[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.