Okay. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
» Can I have your attention? It's 5:00 now.
501. Uh, and we will begin our committee of adjustment
committee of adjustment meeting for the month of August.
Everyone's information. We generally deal with each application according to
the order of the agenda. Extra copies are available
somewhere over there. Um,
anyone present who wishes to speak in support or against an application as
well as anyone with any questions will have an opportunity to speak. The
committee will make their decision following each application. If there's
anyone present who is not an applicant or an agent but is interested in the
decision of the committee, you may file your interest with the secretary
treasurer. Please list the file number, your full name, and mailing address.
Copies of the decisions are automatically sent to the applicant and
agent within 15 days of the meeting. Only the applicant, the minister, a
specified person, or any public body may appeal
may appeal decisions in respect to applications for consent or minor
variances to the Ontario Land Tribunal. The decisions are final if there are no
appeals 20 days after the committee's decision.
May I remind everyone that we're being recorded to mute your devices as well as
if you wish to speak to an application. Make your way to the podium.
State your name for the public record. Ensure the mic is on and you will have
five minutes. The first order of business is to
determine whether any members have any disclosures of interest when considering
the applications. Are there any disclosures? Joe?
» 510. >> Uh item 510 for Joe. Anybody else?
Okay. Have all the members received the
minutes of the previous meeting? Are there any errors or omissions?
If not, I need a mover and a seconder to adopt
the minutes. Phil
and Chris.
Okay. First application.
Oh, before we start, we have three items that were
automatically deferred or withdrawn. BNPL 2026099,
2026166 were both deferred. BNPL 2026156
was withdrawn. So, we'll move on.
And the first application is N&PL 2026101 and the planner can give the
report please. >> Uh thank you. Through the chair to
committee, an application has been uh received to seek relief of 3 meters from
the maximum permitted height of 5 meters to permit a height of 8 meters and 7%
from the maximum permitted lot coverage of 10% to a to permit a coverage of 17%
and 70 square meters from the maximum permitted floor area of 55 m to permit a
usable floor area of 125 m for an accessory building in the residential
2R2 zone. home. The subject lands are located at 157 William Street in
Delhigh. The area of the subject lands is approximately 783 square meters with
approximately 18.70 m on the north side of William Street. The subject lands are
occupied by a single detached dwelling and a detached garage that is to be
demolished. Surrounding land uses are mostly residential. Given the above, it
is the professional opinion of the planning staff that this proposal meets
the four tests of a minor variant and this proposal is recommended for
approval. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any questions of the
committee? Is there an agent or applicant present?
Is there anyone present that wishes to speak to this application?
If not, I have a recommend recommendation for approval. Can I get a
mover in a seconder? Joe,
Phil
20226101. All in favor?
That's carried.
Next up is BNPL 2026068. The planner can give the report please.
» Okay. Before I like uh start uh this one, there was public uh comments
submitted. I believe the committee was circulated on these comments this
morning. So uh just to put that on the uh the record, an application has been
received to sever a parcel having a frontage of 21.64 m, a width of 21.64 64
m, a depth of 39 m, and a total area of 843.96
square meters, and a retained parcel having an area of 2,00 uh 312.51
square meters as the uh creation of a lot in the Hamlet commercial zone. The
subject lands are located at uh 2590 Norolk County Road 23 at the
intersection of Norfolk County Road 21. The area of the severed lands is
approximately 843.96. Uh the retained parcel has an area of
approximately 2 uh 312.51 square meters. The severed lands are
occupied by the existing commercial building. The retained lands uh contain
a commercial building with an attached dwelling and three sheds. The
surrounding land uses are predominantly residential. A hydrogeeological study
will be required to ensure that the severed lot is of adequate size for
private services. Uh the retained parcel uh contains a well. A new well will be
required on the severed lands. A minor variance application will be required uh
to rectify the lot area and frontage deficiencies of the severed parcel. The
area of the proposed severed parcel is approximately 843.96
m where 1,860 m is the minimum required lot area. The
proposed severed uh parcel would have a frontage of 21.46 m where 30 m is the
minimum uh requirement for frontage. Given the above is the professional
opinion of the planning staff that this proposal meets the planning act. the
provincial planning statement conforms to the official plan and meets the
intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw. Uh this proposal is recommended for
approval with the attached conditions. Thank you.
» Thank you. Any questions? Is there an agent or applicant present?
» We're here. >> Anything to add?
» No. >> Nothing to add. They indicate. Is there
anyone present that wishes to speak to this application?
Okay, we have a motion or a recommendation for
approval. Can I get a mover in a second here? Joe, Linda,
BNPL 2026 0668. All in favor? It's carried.
The MPL 2026110. The planner can give the report, please.
» Thank you. Through the chair, an application has been received to sever a
parcel having a frontage of 12.1 m, a width of 12.19 m, and a depth of 14.69 m
with a total lot area of 178.4 m in the central business district zone. and
retain a parcel having an area of 235.5 square meters in the CBD zone. Uh the
subject lands are located at 69 Robinson Street and 12 Cobburn Street North at
the intersection of Robinson Street and Cobburn Street in the town of Simco. The
area of the subject lands is approximately 486 square meters with
approximately 12.1 meters of frontage on the north side of Robinson Street. The
subject lands are occupied by two commercial buildings with one building
having frontage along Robinson Street and another building having frontage
along Cobburn Street North. The subject lands were previously two separate
parcels. However, they were merged on title. The subject application seeks to
unmmerge the parcels. The proposal is consistent with the planning act PPS
2024 conforms with the official plan and complies to the general intent and
purpose of the zoning bylaw. Given this, the proposal is recommended for
approval. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions?
Is there a uh agent or applicant anything to add?
» Nothing to add. Is there anyone present that wishes to
speak to this application?
» No. Have a recommendation for approval. Move or seconder. Linda Lisa.
All in favor? Thank you. Carries.
and PL 2026107 and the planner can give the report
please. >> Thank you. Through the chair, an
application has been received seeking relief of 10 meters from the required
front yard setback of 13 m to permit a front yard setback of 3 meters for an
accessory building in the agricultural zone. The subject lands are located at
1589 Thompson Road East between Villanova Road and County Line in the
geographic township of Townsend. The area of the subject lands is
approximately 46 hectares with approximately 67 m of frontage on the
north side of Thompson Road East. Subject lands are occupied by a single
detached dwelling, pool, and accessory buildings. The proposed garage would be
deficient in the required front yard setback, requesting relief of 10 meters
from the required front yard setback of 13 meters to permit a front yard setback
of 3 m in the A zone. Although an accessory building is permitted within a
front yard in the A zone, it is not permitted within the required front yard
setback. In this case, the proposed garage is located well within the
required front yard setback. The intent of the front yard setback for accessory
buildings is to promote and ma maintain street appearances, safety between
buildings and the roadway and ensure that the accessory building remains
accessory to the primary use of the property. In this case, the single
detached dwelling on the property is considered to be the primary use. The
dwelling is located at adequate distance from the front property line and
maintains the zoning bylaw provision. However, the construction of the
proposed garage with a proposed 3meter setback from the front property line
would not have the appearance of being secondary or accessory to the main use.
The proposed garage could cause a disruption to the overall street
appearance and character of the area by being located significantly closer to
the road than the main dwelling. The garage is also proposed to be located at
top a steep front ditch in close proximity to existing above ground
electrical conductors as noted by the building department. Overall, it is the
professional opinion of planning staff that the proposal does not comply to the
general intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw, is not considered to be desirable
for the appropriate development of the lands, and is not considered to be
minor, and therefore does not meet the four tests of a minor variance. This
proposal is recommended for refusal. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions of the
committee? Is there an agent or applicant present?
Yes. Do you have anything to add? I'm sorry.
» Yes, please. >> Up to the podium, please state your
name.
That's on. Um, afternoon. Uh, my name is AJ Vanbero. Uh, acting agent on behalf
of, um, Darren and Amy Vanderuin. Uh, yes. Seeking relief of 10 m, uh, from
the required front yard setback of 13 m to permit a front yard setback of 3 m
for proposed uh, accessory building. Uh I just wanted the opportunity to explain
the circumstances of the property before a decision is made. Um the intent is not
to circumvent the zoning requirements uh but rather to find the most practical
location for the proposed building while working within the unique constraints um
of their property. Uh the property is somewhat unusual and that the existing
home, driveway, well, septic system and tile bed and poor all situated in a way
that s uh significantly uh limits the suitable locations for an accessory
building. Um the proposed location provides the most pract uh practical
access. It allows us to come directly off the existing driveway and straight
into the new building uh without requiring an additional driveway or
entrance. Um, if the building were moved further back in line with the home, it
would begin to conflict with the existing well, septic system, and tile
bed. Uh, to avoid these services, uh, the building would likely have to be
moved into the far northwest portion of the property. That location would create
additional difficulties in accessing the building and extending services to it,
uh, while also having to work around the existing well, septic, and tile bed, and
of course, the pool area. Uh we understand that the request relief may
initially appear to place the accessory building quite close to the road. Uh
however uh another unique circumstance or u characteristic sorry of this
property is its elevation relative to Thompson Road. Uh the property sits
considerably higher than the roadway and even with the proposed setback the
building would still be approximately 12 m from the edge of the road. Um, there
are also a number of properties just to the west within the hamlet of Villanova
where existing homes are approximately 8 mters or less from the road. For that
reason, we do not believe the proposed location will be out of character with
the surrounding area. We also not we also do not anticipate the proposed
location having any negative impact on neighboring properties. It will not
create any additional traffic or require a new entrance. Uh we do not expect it
to create concerns with drainage, sight lines or privacy. There will be no
secondary entrance created from Thompson Road. Access of the build u the
accessory building will remain entirely from the existing driveway. Ultimately,
we believe the location provides the best balance between accessibility, the
existing services and features of on the property and minimizing any impact on
the surrounding area. Given the unique characteristics of the property, we feel
request the requested variance is reasonable and will allow the property
be to be used appropriately without negatively affecting neighboring
properties or the character of the area. Uh we respectfully ask committee to
consider uh these sight specific circumstances and approve the request
minor variance. I appreciate your time and consideration.
» Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Thank you.
Oh, okay. Hey Joe, question. Turn the mic on.
» The uh proposed location, is that the minimum setback from the the septic bed?
» Uh it's supposed to >> close to as in
» 5 meters, 2 meters, >> within a couple meters. Yes.
» Okay. >> Okay. Anything else? Any questions?
Okay. Okay. Thanks. Is there anyone wishes? Is there anyone present that
wishes to speak to this application?
Hearing none, we have a recommendation for refusal. Can I get uh a re that
motion or an alternative? Linda, >> I'll move to approve.
» Okay. Councelor Vampassen. >> Yeah, I will second that motion to
approve it. Uh I went out and looked at it and came to the same conclusion that
the uh agent did that it's not out of place. The fact that it's up on that
hill actually makes it look I think it's going to look nice up there, not look
bad. And yeah, Villanov like >> Villan Nova's half kilometer down the
road and I think there's actually some houses there that are encroaching on the
road allowance, but uh so I think it does meet the the four tests of a minor
variance and be happy to support the motion to approve it. So
» all right, thank you. Anybody else? Okay. And PL 2026 107 motion to approve.
All in favor against.
Okay. And that's carried.
Okay. Next up is NP BNPL 2026043 and the planner can give the report
please. >> Uh thank you. An application has been
received to sever a parcel of land having a frontage of 40.51 m a depth of
49.28 28 m and an area of approximately 1,977
square meters and a retained parcel with an area of approximately two 27,113.5
square meters in the hamlet of Walsingham.
The subject lands are located at 2063 Main Street in Walsingham. The proposed
severed land contains a dwelling unit, well, septic and weeping bed. The
severed lands contain a shop, various buildings which are utilized for
personal storage with the remaining being vacant. Planning staff's opinion
that this pro proposal uh be recommended for refusal. The application is
consistent with the planning act uh but is not consistent with the provincial
planning statement uh does not conform to the policies of the official
plan and zoning bylaw. The consent application proposes to sever the
industrial buildings associated with the former family construction uh Muscle
Trucking Limited from the existing residential dwellings of the subject
property. The industrial operation uh coexisted as an owner operated lot with
an on-site residential dwelling in the Hamlet uh residential zone for many
years. The consent application proposes to create a separate and sailable lot
with a principal residential land use in the Hamlet residential zone. The
proposed interface between the prop the principal industrial parcel and the
newly created residential lot has the potential to introduce uh incompatible
land uses and potential adverse impacts for future purchasers. The land use
compatibility has not been adequately assessed with the submission of
supporting technical studies including a planning justification report, a land
use compatibility component and/or a separate land use compatibility study,
phase one environmental assessment at minimum and a hydro uh geological study.
the existing purpose-built industrial buildings with uh large bay doors
currently being used by the owner for personal storage. However, staff notes
that personal storage is not a defined use under the zoning bylaw and would be
considered uh ancillary to a permitted uh primary use. Further, the subject
lands would require a resoning by a reszoning with a zoning bylaw amendment
to address the sight specific requirements of the proposal and of the
current agricultural zoning on the portion of the lands.
Uh therefore, uh planning staff is recommending refusal of the severance
application. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions?
Is there an agent or applicant present? Yes, sir. Anything to add? Looks like
you do. >> Answer any questions
that you may have? >> Turn the mic on on the right button.
» And state your name. Gary Muscle. >> Okay. Um, I applied for this back in
February. I was brought before your committee or your planning department. I
was told way to do it. I went through the whole process. I had a planning
thing coming before use on May 20th, I believe it is. I have all of it here if
you want to know exactly. And at uh the time of it, I was called in by the
planning department again. And this one of the planners told me not to do it the
way it was supposed to be or not the way the other person had told me to switch
it over and do the house only, which I wanted to do in the first place.
Everything was a go until I found out Monday morning that the planning
department had changed their mind, changed everything totally. None of this
stuff that we're hearing right now was ever brought to me. Never once. Because
from the day I walked into that planning department, I said, "What do I need to
do? You're the expert. I'm just a guy once. I lost my wife. I want to sell my
house and move on." They told me what to do. I followed every step. When the
person said, "You need a survey." I run and got a survey. That survey is no good
no more. We need another one. I went and got a survey. I brought it back. You
need a tile bed inspection. I went and got a tile bed inspection. I followed
every procedure your planning department told me. Not once did they mention any
of the stuff you're bringing up tonight. >> Okay.
» All gas planning stuff. >> And the simple thing of it is I have a
house, three buildings. Five or six years ago before my wife
passed, we ended up taking the trucking business, closing it down. We knew that
things were going to change. I have another yard down the road where most of
the trucks have been for the last 15 years. This place was never industrial.
I keep hearing that word industrial. Never. It was never commercial. Only
thing was ever done in 200 2020 something. I forget the date exactly. I
have it in here if you want to know. I can look it up. But I had to put a a a
special Pacific site thing for a contractor's yard. Cost me about $5,000
to get it put on. Then when I quit the business, I had to remove it. Cost me
another 6,000 to remove it. I've got it removed. I'm back to residential land.
I'm using it as a house and three shops. I got some cars. I got my tractors. I
got my some discs. I got a little bit of everything in all my buildings.
» All I want to do is severance my house off which is in the hamlet and sell it.
Keep the remaining land. >> Okay.
» The land's not going to change a bit that's remaining.
» I'm going to ask planning staff to respond
» through the chair. Um so there it is to my knowledge that there
is a history on this site. I have kind of come into the review of the
application. Um as you can see by the report what is
being raised here comes down to being able to evaluate the technical
feasibility. Um, at the end of the day, the consent application is introducing a
future residential lot that would be a standalone lot and then the proposal
would be for an additional lot with the land use to
be determined. It is our understanding that it's being used for personal
storage at this time. However, it was used as a trucking operation in the
past. There are large industrial buildings that are located on the
subject property. um looking through the policy framework um there is the
possibility and potential for incompatibility between those land uses
and the policy framework speaks to that. So as I mentioned this comes down to the
technical evaluation and ultimately it will be the findings and recommendations
of the studies that would allow planners to look at that recommendation as it
sits now. Um it is a recommendation for refusal, but as we've mentioned, there
would be a zoning bylaw amendment that would be required. Um and as we
mentioned, there's other technical studies to make sure that there's
potable water for the proposed residential lot. That would be through
the hydro geological study that is required and to make sure that there's
no contaminants that may have leeched onto the property and what that means
for the quality of water to be at a potable standard.
» Okay. Thank you. Can I answer to that?
» Yep. First of all, there is no industrial buildings. Well,
» the buildings were used for trucks. I agree. Years ago, I've been living there
since 1987. It was a farm when I bought it. I bought 6 acres of farmland. I
built a house and a shop and then I put on accessories. I've followed every rule
there was all the way to now. There has been no contamination. I've been the one
that's took care of my yard. It's my yard. I live in the house beside it. The
well is there. I drink the water every day. I certainly don't look like I'm
dying. I hope not anyway, you know. So, I mean, all you're going to do is more
cost. And this has been going on since February. Nobody said a word, one word
about don't do this. It was when I walked in to meet the planners. I said,
"What do I have to do?" And no one ever said anything about a study. No one. All
you got to do, Gary, is this. Pay the money. Pay the money. pay the money.
I've had two severances because of each one changing. Do you guys not have the
same rules? One tells you to do it this way. The other one tells me to change it
and do it that way. Please, somebody help me in the guidance here. Like, what
can I tell you? >> Let me see if the committee has any
questions. Linda, >> I just have a question for planning
staff. Why would the special provision be required to be removed just because
he closed the business?
through the chair. Uh I can't speak to the removal of this special provision.
As it stands right now, we have current zoning in place. Um and if this was done
with a new zoning bylaw and the previous provision no longer was pulled forward,
that's a question. We can look into the history of this. I do feel that there is
a path forward here and um we we do want to help you get there and I apologize
for any history. Again, I've come into this late. I've started with the county
more recently and I have been now involved with this file and reviewing
it. I do want to help you get there. Um, when we look at the policy framework and
what planning staff is looking at, that is what's shaping that recommendation
and the request for those technical studies. Those are provincial
requirements. And so, as it funnels down through our planning instruments like
the official plan, through the zoning bylaw, we have to comment on those. And
the idea is to ensure that there is safety to the public health and to make
sure that if we allowed for a consent application and a recommendation of
approval that that lot can sustain itself and that's why we're talking
about the plottable water etc. and to make sure that there's no conflict
between the surrounding land use and the proposed sensitive land use.
» Well, they're not. They're both uh they're both residential.
» Okay. >> You know what I mean? And as far as the
part that's bothering me is she's telling me now she's new into this, but
I'm telling you I've met three other planners that have told me three
different ways. Do you not all go to the same school?
» Okay. >> Ask the committee member to continue,
Linda. >> Okay. So, I'm looking at the map that's
the zoning map that's attached to the uh report and it's showing uh 33-Z-2022.
So, I'm assuming that's the special provision that permits the contractor
yard. Um, although it wasn't identified in the report
that I recall. Um,
so it's still on the property. Is that correct?
» No. >> Through the chair. Um, we would have to
look at the details. I understand we're hearing it's been removed, etc. if
there's a new zoning bylaw that came into effect that previous zoning um if I
I I believe that it was for 195 square meters to recognize an existing building
one building on the subject property um to allow for and permit the contractor's
yard. >> Okay. Anybody else? Oh, sorry, Linda. Go
ahead. So if it's permitting the contractor's yard and the severance is
approved, the remaining property is still permitted to operate as a
contractor's yard. Is that correct?
So this is going to be um probably a lengthy answer, but there are a lot of
details into that because now you have sort of the ceasing of an operation and
planning. We have to look at all of those things. How long has the business
been ceased? What has gone in after that use? And so there are all these details
we would look into and again following the history of the site specific. But
that is to recognize one building on the subject property. Um so the Hamlet
residential just to give kind of an overview did allow for home industry um
which was you know part and parcel with the residential. It was sort of
accessory to ancillary 2 and it allowed you to live in the dwelling and then
operate a small sort of business enterprise. And so that that is a
permission that's there. But what has come into play right now is the consent
application. And the consent application is a new planning act application and we
have to review it for conformity with the planning framework and that's where
it actually changes. >> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. It's am I correct in assuming that zoning goes with the land
through the chair? The the lands are zoned. So we do have zoning. So that's
why we've kind of included that in here. But it it sounds as though we're
discussing sort of past site specific for the one building on the subject
lands. >> Okay.
More Linda. Well, the zoning appears to be in place.
» Okay. >> And I don't consider it passed. It's
there. >> So, that's just my opinion and
interpretation. >> Um, and just a comment too that if this
applicant is just hearing about these issues on Monday, if that's correct,
that um I question the customer service in that application.
» Okay. Councelor Van Passen. >> Yes. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Um, yeah,
this is a a bit of a complicated property. Um, but you know, I've lived
around here a long time and it's always been a contractor's yard for as long as
I can remember. So, like something to do with legal non-conforming that I don't
know why we'd have to change that. But, um, and it did have I looked at my old
maps, it did have one of the the section 14 things that that's what allowed the
contractor's yard. Uh whether that's still a valid or not or whether that's
the one that got pulled, I don't know. But um my question is is how do we
» how do we resolve this? Um part of the property is zoned as agricultural, part
of it is zoned as Hamlet residential. The Hamlet residential, somebody
arbitrarily drew a line on a map at some point in our official plans and our
zoning bylaws and just drew the line. There's no studies, no backgrounds, no
anything. Just here's the line where it is. They probably didn't even ask the uh
the owners whether they wanted it there. But is it possible to just move the line
between the Hamlet residential and agriculture? Because if the propertyy's
owned agriculture, it can have those buildings on it as they are and don't
need anything beyond that. So is it possible to uh approve the severance
application and put in a condition that they that you move the line and uh
include the buildings as part of the agricultural land which it probably was
at some point or when it was purchased it was that way. Is that a possible
option here >> through the chair? So when it comes down
to the Hamlet boundary our our policies are clear that they are fixed. It's
considered settlement area. So that is more complicated, but there are and and
I've said this, I think there is a path forward. It's just it's about sitting
down and kind of understanding what it is that we're looking to get to and does
that mean we do have the situation where we have a designation that is Hamlet and
we have some agricultural zoning. So we would look to remedy that as well. But
there are a number of moving pieces to this application and it hasn't been
straightforward. But we do want to make sure we can get to a good place.
» Okay. I I see. I don't see that many moving pieces. There's a house there. If
it's severed and you sell it to somebody and they buy a house that is next door
to a contractor's yard, don't come to me later and complain cuz there's trucks
driving in at 6:00 in the morning cuz I bought a house next to a contractor's
yard. You can't uh you can't uh put the blame to somebody else after the fact.
So, and they live there. The water, the sewer, it's there. It's been checked. Uh
why do we have to do a hydraologic study to see if that water is actually there
or not? I can't understand why we would need that. Um we moved the line that was
arbitrarily put there in 2014 when we did our zoning bylaw. They just put the
line there. Now it's included as a hamlet
and that's fixed now because that was approved in 2014. That doesn't mean it's
right. That just means that's where they put it in 2014 and that's where they
drew the line on the map. So, let's just move that line to only be around where
the new severed parcel is going to be and leave the rest agriculture like it
used to be and all the problems are gone. We don't need any studies for
that. We don't need uh anything beyond an eraser and a new pen. So, like why
are we making it more complicated than we have to?
» Is there Okay, there's the question. Carry on.
I I wish I could answer that that to understand why it is as complicated as
we're saying it is. This is provincial policy and so it trickles down into our
OP. It trickles down into our zoning. So we do have to review it. We do have to
work within the framework that that is where planning sits is we review it. We
provide the comments. What we can do to work through that is make sure that we
can mitigate any conflict or compatibility issues and that would come
out in the studies. So ultimately what we're saying here is if if we want to
move forward it is about doing the technical studies to get there and if
there's another option then we can definitely look at that but the
application itself was for this proposal. So I I think there's
opportunity to have conversation around options and then figure it out.
» Okay. Thank you. I'm going to go down to the end of the table to Adam first.
» Thanks chair. Uh three to Morgan there. So you've mentioned I think three at
least three times that there's a path forward. I'd like to hear more about
that and specifically um if you could give us a sense of what the timeline's
going to be for for Gary or Mr. Moss, which whichever you prefer. Uh, and also
what other costs are we going to have to ask him to sink into this? Because if
he's already got costs into it, I'm a bit concerned about a way forward that's
going to keep piling that on. So maybe you can say that, maybe you can't. I
don't know. But those are my concerns here cuz yeah, we can workshop it at the
table all night and we're still going to get probably the same answer, which is
fair enough that it's policy. We have to sort it out. I get all that. So what is
the way forward
» through the chair? Um, I I think the way forward is trying to maybe get down into
what it is that we want to see out of this. As we mentioned, the buildings are
being used for personal storage right now. We don't have a definition for
personal storage. Is that the intended use? Is there some other intended use?
What can we do to kind of work with because studies will be dependent on
what the uses are? So um as I'm saying we're looking at the technical studies
but the question becomes if the use changes if we're looking at it um from a
different perspective are those studies still required so when we start talking
about costs and time etc some of this has to do with what applications we need
what studies we need a green light that's not good oh there's
red now so um understood I suppose my question then
still is what are we talking about for time? I mean, if he's Gary's been trying
to do this since you said February, >> February.
» Are we talking another year from today or can we get him in for a meeting next
week and start on this? Like, that's where I'm trying to narrow this down
because if this is a deferral or a referral or whatever and we can avoid
the refusal so he doesn't start all over again, that's a different conversation.
So, let's have that conversation like how do we get this to where it needs to
be as per what you're suggesting >> through the chair. I think the starting
point is a pre-conultation meeting to sit down and we can get him on the
schedule for pre-conultation, get out all the departments involved and so that
they can comment on the application. We can kind of work through it, negotiate
through what it is that he's looking to do and how we can get there, what study
would be required, etc. >> Okay, one more time.
» One more and then I got I'm going to move on to
» Okay, I understand, but I want clarification. Do we have to reject this
today? refuse it today or can we do a deferral or referral and stop him from
having to start over again? Can we work with what's here or does it is it the
only option a wash where it's going to cost them all that money all over again?
That's what I'm trying to get at.
So if this is something that we are looking to defer and that's up to the
committee um so that a pre-conultation meeting
could be um scheduled and conversation could take place with all the relevant
departments then perhaps the deferral is the way to go as it stands right now in
the absence of the technical studies staff's position remains a refusal. I
understand. >> Okay.
» Thank you. >> Okay. I'm just going to go to Peter
quickly. Peter.
» Is he not on? >> Who's Peter?
» No, he's one of our members, but he's online.
» Oh, sorry. >> Okay. Peter.
» Okay, Blinda. Um
so question for planning staff if um a zoning bylaw amendment application would
allow to have that um boundary moved for the um Hamlet boundary is that the
process of zoning bylaw amendment. So the zoning bylaw amendment would be
for the use establishing what the use is and then what studies would be required.
That would be for the zoning bylaw amendment.
» Would it not would you not apply for a zoning bylaw amendment to change the
zoning on it as well? So it's entirely agricultural rather than Hamlet.
» So we would have to look at the OP designation and if it's Hamlet then that
is sort of the issue. So, we're looking at kind of tiered policy documents. What
is the designation? And then do those policies support what the proposed
zoning is. >> So, a zoning a an official plan and
zoning bylaw amendment would be required to move them to change that. Is that
correct? >> So, I can't answer that question right
now without going into the details of the policy to see what we're looking at.
But partly the designation is Hamlet and the agricultural zone is actually
there's a there's a rounded sort of portion of agricultural zoned lands in
the hamlet designation. >> Okay.
» Okay. >> Just I'm going to go to Peter now. It's
back online. Go ahead, Peter.
» You're muted.
Peter, you need to turn your microphone up louder.
Now you're on mute.
We can't hear you.
Okay, try now.
No.
Okay. Well, >> you can type in the question in the chat
if you like or else we can just move on. >> Talking to me or Peter?
» I'm talking to Peter over your shoulder.
I'll give it just a minute and see what he comes up with.
» In the meantime, yeah, Joe has a question.
So when we're talking about uh zoning changes, we need a justification report
to understand what the land use is going to be to understand what amendments are
required, an op amendment or just a zoning amendment. Is that correct
» through the chair? Yeah. So ultimately the planning justification report is
going to support whatever application is being brought forward. So if it's a
zoning bylaw amendment, it would speak to that amend what that proposed use is
and have a rationale and whatever technical studies are required. They
could come separately. Some of them could form a portion of the planning
justification report, but we would kind of work through what those are and try
to scope them accordingly and just to make sure that it's it's a very kind of
clear and smooth process. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay, one more and then
we're going to sorry. Um, so understanding what the usages are going
to be are going to help you scope on what studies are going to be required.
Correct. Yes. Okay.
» That's it. That's not a question really. Linda,
» uh, are when you're ready to call for recommendation.
» Okay. Well, councelor Vamp just >> Yes. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Um, one of
the other things I don't get in this report that half dozen times it talks
about the buildings are being used for storage of personal items. Um, I don't
know what bearing that has on it. You know, like their barns are full of
stuff. If you no, if you sell the place and move, you're going to take your
stuff with you. So the whether we have a definition in our zoning bylaw of
specifically a building to store personal items, I think that's sort of
like a red herring in the whole report and you know gets brought up so many
times, but it's we're dealing with a bunch of barns on what should be
agricultural land and there happens to be stuff in it right now that's probably
going to get moved out of there when they're done looking after the
buildings, right? So why bring that up as an important point when it's got
nothing to do with the planning issue involved? I I don't understand that.
» That's the question. >> Yeah. Like why is it so important that
there's personal items in a barn on a piece of land in Norfolk County? Like
I've got some stuff in my barn, too. >> Okay. Let's uh have the planning staff
um briefly comment and then we'll continue along. We'll get to you
» through the chair. So, often times you have a house and you have other
accessory buildings and you may use those accessory buildings to store
personal items and and that would be fine. In this case, what's being
proposed is a severance of the dwelling from those buildings. So now they would
be standalone buildings. So we would have to know what the use is and
personal storage is understood to be accessory or ancillary to a use. So
the property can be bought and sold and those buildings would be there. So the
idea being what is the use of those buildings. So planning is looking at it
not as what is the activity of storing personal items but what is the use and
as long as it's accessory to the dwelling which is a residential use then
it's fine. You're using the buildings to store you know household products or
whatever the case may be. It's when you are coming in with an application to
sever to create a standalone residential lot and then a separate lot that has the
buildings. >> Isn't that the whole crux of the
situation? Um, right now everything is legal because you have a dwelling unit
and you have accessory buildings with the dwelling unit. If you were to sever
the dwelling unit off, you the rules say you can't establish the accessory uses
until the primary use is there. So, you can't have a standalone garage on a
property unless you build the house first in a Hamlet residential zone, but
you are allowed to do that in a Hamlet commercial zone or an agricultural zone.
You can have a agricultural land and just build a barn. You don't need the
house there first. But by severing this house off of here, now you have
accessory buildings without the primary in place. So again, the simple solution
is just move the line and extend it as
agricultural land or you could apply you know maybe this is a good option too
apply to reszone the retained portion into Hamlet commercial that would work
as well you are allowed to establish the uh the accessory use without the primary
so either one of those options so again why can't we approve it conditional on
uh a reasonzoning being done you've got two years to get the separate paperwork
done you've in that time you go and apply to reszone it into either the
Hamlet commercial or extend the move the agricultural boundary. Why can't we do
that
through the chair? So part of the issue as we've kind of talked about is it's
Hamlet residential. So if we were looking to reszone it for commercial or
whatever the use it would be a reszoning application. So that's what we're
saying. There are options, but we have to kind of sit down and sus out what it
is going to be and what you want to do with it so that we can then determine
what applications and then corresponding studies you would require.
» Time we approve it conditional on the appropriate zoning application, the
appropriate minor variant, whatever the case may be. And that becomes a
condition. You can't get the final paperwork done on the severance till you
get that other part of the puzzle done. So, why couldn't we approve the
severance tonight with a adding a condition that the required zoning
amendment be approved? >> I'm just going to step in. I think she's
answered that a couple of times in in a couple of different ways and and we'll
just leave it at that and >> well,
okay, let's move along. Peter typed in his uh comments and questions and I'll
make a note of that. But I just want to continue on with her. I'll give Mr.
Muscle briefly a one more stab at it. Just okay, one more thing. First of all,
like I said, it's been 7 months. >> Okay.
» You know, why has none of this been brought up for 7 months? When they said
go get a severance, I went and got it. You know, I've told you that every And I
was in there saying, what do I do? What do you want me to do? It wasn't what I
was wanting to do. What do you want? Three different planners. Now, we have a
new lady that apparently just came here and the whole world changed Monday
morning. What happened? >> Okay, that's
» What happened to Everything's perfect, Gary. Don't worry about it. Don't even
have to show up if you don't want to. >> Okay. Well, take a note of that. I got
to go through the whole procedure. >> It's just a severance of a of a house
that I don't want to live in anymore. It's on a residential lot. The remaining
can go back to farmland. If you tell me you want cows put in those buildings,
I'll go get some cows. >> We got that. Okay. I just
» Easy to get along with. >> I'm going to continue on and ask the
general audience if there's anyone here that wishes to speak to this
application.
No. Um Peter online has uh made a motion for a deferral if uh the committee is
acceptable to that. >> Councelor Barry second.
» You second it. >> Okay. So we have a motion for deferral.
Um all in favor
one, two, three. Peter is four against One, two, three. That councelor Van
Passen, you're in favor or against?
» Okay, so that's a tie. It loses on a tie.
» No,
» make a new motion. Linda, >> I'll make a motion that we approve it uh
with the removal of the hydro geological study given that he's already living in
the house or the house has water and sewer existing
and um conditional upon
approval of an official plan and zoning bylaw amendment if required because I
feel like it's still zoned as a contract. ctor's yard and he may not
require that. >> Okay, a seconder.
Councelor Van Pass. >> Councelor Barry.
» Thanks. I just want to clarify before you call the vote. Is that legal
to do that? Like can we are we creating like a if
it's legal fine but it sounds like there might be some planning act issues here
» through the chair. Um do you could you clarify?
» Well so if we is this motion going to create legal
issues? I'm not trying to stop you from getting your thing approved. I just want
to make sure you don't have a problem later. Is is there is doing what is on
the floor is that something we can legally do
» through the chair? I I can't speak to legally. What I can say from a planning
perspective is planning staff has gone through the
planning policy framework and they have determined based on that framework
whether this is an application that is consistent with the PPS conforms to the
OP and the zoning bylaw and if working through that policy framework we arrive
at no then we recommend refusal. Um, we did include a a host of different
conditions should you want to understand sort of
what that may look like, but ultimately we've gone through the policy framework
and said that it it's not in alignment. And so it's
the committee you can assess that and make your determination but ultimately
these would be the studies that would be required as per provincial uh
requirements and and that is set out and we've kind of laid that out in the
report. >> Okay.
» The condition of approval of a official plan and zoning bylaw amendment
would fix that to make it compliant. Is that not correct?
» So staff in the report has looked at the requirement for a zoning bylaw amendment
and what that may look like, but we've said, you know, that will come down to
sort of the sight specific requirements and working through what that proposed
use is. Um, as for the official plan amendment, that would only be required
if you know it got to that level. But depending on what's being proposed right
now, staff was comfortable with the zoning bylaw amendment based on what we
have before us. So, um, ultimately all of that information is there and in the
report. It's it's before you to make a decision. Um, but again, staff based on
the review and in the absence of the technical studies can't conclude that it
is in conformity. >> Okay. Thank you. So, we have a motion on
the floor to approve with some conditions. Moved
by Linda, seconded by Councelor Van Passen. I'm going to call the vote. All
in favor? One, two, three, four.
Peter. What's Peter doing? He's against.
» What's that? >> He's a no. Okay. So, so four four and
against one, two, three, four
loes on a tie again. Councelor Barry. So, I have sorry another question from
Morgan. So, I I I didn't if you said it, I apologize. What's the timeline
on getting Gary in getting a meeting done? Can we do we have enough time to
get if he'll agree to give it a month on a deferral, can we get them back in
September with your meetings and everything else?
Is that doable? Are we going to be putting them off for another 6 months, 8
months, 10 year, whatever it is? >> Well, maybe I can help you answer that.
That usually the September calendar's pretty much set by now. So, you'd
probably be looking at October at the earliest. Am I correct?
» Well, that's sort of correct. >> Okay, fine.
I'm going to ask Gary in a minute if the timeline that Morgan gives us is
acceptable. That's what I'm where I'm kind of going. So, pick a timeline, but
when's the earliest we can get this back in front of the committee for a final
decision? If we were to go to a deferral, if that's something that
» Gary requests us to do, how much time do you need to get this done?
through the chair. I will defer to Olivia for a moment just to see if this
is Olivia as you scheduled the pre-conultations. Is this something that
we could get Mr. Muscle in for on the next pre-conultation agenda?
» We got too many microphones on. Mr. Muscle, would you mind turning your
microphone off, please? >> Okay, Olivia. uh through the chair for
pre-conultation meetings. The next available date would be Wednesday,
September 2nd, I believe. Oh, no, sorry, one second. Let me just double check my
calendar. We are booking into September for pre-conultation meetings. So, I just
want to confirm the exact date.
So, Wednesday, September 9th would be the earliest time that we would have
available and it would have be at 1:30 p.m.
» Okay. So, if we're going to continue because chair's not paying attention.
So, I'm going to sneak one in on them. So, we meet September 9th. Not we, you
all meet September 9th. We do what we got to do. based on the requirements and
the ideas you have of fixing this. Is this something that again once he's met
and we come to an agreement? Can we get this back by October or is this again
going to be something that he's got to do a bunch of stuff and whatever the the
studies are, is it going to be 6 months? Is it like you got to give me a sense of
this so we can move this forward because we're deadlocked at two failed votes. So
where where are we doing? >> I see a way.
» So do I. So I'm trying to get there >> through the chair. um we staff will do
all that we can do to work through the process as quickly as possible. What I
will say is we go to pre-conultation and all the departments relevant departments
any external agencies are involved. They provide all of their comments and then
the applicant in this case Mr. Muscle would take that away and determine what
he he is prepared to do. Okay. and then make the application if the zoning bylaw
amendment application is something he wants to move forward with and then
obviously go out to retain consultants to undertake the necessary studies. So
in terms of a completion date, but that does mean as we're working with him, he
can we can still look at the report cycle for consents and come back with
those conditions after we've had sort of that wholesome discussion. He
understands what that looks like and he's made the decision to move forward.
» Okay. Thank you. >> Mr. Muscle,
I'm going to ask you if you would like a deferral
for you to you and to consult with staff and get this thing moving at an
expedited manner. And I'm going to recommend as the chair that we that the
county wave any uh deferral fees that may be entailed. Paid that already.
» Pardon me. I've >> paid them already.
Anyway, so would you like a deferral? Because you've seen here we've got two
failed votes. >> The deferral is the way to get out.
I just want to severance my house off and move on.
» So you're in favor of you're you you can request a deferral.
» Yes. But it's not going to do any good because we've been seven months now and
nobody's brought up nothing. So it'll be another seven.
» Give us a chance. >> I'll be dead time you get it.
» Okay. >> Anyway, fine. Defer it. Whatever.
» So based So thank you. Thank you for that. So, based on the request that
we're now hearing, I'm going to move the deferral based on the request from the
applicant, right? >> And then we can talk about this after if
you like, but that's what we're going to do now.
» Okay. Can I get a seconder to that, Lisa? All in favor?
» One, two, three, four, five, six. That carries. Mr. muscle. I'm going to
recommend to you that maybe it would be helpful for you for you yourself to um
retain some professional planning help.
» No, that's not what I mean. A professional
» I said three different >> That's not what I'm talking about. I'm
talking >> Okay, that's my suggestion. Thank you
very much. Anyway, uh just going back Adam
» and Lisa
Okay. Next up is uh
NPL 2026123 and the planner can give the report please.
» Thank you. through the chair. An application has been received requesting
relief of 0.52 m from the minimum permitted rear yard setback of 7.5 m.
Permit a rear yard setback of 6.98 m for an addition to a dwelling in the
residential R1H zone. The subject lands are located at 982 highway 59 between
Front Road and William Lane in the geographic township of South Walsingham.
The area of the subject lands is approximately 1,021.63 63 m with
approximately 21 meters of frontage on the east side of Highway 59. The subject
lands are currently occupied by a single detached dwelling, detached garage, and
accessory shed. The subject lands are currently subject to a holding under
bylaw 16Z 2022 regarding water capacity. In this case, the subject application
proposes an addition which is permitted under this holding. A portion of the
subject lands is currently zoned hazard lands. Planning staff have been in
discussion with LPRCA staff regarding the hazard land zone on the subject
property. LPRCA staff note that the subject lands are not subject to any
natural hazards. Therefore, planning staff have begun the technical mapping
exercise to reflect the current extent of the hazard lands on the property.
Overall, it is the professional opinion of planning staff that this proposal is
consistent with the planning act and meets the four tests of a minor
variance. This proposal is recommended for approval.
» Okay. Thank you. Any questions of the committee? Is there an agent or
applicant present?
Is there anyone present that wishes to speak to this application?
No. We have a recommendation for approval.
Joe
seconded Phil
2026123. All in favor?
That's carried.
BNPL 2026150.
Um, maybe we'll have a few together here.
NPL 2026151 and 152
the planner can give the report please welcome back Andrew thank you uh through
the chair I'll be presenting this on behalf of my colleague Kendall um I
assume that we can present all three together for brevity
uh BNPL 2026150 an application has been received to
sever a parcel having a frontage and width of 20.14 meters
and a regular depth uh and a lot area of one uh 1876 square meters and to retain
a lot having an area of 28.5 hectares. NPL 2026151,
an application's been received to seek relief of 11.5 hectares from the
required minimum lot area of 40 hectares uh to permit a lot area of 28.5 hectares
for a lot in the agricultural zone. And uh 2026152,
an application's been received to seek relief of 0.22 hectares from the
required minimum lot area of 0.4 4 hectares to permit a lot area of 0.18
hectares and 20 me uh 10 sorry 10 meters of apologies from the minimum required
lot frontage of 30 m to permit a lot frontage of 20 m uh for a lot in the
hamlet residential zone. Uh before I go any further I wanted to note that
additional comments were received I believe yesterday and have been uh
circulated uh to committee members. Um, the subject lands are located on the
north side of Highway 3, west of its intersection with Cockshut Road. The
area of the subject lands is approximately 28.69 hectares with
approximately 20 uh 274 meters of frontage on Highway 3. The portion of
the lands proposed to be severed fronts onto Cockshut Road within the ham hamlet
of Reon and would have an area of approximately 1,876
square meters with the retained lands to h to uh remain at 28.5 hectares. Subject
lands are currently farmed and contain no structures.
Uh the subject severance uh application seeks to create a new residential lot uh
within a hamlet area on lands that are designated urban residential and zoned
hamlet residential. The remainder of the lands are designated in zoned
agricultural and hazard lands and will be and will remain farmed. The
undersized nature of the retained lands would be exacerbated by the proposed
severance uh with the proposed lot also being undersized with a reduced frontage
as per the Hamlet residential zoning provisions. These deficiencies are
proposed to be rectified by the respective associated minor variance
applications. Um, in regards to minor variance
application 2026151, the reduction in lot area is minor
relative to the existing lot size and will not affect the function of the
agricultural lands. In regards to the other minor variance 2026152,
the up the proposed severed lot is of a similar size to several parcels in the
hamlet area and is thus in keeping with the surrounding character. A
hydrogeeological study will be necessary to ensure that the lot can adequately
support a septic system and has been included as a condition of the
severance. Uh a public comment was received as part
of the application and primarily speaks to concerns regarding an observed drain
within a portion of the subject lands. The engineering department has indicated
this drain is not part of the county system and the properties outside of the
watershed of the woolly drain. Additionally, LPRCA has noted that a
tributary water course, a black creek, runs through the property, but would not
be affected by the proposed severance. No issues were raised in the technical
comments. Uh, in summary, it is professional opinion of staff that the
severance proposal meets the planning act PPS 2024, conforms to the official
plan, and meets the intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw. The minor variance
applications also meet the four tests of the minor variance. All three
applications are recommended for approval. Um we were approached by the
agent prior to the meeting uh regarding condition six of the consent um which
had a typo and should require an entrance permit rather than a a um a de
uh what was the word that dep dedication um from uh development engineering.
Thank you. I'm here if you have any questions.
Thank you. Any questions of the committee? Is there an agent or
of course to add? >> Anything to add?
» Nothing to add. Um, is there anyone present that wishes
to speak to this application? Yes, sir. Stepped up to the microphone.
Button on the right and your name, please.
That's the one. >> Mr. Chairman, my name is Ben Hogerp and
my wife Janette and I I we live uh at 1079 Cockchit Road, which is just north
of this proposed uh lot. My concern is uh years ago, Vancastle's
drilled a well for us and we had to go 135 ft down and we hit rock and it has
about 3 to five gallons per minute. It's done the job for us. My concern is if a
neighbor was to drill a well to use for watering their lawn or whatever it was
for. If we diminished our 3 to 5 gallons per minute, we'd run into a problem.
Now, before this meeting, I talked to Mr. Skyler Senior, and he said to me,
"If we ran into that problem, they would drill us a new well, and that would
solve my problem, my concerns, but I would want that in writing or enforcable
because when someone buys a lot and builds a house on it, I would imagine
that's their problem, you know, uh uh not theirs." But that's my main concern,
Mr. chairman that that uh cuz that wells work for us but it's minimal and Reon is
not a good area to uh to drill wells. Uh it's uh it's unfortunate.
» Okay. Um planning staff have any comment?
uh through the chair. That's this is the reason why there there's a
hydrogeeological condition put onto the application um for any new lot because
we need to ensure that not only septic but well um provision is there that the
water's portable but also that a new well is not going to delteriously impact
a neighboring property. So it it's several stages within the hydro geo um
that's a required condition of of the application. So,
» and how would that be enforced, you know, like lightly?
» Well, if the hydro geo was unacceptable um to us or to the building department
um then the severance fails. They wouldn't be able to complete that
condition. So, there's no new lot. >> Um that's basically the the gist of it
is that this this uh the hydro geo will show us one way or the other. Is this
acceptable? Is this attainable? Um, and if not, there is no new lot. It fails on
that condition. >> A concern not to me is my septic system
is probably 25 30 feet away from the lot line. But when they put the new
neighbor, if there is a new neighbor, drills a well, they would have to stay
what 80 or 100 feet away from my septic system. But that's not my problem.
» I'm going to defer to the uh agent for a comment, please.
» Yeah. Do you want me to stay up here or you
can step aside if you like? >> Thank you through you, Mr. Chair. Uh
Nathan Colia, I am the agent for Skyler Farms. Uh simply Andrew is correct. That
is what the condition for the hydro geo study requires and and he is correct in
that if we the report's not satisfactory that we can't get the severance, we
can't get the lot. That's the bottom line. Andrew is correct. Thank you.
Okay. >> Now, let me ask you a question, Nathan.
Um M I'm sorry. didn't catch your name again. Um, he's
asking for something in writing. Is the is your client willing to do that?
» Well, it's a it's a moot point regardless because if the
hydrogeeological study is satisfactory, then there are no concerns across any of
the adjacent lots. So, there there wouldn't be necessary in in general.
» All right. Thank you. Does the committee have any questions of
the while he's up there?
No. Okay. Does that satisfy your concerns for the time being?
» Yeah. As long as I don't run into a problem.
» We're going to get to you. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry.
» As long as >> as long as I don't run into a problem
because I don't want to spend thousands redrilling a well, but
» Okay. >> Okay. Mr. Chairman,
» just like to provide a comment. So, just a little bit of my background. I've
worked I work for the county branch. I've drilled many municipal wells, done
lots of hydrog studies. So when they drill the new well, they will have to
pump that well for 3 days straight to confirm if there are any impacts to
wells within a certain radius, usually about a half a kilometer to a kilometer.
So your well is definitely within that radius. And if any adverse effects are
experienced on your well, which they'll probably and you can request to have
your well monitored during that test, right? So if there are any adverse
effects, they the person putting in the new well will have to rectify those um
impacts. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Uh councelor Van
Hass >> um more of a comment. We've had this
situation come up in other parts of Northolk County and they found what a
solution to that is they put sistns in the house because you have a well that
only does three four gallons a minute and all the kids come home you can't
suck that much out so you pump your well into a sister and they have another pump
that'll give you 20 gallons a minute and that keeps everybody happy. So there are
solutions out there. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm going to go right
to the audience again. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak to this
application? step right up and the microphone's already on and just state
your name for the record, please. >> My name is Karen Eastman. I actually
live just on the other side of the road from where the severance is is hoping to
be. Um, am I correct in understanding that if
it's changing um, like from what I heard over here, if
you're changing the look or it's negatively impacting the neighborhood as
far as like what the neighborhood atmosphere is like or the what I'm
sorry, I don't remember what the words were that they were using about the barn
that or the the garage that was going to be close to the road. I'm going to defer
to the client at the >> unless do you have anything to add?
» Um I would just say through the chair I think you're looking for street scene.
» Yeah. >> The street scene and how how it appears
in the streetscape. >> Right. Okay. So um I'm going to say that
having lived there now for 7 years, uh I've never seen a lot that narrow in
Reton. Um also I don't know that they've built a new house there in quite a long
time. Um, I feel that severing that law and putting a house in there is gonna
look ridiculous. Um, and I know several other neighbors that, well, one that
couldn't be here tonight, I think probably who sent his comments in, um,
just feel that it would negatively impact um, the value of our homes having
another home so close by. I know where the stake is um for the property line on
the opposite side of the road, which is right next to my place, which I think is
the next inline lot to be severed off. Um it actually it's right up on what we
thought was our property because there's railroad track that goes through there,
right? And so it's quite a dip down to the track um and then like up to the
edge. So for us it would be like I know I'm just talking to precedent here like
if this one gets severed and then we want to do the same thing across the
road we're looking at um having a neighbor like right
like 5 ft from the stairway that goes up to our rentals upstairs. So um
» okay >> the one across the street it won't
affect us other than that I don't wouldn't want to look at it probably
it's much you know I moved there because of the country atmosphere. Um, and like
the property tax we pay there is pretty ridiculous. And then if we're going to
be packed in house here, house here, um, like I might as well live in the in town
and that's not why we moved to rent. So >> that's just my personal opinion.
» Okay. Thank you. Duly noted. >> Thank you.
» Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak to this
application? >> No. Okay.
Uh, we have a recommendation for approval on all three. Can I get a mover
and a seconder on BNPL 2026150? That's the severance. Joe Linda speak.
» Sorry. >> Tombs would like to speak.
» I'm sorry. Who? >> Jim Tombs would like to speak.
» Oh, sorry. Mr. Tombs, go ahead. >> Yes. Thank you. Sorry. Um, I live just
across from Ben and Janette and just north of Karen at 1076 Cox. Um, I, as
Ben said, I I have concerns about water. Um, in speaking with neighbors, um, who
had lived there since the mid 80s, they had mentioned that back then there was a
moratorum put on new builds in Reton due to water table issues. Um, I reached out
to someone in archives and because at that time Reton belonged
to the city of Nanny Coke, I guess those records aren't digitized, so it would
require u me to come in person and see this. But yeah, like I I think that
speaks to previous water table concerns. And to that mentioned um about the drill
testing, when would that take place? in spring when there's lots of water
potentially in the ground and the table would be high or would it be done in
summer when the water table's potentially lower?
» No way of um predicting that I guess correct
» when they do it when they actually do the work. We have no way of knowing that
» uh through the chair. No, as far as I'm aware, it can be done at any time of the
year. Okay. But the results are still the same whether it has an impact or not
on >> surrounding properties uh water. So, if
it's a low water level for everyone and the tests show that fine as long as it
doesn't worsen the situation, then uh the testing can be done at any time of
the year as I understand it. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Tombs. Does that
satisfy your concern? >> Yeah. May May I ask one more?
» Sure. So I I know like that used to be kind of
a sidetrack for rail cars back when I was a little kid and even today at times
you can smell the creasso. So, I just wonder if there's any of that that's
soaked into the ground and is that a concern? You know, if someone were to
build a house on that soil, >> planning staff,
» um, as far as that would be concerned, I mean, a fair amount of that would be
taken up in any regrading that's going to need to be done to to former railway
lands. um and will also come out partially as uh in the hydrog
uh because creassote will show up. Um but yes, ultimately it is it is uh up to
the whoever is going to build to ensure that that the uh the grading is safe uh
for residential use. >> Okay. Okay, Mr. Tombs.
» Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. and we'll move along.
So, I have a motion uh moved by Joe, second by Linda for BNPL 2022 6150.
Recommendation for approval subject to conditions. All in favor? And that's
carried.
And then we will do minor variancepl 2026151
mover seconder LSA Phil
all in favor and that's carried
and NPL 2026152 minor variance move or seconder please
Phil and council been passing
all in favor and that's carried
okay moving Moving right along. BNPL 2026163
and the planner can give the report please. Uh yes, thank you. Through the
chair, an application has been received to sever a parcel having a frontage of
46.61 m, a width of 46 uh 1 meter, and a depth of 45.51 m and
having an area of 0.19 hectares. The retained parcel will have an area of
approximately 20 uh 2.31 hectares in the RH uh zone in the hamlet of Forestville.
This uh severance uh note the reduced lot size of 0.19 hectares. Uh a zoning
bylaw amendment was passed earlier by council with a special provision
allowing the undersized lot. The subject lands are located at 188 Charlottville
West Cordeline Road in the hamlet of Forestville.
Uh the subject lands are currently vacant. Surrounding land uses is are
mainly residential and agricultural in nature. A proincially significant
wetland PSW adjacent area is identified on the subject lands. It is limited in
area and in development, grading or servicing or no sorry no development,
grading or servicing is proposed within the PSW adjacent lands. Uh the proposed
severance has been designed to avoid direct encroachment into these features
and the retained uh lands will remain uh zoned hazard land and agricultural. A
grading and servicing concept uh prepared by G. Douglas Valley Limited uh
demonstrated that the septic system and associated well uh associated works can
be located entirely outside the PSW adjacent area thereby uh maintaining
separation from the the natural heritage features. The LPRCA has also confirmed
that a permit is not required for the proposed works based on the current uh
design. On this basis, the proposal uh maintains to avoidance of any key
natural features uh and does not result in any negative impacts on the
provinially significant woodland or wetland. Sorry. Uh given the above, it
is the professional opinion of the planning staff that this proposal meets
the planning act, conforms with the official plan, and meets the intent and
purpose of the zoning bylaw, and is therefore recommended for approval.
Thank you. >> Okay, thank you. Any questions?
Is there an agent or applicant present? Anything to add? Nothing to add, they
say. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak to this
application?
No. Anyone online? No. We have a recommendation for
approval. Move or second or Lisa Joe
and BNPL 2026163. All in favor? And that's carried.
and PL 2026054. The planner can give the report, please.
Thank you. Through the chair, I'll be presenting on behalf of my colleague
Kendall. An application has been received to seek
relief of 36.6% in lot coverage to permit a total lot coverage of 51.6%.
Uh 4.8 m in front yard setback to permit a front yard setback of 1.2 2 m. 3.45 m
in rear yard setback to permit a rear yard setback of 5.55 m. 0.38 m in left
and right interior sideyard to permit uh in left and right interior sideyard
setback of 0.82 m. One parking spot to permit one parking spot is the minimum
number. Uh and relief of section 3.10b 10B
to permit an eaves trough projection to the left side Jar property line.
Excuse me. The subject lands are located on the west side of Cedar Drive just
north of its intersection um with Tyler Street and Turkey Point and the
geographic township of Charlottesville. The area of the subject lens is
approximately 292 square meters with approximately 12.6 m of frontage on
Cedar Drive. Subject lands are occupied by a single detached dwelling and wooden
shed. The existing one-story dwelling has a lot coverage of 35.6%
and approximately 75 77.5 square meters in building area. The dwelling is
proposed to be demolished and replaced by a new two-story dwelling with an
attached garage with a lot coverage of 51.6% 6% and 120.7 square meters of of
building footprint u and approximately 218 square meters of floor area. The
subject lands are designated resort residential under the north county
official plan. Residential dwellings that existed legally upon the adoption
of the official plan uh have been permitted. uh redevelopment or
replacement of existing structures is permitted subject to the policies of
hazard land designation. The hazard land designation permits a
reasonable compromise between the extent of the hazard and the continued use and
future development of the area um of extensive development located on
hazard lands such as in Turkey Point. The subject lands are also subject to
the shoreline policies of the official plan which generally direct development
outside of hazard areas and allow for reasonable compromise between hazards in
the continued use and future development of the area. While a dwelling already
exists on the subject property, the proposed reconstruction significantly
increases the habitable space and building footprint on the lot. Fire
Services has provided comments on the potential risks the increased building
area may pose to first responders, the residents, the neighboring properties,
as well as the general public as it pertains to the roadway. Based on the
submitted comments and an analysis of the requested relief,
uh the proposed development cannot be considered to be a reasonable compromise
when considering the potential hazards. As such, the application does not
conform to the general intent of the Norfolk County official plan. The lands
are zoned resort residential with special provision 1414 which permits
single detached dwellings as use. The applications seek relief of almost all
of the required setback provisions within the resort residential zone. The
intent of these provisions is to ensure that structures are set back
sufficiently from the street and neighboring properties and that the lot
retains sufficient drainage, parking, servicing, and amenity space and that
the dwelling suits uh the character of the surrounding neighborhood. While the
front and rear yard setbacks could be considered to be in keeping with the
existing dwelling and surrounding dwellings, the sideyard setbacks result
in parking and amenity space reductions as well as a substantive lot coverage
increase when viewed together. Oh, and when viewed together has the potential
to create a massing and scale that may appear imposing at the street level. A
parking relief has also been requested with the only parking space provided on
site to be located within the proposed attached garage. As the majority of the
existing d gravel driveway appears uh from satellite imagery to be located
within the road allowance. The existing dwelling has a lot coverage
of approximately 35.6% with the proposed uh lot coverage of
51.6. The proposed relief is more than half
the lot area and when viewed in conjunction with relief requests for
required yard reductions um creates a massing and scale that does
not appear to be in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood.
Additionally, the building department has not has noted that the location of
the existing septic system does not meet the setback requirements from the
location of the proposed dwelling and that the existing septic system is not
sufficient to support the proposed new dwelling. Considering the size of the
proposed dwelling, a septic system of sufficient size to support the dwelling
would not be able to fit within the within the lot of the proposed building
footprint and while maintaining Ontario building code setback requirements.
While a single detached dwelling is permitted on the lands, the size of the
lot permits a building envelope appropriate relative to lot size and
where private on-site services can be accommodated. Staff are of the opinion
that the reliefs being requested as part of this application, when viewed
together, introduce a cumulative effect that appears to be a significant
departure from the intent of the royal uh resort residential zone provisions
and may appear imposing at the street level with its proposed size, height,
and front facade setback from Cedar Street. Planning staff are of the
opinion that the proposed relief requests have a cumulative income impact
that cannot be considered minor in nature, desirable or in keeping with the
character of the area for the appropriate development of the lands and
therefore recommend refusal of the application.
Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Is there an agent or applicant present?
David, anything to add? >> I do.
» Step right up.
Five minutes.
» Good evening. My name is David McFersonen
and I'm representing the property owner VJ Perk and his wife who are also the
owners of the Turkey Point Shopping Center which is directly across the
street from this house. Much of the planner's report speaks to
the proposed dwelling being imposing, too large, and out of character with the
surrounding neighborhood. I suggest that this is not the case at all.
The proposed dwelling is not at all imposing
at the street level, nor does it create a massing of scale inconsistent with the
existing streetscape is actually rather small so far as new
builds in Turkey Point are concerned. The application was deferred from the
June committee meeting as the owner wanted to reduce the square footage to
provide a 1.2 2 m sideyard setback on the right hand side and to increase the
interior dimension of the garage to meet the parking space requirement identified
by the building department. We have moved the dwelling back from the
front property line in order to have a full width deck
on the owner's own property. As you can see on the uh cover photo uh
behind me, the existing front porch and steps are all on the road allowance. So,
we've moved the building back so that the dwelling and the deck and the steps
are all on private property. The existing rear deck has also been
reduced in size to provide more space for a new septic system.
This is not the big imposing dwelling that the planning report makes it out to
be. It is in fact the same footprint as the existing dwelling
with the exception that there's a proposed second story and a single car
attached garage on the ground floor size-wise.
And I did submit all of the architectural plans with my application.
The footprint is only 1,07 square ft plus a 290 square ft garage.
Compared to cottages being built today, this is quite a modest build indeed. I
chose the intersection of Reserve and Cedar and Turkey Point Road and Cedar as
my neighborhood to investigate for this proposal. In that neighborhood are 49
twostory dwellings. And I'm passing around
pictures of all 49 of those two-story dwellings.
The first one on top is the dwelling of the former owner of
the Turkey Point Shopping Center. And that dwelling is right directly across
the road. All of these pictures that you see of
twotory dwellings in those two street intersections
are larger than what we're proposing here.
As for the amenity space, >> one minute David,
» sorry, >> one minute.
» Being concerned, 50% of the lot is open landscaped area, plus there is a
front deck and a rear deck. LPRCA submitted their usual comment regarding
safe access without considering that both LPRCA
board of directors and Norfolk County Council have approved resolutions
guaranteeing safe access. The building department has questioned the septic
system. This building has two bedrooms and only one washroom. A new septic
system design has been submitted to the building department that we believe
complies with the Ontario building code. This system meets all required setbacks
and is sized sufficiently to support the proposed dwelling. The building
department also flagged the overhead hydro service wire as an issue.
So I have booked a site meeting with hydro1
to find a solution to that. I have addressed all of the issues
raised in the planning report and I maintain that this application is quite
minor in nature. Therefore, I respectfully ask that you approve this
application and I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
» Okay. Thank you. Right on time. Questions?
No. I have one. The eaves will the eaves
overhang the property lines. >> The eaves will not overhang the property
line. On the right hand side there is a 1.2 2 m setback. And on the left hand
side, my application seeks relief um similar to uh a proposal I did on
ordinance tav to have the eve um meet the property line but not overhang
it. And that includes the eve trough. The eve trough will not overhang the
property line. Um the building department did also flag an issue about
um the lefthand wall. In my architectural drawings that I
supplied, I provided uh documentation
to show how that wall will be constructed to meet the limiting
distance requirement. >> Okay. Thank you.
» So I think I've covered everything. >> Okay. Thank you. Anybody have a question
at all? Linda, >> just a comment that from the drawing it
does appear that the eve hangs over >> the drawing in the report.
» It does.
» Is can you go to the drawing in the report?
» Can you project that drawing? >> We don't have it.
» It's in the report that was provided. >> The the eve does not overhang.
» Okay. All right.
Anybody else? Okay, I'll go to the audience. Is there anyone present that
wishes to speak to this application? Yes, sir. Step right up.
Easy.
Uh, good afternoon or good evening. Uh, Jerry Rob goes my name. I'm uh live at
229 Cedar Drive and I'm just a concerned neighbor uh
that backs onto this property uh with the additional um uh relief of 36.6 uh
coverage to to uh to the extension of uh 51.6.
their deck uh currently is on the back of the property and I I
really uh see that they're extending the deck considerably back to my property
and uh with with the additional size of the property and building uh does this
property have a drainage plan? Maybe you could answer.
» So typically it Yes, >> it does.
» It does. So typically a drainage >> So typically a drainage plan comes into
play at the building department or the building permit stage,
» but I've already submitted that in advance.
» Okay. Thank you. >> And does this meet meet the the uh the
requirements? >> It would if it's if it's approved, it
would have to. >> Okay. And secondly, um uh we currently
have a picture window facing Cedar Drive uh viewing past their backyard. And and
with with this uh I just wonder if uh uh this would uh uh
uh how high is this building? I I don't see any measurements on the height of
this. It >> should be on the drawing.
Could somebody >> I'm not sure if it's in the in your
report that that's been submitted to committee, but I did submit
architectural drawings and I >> you're not you're not seeking
» the maximum height requirement. >> And what is that?
» 9.1 m. >> 9 What is that in feet or what? What is
that in? Is that two? That's a twotory plus a
» That's a twotory plus a roof. >> Plus a roof. So, what's the total height
of this building?
» I can't I can't tell you right. >> See, I I couldn't
» less than it's less than the 9.1 m. >> So, David, you're not asking for relief
on height. >> I'm not asking.
» So, it's it's it's within the It's within the bylaw.
» Okay. Yeah. Okay. I just couldn't tell what height it was going and whether you
know I realized that views change from uh neighborhood to neighborhood. But in
our area um it it there is a couple buildings
that are twotory but uh not not directly in front of us. So just a concerned okay
» neighbor. All right. Thank you. Dilly noted
» answer your question. We just looked at the plans. 29T 10 to the peak of the
roof >> to the peak. So that's fair size. That's
a fair size. >> It's a twotory.
» Yeah. >> Can I Can I make a comment to answer one
of his questions? Sure. >> The increase in lot coverage is only
because of the attached garage. >> Okay.
» It um my >> It's not a back and forth.
» Sorry. >> It's not a back and forth from the
audience. I'm sorry, but that's that's what that covers. Okay. Is the attached
garage. >> All right. Is there anyone else present?
» Other than that, it's the same footprint.
» Okay. Is there anyone else present that wishes to speak to this application?
Yes, sir. Step right up.
» Hey, how are you? >> Good.
» Jason Young. I live >> Speak up.
» Uh Jason Young. My name is Jason Young. I live directly to the right. So, uh,
all I'm concerned about is the driveway, our driveway and the
property line. Here it says nothing about the right side. And here it says
it's back to you're asking for relief again. I talked
to VJ myself cuz he's my neighbor. >> Yes.
» And he said that that was a it was a mistake that they were asking for
that extra. and he got it rectified. So I said,
"Hey, we're good." And then I see that it's changed again and they're asking
for it. >> This is not a conversation.
» You have to speak into the microphone so we can hear you.
» Yes. Sorry. Yes. So originally even on this document here,
» okay, >> states nothing about the right interior
uh property line. But yet on this one it states that it's they're back to asking
for the >> left.
» Yes, exactly. Left and right. >> I'll ask
» interior. >> I'll ask the consultant to briefly
comment on that. >> Confirmation.
» Okay. >> That's what we're here for.
» That notice was said with incorrect information and I reached out to
planning to have it corrected. Um the mapping was also incorrect and I don't
know if that's what he has but the initial mail had a the an incorrect map
on it. >> Yeah.
» So I I made a an effort to have that corrected as fast as I could.
» Okay. >> I can't speak to what was done but I did
reach out to them. >> Councelor uh Barry
» is correct. >> Okay. All right. It's and the only
reason I asked that is because it's our only parking. So if indeed it is being
taken then I will not have any parking. >> Our lots are so skinny we there's no
available I have to park on my front lawn.
» Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you Dave. Go.
» That was part of the deferral is because VJ wanted to reduce
the size of the building so that we could maintain 1.2 2 meters to his
property. >> Okay. Anybody else wishes to speak to
this application? >> No. Okay. Thanks, Dave.
» Okay. >> We have a recommendation for refusal,
a mover, seconder, or an alternative.
Don't everybody jump up at once.
Councelor Van Passen. Um,
generally I would just straight out say no. It's just too much. Uh, it's too
close to the road. There's no parking spots because they're not going to leave
the garage empty. Um, I do get enough complaints about lack of parking in
Turkey Point already. I don't want to aggravate that, but I wonder whether
they we could defer it and have them reduce it or just eliminate the garage
and leave a driveway there or something. Um whether there's enough room that they
could amend this application, but I'm not sure there even would be. I think it
like there's just way too many things to fix. like whether the se there's enough
room for a septic and well they don't really know. They got a plan that'll
hopefully work. Um you know we're running our eaves troughs right up to
the property line. So it I'd move that we defer it.
» I was just going to ask you if that was a motion to defer
» but I wonder maybe I need to ask that. Is there any
solution that they can amend the current application? Well, let's
» that would count as doing an amendment to
» Let's ask our fabulous planning staff for a comment,
» Andrew or
do you want to
» through the chair and Andrew feel free to um add to what I'm about to say, but
yeah, through the deferral process if if that is something that um you're looking
to do in terms of the agent and look to work with staff That is definitely
something we would be willing to do. Um, so I'll I'll leave it there.
» Okay, we can add that to the minutes or >> as a condition maybe or
» if I just move it out of deferral. Uh, you know that I just want to save the
applicant some money and not have to apply for a complete new one. So, we'll
move to defer it. >> Okay. Seconder. Councelor Barry, you're
seconding. >> Yes.
» Okay. Thank you. Motion for deferral. All in favor?
That's carried.
Okay. Where's that stamp?
Okay. NPL 2026161 and the planner can give the report
please. >> Uh through the chair. Thank you. An
applicant has been or an application has been uh requesting relief of 3.5 m from
the minimum required exterior sideyard setback of 6 m to permit an exterior
sideyard setback of 2.5 m to allow for the construction of a building in the
general industrial zone. The subject lands are located at 10 Arnold Seo Drive
at the intersection of Highway 59. The area of the subject lands is
approximately 2,169.5 square meters with approximately 53.3 m
of frontage on the south side of Arnold Seo Drive. The subject lands are
occupied by an existing building, garbage shed, and three shipping
containers with one to be removed. Surrounding land uses are commercial,
industrial, and residential. Staff notes that the property is under site plan
control and that the owner will need to uh apply for site plan approval prior to
the issuance of a building permit. The proposal was circulated to the Ministry
of Transportation uh for review and comments. The owner must submit plans to
the MTO uh for land development review. The landowner is also required to apply
for and obtain uh building permits and land use permits from the MTO prior to
the issuance of any building con permit or any building construction. Given the
above, it is the professional opinion of the planning staff. This proposal meets
the forecast for the planning of a planning act for a minor variance and
therefore is recommended for approval. Thank you.
» Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Is there an agent or applicant present?
applicant. >> Okay. An agent. Okay. Anything to add?
» Nothing to add. Uh is there anyone present in the audience or online that
wishes to speak to this application?
No. Recommendation for approval? Phil,
Linda?
20 uh 2026161. All in favor? That's carried.
BNPL 2026124.
Uh, yep. And one, uh, the planner can give the report, please.
» Thank you. Through the chair, an application has been received to sever a
parcel having a frontage of 0 m and irregular width and irregular depth and
having an area of 6,818.07 m and retain a parcel having an area of
approximately 3,800 m as a result of a boundary adjustment. Lands are to be
added to the existing parcel directly adjacent to the south located at 425
Queensway West. The final lot size will be approximately 3 thou 13,90.7
m. The subject lands are located at 421 Queensway West between Park Road and
Hunt Street North in the town of Simco and Geographic Township of Windham. The
area of the subject lands is approximately 1.06 hectares with
approximately 61.88 meters of frontage on the north side of Queensway West. The
subject lands are occupied by a commercial building with multiple units
and a parking lot. The lands benefiting from the proposed boundary adjustment
are located at 425 Queensway West and have an area of approximately 0.63 63
hectares. The benefiting lands are currently occupied by a commercial
building. A portion of the proposed boundary adjusted lands are zoned hazard
land and proincially significant wetlands and contain significant wet
woodlands as well. However, no development or site alteration is
proposed as part of this application. The subject application seeks to expand
the parking area and transfer ownership by way of a boundary adjustment of the
flag shaped rear portion of the lot located at 421 Queensway West to the
benefiting lands located at 425 Queensway West. Due to the existing lot
configuration, the boundary adjusted area is currently located directly
behind the benefiting lands. It would make a logical extension of the lot. The
proposal is consistent with the planning act PPS 2024, conforms with the official
plan and complies to the general intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw. And
given this, the proposal is recommended for approval.
» Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Is there an agent or applicant anything
to add? >> Nothing to add.
» Sorry.
Is there anyone present that wishes to speak to this application?
» And we have one. And let's What's her name?
» Christine. >> Christine, go ahead.
» Good evening. Um, my name is Christine Hill and I'm the owner of 417 Queensway
West along with my husband Zachary. He's just sitting beside me here. Um, we are
just speaking on this matter as of course our property is immediately
beside it and now you just touched on it and pretty much answered our questions
anyways, but our concern is for the provinially significant wetlands and
woodlands that are part of that property. Um, given that um, deers and
concerts are an automotive based business and we of course support and
respect that. Um, our primary concern would be though the parking of leaking
cars, cars that need service, um, cars that are being sent out to the auction
being parked on those, um, back flooded areas where those contaminants could
affect the local environment. Um, and also that any lighting that would be
brought in for security purposes to that backwood lot would perhaps be um in
keeping with the fact that it is immediately beside a residential home
and that we would not want it lit up like an airport um at all hours of the
night. >> Okay, I'll see if I can get planning
staff to comment >> uh through the chair. From my
understanding, there will be no site alteration or lights added to the
parking lot. It's just going to continue as it currently exists. There'll be no
changes to the parking lot that I know of. I don't know if the agent has any no
further comments from the agent about that.
» The agent indicates the same status quo, I guess. Okay.
Christine, >> thank you for answering my question. I
appreciate it. >> Okay. Thank you, Linda.
» Question for the agent. Um, you might as well.
» We're going to get you up there one way or the other.
» Would this property be under site plan control? So, if there were changes made,
it would be required to be approved under site plan control.
Uh, sorry, uh, through the chair. Um, the a
portion of the property is under site plan control. Um but it's my
understanding that the hazard land um area is not. Um but I can just maybe
look to planning staff to confirm that. Uh through the chair, it looks like the
entire property is under site plan control. So if anything were to change
on the property, they would have to go through site plan approval, whether that
be through a site plan waiver or a formal site plan application.
» Okay. Um through the chair, I can also add that no structures are permitted
within the hazard land and the um applicant will continue to use it for
parking as um Olivia mentioned. >> Okay, Christine, does that satisfy your
concerns?
» It does. Thank you very much everybody. >> Okay, thank you very much. Is there
anybody else that wishes to speak to this application?
No. Okay. Thanks, Kayla. Uh, we have a recommendation for
approval, Lisa
and Phil. BNPL 2026124. All in favor?
And that's carried.
Well, we're getting down there.
NPL 2026170 and the planner can give the report
please. Thank you. Through the chair, an application has been received to seek
relief of 16.4 hectares from the required lot area of 40 hectares to
permit a total lot area of 23.62 hectares within the egg zone as a
condition of a previous boundary adjustment. BP uh BNPL 2024242
and uh Ontario Land Tribunal file number OLT 24 0001058.
The subject lands are located at the corner of Highway 3 and Middleton Church
Road to the east of Portland um
in the geographic township of Middleton. It is both zoned and designated
agricultural. Uh the area of the subject lands is approximately 23.6
hectares with approximately 197 meters of frontage on the north side of highway
3. The subject lands are occupied by an existing single detached dwelling
accessory detached garage and two agricultural buildings. The application
seeks relief from the minimum 40 hectare lot requirement to permit uh a minimum
lot area of 23.62 62 hectares in the egg zone to satisfy a condition of consent
file NPL 2024242. Uh the lot was already undersized prior
to the minor boundary adjustment approved by committee and the Ontario
Land Tribunal. Uh given the minor nature of the boundary adjustment of
approximately 0.07 acres, the retained lot while smaller remains largely
unchanged in lot area. Given this was a legal non-complying lot prior to the
boundary adjustment, it is considered that this minor reduction in lot size
can be considered appropriate and in keeping with the intent and purpose of
the zoning bylaw. Uh it should be noted that the applicant's appeal to the O2 is
based on the Ministry of Transportation imposed conditions uh relating to an
existing driveway access and an existing shed located on the adjacent property.
The uh tribunal opined that the MTO conditions were unreasonable and were
stricken from the provisional consent approval granted by the committee of
adjustment on September 18th, 2024. The OOLT decision has no implications on the
current minor variance application beyond confirming that a minor variance
for deficient lot size of the retained lands remained a condition of the
consent approval. Uh given the above, it is the
professional opinion of planning staff that this proposal meets the four tests
of a minor variance. This proposal is recommended for approval. Thank you.
» Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Is there an agent or applicant present?
Yes. Anything to add? >> Sorry. Uh Paul Murray, I am legal
counsel for the retained landowner and just to add that this only arose as a
result of minor boundary adjustment that was required to bring the lands all into
compliance due to a slight encroachment of the neighboring garage and we agree
with everything that the planner has said in terms of their position on this
matter. >> Okay, thank you. And there that's your
representative. Okay, very good. Um, is there anyone else online or present that
wishes to speak to this application?
Okay, we have a recommendation for approval. Joel and Linda
PL 2026170. All in favor? That's carried.
And PL 2026131 uh planner can give the report please.
Thank you. Through the chair, an application's been received to seek
relief of 2 meters from the permitted maximum accessory building height of 6
meters to permit a total height of 8 mters and 314 square meters from the
permitted maximum accessory building usable floor area of 100 square meters
to permit a total total usable floor area of 414 square meters in the Hamlet
residential zone for a newly constructed existing detached garage outbuilding.
Uh the subject lands are located to the west of old highway 24 within the Hamlet
OP designation of Wilsonville. Uh the subject or the area of the subject lands
is approximately 0.9 hectares in area with approximately 66 meters of frontage
on the north side of concession three towns and the subject lands are occupied
by an existing single detached family dwelling and an existing garage out
building which is the subject of this application. An order to comply has been
placed on the subject property as it relates to the previously constructed
detached garage uh that was built without benefit of a building permit. In
order to bring the property into compliance, the applica applicant is
seeking relief from the maximum permitted height and usable floor area
in the zoning bylaw for the previously constructed detached garage.
Um, the application site is more than double the excuse me, the application
site is more than double the required lot area for a dwelling in the Hamlet
residential zone of 0.4 hectares. The proposed usable floor area of the garage
out building would be 314 square meters above the 100 meters allowed. Whilst
this is a significant increase in usable floor area, it accounts for less than 5%
of the lot coverage. The zoning bylaw would allow up to 10% lot coverage or
100 square meters, whichever is the lesser of the two. Given the lot size
and the limited impact the requested increase in maximum usable floor area
would have on the subject lands and neighboring properties. It is the
opinion of staff the requested increase in usable floor area for the detached
garage can be considered minor in this instance.
Additionally, the requested increase in height from the maximum permitted 6
meters to a maximum permitted 8 meters is considered minor. The garage
outbuilding is set well back behind the rear lot line of the adjacent dwelling
and to butts in agricultural field. The proposed height increase would not
result in any adverse impacts to the residential amenity of surrounding lands
and given the low slope of the roof, it appears to be as low as possible for the
structure given its footprint. Given the above, it is professional opinion of
planning staff that this proposal meets the four tests of a minor variance and
is recommended for approval. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions?
Is there an agent or applicant present? And do you have anything to add?
» Okay. Thank you. Nothing to add. Is there anyone present online that wishes
to speak to this application? Seeing none, we have a a recommendation
for approval. Joe and Lisa.
Sorry, councelor Van Passan. Go ahead. >> I have a question for staff on
» um when I look at that building, it sure looks like either it's going to have an
accessory dwelling unit in it or it potentially could have. And I'm not sure
that it would meet the criteria. I don't think the far corner of the building
would be within the 40 m required. And I wonder if the intent is to have an
accessory line, which I got no problem with, um, shouldn't we also clean up
those other conditions like the floor area of an accessory was has to be what,
75 square meters in there? It has to be totally within 40 m of primary. Um, are
any of those conditions missing? Because again, I'd rather get it all cleaned up
at once rather than have come back when they get caught again doing something
else. And I also noticed that there is driveways that you're not allowed to
have two driveways and maybe they got to take that one driveway out because they
probably didn't get a permit for that. They didn't get a permit to build this
building. I know they got a permit to build the driveway. So I, you know, they
would give me a letter from the road engineering that their conditions are
satisfied and they've removed that other driveway. So um is that does that make
sense? >> That's the question.
» Yes. >> Okay.
Andrew >> through the chair.
» I knew there was a question. >> Um, basically we have to look at things
as they're presented and submitted to us. There is no second story to that
building. It is just a singlestory building. Yes, I myself when I first saw
it thought, oo, this has an ARD written all over it. However, they've not
applied for that. So, we couldn't condition it um to require them to meet
conditions of something they've not applied for.
um if in the future they decide that they want to put an ARDU into that
building, then they'll have to come back for another minor variance. Um and
that's about all that they can do. We can't we can't for guess and try and and
condition away every possibility that could happen in the future. In terms of
the road or the second driveway, I don't know. Um, I didn't actually uh notice
whether or not it was a new driveway or an existing uh vehicle access that was
just upgraded. Um, if it's existing, then there would have been no need for
an entrance permit. Um, if it's new, then they probably would have needed an
entrance permit. Um, and that's something that will be dealt with when
they get back to permits after getting their minor varants. Well, I I don't
think any of that existed 5 years ago when you look at the aerial photography,
but um that is actually my sort of point that if there and maybe the agent should
look and ask or answer this if they think they may want an accessory
dwelling unit because when I look at a like even the picture you show here, a
beautiful front door with a a roof over it, windows on the second floor, um and
I just pending covering it down that would save them having to come back
later and apply all over again and pay the money twice. So maybe the agent is
there any intent of >> that was brought up and the intent was
» so I think you should come up to the microphone and get this on the record
put these conditions in all the time in especially on boat houses point when
they have a second floor for storage and they have to make sure it's not built in
such a way that possibly it becomes a bunky layer. She's made her way to the
microphone. Let's hear her response. >> So, there was prior discussion with the
owner on is there any future intent because we might as well loop it all in
in case you want to do that later. I was told no.
» Okay. >> So, I said, "Okay, here's my number.
Call me back >> if you do it later."
» Okay. Thank you. >> This would be the same owners who built
a 414 square meter building without a building
permit. >> Okay. Well, we're not we're not going to
surmise that anyway. >> Anything else?
» Rec. Oh, so we have a motion on the floor. Uh moved by Joe, second by Lisa.
All in favor? And uh opposed? Two opposed?
Still carried. Um,
okay. Last but certainly not least, BNPL 20226090.
The planner can give the report, please. >> Thank you. Through the chair, I'll be
presenting this on behalf of my colleague, Kendall. An application has
been received to sever a parcel having no frontage and a regular width and
depth and an area of 2300 square meters and to retain a parcel having an area of
74.6 hectares as a boundary adjustment in the Hamlet residential zone. The
lands will be added to the lot immediately adjacent to the east having
the address of 261 Talbot Street and a final lot size of 5,746
square meters. The subject lands are located on the
north side of Telbot Street, north of its intersection with Main Street of the
Ma with Main Street of Courtland within Courtland itself. Um
the area of the subject lands is approximately 2300 square meters with
approximately 31 mters of frontage onto Talbot Street. The lands proposed to be
added to the subject property are approximately 3,400 square meters with
no frontage. The subject lands are occupied by a single detached dwelling
and three accessory structures. The land the giving lands are farmed and occupied
by two single detached dwellings and several farm buildings, none of which
are located on the lands to be severed. The property seeks to sever a portion of
lands within the urban agric urban area of Courtland as a boundary adjustment
with the lands being used for residential purposes which is permitted
within settlement areas. The lands are designated urban residential, hazard
lands and agricultural with the lands to be severed being wholly designated as
urban residential and are intended to be added to the adjacent property. The
giving property and the proposed lands to be severed for the boundary
adjustment are as I say zoned uh hamlet residential which permits single
detached dwellings as a use. The severed lands would be added to a res an
existing residential lot to increase the amenity uh the amenity space of the lot.
The lands are not farmed and thus the removal of these lands would not
negatively affect farming operations. Uh it is the professional opinion of
planning staff the proposal meets the planning act. The PPS conforms with the
official plan and meets the intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw and this
proposal is recommended for approval. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions?
Is there an agent or applicant online?
» There was. >> Yes, there is.
» Anything to add, sir? >> No, I'm just here to see it.
» Okay. What if we have questions? Are you okay
with that? >> Absolutely.
» Okay. Is there anyone present or on the line that wishes to speak to this
application?
Being none, uh, recommendation for approval. Move or second. Chris B, Chris
and Joe. >> Mr. Chairman, I think this it's a good
move. It's separated from the rest of the farm by municipal drain anyway, so
we're not really losing anything, right? >> BNPL 2026090.
All in favor? That's carried. Motion to adjurnn.
Linda Phil 712. Thank you everybody. We'll see you next
month.