including the official plan, which
contains highlevel policies on how the
municipality as a whole is intended to
develop over an extended period of time,
and the municipal zoning bylaw, which
contains more specific requirements on a
property bypropy basis. It is important
to note that any provincial legislation
supersedes these two documents. If a
property owner wishes to be granted an
exemption from one of the requirements
of the zoning bylaw, they can apply for
a minor variance to be allowed to do so.
The planning act permits municipal
committee of adjustment to grant a minor
variance as long as it meets the
following four tests. One, does the
variance maintain the general intent and
purpose of the official plan? Two, does
the variance maintain the general intent
and purpose of the zoning bylaw? Three,
is the variance desirable for the
appropriate development of lands? And
four, is the variance minor? The role of
staff is to interpretate municipal
policies passed by council as well as
the applicable legislation by the
province of Ontario and using the four
tests provide the committee with a
recommendation based on interpretation
of this policy. It is the role of the
committee members to decide whether they
agree or disagree with staff's
interpretation of the four tests and
either improve and deny the application
as applicable. It is important to note
that the decisions of the committee are
only able to be made based on
interpretations of the four tests and
only for the application in question and
only within the scope of what the
application is requesting. Though staff
is sympathetic that members of the
public may have concerns regarding
density or street parking, these
concerns are beyond the scope of the
submitted application. As outlined in
the original report, staff are of the
opinion that this application meets the
four tests of minor variance and as such
staff recommend the committee of
adjustment approved the application for
minor variance. That's it.
>> Thank you. Members of the committee, do
you have any questions?
» Through you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I
apologize I wasn't at the last meeting.
So Tom, a lot of this is the information
that I've taken out of the of the file
and tried to absorb everything that
you've been telling us, Michael. Um, a
couple of things that came to my mind
was one I I took a little tour around to
some other developments and I see where
they have public parking places in every
section of their development. Is that
ever been looked at or is it legislative
or is that just something that's part of
good planning? That was my first
question. Um and secondly, how does this
impact
um these are six plexes I guess are is
that what they call these? This these
particular buildings are three plexes.
They're single dwellings with
>> Te technically they are
>> technically they're you could say that
they are semi- detached or single
detached dwellings with additional
residential units, right?
>> So just to make it Yeah, that's what it
is.
>> Yeah. So is each one of these people
still going to be allowed to park two
vehicles?
>> No.
Okay. Thank you. That answers my
question.
>> Committee members, any other Peter?
>> Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um
we received today additional information
from
planning department on two no three
drawings. I wonder is that possible they
can be put up so everyone can see what
they are
» and can someone take us through what
they are about?
So I will let that leave that up to the
applicant who is here today. I can
direct as you want but
thank you chair. Um yeah we were
requesting
>> please identify yourself although most
people know
>> uh Rob Armstrong. I'm a planner
representing Nortara who is the
proponent of these properties who's
looking to develop it. Um at the request
of of of Michael, we provided some
drawings just to give some context of
what's being requested. Um this drawing
uh was the original uh drawing I believe
that was submitted with the application
which shows the uh a semi- detached
unit. You're seeing the unit on the left
with the four parking spots out front.
In accordance with the bylaw, you're
required two parking spaces for the main
dwelling unit and then one each for the
ADU accessory dwelling unit. So those
are the four parking spots. Um so that's
what you are seeing on that drawing um
in within a semi- detached. Um, as
Michael noted, uh, the provisions of the
bylaw, uh, when you are, uh, have a
dwelling unit, so one of those semi-
detached, which has three units in it,
you're not allowed to have parking in
the front yard by virtue of the bylaw.
Um those three units as Michael
mentioned are legislated that you must
allow them within a single detached
semi- detached uh type unit which is
being considered on that. So they're
required to be allowed. So our position
is uh we're allowed to have three units
but it's unreasonable for us to require
us to have parking in the sideyard or in
the rear yard for these type of units.
Um so that's that's what you're seeing
here. Uh the next drawing was just
showing context of how it would look
with two the two semi- detached. So you
can see you have the four parking spots
in front of each of the units and uh to
take advantage of provided additional
green space. Uh you're allowed to
connect the driveways uh on a semi-
detach. So there's zero lot line allowed
when you connect them which will keep
the 2 m uh on the opposite side. So 2 to
two you'll have 4 meters of green space
in between or landscape space in between
the parking areas. Um again this is just
showing the context when you have four
separate units. Um and the last drawing
that was uh provided um the provincial
legislation allows you to have two ADUs
in a dwelling for three units or allows
you to have one ADU in the dwelling and
one as accessory. you heard an
application earlier today where they
were uh doing an ADU in an accessory
building. So, here's a here's a uh a
synopsis where you have um two units in
the main building and you have an
accessory in the back. We would not be
in front of the committee today. They
would have a right of approval to do
that because you only have two units in
the main building, which is the
provision of the bylaw that we're
running against. uh and therefore we
can't do it. So we could do these and
have three units on the property uh in
accordance with the current bylaw. And I
think that was the intent of showing the
difference of of of uh what we could do
as of right today versus what why we're
here on the other scenario. I hope that
explains the purpose. Um I can answer
that one question that it didn't get
answered uh by the member uh Mr. Armsby.
Some developments, yes, they do have
common parking areas. Those are
typically in condominiums or other forms
of development where that parking area
can be managed by a condominium
corporation. This is a standard freehold
development. So, the individual will own
an individual lot. The roads are all
public. There's no common ownership and
ability to have common maintenance of
those areas. So, it's not uh you cannot
do that under a conventional plan
subdivision.
Are there any additional questions
specifically for the planning staff?
» Yes, planning staff. Um, if you expand
that drawing to the next units across,
how many units are we going to get?
Parking lot space we're going to get
because we're talking how many different
lots going to be applied to.
» Sorry, how many lots is the minions
applied to? You expand this drawing to
the real number of of units can be
built. How many parking spaces will
there be?
>> Uh
>> in the streetscape
>> there is approximately 20 units I
believe
30 approximately 30 units. Yeah. That
this variance would apply to.
>> So how many parking sps would there be?
>> 120. In theory there would be permitted
to be up to 120. But the just to make it
clear, it is already permitted. All of
those parking spaces are already
permitted.
>> I understand that. I understand that.
>> Okay.
>> My other point is the fact I take it a
bit of an issue with your report in your
four tests.
>> Okay.
>> Number three is the variance desirable
for the appropriate development of the
lands. I think this overdoing it. This
is not what the intent original intent
was to have single family buildings in a
low-rise development. This is now going
to look like a big parking lot.
My other point is the number four is the
variance minor. This is a major
variance, not a minor one in my opinion.
» It's okay.
>> I can that I mean that
>> follows with a similar question I had
and I discussed previously with you. Um
if the developer had come in
with a variance request to uh basically
reduce the um front yard from because
they wanted to go to singles from 11 to
8, reduce the sideyard setbacks
and do the uh additional move the
parking space. Would you would the
planning staff still have considered
this a minor variance?
So I'll I'll answer that question a few
parts if that's all right. So
sorry. So
to answer to bounce off a little bit of
what Peter already said. So the original
variance was to allow these lots to be
changed to allow single detached
dwellings. when the uh when the
subdivision was designed, it was
designed to have semi- detached
dwellings. So that was what was in place
before and then that was varied to also
allow single detached later. Uh whether
or not staff would still consider this
minor. So I will start by saying every
planning application is supposed to be
taken on its own merit. Um, but as part
of a
for a hypothetical sake, I would say in
my opinion, yes, I would still consider
this minor cuz the only thing actually
being requested here is that parking is
allowed in the front yard. And I would
say in line with most of the well with
every other part of this development,
parking is allowed in the front yard.
And as such, that request is not minor
or is minor. Sorry.
Um I have a couple of additional
questions. Um has the developer come
back and asked or had discussions
relative to any changes in um the
remaining phases 3 to five other than
what was approved in the recent uh
zoning bylaw 2025-30
in May.
Look, I'm trying to understand whether
there's going to be future changes and
I'm asking the planning staff first.
>> Mr. Chair, I'll I'll jump in. So, not to
my knowledge. However, there are there
is a number of of additional lands to be
developed and so um it isn't unusual for
developers over time to request changes
given the market changes that happen,
especially in subdivisions that uh build
out more slowly. So, if something built
out over over a course of a summer like
you might see in a big city, then they
don't need to do that. But what happens
when it takes several years to build out
a subdivision? often they realize that
certain unit types are more desirable to
the market at that time and they may
make changes. So it's not unusual. So I
don't want to say they never will ask
for anything else and I don't think it
would be reasonable to expect that they
wouldn't but at this stage they had
noticed that certain units were selling
better than other things and they wanted
to uh be more adaptable to those changes
which is why that zoning amendment
happened in the springtime.
>> I have one additional uh question.
there uh concern has been expressed with
respect to traffic and one of the in one
of the TIS studies um talked about a
left turn lane and lights going in at
Equity Drive um and it would be
triggered by when for instance Meford
Haven um started building. Do you have
any sense of when that is going to
happen?
So through you again Mr. Chair. So I was
dealing with some of these other files
at that higher level. So I was dealing
with me for Haven for several years. Um
at this stage the traffic impact study
was updated last year and so they can go
a little bit longer before those
improvements are needed. So originally
it was going to be and I think and Mr.
Armstrong will know better than me
automatically, but I believe it was 101
units were permitted in the first um
phase between both developments before
they needed to do traffic improvements
or in improvements and now I believe
it's 200
26 226 between the two developments. So
if you add in phase one of LON call and
you take the first phase of bay bounds,
they're well within that number. They're
below that. So um it'll be in the
following phases when they'll have to
make those improvements.
>> I I struggled with the um revised uh
TIS.
the it showed that when you went from
single dwelling
facilities to semi- detached, the
traffic went down. And and so in a
sense, I'm looking at this that says
we're going to go from semi- detached to
single, which is approved in the
previous variants, but now we're adding
three. while we're adding two additional
units to each of those buildings. So,
you know, to me, I think we need to to
take a serious look at at when this
traffic study gets done, especially with
the development of Bay Bounds. I mean,
they're going crazy getting that
property up and going now. Um just a
comment from the committee because I
know traffic and uh is is a serious
concern and we all know that uh the
traffic along 26 is getting more and
more every day.
Uh is there any additional questions for
the planning staff specifically? Just a
comment to what you said. This is 60 new
units.
We talked about 30 that were were there
initially. Now with two additional units
in or 30 that were proposed, two
additional new units in each one of them
is 60.
>> I think it's only specifically 24 like
24. So uh
>> I know it's 28.
>> Yeah.
» Actually, I want us to thank all the
people who responded the correspondence
from the neighbors received. Um I think
they're very good points and well worth
taking and to me that also and it goes
to this point about number three that
this frank is not desirable for the
appropriate development of the lands.
>> Um are there any other questions? Um I
have some for Mr. Armstrong if I may.
» Um I just want to clarify I also have uh
Zach Wilshek from Norta who is the
developer of these units. if I can't
answer them and they're more on the
development side, I'll I'll pass it over
to them. I also want to clarify. Um, so
Nortara, who is the one looking at to
develop these, they own some of these
lots and they also have offers to
purchase the rest of the lots from M1
Development Link, Lonall. Lonall is not
the one that's proposing to do this
development. They are a townhouse
developer as per you can see across the
road. that's what they develop um and
they're not um the ones doing it. So
it's most it's Nortara that is looking
to develop these units uh into these
tats.
>> Um I asked the question to planning
staff. Um is Nortra looking at any
changes for phases three through five?
Uh, Nortara does not have any interest
in any of the the future lots um at that
I'm aware of. Um, uh, Lon Call is
proceeding. They've submitted
applications to proceed with the next 24
units. Uh, those 24 units are up by the
storm water management pond, their town
houses. Uh, they are not proposing uh to
develop those units in that matter. Um
basically development will be
stalled after that point until they deal
with the turning lane requirements and
also water main upgrades uh aligned with
the bay balance development.
The
houses that are we're we're dealing with
today. Will they all not be built and until somebody basically buys them?
So, are they all guaranteed to have 380
units?
>> I think that's a question for Zach. I'll
pass it over to him.
>> Hello.
>> Is that on? There you go.
>> Yes, it is.
>> My name is uh Zach Walshuk. I represent
Nortara Development Group. Um, and yeah,
so just to specify, um, we're just
applying for the lots in the
application. LCDG is listed on there
because we have an interest in the
property, um, for future, uh, purchase.
But yeah, the intent to answer your
question is to continue to sell these as
market housing. We wanted to open up the
option to provide alternative forms of
housing on the lots. Given the nature of
the the conflict with the parking, we
felt we made the application on all of
the lots, but the intention is not to
build the entire subdivision with
triplexes on individual lots. Um, back
when we made the application to change
them into singles, that was also the
intent there. So, ultimately, we're
opening up the option on the lots to
appeal to different market uh demands.
Please correct me if I got this wrong.
Do I understand that not all of these
units that you're asking for a variance
on will be the triplex or is it simply
um somebody comes in and says I want a
house on lot one but I don't want it
built as a triplex. I want it built as a
single unit. Is that going to happen?
>> Correct. It's going to continue to
happen and that's actually the
preference. We have a handful of
different models. the majority of them
are detached or semi- detached and uh if
that's what they purchase then that's
what we build.
>> Okay. So the discussions we've had
essentially are potentially maximum as
opposed to
>> correct. Thank you. Um I have a if if I
can bring back Mr. Armstrong
please.
Um,
these originally when this subdivision
was approved,
um, the driveways were all this the
width outline here, which I think is 10
ft or
whatever it is. I got a little note
here. Um, the driveway widths have not
changed.
>> Uh, I don't believe the driveway widths
were identified.
um that I'm aware of. The the bylaw
requirement is uh 1 m sideyard
on on each side or if you're doing a
shared driveway, you can go zero. Um
that's um that the one of the things
that has happened, the buildings have
been pushed back further from the road,
so they're set back further to allow
that additional parking than the minimum
bylaw required. But but in in changing
from um a D uh semi- detached to a
detached, you would not change the
driveway dimensions
for those buildings.
>> I don't believe I'm not sure I
understand the the driveway dimensions
are controlled by the zoning bylaw. I
>> I understand there are minimums,
maximums. All All I'm trying to say is
the in my mind the change from the
original
submission on the subdivision which was
approved.
>> Yeah.
>> Um showed
driveways
essentially there. Um, and when you
applied to go to single detached,
it was normally would have had 11 m of
front yard
and and we approved to eight, which is
the same as the semi- detached. So, what
I'm saying is that change has not
changed anything relative to the
driveway width other than
>> that. I Yes, correct. Yes. So, if I
understand it correctly, um based on the
lot size, the driveways will take up
approximately
60% of the front yard.
>> Uh with
>> 5 1/2 mters out of an 8 mage.
>> Yes. So 2 and 1/2 mters is uh excess
space you don't require for parking.
That's correct.
All right. Thank you.
>> Any other
uh questions, Mr.
>> Chairman? Through you to to Rob or or
whoever you indicated that the houses
have moved deeper into the lot.
How give me the measurement now from the
curb to the garage door.
>> Maybe Michael has it.
Blow up that.
I need to get out a magnifying glass,
too.
>> Yeah.
>> So, the normal zoning bylaw requirement
is 7 1/2 m
and they're proposing 16.7
meters or 54 ft versus 25 ft. So, almost
» Yeah, there's room that we can bring
them closer to the road, but it was to
bring them back further. I don't want it
closer to the road.
>> Yeah. So, we've doubled the doubled the
setback. That's
>> We have a development in town right now
where you put a fulls size truck in a
lane weight sticking out on the road.
>> Yeah. The the the parking spots that you
see on the drawing are the minimum
requirements. You can see that there's
additional area between the garage and
the front property line, not the road,
but the front property line to
accommodate much deeper vehicles in this
instance.
questions from the committee? No. Um,
I'd like to invite the public um to come
up to the podium and um address your
concerns. In the interests of time, um,
because we have all read the letters
that have been submitted, I would
suggest, and we're all concerned about
traffic and parking, um, that we try not
to repeat what has been said by previous
people if that if that is possible. So
feel free if anyone would like to take
to the podium,
identify yourself. I think it needs to
be turned on. I think
» my name is Brian Martin. I live at 221
Equality Drive, the balloon subdivision.
We're talking about parking and this is
what we're here for. Um me growing up in
the GTA
and with this bill that Ford passed,
this bill 23, it allows builders to
build multiple dwellings. I get that.
When Ford was announcing um this
announcement, he was basically saying
the greater Toronto area or or big
metropolitan cities. Not once did I say,
"Oh, uh horn pain. Now they can go ahead
and develop homes and have multiple
dwelling units." Now, I'm all for
safety. And in Toronto, most of the
people I talked to that live in uh
basement apartments,
uh uh rooming houses,
uh upper upper level apartments, they
don't drive. They don't have wheels.
So when they leave their front door,
there's a sidewalk.
Up the street from a sidewalk, there's a
bus. If there's not a bus, there's a street car. Um, you walk down
two blocks, there's a subway. So, I'm
all for this and I'm in the town, they
should be all for it, too. These
multiple dwellings, but you have to take
in consideration the infrastructure.
Now, do you guys have public transit
here in Meford?
Do you? I'm asking a question.
>> No.
>> Okay, Michael. Uh, in your plans, do you
have any specific plans for putting a
sidewalk from from, let's say, the
Ultramar where the sidewalk ends to our
subdivision where you're supposeding
going to be putting up a set of lights?
Is there a sidewalk that you've uh in
the in the works?
>> Denise,
>> um, if if we could if we could take down
any specific questions and not do a bit
of a back and forth because that will
take a really long time. Sorry. So, but
I would be happy to answer questions at
the end if that's possible. We could
just amalgamate them all. Um, the answer
to that is there is a long-term plan for
sidewalks. It's not part of planning's
um uh work plan. It's an infrastructure
project. So, I can't comment on the
timing of something like that, but it
would be in the in the future. It's not
in the five-year capital plan.
>> Okay. Sorry. Are you allowed to walk on
Highway 26?
Am I allowed to ride a bike on Highway
26?
Like the reason why I'm bringing this
up, if you're going to have rental
units,
say you got a family that don't that
doesn't have a vehicle, how they get
into town?
Say there's a mother with two kids,
one's in a stroller. How is she going to
get from Lon subdivision in the town?
>> Can you answer that?
» No.
>> There's a lot of questions. That's my
concern. Safety. I understand your
questions are related around
transportation.
>> The existing bylaw.
>> Yes.
>> Which we are
only empowered to answer to,
>> right?
>> Allows the the threelex,
>> right?
>> And it says in those instances
>> there must be four parking spaces.
>> That's what we're arguing today. two for
the the principal resident and one for
each of the additional units.
>> Sure.
>> And so what you're suggesting
um is that there may be multiple
um cars for the same family. And I
understand that that is a very valid
concern,
>> but I can't I understand that
>> answer that question and neither can the
community.
>> Okay. But the city, they have to look
into stuff like that. Like you don't
want to be liable down the road. You
have to do your due diligence. That's
all I'm saying. You can't snuff it off
and say we'll worry about it down
because there's going to be renters in
there that aren't going to own vehicles.
I guarantee that. Guarantee. And you're
talking about parking. To me, don't
think parking's an issue. It's about
safety. like how are these people
getting into town? And if that's all you
want me to that's all I'll say. If it's if it's it's not imperative for
this meeting today, then I'll just sit
down. I just want to voice my opinion
because it's going to happen.
You know, if someone gets hit on the
highway 26, the the the town of Meford
is going to be liable.
Won't be 100% won't be 75, won't be 50,
but I guarantee it'll be 25% of fault. I certainly understand your concerns and
I would encourage you to address those
concerns directly with council because
they look at long-term capital budgets
as it relates to sidewalks and so forth.
Um, but we're here to
>> I know I'm just all about safety. That's
the only reason why I came here to put
this out there about the safety. You
know, I'm worried about the safety, the
people walking on 26.
>> I appreciate your concern. Thank you.
Is there anyone else that wishes to
speak?
» Yeah.
» Uh good afternoon. My name is Jim
Sullivan and uh although I live in
Meford, I don't live in this
subdivision.
um additional dwelling units uh gives
the impression that they are added to an
existing property and so the intentions
seem to be a good idea and long overdue.
However, what we see here is an abuse of
that idea. These should not be
considered as ADUs as they are
purpose-built three-unit multiplexes and
should face the same scrutiny as other
multiplexes with three or more units and
ensure that there is parking in the
rear. A six-unit semi- detached building
on a 14 meter lot will have 12 meters of
ashvault in front of it.
It'll be difficult to find a pla to find
a place to plant a tree in the boulevard
in front of these multiplexes because
it's all ashvalt. People moved into this
subdivision expecting more to look at
and than boulevards full of ashvault.
Meford should not let these people down.
The official plan calls for appropriate
parking. In this case, it should be
appropriate for what they are. Parking
in the rear for multiplexes of three or
more units. The online ads for this
builder show single driveways, only room
for one car in front of a single garage
on a single driveway. And yet they're
building something completely different.
Some would call this bait and switch.
The plan they provided for this meeting
was so blurry I had to ask for a clear
PDF copy.
When provided, I found the measurements
used did not match the lots. A semi-
detached building is shown on the plan
with a much wider frontage than a semi-
detached lot. It's shown on there as
being 8 mters. Half of a 14.3 meter uh
lot is 7.15.
So if you use the dimensions shown, the
building would not meet the sideyard
requirements.
Okay, this is just an example, but it's
deceiving. This has little to do with
driveways, but it might say something
about the differences in what you are
shown and what will be built.
By the way, the driveways are as wider
or wider than the buildings they're that
they're in front of. A building on the I
won't mention that. Um,
boulevards full of asshalt and cars at
the entrance of the subdivision will be
seen from Highway 26 and the western
entrance to Meford. Is this the luck
Meford wants? Ashfalted Boulevards full
of cars will not improve any resale
value of the properties that have
already been purchased. The plan of a
subdivision was approved and registered.
This is more than a minor vi variance.
It changes the streetscape of the main
entrance to this subdivision. Because it
is approved, another traffic study is
not needed. The park requirements do not
change and it is still a single entrance
subdivision despite having an additional
60 units and a lot more cars backing out
of driveways.
Newford does not have public
transportation so cars are needed. Most
families have two working members and
two cars to get to work. That is six
cars in that three-unit multiplex.
And where is the parking for guests?
Driveways that are 6 m wide will not
leave any room on that side of the
street for parking on the road. And
there's already very limited parking on
the other side. Existing homes on the
other side of the road will pay the
price for this and lose their extra road
parking.
That section 5.5B of the zoning bylaw
60-209 is valid. That requirement for
rear parking of multiplexes of three or
more units is protection to require
additional scrutiny to ensure that they
have as official plan says appropriate
parking not parking that changes the
whole streetscape of a main road into a
subdivision.
Ideas as significant as this should be a
part of the planning process, not an
afterthought where people have already
invested their future.
As I've mentioned, the parking for this
application should be considered for
what it is and and that is 30 three-unit
multiplexes requiring rear parking.
Thank you for the opportunity to present
this.
» Yes, sir. Please.
» My name is Roy Meredith from 219
Equality Drive. I just wonder if Michael
could put up the other drawing that
showed the the other parking on the
other side.
I know that uh it was mentioned that
there were 16 of these units. Um the
drawing I saw shows 26. I just want to
get clarification of how many there is
potentially that would be that could be
triplexes.
I believe it's 26 in total.
I wonder if I could get clarification on
that. It
it's it's my understanding that at the
moment, if I'm doing the math here,
slots 1 to 18,
23 to 26, and 94 to 97. So that's 18,
21, 24.
>> 24.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, right there, it shows two on
that that uh on that um picture there.
So, there's going to be 24 of them.
that's going to have all those cars. So,
it's I know you guys were talking about
streetscape and we're very concerned
about it and and I just wanted to like
show you what it's going to look like
with all that parking that's going to be
allowed. I am going to cut I've got a
statement here. I'm going to cut it
short. I know a lot of questions have
been asked, but there's a few things
that I wanted to talk about that I was
I've talked to a lot of people and
they've been talking a lot about Bill 23
and how the feeling was that Bill 23 is
what's pushing this to happen and that
um like Bill 23 is to allow and support
gentle intensification. This is not
gentle. This is sudden
uh
intensification, not gentle.
And that bill 23, I know really it it
doesn't give developers a free pass. Um
it doesn't uh shift support of power to
the developers. You know, they still
have the authority and the duty to
decide where and how intensification
fits. You're not required to make
something fit that clearly doesn't.
You're not not looking to allow a square
peg in a round hole.
You can and you should insist on the
developments to to
respect local planning principles. And I
just want to talk lastly about section
45 of the planning act. I know it was
you guys did talk about it, but it's
true. It's this is not truly a minor uh
thing. It's it really is not it doesn't
maintain the intent of the zoning bylaw.
It doesn't conform to the official plan
and it's not appropriate for the land.
That's all I wanted to say. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Um, Mr. Armstrong,
out of
all of the
dwellings that are have been built,
um, how many of them have single
driveways? So rather than something like
this where it's basically two cars can
be parked side by side.
>> I couldn't answer that. I'm not too
sure. Again, that comes down to the
building permit process um on how that
goes in. So I'm not too sure how much I know the town houses would be the
single cuz uh they're singles into the
garages, but I'm not sure of the the
singles the larger singles that were
sold off to another developer.
>> Yeah. um uplift of of the buildings that
Nortara has built.
>> I can speak to that. Um on our semi-
detached uh uh houses, we make the
driveway widths 3 m wide to match the
garage. If we were to have a twocar
garage, we'd make them 6 mters wide to
match the garage. Um but yeah, so for
the majority of the semis, the 3 m wide
driveway. Yeah. Thank you.
any
it we're going to give the online people
a chance first if I may.
Ryan Armstrong, if uh you are online and
wish to speak, could you unmute and go
ahead, please?
» Hi. Sorry. Can you hear me?
>> Yes, we can.
>> Okay. Hi. Um, yeah, I'm Bren Armstrong.
So, I'm also an owner of one of the town
houses on Equality Drive. Um, and yeah,
I'm just thinking about again like the
parking, the safety as mentioned, and
then mainly like looking across the
street and the view of just the parking
and minimal green space is kind of an
issue for me cuz like um Ron was saying,
I kind of bought the place originally to
move to Meford to move away from all the
traffic and whatnot and I was just
disappointed to hear when this was
happening and yeah, so I just wanted to
put in my two cents that I'm against
this as well.
>> Thank you.
>> Thanks.
» Uh Nicole, are you also online?
Yeah, you're still muted.
» Okay.
>> Sorry. Yeah, if you'd like to speak now,
please go ahead.
>> Hi, it's Nicole. Sorry about that.
>> That's okay. Please go ahead.
>> Um, hi. Um, so I'll be quick because I
know we've kind of touched base on
everything. My name is Nicole Moguli.
Um, so like everyone said, parking is
not the greatest. So I I just wanted to
mention just from the meeting the 24
lots that will be affected. They they
mentioned that the developer may ask for
more changes. So this might not be the
only ask. So, even if they sell all 24
lots, they might still continue to
continue rise up the questions on like
other lots that they haven't built yet
because like they said, they want to
sell off all the lots first and then
they're going to um and then they're
going to build more. So, once they do
build more, are they going to ask for
more of the zoning? So, that's something
that we should also consider down the
line.
Thank you.
>> Yeah, I agree with you, which is why we
asked the question, have they proceeded
with asking u for any changes? And
so, um, sorry for holding you up. If you
please go ahead. Thank you. Um,
uh, thank I'm not going to reiterate
everything.
>> Can you state your name first?
>> Oh, sure. My name's Reed Barrett. I'm
not a resident of uh the subdivision,
but I'm a long time longtime resident of
Meford. Um the purpose of me speaking
today is is not the personal interest,
but the long-term uh I want to avoid
sort of long-term issues for me. Uh
something that we have to pick up the
pieces because of a provincial
legislation or something that's happened
and we're going to pay the price of long
term. Uh if we can prevent that, I think
that would be great. And I think we've
heard a lot of good things, and I'm not
going to reiterate a lot of it. But um
uh additional dwelling units or ADUs
really work well in high density areas
like um Metro Toronto. And so I'm
certain that when the province
contemplated
um additional uh dwelling units um they
didn't think of the snow uh snow that
southern Georgian Bay gets and I think
Meford if they ever had a chance to uh
push back this would be the time. Um
when you think about um a community here
that doesn't have public transit, you
think about the school buses that have
to get in there, the garbage pickup and
the size of lot. This could be a real
challenge and might be a real mayhem for
several uh weeks in the winter. Um not
only that, but it's got one exit onto
26. So I think that you know the
additional cars is definitely a problem.
The other thing is that
um it is the gateway to our community.
So, uh as you drive past this, uh
subdivision, you don't want it to look
like a commuter lot or a park and fly.
This is, you know, it should be the
serene community of Meford that's on the
bay. And so I just want to say um I
think if we could limit some of the
issues before you know before it happens
it would be a really good thing for this
uh community. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Um, as I stated previously,
um, these decisions relative to ADUs
were not made by this committee. And I
would encourage you to, um, contact your
local counselor andor members of uh, the
municipality of Meford and address your
concerns, let them know. Um because
obviously with the growth um there's
going to be other developers that are
going to be looking to do relatively the
same thing as it relates to the one
entrance. Um I know that um the MTO
wants to limit the number of entrances
onto the highway. There is actually two
um but one is designated for emergency
purposes only. Um but I would think that
going forward in future um as the number
of units
builds in there um that there will be
more need for a secondary exit as well.
Is there anyone else that wishes to
speak? Certainly. Please.
» Yeah. Good afternoon. My name is uh Rick
Crouch. I do not live in uh Meford, but
my uh my son is one of the residents on
Equality Drive and he is one of the uh advocates that has written a letter.
So, I'm I'm not going to address some of
the things he's covered over. In the
interest of full disclosure, I am a real
estate broker. I'm with Southern
International Realy and uh one of my
colleagues, Matthew Lid Better, is the
agent for Lonall Development. I have no
involvement with Loon. I have no
involvement with uh any financial gain
from from this subdivision nor from my uh son and his wife's purchase. But
you know just to address you know some
of the issues outside some of the norms.
Somebody on the committee mentioned you
know that this seemed like it was not a
minor variance to start with this is not
a minor circumstance. All of the
homeowners in there typically bought
their properties through Loonall
Development who owned all the properties
across the road. The game plan has
changed. Loon call elected to sell those
properties to Nortara. Nortara, you
know, has has started to build in the
area. I commend them for that. Um, but
now the plan is let's let's let's change
the plan again going from single family
uh residential semi- detached homes to
multi-units. Uh, and you know, again,
that was not what these people bought
their homes under the pretense of. So,
you know, there's no point in belaboring
what they've already addressed in terms
of parking and garbage and noise and
that sort of thing. But I think as as
Mr. Bear said, it really speaks, I
think, to a couple things. Uh, one, you
know, the the basic complexion of of
meford, the town itself. I've read a lot
of the correspondence that was supplied
to me by my son, both from uh the
planning department as well as Sue
Travis and associates. Nowhere did
anything mention affordable housing. All
of the information I saw was addressing
investor buyers. Those are not who the
these people thought were going to be
their neighbors across the road. You
know, from the standpoint of the real
estate market. It has changed
dramatically in the last two years. And
I've been in the business here for
almost 25 years. And I cover from meford
right through town of Blue Mountains,
Colliewood, Clear View Township over to
Wasa Beach. Right now, we have the
highest level of MLS listings on our MLS
system that we've had since 2015, 2016.
So, my question is, there's been no
mention of these addressing the issue of
affordable housing. There has been a
real shift in the market, and this seems
to be more of a of a a request that's
being put forward, I think, to address,
you know, the fact that demand is down.
In fact, it's reaching out now to
different buyers, investor buyers, and I
think they're few and far between. I was
out last weekend showing clients uh
duplex, single detached uh and semi-
detached houses in Collingwood last
weekend. They're very unckempt. They're
rented out. The tenants don't cut the
grass. You know, the garbage cans are
out in full view of the street. And when
I read the the various reports how none
of this was going to change the
complexion of the street, I can argue
quite differently. And I think that's
something the committee really has to
think long and hard about regardless of
whether it's addressing what the
provincial legislation is. You know,
you've really got to think about the
existing home orders and what you want
the municipality to look like and is
this going to drive and address the
affordable out of housing issue in
Meford? To me, the answer is no, it's
not.
I did consider exactly your point that
um is this going to be a
multi-generational family that moves
into this and you know they have their
in-law suite and so forth as opposed to
how many people will buy it with the
intention of rental of all or
some of the units. So I understand your
concerns. Thank you. Is there anyone
else that wishes to speak?
No.
Any member of the committee have any
additional comments, questions? Yes. Uh
Mr. Chairman through the gentleman in
the hat that made the final
presentation. Um and I'm sorry I forgot
to write your name down. I got everybody
else. Um your last three points on your
presentation. I wonder if you would go
to the mic and repeat those and then I'd
like staff to respond to those. The last
three comments they have made
section 45 act was right at the end of
this presentation
that one of the comments was that it
didn't uh adhere to the official plan.
» Yes. Yes.
» Okay. Yeah, probably talking I guess I
was talking about uh section 45 of the
planning act talking about how uh in
order to you know for the parking
variance it must meet the following
criteria uh be truly minor and in this
case we've all everyone's in agreement
that it's not maintain the intent of
zoning bylaw and it doesn't that's why
the variance is being requested uh
conform to the uh with the official plan
uh which it does not the plan was for
single family community and be
appropriate uh for the land. And it and
it it isn't uh it changes the nature of
the street and the community.
Was that was that it?
I talked about uh um fitting a square
peg in a round hole. Uh a few times I do
that. I have to apologize because I had
a statement and I know that a lot of the
points were covered. I didn't want to
repeat them and repeat them again. So, I
kind of jumped in the middle, but I
talked about um Bill 23 and that um uh
Bill 23, I know that people I've talked
to have said that it's almost like it's
being pushed upon communities, Bill 23,
to follow suit, but really um it doesn't
give the developers a free pass and it
doesn't shift the balance of power to
the developers that um that it's still
with the municipalities and they have
the authority and the duty to decide
what and how intens in intensific
ification will fit and they're not
required to make something fit that
clearly doesn't and that you don't have
to allow and I said it again a square
peg in a round hole and uh yeah and and
it must follow the it must the respect
for local planning principles protect
green space and environment
avoid overburdening uh infrastructure
and reflect the safety and character of
the community
>> yeah I'm not trying to cut you off. It
was it was right at the end of your
presentation and I thought you'd made a
comment in there that it didn't
>> follow the official uh the the town's
official plan.
>> Okay.
>> Um yeah, so that's
>> you were jumping around. It may not may
not have been. So
>> yeah, sorry. But that's yeah, I had a
really nice story at the end I was going
to tell, but I
» Michael, because your initial
presentation um addressed some of that
relative to the official plan and so
forth, um perhaps you could reiterate
it.
>> Yeah. So it's staff's interpretation is
that this variance is in line with the
intent and purposes of the official
plan. The official plan designation for
this area is urban residential area.
It's meant to be a place that is the
most densified area of the municipality
and it's also meant to be a place where
just where residential uh residential
uses are allowed. Uh so a driveway for a
residential use is considered in line
with the intent and purpose of the
official plan. I can go through the rest
of the four tests if you'd Okay.
>> Any other comments or questions?
>> Yes, Denise.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just going
to I only ended up writing down one
question to answer at the end, which I
I'd suggested we answer at the end and
it was about whether there was walking
biking permitted on Highway 26. But I
was hoping to answer any questions at
the end when we wrap up so that we're
not in a back and forth situation. If
you can think of any other outstanding
questions, um we're happy to answer
those. And then we also had a proposed
um additional condition that we were we
were going to suggest that might help
facilitate some of the uh resolution of
issues. But so the question was about
whether there's biking or hiking
permitted on or biking or walking on on
Highway 26. Obviously, I don't suggest
people should walk on Highway 26 without
a sidewalk. And we would identify that
definitely sidewalks are the preferred
method of people to to walk, but biking
is permitted on Highway 26. It's not a a
400 series highway. Um, but I think the
point is well taken that we know that we
need to provide for pedestrian access.
Um, however, I think I just want to
reiterate that the question about
whether we're permitting three units
here is the main topic of the concerns
I've heard with whether this is a good
idea. It's too dense. There's, you know,
concerns about safety of people walking
because there's so many units. But we
have to remember that's not the question
before the committee. It is about
whether or not it can be the parking can
be in the front yard. Um, because of
that, we had a condition that we thought
might help satisfy some of that. if
you'd like us to propose that.
>> I I think because the committee has a
has seen the suggested decision, we will
take a vote on that first and then look
at potential if that does not pass, we
will look at potential addendums to that
motion time.
So Haley, can you please read the
suggested decision and conditions?
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the recommended
decision is that the committee of
adjustment to improve minor variance A07
2025 for the lens at lots 1 to 18 23 to
26 and 94 to 97 plan 60mm-89
providing relief from the parking
requirements of section 5.5B of zoning
bylaw 60209
to permit a building with three or more
dwelling units to allow parking in the
front yard. As Denise mentioned,
conditions are to be determined by
staff.
» May I have a motion
» to on the decision as read? I need a
mover in a seconder before we can vote
on it.
>> Okay, I'll move it.
>> Seconded.
» We can't vote on it until I get a
seconder.
Well, I'll second.
>> Thank you.
Is there any discussion on the motion?
I I would like to add a further
condition because one of the concerns
that I have is that um there would be a
an attempt by some of the owners in
these new units to even widen the
driveway further. and basically take
away any green space that's left. And
technically, um, you could squeeze in a
another single car driveway. So, I would
like to propose that there must be a
minimum
because I looked at basically the
numbers. Um, the driveways would take
approximately 60% of the frontage. Um, I
would like to see a minimum standard of
35%
um a green space
on the lot.
Is there any discussion on that
amendment?
We can vote on the original one first
and then just
>> I think that would be
>> okay. So, um all in favor of the
original
motion as read.
All opposed.
That motion is defeated.
Given the addendum, uh would anyone like
to discuss that further?
>> Yeah, through you, Mr. Chair. Are you
talking 35% of the entire lot?
>> 35% of the front yard.
>> Of the front yard.
» The the width.
>> Yeah. Front yard. Yeah.
Any additional comments? Anything from
the planning staff is because I know
that's one of the considerations that
you're going through.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the one thing
we and we did discuss this potential
with the um the applicant as well and
they were amendable to a minimum
requirement but when we were measuring
it it looks like to meet two parking
space widths which would be um it would
end up being slightly less than the 6 m
driveway. So I know um that we heard
already that a typical double driveway
is 6 mters. So, in order to meet the
very minimum of a parking space, which
is 2.7 m wide, it would be a 4 point or
a 5.4 m wide driveway, at least at the
property line. So, what I'm wondering is
it would be probably to get a double
driveway plus the green space that
you're talking about, it would be
probably closer to 32%.
Um, something like that. It would be 8 m
wide lot with um 5.4 4 m for the
driveway and then the remainder the 2.6
m for a green space and then if that is
added with the adjacent lot that'll be
um quite a bit more. So it will be
consolidium and that would make a
difference for the semis um for a single
if they chose to go with the single
which they haven't shown us in these
drawings today but if they were doing
that it would look a little bit
different. So, you're proposing that it
would be 38%.
>> 32
>> I think. Um, we'd actually spoken to the
developer about 30 and 70. So, 70%
driveway 30% which they've said they
would be okay with. Um, it's certainly a
cleaner approach, which is a more than
the minimum. Now, we don't have a
minimum size open space in our zoning
bylaw. Um, but it would prevent the
situation that you're speaking about,
Mr. chair which is where they realize
they need even more space and then they
decide to pave more. Um this would give
some open space requirement at minimum.
>> Yes.
So so yes Mr. Chair through you it
would be 30% would be landscaped open
space and 70% driveway
>> and that would prevent them from
essentially
paving over the entire front yard and or
moving parking their vehicles on there,
which in the winter time is a real
concern obviously because there's no
overnight parking.
Any additional comments from Penny?
May I have a mover and a seconder on
that motion that that there be a minimum
of 30% written space?
30
motion
and a seconder.
» Okay. All in favor?
That motion is also defeated.
Is there any changes to this variance
request
um that would meet the acceptability of
the committee members?
» Not.
>> Then may I have a motion to refuse the
varants as requested?
May I have a mover and a second Peter
and David?
All in favor of the motion to refuse
this variance.
That motion is carried.
So as of now um that is not approved. Um
understandably
um there is a right to appeal going
forward.
Thank you everyone.
» That's a refusal.
>> Yeah.
And
>> Yeah.
Is there any additional new business?
Then may I have a motion to adjourn this
meeting? Peter and David, this mo
meeting is officially a date for the
next one.
>> Um it's sometime in September 24th.
>> September 24th.
>> Thank you.
>> And there's one file.
>> All right. Thank you everyone.