[3:17] Okay. Good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen.
[3:21] » Can I have your attention? It's 5:00
now.
[3:26] 501. Uh, and we will begin our committee
of adjustment
[3:31] committee of adjustment meeting for the
month of August.
[3:35] Everyone's information. We generally
deal with each application according to
[3:38] the order of the agenda. Extra copies
are available
[3:41] somewhere over there.
Um,
[3:47] anyone present who wishes to speak in
support or against an application as
[3:50] well as anyone with any questions will
have an opportunity to speak. The
[3:54] committee will make their decision
following each application. If there's
[3:57] anyone present who is not an applicant
or an agent but is interested in the
[4:01] decision of the committee, you may file
your interest with the secretary
[4:05] treasurer. Please list the file number,
your full name, and mailing address.
[4:09] Copies of the decisions are
automatically sent to the applicant and
[4:12] agent within 15 days of the meeting.
Only the applicant, the minister, a
[4:18] specified person, or any public body may
appeal
[4:22] may appeal decisions in respect to
applications for consent or minor
[4:27] variances to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
The decisions are final if there are no
[4:32] appeals 20 days after the committee's
decision.
[4:35] May I remind everyone that we're being
recorded to mute your devices as well as
[4:39] if you wish to speak to an application.
Make your way to the podium.
[4:44] State your name for the public record.
Ensure the mic is on and you will have
[4:49] five minutes.
The first order of business is to
[4:52] determine whether any members have any
disclosures of interest when considering
[4:56] the applications. Are there any
disclosures? Joe?
[4:59] » 510.
>> Uh item 510 for Joe. Anybody else?
[5:06] Okay.
Have all the members received the
[5:09] minutes of the previous meeting? Are
there any errors or omissions?
[5:14] If not,
I need a mover and a seconder to adopt
[5:18] the minutes. Phil
[5:22] and
Chris.
[5:33] Okay.
First application.
[5:37] Oh, before we start, we have three items
that were
[5:42] automatically deferred or withdrawn.
BNPL 2026099,
[5:48] 2026166
were both deferred. BNPL 2026156
[5:54] was withdrawn.
So, we'll move on.
[5:59] And the first application is N&PL
2026101 and the planner can give the
[6:04] report please.
>> Uh thank you. Through the chair to
[6:07] committee, an application has been uh
received to seek relief of 3 meters from
[6:12] the maximum permitted height of 5 meters
to permit a height of 8 meters and 7%
[6:18] from the maximum permitted lot coverage
of 10% to a to permit a coverage of 17%
[6:24] and 70 square meters from the maximum
permitted floor area of 55 m to permit a
[6:30] usable floor area of 125 m for an
accessory building in the residential
[6:35] 2R2 zone. home. The subject lands are
located at 157 William Street in
[6:40] Delhigh. The area of the subject lands
is approximately 783 square meters with
[6:45] approximately 18.70 m on the north side
of William Street. The subject lands are
[6:52] occupied by a single detached dwelling
and a detached garage that is to be
[6:56] demolished. Surrounding land uses are
mostly residential. Given the above, it
[7:01] is the professional opinion of the
planning staff that this proposal meets
[7:04] the four tests of a minor variant and
this proposal is recommended for
[7:08] approval. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Any questions of the
[7:12] committee?
Is there an agent or applicant present?
[7:19] Is there anyone present that wishes to
speak to this application?
[7:25] If not, I have a recommend
recommendation for approval. Can I get a
[7:29] mover in a seconder? Joe,
[7:35] Phil
[7:38] 20226101.
All in favor?
[7:42] That's carried.
[7:55] Next up is BNPL 2026068.
The planner can give the report please.
[8:00] » Okay. Before I like uh start uh this
one, there was public uh comments
[8:06] submitted. I believe the committee was
circulated on these comments this
[8:09] morning. So uh just to put that on the
uh the record, an application has been
[8:15] received to sever a parcel having a
frontage of 21.64 m, a width of 21.64 64
[8:22] m, a depth of 39 m, and a total area of
843.96
[8:28] square meters, and a retained parcel
having an area of 2,00 uh 312.51
[8:35] square meters as the uh creation of a
lot in the Hamlet commercial zone. The
[8:40] subject lands are located at uh 2590
Norolk County Road 23 at the
[8:46] intersection of Norfolk County Road 21.
The area of the severed lands is
[8:50] approximately 843.96.
Uh the retained parcel has an area of
[8:55] approximately 2 uh 312.51
square meters. The severed lands are
[9:01] occupied by the existing commercial
building. The retained lands uh contain
[9:06] a commercial building with an attached
dwelling and three sheds. The
[9:10] surrounding land uses are predominantly
residential. A hydrogeeological study
[9:14] will be required to ensure that the
severed lot is of adequate size for
[9:19] private services. Uh the retained parcel
uh contains a well. A new well will be
[9:24] required on the severed lands. A minor
variance application will be required uh
[9:30] to rectify the lot area and frontage
deficiencies of the severed parcel. The
[9:35] area of the proposed severed parcel is
approximately 843.96
[9:40] m where 1,860
m is the minimum required lot area. The
[9:46] proposed severed uh parcel would have a
frontage of 21.46 m where 30 m is the
[9:54] minimum uh requirement for frontage.
Given the above is the professional
[9:58] opinion of the planning staff that this
proposal meets the planning act. the
[10:02] provincial planning statement conforms
to the official plan and meets the
[10:06] intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw.
Uh this proposal is recommended for
[10:10] approval with the attached conditions.
Thank you.
[10:13] » Thank you. Any questions?
Is there an agent or applicant present?
[10:19] » We're here.
>> Anything to add?
[10:22] » No.
>> Nothing to add. They indicate. Is there
[10:25] anyone present that wishes to speak to
this application?
[10:32] Okay,
we have a motion or a recommendation for
[10:35] approval. Can I get a mover in a second
here? Joe, Linda,
[10:46] BNPL 2026 0668. All in favor?
It's carried.
[11:01] The MPL 2026110.
The planner can give the report, please.
[11:07] » Thank you. Through the chair, an
application has been received to sever a
[11:10] parcel having a frontage of 12.1 m, a
width of 12.19 m, and a depth of 14.69 m
[11:17] with a total lot area of 178.4 m in the
central business district zone. and
[11:23] retain a parcel having an area of 235.5
square meters in the CBD zone. Uh the
[11:29] subject lands are located at 69 Robinson
Street and 12 Cobburn Street North at
[11:33] the intersection of Robinson Street and
Cobburn Street in the town of Simco. The
[11:37] area of the subject lands is
approximately 486 square meters with
[11:41] approximately 12.1 meters of frontage on
the north side of Robinson Street. The
[11:45] subject lands are occupied by two
commercial buildings with one building
[11:49] having frontage along Robinson Street
and another building having frontage
[11:52] along Cobburn Street North. The subject
lands were previously two separate
[11:56] parcels. However, they were merged on
title. The subject application seeks to
[12:00] unmmerge the parcels. The proposal is
consistent with the planning act PPS
[12:04] 2024 conforms with the official plan and
complies to the general intent and
[12:08] purpose of the zoning bylaw. Given this,
the proposal is recommended for
[12:11] approval.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any questions?
[12:16] Is there a uh agent or applicant
anything to add?
[12:20] » Nothing to add.
Is there anyone present that wishes to
[12:24] speak to this application?
[12:28] » No. Have a recommendation for approval.
Move or seconder. Linda Lisa.
[12:39] All in favor?
Thank you. Carries.
[12:54] and PL 2026107
and the planner can give the report
[12:58] please.
>> Thank you. Through the chair, an
[13:00] application has been received seeking
relief of 10 meters from the required
[13:03] front yard setback of 13 m to permit a
front yard setback of 3 meters for an
[13:07] accessory building in the agricultural
zone. The subject lands are located at
[13:11] 1589 Thompson Road East between
Villanova Road and County Line in the
[13:15] geographic township of Townsend. The
area of the subject lands is
[13:18] approximately 46 hectares with
approximately 67 m of frontage on the
[13:23] north side of Thompson Road East.
Subject lands are occupied by a single
[13:26] detached dwelling, pool, and accessory
buildings. The proposed garage would be
[13:31] deficient in the required front yard
setback, requesting relief of 10 meters
[13:34] from the required front yard setback of
13 meters to permit a front yard setback
[13:38] of 3 m in the A zone. Although an
accessory building is permitted within a
[13:42] front yard in the A zone, it is not
permitted within the required front yard
[13:45] setback. In this case, the proposed
garage is located well within the
[13:49] required front yard setback. The intent
of the front yard setback for accessory
[13:52] buildings is to promote and ma maintain
street appearances, safety between
[13:56] buildings and the roadway and ensure
that the accessory building remains
[13:59] accessory to the primary use of the
property. In this case, the single
[14:03] detached dwelling on the property is
considered to be the primary use. The
[14:06] dwelling is located at adequate distance
from the front property line and
[14:10] maintains the zoning bylaw provision.
However, the construction of the
[14:13] proposed garage with a proposed 3meter
setback from the front property line
[14:17] would not have the appearance of being
secondary or accessory to the main use.
[14:22] The proposed garage could cause a
disruption to the overall street
[14:25] appearance and character of the area by
being located significantly closer to
[14:29] the road than the main dwelling. The
garage is also proposed to be located at
[14:32] top a steep front ditch in close
proximity to existing above ground
[14:36] electrical conductors as noted by the
building department. Overall, it is the
[14:40] professional opinion of planning staff
that the proposal does not comply to the
[14:43] general intent and purpose of the zoning
bylaw, is not considered to be desirable
[14:47] for the appropriate development of the
lands, and is not considered to be
[14:50] minor, and therefore does not meet the
four tests of a minor variance. This
[14:53] proposal is recommended for refusal.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any questions of the
[14:58] committee?
Is there an agent or applicant present?
[15:02] Yes. Do you have anything to add? I'm
sorry.
[15:04] » Yes, please.
>> Up to the podium, please state your
[15:07] name.
[15:15] That's on. Um, afternoon. Uh, my name is
AJ Vanbero. Uh, acting agent on behalf
[15:21] of, um, Darren and Amy Vanderuin. Uh,
yes. Seeking relief of 10 m, uh, from
[15:27] the required front yard setback of 13 m
to permit a front yard setback of 3 m
[15:34] for proposed uh, accessory building. Uh
I just wanted the opportunity to explain
[15:40] the circumstances of the property before
a decision is made. Um the intent is not
[15:45] to circumvent the zoning requirements uh
but rather to find the most practical
[15:50] location for the proposed building while
working within the unique constraints um
[15:55] of their property. Uh the property is
somewhat unusual and that the existing
[15:59] home, driveway, well, septic system and
tile bed and poor all situated in a way
[16:05] that s uh significantly uh limits the
suitable locations for an accessory
[16:10] building. Um the proposed location
provides the most pract uh practical
[16:14] access. It allows us to come directly
off the existing driveway and straight
[16:19] into the new building uh without
requiring an additional driveway or
[16:23] entrance. Um, if the building were moved
further back in line with the home, it
[16:28] would begin to conflict with the
existing well, septic system, and tile
[16:33] bed. Uh, to avoid these services, uh,
the building would likely have to be
[16:37] moved into the far northwest portion of
the property. That location would create
[16:42] additional difficulties in accessing the
building and extending services to it,
[16:47] uh, while also having to work around the
existing well, septic, and tile bed, and
[16:50] of course, the pool area. Uh we
understand that the request relief may
[16:55] initially appear to place the accessory
building quite close to the road. Uh
[17:00] however uh another unique circumstance
or u characteristic sorry of this
[17:04] property is its elevation relative to
Thompson Road. Uh the property sits
[17:09] considerably higher than the roadway and
even with the proposed setback the
[17:13] building would still be approximately 12
m from the edge of the road. Um, there
[17:18] are also a number of properties just to
the west within the hamlet of Villanova
[17:22] where existing homes are approximately 8
mters or less from the road. For that
[17:27] reason, we do not believe the proposed
location will be out of character with
[17:30] the surrounding area. We also not we
also do not anticipate the proposed
[17:35] location having any negative impact on
neighboring properties. It will not
[17:40] create any additional traffic or require
a new entrance. Uh we do not expect it
[17:45] to create concerns with drainage, sight
lines or privacy. There will be no
[17:49] secondary entrance created from Thompson
Road. Access of the build u the
[17:53] accessory building will remain entirely
from the existing driveway. Ultimately,
[17:57] we believe the location provides the
best balance between accessibility, the
[18:01] existing services and features of on the
property and minimizing any impact on
[18:07] the surrounding area. Given the unique
characteristics of the property, we feel
[18:11] request the requested variance is
reasonable and will allow the property
[18:15] be to be used appropriately without
negatively affecting neighboring
[18:18] properties or the character of the area.
Uh we respectfully ask committee to
[18:23] consider uh these sight specific
circumstances and approve the request
[18:27] minor variance. I appreciate your time
and consideration.
[18:30] » Okay. Thank you. Any questions?
Okay. Thank you.
[18:36] Oh, okay. Hey Joe, question. Turn the
mic on.
[18:41] » The uh proposed location, is that the
minimum setback from the the septic bed?
[18:48] » Uh it's supposed to
>> close to as in
[18:54] » 5 meters, 2 meters,
>> within a couple meters. Yes.
[18:57] » Okay.
>> Okay. Anything else? Any questions?
[19:01] Okay. Okay. Thanks. Is there anyone
wishes? Is there anyone present that
[19:05] wishes to speak to this application?
[19:11] Hearing none, we have a recommendation
for refusal. Can I get uh a re that
[19:16] motion or an alternative? Linda,
>> I'll move to approve.
[19:21] » Okay. Councelor Vampassen.
>> Yeah, I will second that motion to
[19:26] approve it. Uh I went out and looked at
it and came to the same conclusion that
[19:30] the uh agent did that it's not out of
place. The fact that it's up on that
[19:35] hill actually makes it look I think it's
going to look nice up there, not look
[19:40] bad. And yeah, Villanov like
>> Villan Nova's half kilometer down the
[19:44] road and I think there's actually some
houses there that are encroaching on the
[19:47] road allowance, but uh so I think it
does meet the the four tests of a minor
[19:52] variance and be happy to support the
motion to approve it. So
[19:55] » all right, thank you. Anybody else?
Okay. And PL 2026 107 motion to approve.
[20:02] All in favor
against.
[20:06] Okay.
And that's carried.
[20:24] Okay. Next up is NP BNPL 2026043
and the planner can give the report
[20:31] please.
>> Uh thank you. An application has been
[20:33] received to sever a parcel of land
having a frontage of 40.51 m a depth of
[20:39] 49.28 28 m and an area of approximately
1,977
[20:44] square meters and a retained parcel with
an area of approximately two 27,113.5
[20:51] square meters in the hamlet of
Walsingham.
[20:55] The subject lands are located at 2063
Main Street in Walsingham. The proposed
[21:00] severed land contains a dwelling unit,
well, septic and weeping bed. The
[21:06] severed lands contain a shop, various
buildings which are utilized for
[21:11] personal storage with the remaining
being vacant. Planning staff's opinion
[21:16] that this pro proposal uh be recommended
for refusal. The application is
[21:22] consistent with the planning act uh but
is not consistent with the provincial
[21:26] planning statement uh does not conform
to the policies of the official
[21:32] plan and zoning bylaw. The consent
application proposes to sever the
[21:37] industrial buildings associated with the
former family construction uh Muscle
[21:42] Trucking Limited from the existing
residential dwellings of the subject
[21:46] property. The industrial operation uh
coexisted as an owner operated lot with
[21:52] an on-site residential dwelling in the
Hamlet uh residential zone for many
[21:57] years. The consent application proposes
to create a separate and sailable lot
[22:03] with a principal residential land use in
the Hamlet residential zone. The
[22:08] proposed interface between the prop the
principal industrial parcel and the
[22:12] newly created residential lot has the
potential to introduce uh incompatible
[22:17] land uses and potential adverse impacts
for future purchasers. The land use
[22:23] compatibility has not been adequately
assessed with the submission of
[22:28] supporting technical studies including a
planning justification report, a land
[22:34] use compatibility component and/or a
separate land use compatibility study,
[22:39] phase one environmental assessment at
minimum and a hydro uh geological study.
[22:45] the existing purpose-built industrial
buildings with uh large bay doors
[22:50] currently being used by the owner for
personal storage. However, staff notes
[22:54] that personal storage is not a defined
use under the zoning bylaw and would be
[22:59] considered uh ancillary to a permitted
uh primary use. Further, the subject
[23:04] lands would require a resoning by a
reszoning with a zoning bylaw amendment
[23:10] to address the sight specific
requirements of the proposal and of the
[23:15] current agricultural zoning on the
portion of the lands.
[23:21] Uh therefore, uh planning staff is
recommending refusal of the severance
[23:25] application. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any questions?
[23:31] Is there an agent or applicant present?
Yes, sir. Anything to add? Looks like
[23:39] you do.
>> Answer any questions
[23:42] that you may have?
>> Turn the mic on on the right button.
[23:46] » And state your name. Gary Muscle.
>> Okay. Um, I applied for this back in
[23:52] February. I was brought before your
committee or your planning department. I
[23:57] was told way to do it. I went through
the whole process. I had a planning
[24:02] thing coming before use on May 20th, I
believe it is. I have all of it here if
[24:06] you want to know exactly. And at uh the
time of it, I was called in by the
[24:11] planning department again. And this one
of the planners told me not to do it the
[24:16] way it was supposed to be or not the way
the other person had told me to switch
[24:19] it over and do the house only, which I
wanted to do in the first place.
[24:23] Everything was a go until I found out
Monday morning that the planning
[24:27] department had changed their mind,
changed everything totally. None of this
[24:30] stuff that we're hearing right now was
ever brought to me. Never once. Because
[24:35] from the day I walked into that planning
department, I said, "What do I need to
[24:38] do? You're the expert. I'm just a guy
once. I lost my wife. I want to sell my
[24:43] house and move on." They told me what to
do. I followed every step. When the
[24:48] person said, "You need a survey." I run
and got a survey. That survey is no good
[24:52] no more. We need another one. I went and
got a survey. I brought it back. You
[24:56] need a tile bed inspection. I went and
got a tile bed inspection. I followed
[24:59] every procedure your planning department
told me. Not once did they mention any
[25:04] of the stuff you're bringing up tonight.
>> Okay.
[25:07] » All gas planning stuff.
>> And the simple thing of it is I have a
[25:11] house, three buildings.
Five or six years ago before my wife
[25:16] passed, we ended up taking the trucking
business, closing it down. We knew that
[25:20] things were going to change. I have
another yard down the road where most of
[25:24] the trucks have been for the last 15
years. This place was never industrial.
[25:29] I keep hearing that word industrial.
Never. It was never commercial. Only
[25:34] thing was ever done in 200 2020
something. I forget the date exactly. I
[25:39] have it in here if you want to know. I
can look it up. But I had to put a a a
[25:44] special Pacific site thing for a
contractor's yard. Cost me about $5,000
[25:49] to get it put on. Then when I quit the
business, I had to remove it. Cost me
[25:53] another 6,000 to remove it. I've got it
removed. I'm back to residential land.
[25:58] I'm using it as a house and three shops.
I got some cars. I got my tractors. I
[26:02] got my some discs. I got a little bit of
everything in all my buildings.
[26:06] » All I want to do is severance my house
off which is in the hamlet and sell it.
[26:10] Keep the remaining land.
>> Okay.
[26:11] » The land's not going to change a bit
that's remaining.
[26:13] » I'm going to ask planning staff to
respond
[26:21] » through the chair. Um so
there it is to my knowledge that there
[26:29] is a history on this site. I have kind
of come into the review of the
[26:33] application.
Um as you can see by the report what is
[26:38] being raised here comes down to being
able to evaluate the technical
[26:44] feasibility. Um, at the end of the day,
the consent application is introducing a
[26:50] future residential lot that would be a
standalone lot and then the proposal
[26:56] would be for
an additional lot with the land use to
[27:01] be determined. It is our understanding
that it's being used for personal
[27:04] storage at this time. However, it was
used as a trucking operation in the
[27:09] past. There are large industrial
buildings that are located on the
[27:13] subject property. um looking through the
policy framework um there is the
[27:18] possibility and potential for
incompatibility between those land uses
[27:22] and the policy framework speaks to that.
So as I mentioned this comes down to the
[27:27] technical evaluation and ultimately it
will be the findings and recommendations
[27:31] of the studies that would allow planners
to look at that recommendation as it
[27:36] sits now. Um it is a recommendation for
refusal, but as we've mentioned, there
[27:42] would be a zoning bylaw amendment that
would be required. Um and as we
[27:46] mentioned, there's other technical
studies to make sure that there's
[27:49] potable water for the proposed
residential lot. That would be through
[27:52] the hydro geological study that is
required and to make sure that there's
[27:56] no contaminants that may have leeched
onto the property and what that means
[28:00] for the quality of water to be at a
potable standard.
[28:03] » Okay. Thank you.
Can I answer to that?
[28:09] » Yep. First of all, there is no
industrial buildings. Well,
[28:12] » the buildings were used for trucks. I
agree. Years ago, I've been living there
[28:16] since 1987. It was a farm when I bought
it. I bought 6 acres of farmland. I
[28:23] built a house and a shop and then I put
on accessories. I've followed every rule
[28:27] there was all the way to now. There has
been no contamination. I've been the one
[28:31] that's took care of my yard. It's my
yard. I live in the house beside it. The
[28:36] well is there. I drink the water every
day. I certainly don't look like I'm
[28:39] dying. I hope not anyway, you know. So,
I mean, all you're going to do is more
[28:45] cost. And this has been going on since
February. Nobody said a word, one word
[28:50] about don't do this. It was when I
walked in to meet the planners. I said,
[28:54] "What do I have to do?" And no one ever
said anything about a study. No one. All
[28:59] you got to do, Gary, is this. Pay the
money. Pay the money. pay the money.
[29:03] I've had two severances because of each
one changing. Do you guys not have the
[29:08] same rules? One tells you to do it this
way. The other one tells me to change it
[29:12] and do it that way. Please, somebody
help me in the guidance here. Like, what
[29:16] can I tell you?
>> Let me see if the committee has any
[29:19] questions. Linda,
>> I just have a question for planning
[29:23] staff. Why would the special provision
be required to be removed just because
[29:28] he closed the business?
[29:34] through the chair. Uh I can't speak to
the removal of this special provision.
[29:39] As it stands right now, we have current
zoning in place. Um and if this was done
[29:44] with a new zoning bylaw and the previous
provision no longer was pulled forward,
[29:49] that's a question. We can look into the
history of this. I do feel that there is
[29:53] a path forward here and um we we do want
to help you get there and I apologize
[29:59] for any history. Again, I've come into
this late. I've started with the county
[30:05] more recently and I have been now
involved with this file and reviewing
[30:09] it. I do want to help you get there. Um,
when we look at the policy framework and
[30:15] what planning staff is looking at, that
is what's shaping that recommendation
[30:19] and the request for those technical
studies. Those are provincial
[30:22] requirements. And so, as it funnels down
through our planning instruments like
[30:26] the official plan, through the zoning
bylaw, we have to comment on those. And
[30:30] the idea is to ensure that there is
safety to the public health and to make
[30:35] sure that if we allowed for a consent
application and a recommendation of
[30:38] approval that that lot can sustain
itself and that's why we're talking
[30:43] about the plottable water etc. and to
make sure that there's no conflict
[30:47] between the surrounding land use and the
proposed sensitive land use.
[30:51] » Well, they're not. They're both uh
they're both residential.
[30:54] » Okay.
>> You know what I mean? And as far as the
[30:57] part that's bothering me is she's
telling me now she's new into this, but
[31:01] I'm telling you I've met three other
planners that have told me three
[31:05] different ways. Do you not all go to the
same school?
[31:08] » Okay.
>> Ask the committee member to continue,
[31:12] Linda.
>> Okay. So, I'm looking at the map that's
[31:16] the zoning map that's attached to the uh
report and it's showing uh 33-Z-2022.
[31:25] So, I'm assuming that's the special
provision that permits the contractor
[31:30] yard. Um, although it wasn't identified
in the report
[31:36] that I recall.
Um,
[31:40] so it's still on the property. Is that
correct?
[31:44] » No.
>> Through the chair. Um, we would have to
[31:46] look at the details. I understand we're
hearing it's been removed, etc. if
[31:51] there's a new zoning bylaw that came
into effect that previous zoning um if I
[31:56] I I believe that it was for 195 square
meters to recognize an existing building
[32:01] one building on the subject property um
to allow for and permit the contractor's
[32:06] yard.
>> Okay. Anybody else? Oh, sorry, Linda. Go
[32:11] ahead. So if it's permitting the
contractor's yard and the severance is
[32:17] approved, the remaining property is
still permitted to operate as a
[32:21] contractor's yard. Is that correct?
[32:28] So this is going to be um probably a
lengthy answer, but there are a lot of
[32:33] details into that because now you have
sort of the ceasing of an operation and
[32:38] planning. We have to look at all of
those things. How long has the business
[32:41] been ceased? What has gone in after that
use? And so there are all these details
[32:46] we would look into and again following
the history of the site specific. But
[32:50] that is to recognize one building on the
subject property. Um so the Hamlet
[32:55] residential just to give kind of an
overview did allow for home industry um
[33:02] which was you know part and parcel with
the residential. It was sort of
[33:06] accessory to ancillary 2 and it allowed
you to live in the dwelling and then
[33:10] operate a small sort of business
enterprise. And so that that is a
[33:15] permission that's there. But what has
come into play right now is the consent
[33:19] application. And the consent application
is a new planning act application and we
[33:24] have to review it for conformity with
the planning framework and that's where
[33:28] it actually changes.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[33:32] » Okay. It's am I correct in assuming that
zoning goes with the land
[33:41] through the chair? The the lands are
zoned. So we do have zoning. So that's
[33:46] why we've kind of included that in here.
But it it sounds as though we're
[33:50] discussing sort of past site specific
for the one building on the subject
[33:55] lands.
>> Okay.
[33:59] More Linda. Well, the zoning appears to
be in place.
[34:04] » Okay.
>> And I don't consider it passed. It's
[34:06] there.
>> So, that's just my opinion and
[34:09] interpretation.
>> Um, and just a comment too that if this
[34:16] applicant is just hearing about these
issues on Monday, if that's correct,
[34:21] that um I question the customer service
in that application.
[34:28] » Okay. Councelor Van Passen.
>> Yes. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Um, yeah,
[34:35] this is a a bit of a complicated
property. Um, but you know, I've lived
[34:40] around here a long time and it's always
been a contractor's yard for as long as
[34:43] I can remember. So, like something to do
with legal non-conforming that I don't
[34:47] know why we'd have to change that. But,
um, and it did have I looked at my old
[34:52] maps, it did have one of the the section
14 things that that's what allowed the
[34:56] contractor's yard. Uh whether that's
still a valid or not or whether that's
[35:01] the one that got pulled, I don't know.
But um my question is is how do we
[35:07] » how do we resolve this? Um part of the
property is zoned as agricultural, part
[35:13] of it is zoned as Hamlet residential.
The Hamlet residential, somebody
[35:19] arbitrarily drew a line on a map at some
point in our official plans and our
[35:23] zoning bylaws and just drew the line.
There's no studies, no backgrounds, no
[35:28] anything. Just here's the line where it
is. They probably didn't even ask the uh
[35:32] the owners whether they wanted it there.
But is it possible to just move the line
[35:38] between the Hamlet residential and
agriculture? Because if the propertyy's
[35:42] owned agriculture, it can have those
buildings on it as they are and don't
[35:46] need anything beyond that. So is it
possible to uh approve the severance
[35:52] application and put in a condition that
they that you move the line and uh
[35:58] include the buildings as part of the
agricultural land which it probably was
[36:01] at some point or when it was purchased
it was that way. Is that a possible
[36:06] option here
>> through the chair? So when it comes down
[36:11] to the Hamlet boundary our our policies
are clear that they are fixed. It's
[36:16] considered settlement area. So that is
more complicated, but there are and and
[36:21] I've said this, I think there is a path
forward. It's just it's about sitting
[36:25] down and kind of understanding what it
is that we're looking to get to and does
[36:30] that mean we do have the situation where
we have a designation that is Hamlet and
[36:35] we have some agricultural zoning. So we
would look to remedy that as well. But
[36:40] there are a number of moving pieces to
this application and it hasn't been
[36:44] straightforward. But we do want to make
sure we can get to a good place.
[36:49] » Okay. I I see. I don't see that many
moving pieces. There's a house there. If
[36:53] it's severed and you sell it to somebody
and they buy a house that is next door
[36:58] to a contractor's yard, don't come to me
later and complain cuz there's trucks
[37:02] driving in at 6:00 in the morning cuz I
bought a house next to a contractor's
[37:06] yard. You can't uh you can't uh put the
blame to somebody else after the fact.
[37:11] So, and they live there. The water, the
sewer, it's there. It's been checked. Uh
[37:16] why do we have to do a hydraologic study
to see if that water is actually there
[37:20] or not? I can't understand why we would
need that. Um we moved the line that was
[37:25] arbitrarily put there in 2014 when we
did our zoning bylaw. They just put the
[37:32] line there. Now it's included as a
hamlet
[37:35] and that's fixed now because that was
approved in 2014. That doesn't mean it's
[37:39] right. That just means that's where they
put it in 2014 and that's where they
[37:42] drew the line on the map. So, let's just
move that line to only be around where
[37:47] the new severed parcel is going to be
and leave the rest agriculture like it
[37:52] used to be and all the problems are
gone. We don't need any studies for
[37:56] that. We don't need uh anything beyond
an eraser and a new pen. So, like why
[38:01] are we making it more complicated than
we have to?
[38:04] » Is there Okay, there's the question.
Carry on.
[38:13] I I wish I could answer that that to
understand why it is as complicated as
[38:18] we're saying it is. This is provincial
policy and so it trickles down into our
[38:23] OP. It trickles down into our zoning. So
we do have to review it. We do have to
[38:28] work within the framework that that is
where planning sits is we review it. We
[38:33] provide the comments. What we can do to
work through that is make sure that we
[38:37] can mitigate any conflict or
compatibility issues and that would come
[38:42] out in the studies. So ultimately what
we're saying here is if if we want to
[38:47] move forward it is about doing the
technical studies to get there and if
[38:51] there's another option then we can
definitely look at that but the
[38:55] application itself was for this
proposal. So I I think there's
[39:00] opportunity to have conversation around
options and then figure it out.
[39:05] » Okay. Thank you. I'm going to go down to
the end of the table to Adam first.
[39:10] » Thanks chair. Uh three to Morgan there.
So you've mentioned I think three at
[39:14] least three times that there's a path
forward. I'd like to hear more about
[39:17] that and specifically um if you could
give us a sense of what the timeline's
[39:22] going to be for for Gary or Mr. Moss,
which whichever you prefer. Uh, and also
[39:28] what other costs are we going to have to
ask him to sink into this? Because if
[39:31] he's already got costs into it, I'm a
bit concerned about a way forward that's
[39:34] going to keep piling that on. So maybe
you can say that, maybe you can't. I
[39:37] don't know. But those are my concerns
here cuz yeah, we can workshop it at the
[39:40] table all night and we're still going to
get probably the same answer, which is
[39:45] fair enough that it's policy. We have to
sort it out. I get all that. So what is
[39:48] the way forward
[39:53] » through the chair? Um, I I think the way
forward is trying to maybe get down into
[40:01] what it is that we want to see out of
this. As we mentioned, the buildings are
[40:05] being used for personal storage right
now. We don't have a definition for
[40:09] personal storage. Is that the intended
use? Is there some other intended use?
[40:13] What can we do to kind of work with
because studies will be dependent on
[40:17] what the uses are? So um as I'm saying
we're looking at the technical studies
[40:24] but the question becomes if the use
changes if we're looking at it um from a
[40:29] different perspective are those studies
still required so when we start talking
[40:32] about costs and time etc some of this
has to do with what applications we need
[40:37] what studies we need
a green light that's not good oh there's
[40:43] red now so um
understood I suppose my question then
[40:48] still is what are we talking about for
time? I mean, if he's Gary's been trying
[40:54] to do this since you said February,
>> February.
[40:56] » Are we talking another year from today
or can we get him in for a meeting next
[40:59] week and start on this? Like, that's
where I'm trying to narrow this down
[41:02] because if this is a deferral or a
referral or whatever and we can avoid
[41:06] the refusal so he doesn't start all over
again, that's a different conversation.
[41:10] So, let's have that conversation like
how do we get this to where it needs to
[41:14] be as per what you're suggesting
>> through the chair. I think the starting
[41:18] point is a pre-conultation meeting to
sit down and we can get him on the
[41:22] schedule for pre-conultation, get out
all the departments involved and so that
[41:26] they can comment on the application. We
can kind of work through it, negotiate
[41:31] through what it is that he's looking to
do and how we can get there, what study
[41:34] would be required, etc.
>> Okay, one more time.
[41:37] » One more and then I got I'm going to
move on to
[41:39] » Okay, I understand, but I want
clarification. Do we have to reject this
[41:43] today? refuse it today or can we do a
deferral or referral and stop him from
[41:47] having to start over again? Can we work
with what's here or does it is it the
[41:51] only option a wash where it's going to
cost them all that money all over again?
[41:54] That's what I'm trying to get at.
[41:58] So if this is something that we are
looking to defer and that's up to the
[42:02] committee
um so that a pre-conultation meeting
[42:06] could be um scheduled and conversation
could take place with all the relevant
[42:11] departments then perhaps the deferral is
the way to go as it stands right now in
[42:16] the absence of the technical studies
staff's position remains a refusal. I
[42:23] understand.
>> Okay.
[42:24] » Thank you.
>> Okay. I'm just going to go to Peter
[42:26] quickly. Peter.
[42:34] » Is he not on?
>> Who's Peter?
[42:36] » No, he's one of our members, but he's
online.
[42:39] » Oh, sorry.
>> Okay. Peter.
[42:50] » Okay, Blinda.
Um
[42:55] so question for planning staff if um a
zoning bylaw amendment application would
[43:03] allow to have that um boundary moved for
the um Hamlet boundary is that the
[43:10] process of zoning bylaw amendment.
So the zoning bylaw amendment would be
[43:16] for the use establishing what the use is
and then what studies would be required.
[43:23] That would be for the zoning bylaw
amendment.
[43:26] » Would it not would you not apply for a
zoning bylaw amendment to change the
[43:30] zoning on it as well? So it's entirely
agricultural rather than Hamlet.
[43:36] » So we would have to look at the OP
designation and if it's Hamlet then that
[43:41] is sort of the issue. So, we're looking
at kind of tiered policy documents. What
[43:45] is the designation? And then do those
policies support what the proposed
[43:50] zoning is.
>> So, a zoning a an official plan and
[43:54] zoning bylaw amendment would be required
to move them to change that. Is that
[43:59] correct?
>> So, I can't answer that question right
[44:04] now without going into the details of
the policy to see what we're looking at.
[44:07] But partly the designation is Hamlet and
the agricultural zone is actually
[44:12] there's a there's a rounded sort of
portion of agricultural zoned lands in
[44:17] the hamlet designation.
>> Okay.
[44:21] » Okay.
>> Just I'm going to go to Peter now. It's
[44:24] back online. Go ahead, Peter.
[44:29] » You're muted.
[44:37] Peter, you need to turn your microphone
up louder.
[44:44] Now you're on mute.
[44:48] We can't hear you.
[45:03] Okay, try now.
[45:09] No.
[45:14] Okay. Well,
>> you can type in the question in the chat
[45:18] if you like or else we can just move on.
>> Talking to me or Peter?
[45:23] » I'm talking to Peter over your shoulder.
[45:34] I'll give it just a minute and see what
he comes up with.
[45:51] » In the meantime, yeah, Joe has a
question.
[45:55] So when we're talking about uh zoning
changes, we need a justification report
[45:59] to understand what the land use is going
to be to understand what amendments are
[46:05] required, an op amendment or just a
zoning amendment. Is that correct
[46:11] » through the chair? Yeah. So ultimately
the planning justification report is
[46:16] going to support whatever application is
being brought forward. So if it's a
[46:20] zoning bylaw amendment, it would speak
to that amend what that proposed use is
[46:27] and have a rationale and whatever
technical studies are required. They
[46:32] could come separately. Some of them
could form a portion of the planning
[46:36] justification report, but we would kind
of work through what those are and try
[46:40] to scope them accordingly and just to
make sure that it's it's a very kind of
[46:44] clear and smooth process.
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay, one more and then
[46:50] we're going to sorry. Um, so
understanding what the usages are going
[46:54] to be are going to help you scope on
what studies are going to be required.
[46:57] Correct. Yes. Okay.
[47:07] » That's it. That's not a question really.
Linda,
[47:11] » uh, are when you're ready to call for
recommendation.
[47:14] » Okay. Well, councelor Vamp just
>> Yes. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Um, one of
[47:19] the other things I don't get in this
report that half dozen times it talks
[47:23] about the buildings are being used for
storage of personal items. Um, I don't
[47:29] know what bearing that has on it. You
know, like their barns are full of
[47:32] stuff. If you no, if you sell the place
and move, you're going to take your
[47:36] stuff with you. So the whether we have a
definition in our zoning bylaw of
[47:42] specifically a building to store
personal items, I think that's sort of
[47:45] like a red herring in the whole report
and you know gets brought up so many
[47:49] times, but it's we're dealing with a
bunch of barns on what should be
[47:54] agricultural land and there happens to
be stuff in it right now that's probably
[47:58] going to get moved out of there when
they're done looking after the
[48:01] buildings, right? So why bring that up
as an important point when it's got
[48:06] nothing to do with the planning issue
involved? I I don't understand that.
[48:12] » That's the question.
>> Yeah. Like why is it so important that
[48:16] there's personal items in a barn on a
piece of land in Norfolk County? Like
[48:21] I've got some stuff in my barn, too.
>> Okay. Let's uh have the planning staff
[48:26] um briefly comment and then we'll
continue along. We'll get to you
[48:31] » through the chair. So, often times you
have a house and you have other
[48:36] accessory buildings and you may use
those accessory buildings to store
[48:40] personal items and and that would be
fine. In this case, what's being
[48:44] proposed is a severance of the dwelling
from those buildings. So now they would
[48:48] be standalone buildings. So we would
have to know what the use is and
[48:52] personal storage is understood to be
accessory or ancillary to a use. So
[48:59] the property can be bought and sold and
those buildings would be there. So the
[49:04] idea being what is the use of those
buildings. So planning is looking at it
[49:09] not as what is the activity of storing
personal items but what is the use and
[49:14] as long as it's accessory to the
dwelling which is a residential use then
[49:19] it's fine. You're using the buildings to
store you know household products or
[49:23] whatever the case may be. It's when you
are coming in with an application to
[49:29] sever to create a standalone residential
lot and then a separate lot that has the
[49:34] buildings.
>> Isn't that the whole crux of the
[49:38] situation? Um, right now everything is
legal because you have a dwelling unit
[49:43] and you have accessory buildings with
the dwelling unit. If you were to sever
[49:47] the dwelling unit off, you the rules say
you can't establish the accessory uses
[49:52] until the primary use is there. So, you
can't have a standalone garage on a
[49:57] property unless you build the house
first in a Hamlet residential zone, but
[50:03] you are allowed to do that in a Hamlet
commercial zone or an agricultural zone.
[50:08] You can have a agricultural land and
just build a barn. You don't need the
[50:12] house there first. But by severing this
house off of here, now you have
[50:17] accessory buildings without the primary
in place. So again, the simple solution
[50:23] is
just move the line and extend it as
[50:26] agricultural land or you could apply you
know maybe this is a good option too
[50:30] apply to reszone the retained portion
into Hamlet commercial that would work
[50:36] as well you are allowed to establish the
uh the accessory use without the primary
[50:41] so either one of those options so again
why can't we approve it conditional on
[50:48] uh a reasonzoning being done you've got
two years to get the separate paperwork
[50:52] done you've in that time you go and
apply to reszone it into either the
[50:58] Hamlet commercial or extend the move the
agricultural boundary. Why can't we do
[51:03] that
[51:07] through the chair? So part of the issue
as we've kind of talked about is it's
[51:11] Hamlet residential. So if we were
looking to reszone it for commercial or
[51:18] whatever the use it would be a reszoning
application. So that's what we're
[51:22] saying. There are options, but we have
to kind of sit down and sus out what it
[51:26] is going to be and what you want to do
with it so that we can then determine
[51:30] what applications and then corresponding
studies you would require.
[51:35] » Time we approve it conditional on the
appropriate zoning application, the
[51:39] appropriate minor variant, whatever the
case may be. And that becomes a
[51:43] condition. You can't get the final
paperwork done on the severance till you
[51:46] get that other part of the puzzle done.
So, why couldn't we approve the
[51:50] severance tonight with a adding a
condition that the required zoning
[51:54] amendment be approved?
>> I'm just going to step in. I think she's
[51:56] answered that a couple of times in in a
couple of different ways and and we'll
[51:59] just leave it at that and
>> well,
[52:04] okay, let's move along. Peter typed in
his uh comments and questions and I'll
[52:10] make a note of that. But I just want to
continue on with her. I'll give Mr.
[52:14] Muscle briefly a one more stab at it.
Just okay, one more thing. First of all,
[52:19] like I said, it's been 7 months.
>> Okay.
[52:22] » You know, why has none of this been
brought up for 7 months? When they said
[52:25] go get a severance, I went and got it.
You know, I've told you that every And I
[52:28] was in there saying, what do I do? What
do you want me to do? It wasn't what I
[52:31] was wanting to do. What do you want?
Three different planners. Now, we have a
[52:36] new lady that apparently just came here
and the whole world changed Monday
[52:40] morning. What happened?
>> Okay, that's
[52:43] » What happened to Everything's perfect,
Gary. Don't worry about it. Don't even
[52:45] have to show up if you don't want to.
>> Okay. Well, take a note of that. I got
[52:49] to go through the whole procedure.
>> It's just a severance of a of a house
[52:53] that I don't want to live in anymore.
It's on a residential lot. The remaining
[52:58] can go back to farmland. If you tell me
you want cows put in those buildings,
[53:02] I'll go get some cows.
>> We got that. Okay. I just
[53:05] » Easy to get along with.
>> I'm going to continue on and ask the
[53:08] general audience if there's anyone here
that wishes to speak to this
[53:11] application.
[53:15] No. Um Peter online has uh made a motion
for a deferral if uh the committee is
[53:23] acceptable to that.
>> Councelor Barry second.
[53:28] » You second it.
>> Okay. So we have a motion for deferral.
[53:32] Um
all in favor
[53:37] one, two, three. Peter is four against
One, two, three. That councelor Van
[53:48] Passen,
you're in favor or against?
[53:52] » Okay, so that's a tie. It loses on a
tie.
[53:58] » No,
[54:04] » make a new motion. Linda,
>> I'll make a motion that we approve it uh
[54:11] with the removal of the hydro geological
study given that he's already living in
[54:17] the house or the house has water and
sewer existing
[54:22] and
um conditional upon
[54:27] approval of an official plan and zoning
bylaw amendment if required because I
[54:34] feel like it's still zoned as a
contract. ctor's yard and he may not
[54:38] require that.
>> Okay, a seconder.
[54:43] Councelor Van Pass.
>> Councelor Barry.
[54:48] » Thanks. I just want to clarify before
you call the vote. Is that legal
[54:52] to do that?
Like can we are we creating like a if
[54:57] it's legal fine but it sounds like there
might be some planning act issues here
[55:05] » through the chair. Um do you could you
clarify?
[55:09] » Well so if we
is this motion going to create legal
[55:14] issues? I'm not trying to stop you from
getting your thing approved. I just want
[55:16] to make sure you don't have a problem
later. Is is there is doing what is on
[55:19] the floor is that something we can
legally do
[55:24] » through the chair? I I can't speak to
legally. What I can say from a planning
[55:29] perspective is
planning staff has gone through the
[55:33] planning policy framework and they have
determined based on that framework
[55:39] whether this is an application that is
consistent with the PPS conforms to the
[55:44] OP and the zoning bylaw and if working
through that policy framework we arrive
[55:49] at no then we recommend refusal. Um, we
did include a a host of different
[55:56] conditions
should you want to understand sort of
[56:00] what that may look like, but ultimately
we've gone through the policy framework
[56:05] and said that it it's not in alignment.
And so it's
[56:11] the committee you can assess that and
make your determination but ultimately
[56:16] these would be the studies that would be
required as per provincial uh
[56:21] requirements and and that is set out and
we've kind of laid that out in the
[56:25] report.
>> Okay.
[56:29] » The condition of approval of a official
plan and zoning bylaw amendment
[56:34] would fix that to make it compliant. Is
that not correct?
[56:42] » So staff in the report has looked at the
requirement for a zoning bylaw amendment
[56:47] and what that may look like, but we've
said, you know, that will come down to
[56:52] sort of the sight specific requirements
and working through what that proposed
[56:56] use is. Um, as for the official plan
amendment, that would only be required
[57:02] if you know it got to that level. But
depending on what's being proposed right
[57:06] now, staff was comfortable with the
zoning bylaw amendment based on what we
[57:10] have before us. So, um, ultimately all
of that information is there and in the
[57:17] report. It's it's before you to make a
decision. Um, but again, staff based on
[57:24] the review and in the absence of the
technical studies can't conclude that it
[57:29] is in conformity.
>> Okay. Thank you. So, we have a motion on
[57:35] the floor
to approve with some conditions. Moved
[57:40] by Linda, seconded by Councelor Van
Passen. I'm going to call the vote. All
[57:45] in favor?
One, two, three, four.
[57:51] Peter. What's Peter doing?
He's against.
[57:57] » What's that?
>> He's a no. Okay. So, so four four and
[58:03] against
one, two, three, four
[58:08] loes on a tie again. Councelor Barry.
So, I have sorry another question from
[58:14] Morgan. So, I I I didn't if you said it,
I apologize. What's the timeline
[58:20] on getting Gary in getting a meeting
done? Can we do we have enough time to
[58:25] get if he'll agree to give it a month on
a deferral, can we get them back in
[58:29] September
with your meetings and everything else?
[58:32] Is that doable? Are we going to be
putting them off for another 6 months, 8
[58:36] months, 10 year, whatever it is?
>> Well, maybe I can help you answer that.
[58:40] That usually the September calendar's
pretty much set by now. So, you'd
[58:44] probably be looking at October at the
earliest. Am I correct?
[58:48] » Well, that's sort of correct.
>> Okay, fine.
[58:52] I'm going to ask Gary in a minute if the
timeline that Morgan gives us is
[58:56] acceptable. That's what I'm where I'm
kind of going. So, pick a timeline, but
[59:00] when's the earliest we can get this back
in front of the committee for a final
[59:04] decision? If we were to go to a
deferral, if that's something that
[59:08] » Gary requests us to do, how much time do
you need to get this done?
[59:16] through the chair. I will defer to
Olivia for a moment just to see if this
[59:22] is Olivia as you scheduled the
pre-conultations. Is this something that
[59:27] we could get Mr. Muscle in for on the
next pre-conultation agenda?
[59:36] » We got too many microphones on. Mr.
Muscle, would you mind turning your
[59:40] microphone off, please?
>> Okay, Olivia. uh through the chair for
[59:46] pre-conultation meetings. The next
available date would be Wednesday,
[59:50] September 2nd, I believe. Oh, no, sorry,
one second. Let me just double check my
[59:55] calendar. We are booking into September
for pre-conultation meetings. So, I just
[59:59] want to confirm the exact date.
[1:00:12] So, Wednesday, September 9th would be
the earliest time that we would have
[1:00:16] available and it would have be at 1:30
p.m.
[1:00:20] » Okay. So, if we're going to continue
because chair's not paying attention.
[1:00:23] So, I'm going to sneak one in on them.
So, we meet September 9th. Not we, you
[1:00:28] all meet September 9th. We do what we
got to do. based on the requirements and
[1:00:33] the ideas you have of fixing this. Is
this something that again once he's met
[1:00:36] and we come to an agreement? Can we get
this back by October or is this again
[1:00:41] going to be something that he's got to
do a bunch of stuff and whatever the the
[1:00:44] studies are, is it going to be 6 months?
Is it like you got to give me a sense of
[1:00:47] this so we can move this forward because
we're deadlocked at two failed votes. So
[1:00:52] where where are we doing?
>> I see a way.
[1:00:54] » So do I. So I'm trying to get there
>> through the chair. um we staff will do
[1:01:02] all that we can do to work through the
process as quickly as possible. What I
[1:01:06] will say is we go to pre-conultation and
all the departments relevant departments
[1:01:11] any external agencies are involved. They
provide all of their comments and then
[1:01:15] the applicant in this case Mr. Muscle
would take that away and determine what
[1:01:19] he he is prepared to do. Okay. and then
make the application if the zoning bylaw
[1:01:25] amendment application is something he
wants to move forward with and then
[1:01:29] obviously go out to retain consultants
to undertake the necessary studies. So
[1:01:34] in terms of a completion date, but that
does mean as we're working with him, he
[1:01:40] can we can still look at the report
cycle for consents and come back with
[1:01:45] those conditions after we've had sort of
that wholesome discussion. He
[1:01:50] understands what that looks like and
he's made the decision to move forward.
[1:01:54] » Okay. Thank you.
>> Mr. Muscle,
[1:01:57] I'm going to ask you if you would like a
deferral
[1:02:01] for you to you and to consult with staff
and get this thing moving at an
[1:02:07] expedited manner. And I'm going to
recommend as the chair that we that the
[1:02:12] county wave any uh deferral fees that
may be entailed. Paid that already.
[1:02:17] » Pardon me. I've
>> paid them already.
[1:02:21] Anyway, so would you like a deferral?
Because you've seen here we've got two
[1:02:25] failed votes.
>> The deferral is the way to get out.
[1:02:30] I just want to severance my house off
and move on.
[1:02:33] » So you're in favor of you're you you can
request a deferral.
[1:02:36] » Yes. But it's not going to do any good
because we've been seven months now and
[1:02:39] nobody's brought up nothing. So it'll be
another seven.
[1:02:41] » Give us a chance.
>> I'll be dead time you get it.
[1:02:44] » Okay.
>> Anyway, fine. Defer it. Whatever.
[1:02:47] » So based So thank you. Thank you for
that. So, based on the request that
[1:02:52] we're now hearing, I'm going to move the
deferral based on the request from the
[1:02:56] applicant, right?
>> And then we can talk about this after if
[1:02:58] you like, but that's what we're going to
do now.
[1:03:01] » Okay. Can I get a seconder to that,
Lisa? All in favor?
[1:03:06] » One, two, three, four, five, six. That
carries. Mr. muscle. I'm going to
[1:03:13] recommend to you that maybe it would be
helpful for you for you yourself to um
[1:03:20] retain some professional planning help.
[1:03:25] » No, that's not what I mean. A
professional
[1:03:27] » I said three different
>> That's not what I'm talking about. I'm
[1:03:32] talking
>> Okay, that's my suggestion. Thank you
[1:03:36] very much.
Anyway, uh just going back Adam
[1:03:44] » and Lisa
[1:04:23] Okay. Next up is uh
[1:04:28] NPL 2026123 and the planner can give the
report please.
[1:04:32] » Thank you. through the chair. An
application has been received requesting
[1:04:35] relief of 0.52 m from the minimum
permitted rear yard setback of 7.5 m.
[1:04:41] Permit a rear yard setback of 6.98 m for
an addition to a dwelling in the
[1:04:45] residential R1H zone. The subject lands
are located at 982 highway 59 between
[1:04:51] Front Road and William Lane in the
geographic township of South Walsingham.
[1:04:55] The area of the subject lands is
approximately 1,021.63 63 m with
[1:05:00] approximately 21 meters of frontage on
the east side of Highway 59. The subject
[1:05:04] lands are currently occupied by a single
detached dwelling, detached garage, and
[1:05:08] accessory shed. The subject lands are
currently subject to a holding under
[1:05:12] bylaw 16Z 2022 regarding water capacity.
In this case, the subject application
[1:05:18] proposes an addition which is permitted
under this holding. A portion of the
[1:05:21] subject lands is currently zoned hazard
lands. Planning staff have been in
[1:05:25] discussion with LPRCA staff regarding
the hazard land zone on the subject
[1:05:28] property. LPRCA staff note that the
subject lands are not subject to any
[1:05:32] natural hazards. Therefore, planning
staff have begun the technical mapping
[1:05:36] exercise to reflect the current extent
of the hazard lands on the property.
[1:05:40] Overall, it is the professional opinion
of planning staff that this proposal is
[1:05:43] consistent with the planning act and
meets the four tests of a minor
[1:05:46] variance. This proposal is recommended
for approval.
[1:05:49] » Okay. Thank you. Any questions of the
committee? Is there an agent or
[1:05:53] applicant present?
[1:05:58] Is there anyone present that wishes to
speak to this application?
[1:06:04] No. We have a recommendation for
approval.
[1:06:08] Joe
[1:06:11] seconded Phil
[1:06:17] 2026123.
All in favor?
[1:06:22] That's carried.
[1:06:37] BNPL 2026150.
[1:06:42] Um, maybe we'll have a few together
here.
[1:06:47] NPL 2026151
and 152
[1:06:53] the planner can give the report please
welcome back Andrew thank you uh through
[1:06:57] the chair I'll be presenting this on
behalf of my colleague Kendall um I
[1:07:01] assume that we can present all three
together for brevity
[1:07:07] uh BNPL 2026150
an application has been received to
[1:07:11] sever a parcel having a frontage and
width of 20.14 meters
[1:07:16] and a regular depth uh and a lot area of
one uh 1876 square meters and to retain
[1:07:22] a lot having an area of 28.5 hectares.
NPL 2026151,
[1:07:29] an application's been received to seek
relief of 11.5 hectares from the
[1:07:33] required minimum lot area of 40 hectares
uh to permit a lot area of 28.5 hectares
[1:07:39] for a lot in the agricultural zone. And
uh 2026152,
[1:07:46] an application's been received to seek
relief of 0.22 hectares from the
[1:07:51] required minimum lot area of 0.4 4
hectares to permit a lot area of 0.18
[1:07:56] hectares and 20 me uh 10 sorry 10 meters
of apologies from the minimum required
[1:08:03] lot frontage of 30 m to permit a lot
frontage of 20 m uh for a lot in the
[1:08:08] hamlet residential zone. Uh before I go
any further I wanted to note that
[1:08:13] additional comments were received I
believe yesterday and have been uh
[1:08:16] circulated uh to committee members. Um,
the subject lands are located on the
[1:08:23] north side of Highway 3, west of its
intersection with Cockshut Road. The
[1:08:27] area of the subject lands is
approximately 28.69 hectares with
[1:08:31] approximately 20 uh 274 meters of
frontage on Highway 3. The portion of
[1:08:37] the lands proposed to be severed fronts
onto Cockshut Road within the ham hamlet
[1:08:42] of Reon and would have an area of
approximately 1,876
[1:08:47] square meters with the retained lands to
h to uh remain at 28.5 hectares. Subject
[1:08:53] lands are currently farmed and contain
no structures.
[1:08:58] Uh the subject severance uh application
seeks to create a new residential lot uh
[1:09:04] within a hamlet area on lands that are
designated urban residential and zoned
[1:09:09] hamlet residential. The remainder of the
lands are designated in zoned
[1:09:13] agricultural and hazard lands and will
be and will remain farmed. The
[1:09:17] undersized nature of the retained lands
would be exacerbated by the proposed
[1:09:21] severance uh with the proposed lot also
being undersized with a reduced frontage
[1:09:26] as per the Hamlet residential zoning
provisions. These deficiencies are
[1:09:31] proposed to be rectified by the
respective associated minor variance
[1:09:34] applications.
Um, in regards to minor variance
[1:09:39] application 2026151,
the reduction in lot area is minor
[1:09:44] relative to the existing lot size and
will not affect the function of the
[1:09:48] agricultural lands. In regards to the
other minor variance 2026152,
[1:09:54] the up the proposed severed lot is of a
similar size to several parcels in the
[1:09:58] hamlet area and is thus in keeping with
the surrounding character. A
[1:10:02] hydrogeeological study will be necessary
to ensure that the lot can adequately
[1:10:06] support a septic system and has been
included as a condition of the
[1:10:09] severance.
Uh a public comment was received as part
[1:10:13] of the application and primarily speaks
to concerns regarding an observed drain
[1:10:18] within a portion of the subject lands.
The engineering department has indicated
[1:10:22] this drain is not part of the county
system and the properties outside of the
[1:10:26] watershed of the woolly drain.
Additionally, LPRCA has noted that a
[1:10:31] tributary water course, a black creek,
runs through the property, but would not
[1:10:35] be affected by the proposed severance.
No issues were raised in the technical
[1:10:39] comments. Uh, in summary, it is
professional opinion of staff that the
[1:10:43] severance proposal meets the planning
act PPS 2024, conforms to the official
[1:10:48] plan, and meets the intent and purpose
of the zoning bylaw. The minor variance
[1:10:53] applications also meet the four tests of
the minor variance. All three
[1:10:57] applications are recommended for
approval. Um we were approached by the
[1:11:02] agent prior to the meeting uh regarding
condition six of the consent um which
[1:11:07] had a typo and should require an
entrance permit rather than a a um a de
[1:11:14] uh what was the word that dep dedication
um from uh development engineering.
[1:11:21] Thank you. I'm here if you have any
questions.
[1:11:26] Thank you. Any questions of the
committee? Is there an agent or
[1:11:31] of course to add?
>> Anything to add?
[1:11:35] » Nothing to add.
Um, is there anyone present that wishes
[1:11:39] to speak to this application?
Yes, sir. Stepped up to the microphone.
[1:11:49] Button on the right and your name,
please.
[1:11:57] That's the one.
>> Mr. Chairman, my name is Ben Hogerp and
[1:12:01] my wife Janette and I I we live uh at
1079 Cockchit Road, which is just north
[1:12:07] of this proposed uh lot.
My concern is uh years ago, Vancastle's
[1:12:13] drilled a well for us and we had to go
135 ft down and we hit rock and it has
[1:12:20] about 3 to five gallons per minute. It's
done the job for us. My concern is if a
[1:12:27] neighbor was to drill a well to use for
watering their lawn or whatever it was
[1:12:32] for. If we diminished our 3 to 5 gallons
per minute, we'd run into a problem.
[1:12:38] Now, before this meeting, I talked to
Mr. Skyler Senior, and he said to me,
[1:12:42] "If we ran into that problem, they would
drill us a new well, and that would
[1:12:48] solve my problem, my concerns, but I
would want that in writing or enforcable
[1:12:53] because when someone buys a lot and
builds a house on it, I would imagine
[1:12:57] that's their problem, you know, uh uh
not theirs." But that's my main concern,
[1:13:03] Mr. chairman that that uh cuz that wells
work for us but it's minimal and Reon is
[1:13:09] not a good area to uh to drill wells. Uh
it's uh it's unfortunate.
[1:13:14] » Okay. Um
planning staff have any comment?
[1:13:20] uh through the chair. That's this is the
reason why there there's a
[1:13:23] hydrogeeological condition put onto the
application um for any new lot because
[1:13:28] we need to ensure that not only septic
but well um provision is there that the
[1:13:34] water's portable but also that a new
well is not going to delteriously impact
[1:13:39] a neighboring property. So it it's
several stages within the hydro geo um
[1:13:45] that's a required condition of of the
application. So,
[1:13:48] » and how would that be enforced, you
know, like lightly?
[1:13:52] » Well, if the hydro geo was unacceptable
um to us or to the building department
[1:13:58] um then the severance fails. They
wouldn't be able to complete that
[1:14:02] condition. So, there's no new lot.
>> Um that's basically the the gist of it
[1:14:09] is that this this uh the hydro geo will
show us one way or the other. Is this
[1:14:15] acceptable? Is this attainable? Um, and
if not, there is no new lot. It fails on
[1:14:22] that condition.
>> A concern not to me is my septic system
[1:14:26] is probably 25 30 feet away from the lot
line. But when they put the new
[1:14:31] neighbor, if there is a new neighbor,
drills a well, they would have to stay
[1:14:36] what 80 or 100 feet away from my septic
system. But that's not my problem.
[1:14:40] » I'm going to defer to the uh agent for a
comment, please.
[1:14:43] » Yeah.
Do you want me to stay up here or you
[1:14:47] can step aside if you like?
>> Thank you through you, Mr. Chair. Uh
[1:14:52] Nathan Colia, I am the agent for Skyler
Farms. Uh simply Andrew is correct. That
[1:14:58] is what the condition for the hydro geo
study requires and and he is correct in
[1:15:02] that if we the report's not satisfactory
that we can't get the severance, we
[1:15:07] can't get the lot. That's the bottom
line. Andrew is correct. Thank you.
[1:15:09] Okay.
>> Now, let me ask you a question, Nathan.
[1:15:11] Um M I'm sorry.
didn't catch your name again. Um, he's
[1:15:18] asking for something in writing. Is the
is your client willing to do that?
[1:15:23] » Well, it's a it's a moot point
regardless because if the
[1:15:26] hydrogeeological study is satisfactory,
then there are no concerns across any of
[1:15:31] the adjacent lots. So, there there
wouldn't be necessary in in general.
[1:15:35] » All right. Thank you.
Does the committee have any questions of
[1:15:39] the
while he's up there?
[1:15:44] No. Okay. Does that satisfy your
concerns for the time being?
[1:15:47] » Yeah. As long as I don't run into a
problem.
[1:15:50] » We're going to get to you. Yeah. Okay.
I'm sorry.
[1:15:53] » As long as
>> as long as I don't run into a problem
[1:15:57] because I don't want to spend thousands
redrilling a well, but
[1:16:01] » Okay.
>> Okay. Mr. Chairman,
[1:16:04] » just like to provide a comment. So, just
a little bit of my background. I've
[1:16:07] worked I work for the county branch.
I've drilled many municipal wells, done
[1:16:12] lots of hydrog studies. So when they
drill the new well, they will have to
[1:16:17] pump that well for 3 days straight to
confirm if there are any impacts to
[1:16:21] wells within a certain radius, usually
about a half a kilometer to a kilometer.
[1:16:26] So your well is definitely within that
radius. And if any adverse effects are
[1:16:31] experienced on your well, which they'll
probably and you can request to have
[1:16:36] your well monitored during that test,
right? So if there are any adverse
[1:16:42] effects, they the person putting in the
new well will have to rectify those um
[1:16:49] impacts.
>> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Uh councelor Van
[1:16:53] Hass
>> um more of a comment. We've had this
[1:16:57] situation come up in other parts of
Northolk County and they found what a
[1:17:02] solution to that is they put sistns in
the house because you have a well that
[1:17:06] only does three four gallons a minute
and all the kids come home you can't
[1:17:09] suck that much out so you pump your well
into a sister and they have another pump
[1:17:13] that'll give you 20 gallons a minute and
that keeps everybody happy. So there are
[1:17:17] solutions out there.
>> Okay. Thank you. I'm going to go right
[1:17:19] to the audience again. Is there anyone
else that wishes to speak to this
[1:17:22] application? step right up and the
microphone's already on and just state
[1:17:27] your name for the record, please.
>> My name is Karen Eastman. I actually
[1:17:31] live just on the other side of the road
from where the severance is is hoping to
[1:17:35] be. Um,
am I correct in understanding that if
[1:17:40] it's changing
um, like from what I heard over here, if
[1:17:44] you're changing the look or it's
negatively impacting the neighborhood as
[1:17:49] far as like what the neighborhood
atmosphere is like or the what I'm
[1:17:54] sorry, I don't remember what the words
were that they were using about the barn
[1:17:57] that or the the garage that was going to
be close to the road. I'm going to defer
[1:18:02] to the client at the
>> unless do you have anything to add?
[1:18:07] » Um I would just say through the chair I
think you're looking for street scene.
[1:18:11] » Yeah.
>> The street scene and how how it appears
[1:18:13] in the streetscape.
>> Right. Okay. So um I'm going to say that
[1:18:18] having lived there now for 7 years, uh
I've never seen a lot that narrow in
[1:18:23] Reton. Um also I don't know that they've
built a new house there in quite a long
[1:18:29] time. Um, I feel that severing that law
and putting a house in there is gonna
[1:18:35] look ridiculous. Um, and I know several
other neighbors that, well, one that
[1:18:41] couldn't be here tonight, I think
probably who sent his comments in, um,
[1:18:45] just feel that it would negatively
impact um, the value of our homes having
[1:18:51] another home so close by. I know where
the stake is um for the property line on
[1:18:57] the opposite side of the road, which is
right next to my place, which I think is
[1:19:00] the next inline lot to be severed off.
Um it actually it's right up on what we
[1:19:06] thought was our property because there's
railroad track that goes through there,
[1:19:10] right? And so it's quite a dip down to
the track um and then like up to the
[1:19:15] edge. So for us it would be like I know
I'm just talking to precedent here like
[1:19:20] if this one gets severed and then we
want to do the same thing across the
[1:19:23] road we're looking at um having a
neighbor like right
[1:19:29] like 5 ft from the stairway that goes up
to our rentals upstairs. So um
[1:19:35] » okay
>> the one across the street it won't
[1:19:37] affect us other than that I don't
wouldn't want to look at it probably
[1:19:41] it's much you know I moved there because
of the country atmosphere. Um, and like
[1:19:46] the property tax we pay there is pretty
ridiculous. And then if we're going to
[1:19:50] be packed in house here, house here, um,
like I might as well live in the in town
[1:19:56] and that's not why we moved to rent. So
>> that's just my personal opinion.
[1:20:00] » Okay. Thank you. Duly noted.
>> Thank you.
[1:20:03] » Is there anyone else in the audience
that wishes to speak to this
[1:20:05] application?
>> No. Okay.
[1:20:11] Uh, we have a recommendation for
approval on all three. Can I get a mover
[1:20:15] and a seconder on BNPL 2026150?
That's the severance. Joe Linda speak.
[1:20:23] » Sorry.
>> Tombs would like to speak.
[1:20:27] » I'm sorry. Who?
>> Jim Tombs would like to speak.
[1:20:29] » Oh, sorry. Mr. Tombs, go ahead.
>> Yes. Thank you. Sorry. Um, I live just
[1:20:37] across from Ben and Janette and just
north of Karen at 1076 Cox. Um, I, as
[1:20:44] Ben said, I I have concerns about water.
Um, in speaking with neighbors, um, who
[1:20:50] had lived there since the mid 80s, they
had mentioned that back then there was a
[1:20:54] moratorum put on new builds in Reton due
to water table issues. Um, I reached out
[1:21:00] to someone in archives
and because at that time Reton belonged
[1:21:06] to the city of Nanny Coke, I guess those
records aren't digitized, so it would
[1:21:12] require u me to come in person and see
this. But yeah, like I I think that
[1:21:17] speaks to previous water table concerns.
And to that mentioned um about the drill
[1:21:24] testing, when would that take place? in
spring when there's lots of water
[1:21:28] potentially in the ground and the table
would be high or would it be done in
[1:21:32] summer when the water table's
potentially lower?
[1:21:39] » No way of um predicting that I guess
correct
[1:21:44] » when they do it when they actually do
the work. We have no way of knowing that
[1:21:47] » uh through the chair. No, as far as I'm
aware, it can be done at any time of the
[1:21:51] year. Okay. But the results are still
the same whether it has an impact or not
[1:21:54] on
>> surrounding properties uh water. So, if
[1:21:58] it's a low water level for everyone and
the tests show that fine as long as it
[1:22:05] doesn't worsen the situation, then uh
the testing can be done at any time of
[1:22:10] the year as I understand it.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Tombs. Does that
[1:22:13] satisfy your concern?
>> Yeah. May May I ask one more?
[1:22:17] » Sure.
So I I know like that used to be kind of
[1:22:21] a sidetrack for rail cars back when I
was a little kid and even today at times
[1:22:26] you can smell the creasso. So, I just
wonder if there's any of that that's
[1:22:30] soaked into the ground and is that a
concern? You know, if someone were to
[1:22:33] build a house on that soil,
>> planning staff,
[1:22:40] » um, as far as that would be concerned, I
mean, a fair amount of that would be
[1:22:45] taken up in any regrading that's going
to need to be done to to former railway
[1:22:49] lands. um and will also come out
partially as uh in the hydrog
[1:22:56] uh because creassote will show up. Um
but yes, ultimately it is it is uh up to
[1:23:05] the whoever is going to build to ensure
that that the uh the grading is safe uh
[1:23:12] for residential use.
>> Okay. Okay, Mr. Tombs.
[1:23:17] » Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. and we'll move along.
[1:23:22] So, I have a motion uh moved by Joe,
second by Linda for BNPL 2022 6150.
[1:23:30] Recommendation for approval subject to
conditions. All in favor? And that's
[1:23:35] carried.
[1:23:40] And then we will do
minor variancepl 2026151
[1:23:47] mover seconder
LSA Phil
[1:23:56] all in favor and that's carried
[1:24:10] and NPL 2026152
minor variance move or seconder please
[1:24:16] Phil and council been passing
[1:24:24] all in favor and that's carried
[1:24:38] okay moving Moving right along.
BNPL 2026163
[1:24:44] and the planner can give the report
please. Uh yes, thank you. Through the
[1:24:49] chair, an application has been received
to sever a parcel having a frontage of
[1:24:54] 46.61 m, a width of 46
uh 1 meter, and a depth of 45.51 m and
[1:25:02] having an area of 0.19 hectares. The
retained parcel will have an area of
[1:25:08] approximately 20 uh 2.31 hectares in the
RH uh zone in the hamlet of Forestville.
[1:25:16] This uh severance uh note the reduced
lot size of 0.19 hectares. Uh a zoning
[1:25:23] bylaw amendment was passed earlier by
council with a special provision
[1:25:27] allowing the undersized lot. The subject
lands are located at 188 Charlottville
[1:25:33] West Cordeline Road in the hamlet of
Forestville.
[1:25:36] Uh the subject lands are currently
vacant. Surrounding land uses is are
[1:25:41] mainly residential and agricultural in
nature. A proincially significant
[1:25:46] wetland PSW adjacent area is identified
on the subject lands. It is limited in
[1:25:51] area and in development, grading or
servicing or no sorry no development,
[1:25:56] grading or servicing is proposed within
the PSW adjacent lands. Uh the proposed
[1:26:02] severance has been designed to avoid
direct encroachment into these features
[1:26:07] and the retained uh lands will remain uh
zoned hazard land and agricultural. A
[1:26:13] grading and servicing concept uh
prepared by G. Douglas Valley Limited uh
[1:26:18] demonstrated that the septic system and
associated well uh associated works can
[1:26:24] be located entirely outside the PSW
adjacent area thereby uh maintaining
[1:26:30] separation from the the natural heritage
features. The LPRCA has also confirmed
[1:26:36] that a permit is not required for the
proposed works based on the current uh
[1:26:42] design. On this basis, the proposal uh
maintains to avoidance of any key
[1:26:48] natural features uh and does not result
in any negative impacts on the
[1:26:53] provinially significant woodland or
wetland. Sorry. Uh given the above, it
[1:26:58] is the professional opinion of the
planning staff that this proposal meets
[1:27:02] the planning act, conforms with the
official plan, and meets the intent and
[1:27:06] purpose of the zoning bylaw, and is
therefore recommended for approval.
[1:27:09] Thank you.
>> Okay, thank you. Any questions?
[1:27:13] Is there an agent or applicant present?
Anything to add? Nothing to add, they
[1:27:19] say. Is there anyone in the audience
that wishes to speak to this
[1:27:24] application?
[1:27:27] No. Anyone online?
No. We have a recommendation for
[1:27:32] approval. Move or second or Lisa Joe
[1:27:41] and BNPL 2026163. All in favor? And
that's carried.
[1:27:57] and PL 2026054.
The planner can give the report, please.
[1:28:02] Thank you. Through the chair, I'll be
presenting on behalf of my colleague
[1:28:05] Kendall.
An application has been received to seek
[1:28:09] relief of 36.6% in lot coverage to
permit a total lot coverage of 51.6%.
[1:28:17] Uh 4.8 m in front yard setback to permit
a front yard setback of 1.2 2 m. 3.45 m
[1:28:25] in rear yard setback to permit a rear
yard setback of 5.55 m. 0.38 m in left
[1:28:34] and right interior sideyard to permit uh
in left and right interior sideyard
[1:28:40] setback of 0.82 m. One parking spot to
permit one parking spot is the minimum
[1:28:46] number. Uh and relief of section 3.10b
10B
[1:28:51] to permit an eaves trough projection to
the left side Jar property line.
[1:28:57] Excuse me. The subject lands are located
on the west side of Cedar Drive just
[1:29:01] north of its intersection um with Tyler
Street and Turkey Point and the
[1:29:06] geographic township of Charlottesville.
The area of the subject lens is
[1:29:10] approximately 292 square meters with
approximately 12.6 m of frontage on
[1:29:17] Cedar Drive. Subject lands are occupied
by a single detached dwelling and wooden
[1:29:21] shed. The existing one-story dwelling
has a lot coverage of 35.6%
[1:29:27] and approximately 75 77.5 square meters
in building area. The dwelling is
[1:29:33] proposed to be demolished and replaced
by a new two-story dwelling with an
[1:29:36] attached garage with a lot coverage of
51.6% 6% and 120.7 square meters of of
[1:29:45] building footprint u and approximately
218 square meters of floor area. The
[1:29:51] subject lands are designated resort
residential under the north county
[1:29:55] official plan. Residential dwellings
that existed legally upon the adoption
[1:29:59] of the official plan uh have been
permitted. uh redevelopment or
[1:30:04] replacement of existing structures is
permitted subject to the policies of
[1:30:08] hazard land designation.
The hazard land designation permits a
[1:30:12] reasonable compromise between the extent
of the hazard and the continued use and
[1:30:16] future development of the area um
of extensive development located on
[1:30:23] hazard lands such as in Turkey Point.
The subject lands are also subject to
[1:30:27] the shoreline policies of the official
plan which generally direct development
[1:30:31] outside of hazard areas and allow for
reasonable compromise between hazards in
[1:30:35] the continued use and future development
of the area. While a dwelling already
[1:30:39] exists on the subject property, the
proposed reconstruction significantly
[1:30:43] increases the habitable space and
building footprint on the lot. Fire
[1:30:48] Services has provided comments on the
potential risks the increased building
[1:30:52] area may pose to first responders, the
residents, the neighboring properties,
[1:30:56] as well as the general public as it
pertains to the roadway. Based on the
[1:31:00] submitted comments and an analysis of
the requested relief,
[1:31:04] uh the proposed development cannot be
considered to be a reasonable compromise
[1:31:08] when considering the potential hazards.
As such, the application does not
[1:31:12] conform to the general intent of the
Norfolk County official plan. The lands
[1:31:16] are zoned resort residential with
special provision 1414 which permits
[1:31:21] single detached dwellings as use. The
applications seek relief of almost all
[1:31:26] of the required setback provisions
within the resort residential zone. The
[1:31:30] intent of these provisions is to ensure
that structures are set back
[1:31:33] sufficiently from the street and
neighboring properties and that the lot
[1:31:37] retains sufficient drainage, parking,
servicing, and amenity space and that
[1:31:42] the dwelling suits uh the character of
the surrounding neighborhood. While the
[1:31:46] front and rear yard setbacks could be
considered to be in keeping with the
[1:31:50] existing dwelling and surrounding
dwellings, the sideyard setbacks result
[1:31:54] in parking and amenity space reductions
as well as a substantive lot coverage
[1:31:59] increase when viewed together. Oh, and
when viewed together has the potential
[1:32:03] to create a massing and scale that may
appear imposing at the street level. A
[1:32:08] parking relief has also been requested
with the only parking space provided on
[1:32:12] site to be located within the proposed
attached garage. As the majority of the
[1:32:17] existing d gravel driveway appears uh
from satellite imagery to be located
[1:32:21] within the road allowance.
The existing dwelling has a lot coverage
[1:32:26] of approximately 35.6%
with the proposed uh lot coverage of
[1:32:32] 51.6.
The proposed relief is more than half
[1:32:35] the lot area and when viewed in
conjunction with relief requests for
[1:32:40] required yard reductions
um creates a massing and scale that does
[1:32:44] not appear to be in keeping with the
surrounding neighborhood.
[1:32:48] Additionally, the building department
has not has noted that the location of
[1:32:51] the existing septic system does not meet
the setback requirements from the
[1:32:56] location of the proposed dwelling and
that the existing septic system is not
[1:32:59] sufficient to support the proposed new
dwelling. Considering the size of the
[1:33:04] proposed dwelling, a septic system of
sufficient size to support the dwelling
[1:33:08] would not be able to fit within the
within the lot of the proposed building
[1:33:12] footprint and while maintaining Ontario
building code setback requirements.
[1:33:17] While a single detached dwelling is
permitted on the lands, the size of the
[1:33:20] lot permits a building envelope
appropriate relative to lot size and
[1:33:25] where private on-site services can be
accommodated. Staff are of the opinion
[1:33:29] that the reliefs being requested as part
of this application, when viewed
[1:33:33] together, introduce a cumulative effect
that appears to be a significant
[1:33:37] departure from the intent of the royal
uh resort residential zone provisions
[1:33:41] and may appear imposing at the street
level with its proposed size, height,
[1:33:45] and front facade setback from Cedar
Street. Planning staff are of the
[1:33:50] opinion that the proposed relief
requests have a cumulative income impact
[1:33:54] that cannot be considered minor in
nature, desirable or in keeping with the
[1:33:59] character of the area for the
appropriate development of the lands and
[1:34:02] therefore recommend refusal of the
application.
[1:34:05] Thank you. Thank you. Any questions?
Is there an agent or applicant present?
[1:34:12] David, anything to add?
>> I do.
[1:34:16] » Step right up.
[1:34:20] Five minutes.
[1:34:33] » Good evening. My name is David
McFersonen
[1:34:37] and I'm representing the property owner
VJ Perk and his wife who are also the
[1:34:44] owners of the Turkey Point Shopping
Center which is directly across the
[1:34:48] street from this house.
Much of the planner's report speaks to
[1:34:53] the proposed dwelling being imposing,
too large, and out of character with the
[1:34:58] surrounding neighborhood. I suggest that
this is not the case at all.
[1:35:04] The proposed dwelling is not at all
imposing
[1:35:09] at the street level, nor does it create
a massing of scale inconsistent with the
[1:35:15] existing streetscape
is actually rather small so far as new
[1:35:19] builds in Turkey Point are concerned.
The application was deferred from the
[1:35:25] June committee meeting as the owner
wanted to reduce the square footage to
[1:35:31] provide a 1.2 2 m sideyard setback on
the right hand side and to increase the
[1:35:36] interior dimension of the garage to meet
the parking space requirement identified
[1:35:42] by the building department.
We have moved the dwelling back from the
[1:35:47] front property line in order to have a
full width deck
[1:35:53] on the owner's own property.
As you can see on the uh cover photo uh
[1:36:01] behind me, the existing front porch and
steps are all on the road allowance. So,
[1:36:07] we've moved the building back so that
the dwelling and the deck and the steps
[1:36:13] are all on private property.
The existing rear deck has also been
[1:36:19] reduced in size to provide more space
for a new septic system.
[1:36:26] This is not the big imposing dwelling
that the planning report makes it out to
[1:36:30] be. It is in fact the same footprint as
the existing dwelling
[1:36:37] with the exception that there's a
proposed second story and a single car
[1:36:43] attached garage on the ground floor
size-wise.
[1:36:50] And I did submit all of the
architectural plans with my application.
[1:36:55] The footprint is only 1,07 square ft
plus a 290 square ft garage.
[1:37:10] Compared to cottages being built today,
this is quite a modest build indeed. I
[1:37:17] chose the intersection of Reserve and
Cedar and Turkey Point Road and Cedar as
[1:37:25] my neighborhood to investigate for this
proposal. In that neighborhood are 49
[1:37:32] twostory dwellings.
And I'm passing around
[1:37:38] pictures of all 49 of those two-story
dwellings.
[1:37:42] The first one on top
is the dwelling of the former owner of
[1:37:49] the Turkey Point Shopping Center. And
that dwelling is right directly across
[1:37:55] the road.
All of these pictures that you see of
[1:37:59] twotory dwellings
in those two street intersections
[1:38:05] are larger than what we're proposing
here.
[1:38:13] As for the amenity space,
>> one minute David,
[1:38:16] » sorry,
>> one minute.
[1:38:17] » Being concerned, 50% of the lot
is open landscaped area, plus there is a
[1:38:24] front deck and a rear deck. LPRCA
submitted their usual comment regarding
[1:38:30] safe access
without considering that both LPRCA
[1:38:35] board of directors and Norfolk County
Council have approved resolutions
[1:38:39] guaranteeing safe access. The building
department has questioned the septic
[1:38:44] system. This building has two bedrooms
and only one washroom. A new septic
[1:38:51] system design has been submitted to the
building department that we believe
[1:38:55] complies with the Ontario building code.
This system meets all required setbacks
[1:39:01] and is sized sufficiently to support the
proposed dwelling. The building
[1:39:06] department also flagged the overhead
hydro service wire as an issue.
[1:39:11] So I have booked a site meeting with
hydro1
[1:39:15] to find a solution to that.
I have addressed all of the issues
[1:39:21] raised in the planning report and I
maintain that this application is quite
[1:39:25] minor in nature. Therefore, I
respectfully ask that you approve this
[1:39:30] application and I'm here to answer any
questions you may have.
[1:39:35] » Okay. Thank you. Right on time.
Questions?
[1:39:41] No.
I have one. The eaves will the eaves
[1:39:46] overhang the property lines.
>> The eaves will not overhang the property
[1:39:51] line. On the right hand side there is a
1.2 2 m setback. And on the left hand
[1:40:00] side, my application seeks relief
um similar to uh a proposal I did on
[1:40:08] ordinance tav to have the eve um
meet the property line but not overhang
[1:40:16] it. And that includes the eve trough.
The eve trough will not overhang the
[1:40:20] property line. Um the building
department did also flag an issue about
[1:40:27] um the lefthand wall.
In my architectural drawings that I
[1:40:34] supplied, I provided
uh documentation
[1:40:39] to show how that wall will be
constructed to meet the limiting
[1:40:42] distance requirement.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[1:40:46] » So I think I've covered everything.
>> Okay. Thank you. Anybody have a question
[1:40:50] at all? Linda,
>> just a comment that from the drawing it
[1:40:54] does appear that the eve hangs over
>> the drawing in the report.
[1:40:59] » It does.
[1:41:05] » Is
can you go to the drawing in the report?
[1:41:08] » Can you project that drawing?
>> We don't have it.
[1:41:11] » It's in the report that was provided.
>> The the eve does not overhang.
[1:41:16] » Okay.
All right.
[1:41:19] Anybody else? Okay, I'll go to the
audience. Is there anyone present that
[1:41:24] wishes to speak to this application?
Yes, sir. Step right up.
[1:41:33] Easy.
[1:41:37] Uh, good afternoon or good evening. Uh,
Jerry Rob goes my name. I'm uh live at
[1:41:43] 229 Cedar Drive
and I'm just a concerned neighbor uh
[1:41:49] that backs onto this property uh with
the additional um uh relief of 36.6 uh
[1:41:57] coverage to to uh to the extension of uh
51.6.
[1:42:04] their deck uh currently
is on the back of the property and I I
[1:42:11] really uh see that they're extending the
deck considerably back to my property
[1:42:18] and uh with with the additional size of
the property and building uh does this
[1:42:25] property have a drainage plan? Maybe you
could answer.
[1:42:29] » So typically it Yes,
>> it does.
[1:42:32] » It does. So typically a drainage
>> So typically a drainage plan comes into
[1:42:36] play at the building department or the
building permit stage,
[1:42:38] » but I've already submitted that in
advance.
[1:42:41] » Okay. Thank you.
>> And does this meet meet the the uh the
[1:42:45] requirements?
>> It would if it's if it's approved, it
[1:42:49] would have to.
>> Okay. And secondly, um uh we currently
[1:42:54] have a picture window facing Cedar Drive
uh viewing past their backyard. And and
[1:43:00] with with this uh I just wonder if uh uh
this would uh uh
[1:43:08] uh how high is this building? I I don't
see any measurements on the height of
[1:43:14] this. It
>> should be on the drawing.
[1:43:18] Could somebody
>> I'm not sure if it's in the in your
[1:43:22] report that that's been submitted to
committee, but I did submit
[1:43:26] architectural drawings and I
>> you're not you're not seeking
[1:43:30] » the maximum height requirement.
>> And what is that?
[1:43:33] » 9.1 m.
>> 9 What is that in feet or what? What is
[1:43:38] that in? Is that two? That's a twotory
plus a
[1:43:42] » That's a twotory plus a roof.
>> Plus a roof. So, what's the total height
[1:43:46] of this building?
[1:43:50] » I can't I can't tell you right.
>> See, I I couldn't
[1:43:53] » less than it's less than the 9.1 m.
>> So, David, you're not asking for relief
[1:43:58] on height.
>> I'm not asking.
[1:44:00] » So, it's it's it's within the It's
within the bylaw.
[1:44:03] » Okay. Yeah. Okay. I just couldn't tell
what height it was going and whether you
[1:44:08] know I realized that views change from
uh neighborhood to neighborhood. But in
[1:44:15] our area
um it it there is a couple buildings
[1:44:21] that are twotory but uh not not directly
in front of us. So just a concerned okay
[1:44:28] » neighbor. All right. Thank you. Dilly
noted
[1:44:31] » answer your question. We just looked at
the plans. 29T 10 to the peak of the
[1:44:35] roof
>> to the peak. So that's fair size. That's
[1:44:38] a fair size.
>> It's a twotory.
[1:44:40] » Yeah.
>> Can I Can I make a comment to answer one
[1:44:45] of his questions? Sure.
>> The increase in lot coverage is only
[1:44:50] because of the attached garage.
>> Okay.
[1:44:53] » It um my
>> It's not a back and forth.
[1:44:58] » Sorry.
>> It's not a back and forth from the
[1:45:00] audience. I'm sorry, but that's that's
what that covers. Okay. Is the attached
[1:45:04] garage.
>> All right. Is there anyone else present?
[1:45:07] » Other than that, it's the same
footprint.
[1:45:10] » Okay. Is there anyone else present that
wishes to speak to this application?
[1:45:13] Yes, sir. Step right up.
[1:45:20] » Hey, how are you?
>> Good.
[1:45:21] » Jason Young. I live
>> Speak up.
[1:45:24] » Uh Jason Young. My name is Jason Young.
I live directly to the right. So, uh,
[1:45:29] all I'm concerned about is
the driveway, our driveway and the
[1:45:36] property line. Here it says nothing
about the right side. And here it says
[1:45:43] it's back to
you're asking for relief again. I talked
[1:45:47] to VJ myself cuz he's my neighbor.
>> Yes.
[1:45:49] » And he said that that was a it was a
mistake that they were asking for
[1:45:55] that extra.
and he got it rectified. So I said,
[1:46:00] "Hey, we're good." And then I see that
it's changed again and they're asking
[1:46:03] for it.
>> This is not a conversation.
[1:46:07] » You have to speak into the microphone so
we can hear you.
[1:46:09] » Yes. Sorry. Yes. So originally
even on this document here,
[1:46:16] » okay,
>> states nothing about the right interior
[1:46:21] uh property line. But yet on this one it
states that it's they're back to asking
[1:46:27] for the
>> left.
[1:46:31] » Yes, exactly. Left and right.
>> I'll ask
[1:46:34] » interior.
>> I'll ask the consultant to briefly
[1:46:39] comment on that.
>> Confirmation.
[1:46:40] » Okay.
>> That's what we're here for.
[1:46:43] » That notice was said with incorrect
information and I reached out to
[1:46:48] planning to have it corrected. Um the
mapping was also incorrect and I don't
[1:46:53] know if that's what he has but the
initial mail had a the an incorrect map
[1:47:00] on it.
>> Yeah.
[1:47:01] » So I I made a an effort to have that
corrected as fast as I could.
[1:47:08] » Okay.
>> I can't speak to what was done but I did
[1:47:12] reach out to them.
>> Councelor uh Barry
[1:47:16] » is correct.
>> Okay. All right. It's and the only
[1:47:19] reason I asked that is because it's our
only parking. So if indeed it is being
[1:47:24] taken then I will not have any parking.
>> Our lots are so skinny we there's no
[1:47:30] available I have to park on my front
lawn.
[1:47:32] » Okay. All right. Thank you.
>> Thank you Dave. Go.
[1:47:36] » That was part of the deferral is because
VJ wanted to reduce
[1:47:41] the size of the building so that we
could maintain 1.2 2 meters to his
[1:47:47] property.
>> Okay. Anybody else wishes to speak to
[1:47:51] this application?
>> No. Okay. Thanks, Dave.
[1:47:56] » Okay.
>> We have a recommendation for refusal,
[1:48:02] a
mover, seconder, or an alternative.
[1:48:13] Don't everybody jump up at once.
[1:48:18] Councelor Van Passen.
Um,
[1:48:22] generally I would just straight out say
no. It's just too much. Uh, it's too
[1:48:28] close to the road. There's no parking
spots because they're not going to leave
[1:48:32] the garage empty. Um, I do get enough
complaints about lack of parking in
[1:48:37] Turkey Point already. I don't want to
aggravate that, but I wonder whether
[1:48:43] they we could defer it and have them
reduce it or just eliminate the garage
[1:48:49] and leave a driveway there or something.
Um whether there's enough room that they
[1:48:56] could amend this application, but I'm
not sure there even would be. I think it
[1:49:01] like there's just way too many things to
fix. like whether the se there's enough
[1:49:06] room for a septic and well they don't
really know. They got a plan that'll
[1:49:10] hopefully work. Um you know we're
running our eaves troughs right up to
[1:49:14] the property line. So it I'd move that
we defer it.
[1:49:18] » I was just going to ask you if that was
a motion to defer
[1:49:21] » but I wonder maybe I need to ask that.
Is there any
[1:49:26] solution that they can amend the current
application? Well, let's
[1:49:30] » that would count as doing an amendment
to
[1:49:32] » Let's ask our fabulous planning staff
for a comment,
[1:49:36] » Andrew
or
[1:49:40] do you want to
[1:49:44] » through the chair and Andrew feel free
to um add to what I'm about to say, but
[1:49:50] yeah, through the deferral process if if
that is something that um you're looking
[1:49:55] to do in terms of the agent and look to
work with staff That is definitely
[1:49:59] something we would be willing to do. Um,
so I'll I'll leave it there.
[1:50:05] » Okay, we can add that to the minutes or
>> as a condition maybe or
[1:50:11] » if I just move it out of deferral. Uh,
you know that I just want to save the
[1:50:14] applicant some money and not have to
apply for a complete new one. So, we'll
[1:50:18] move to defer it.
>> Okay. Seconder. Councelor Barry, you're
[1:50:23] seconding.
>> Yes.
[1:50:24] » Okay. Thank you.
Motion for deferral. All in favor?
[1:50:30] That's carried.
[1:50:44] Okay. Where's that stamp?
[1:50:55] Okay. NPL 2026161
and the planner can give the report
[1:51:00] please.
>> Uh through the chair. Thank you. An
[1:51:01] applicant has been or an application has
been uh requesting relief of 3.5 m from
[1:51:07] the minimum required exterior sideyard
setback of 6 m to permit an exterior
[1:51:13] sideyard setback of 2.5 m to allow for
the construction of a building in the
[1:51:18] general industrial zone. The subject
lands are located at 10 Arnold Seo Drive
[1:51:24] at the intersection of Highway 59. The
area of the subject lands is
[1:51:28] approximately 2,169.5
square meters with approximately 53.3 m
[1:51:34] of frontage on the south side of Arnold
Seo Drive. The subject lands are
[1:51:38] occupied by an existing building,
garbage shed, and three shipping
[1:51:42] containers with one to be removed.
Surrounding land uses are commercial,
[1:51:47] industrial, and residential. Staff notes
that the property is under site plan
[1:51:52] control and that the owner will need to
uh apply for site plan approval prior to
[1:51:57] the issuance of a building permit. The
proposal was circulated to the Ministry
[1:52:01] of Transportation uh for review and
comments. The owner must submit plans to
[1:52:06] the MTO uh for land development review.
The landowner is also required to apply
[1:52:12] for and obtain uh building permits and
land use permits from the MTO prior to
[1:52:17] the issuance of any building con permit
or any building construction. Given the
[1:52:21] above, it is the professional opinion of
the planning staff. This proposal meets
[1:52:25] the forecast for the planning of a
planning act for a minor variance and
[1:52:29] therefore is recommended for approval.
Thank you.
[1:52:32] » Okay. Thank you. Any questions?
Is there an agent or applicant present?
[1:52:39] applicant.
>> Okay. An agent. Okay. Anything to add?
[1:52:43] » Nothing to add. Uh is there anyone
present in the audience or online that
[1:52:48] wishes to speak to this application?
[1:52:53] No. Recommendation for approval? Phil,
[1:52:59] Linda?
[1:53:04] 20 uh 2026161. All in favor? That's
carried.
[1:53:23] BNPL 2026124.
[1:53:27] Uh, yep. And one, uh, the planner can
give the report, please.
[1:53:32] » Thank you. Through the chair, an
application has been received to sever a
[1:53:35] parcel having a frontage of 0 m and
irregular width and irregular depth and
[1:53:39] having an area of 6,818.07
m and retain a parcel having an area of
[1:53:45] approximately 3,800 m as a result of a
boundary adjustment. Lands are to be
[1:53:51] added to the existing parcel directly
adjacent to the south located at 425
[1:53:55] Queensway West. The final lot size will
be approximately 3 thou 13,90.7
[1:54:01] m. The subject lands are located at 421
Queensway West between Park Road and
[1:54:06] Hunt Street North in the town of Simco
and Geographic Township of Windham. The
[1:54:11] area of the subject lands is
approximately 1.06 hectares with
[1:54:14] approximately 61.88 meters of frontage
on the north side of Queensway West. The
[1:54:19] subject lands are occupied by a
commercial building with multiple units
[1:54:22] and a parking lot. The lands benefiting
from the proposed boundary adjustment
[1:54:26] are located at 425 Queensway West and
have an area of approximately 0.63 63
[1:54:31] hectares. The benefiting lands are
currently occupied by a commercial
[1:54:34] building. A portion of the proposed
boundary adjusted lands are zoned hazard
[1:54:38] land and proincially significant
wetlands and contain significant wet
[1:54:42] woodlands as well. However, no
development or site alteration is
[1:54:45] proposed as part of this application.
The subject application seeks to expand
[1:54:49] the parking area and transfer ownership
by way of a boundary adjustment of the
[1:54:53] flag shaped rear portion of the lot
located at 421 Queensway West to the
[1:54:57] benefiting lands located at 425
Queensway West. Due to the existing lot
[1:55:02] configuration, the boundary adjusted
area is currently located directly
[1:55:05] behind the benefiting lands. It would
make a logical extension of the lot. The
[1:55:09] proposal is consistent with the planning
act PPS 2024, conforms with the official
[1:55:13] plan and complies to the general intent
and purpose of the zoning bylaw. And
[1:55:17] given this, the proposal is recommended
for approval.
[1:55:20] » Okay. Thank you. Any questions?
Is there an agent or applicant anything
[1:55:26] to add?
>> Nothing to add.
[1:55:31] » Sorry.
[1:55:45] Is there anyone present that wishes to
speak to this application?
[1:55:50] » And we have
one. And let's What's her name?
[1:55:56] » Christine.
>> Christine, go ahead.
[1:55:59] » Good evening. Um, my name is Christine
Hill and I'm the owner of 417 Queensway
[1:56:05] West along with my husband Zachary. He's
just sitting beside me here. Um, we are
[1:56:11] just speaking on this matter as of
course our property is immediately
[1:56:16] beside it and now you just touched on it
and pretty much answered our questions
[1:56:20] anyways, but our concern is for the
provinially significant wetlands and
[1:56:24] woodlands that are part of that
property. Um, given that um, deers and
[1:56:30] concerts are an automotive based
business and we of course support and
[1:56:34] respect that. Um, our primary concern
would be though the parking of leaking
[1:56:39] cars, cars that need service, um, cars
that are being sent out to the auction
[1:56:44] being parked on those, um, back flooded
areas where those contaminants could
[1:56:48] affect the local environment. Um, and
also that any lighting that would be
[1:56:53] brought in for security purposes to that
backwood lot would perhaps be um in
[1:56:59] keeping with the fact that it is
immediately beside a residential home
[1:57:02] and that we would not want it lit up
like an airport um at all hours of the
[1:57:06] night.
>> Okay, I'll see if I can get planning
[1:57:11] staff to comment
>> uh through the chair. From my
[1:57:14] understanding, there will be no site
alteration or lights added to the
[1:57:18] parking lot. It's just going to continue
as it currently exists. There'll be no
[1:57:21] changes to the parking lot that I know
of. I don't know if the agent has any no
[1:57:26] further comments from the agent about
that.
[1:57:30] » The agent indicates the same
status quo, I guess. Okay.
[1:57:39] Christine,
>> thank you for answering my question. I
[1:57:41] appreciate it.
>> Okay. Thank you, Linda.
[1:57:44] » Question for the agent. Um,
you might as well.
[1:57:50] » We're going to get you up there one way
or the other.
[1:57:55] » Would this property be under site plan
control? So, if there were changes made,
[1:57:59] it would be required to be approved
under site plan control.
[1:58:05] Uh,
sorry, uh, through the chair. Um, the a
[1:58:09] portion of the property is under site
plan control. Um but it's my
[1:58:13] understanding that the hazard land um
area is not. Um but I can just maybe
[1:58:18] look to planning staff to confirm that.
Uh through the chair, it looks like the
[1:58:24] entire property is under site plan
control. So if anything were to change
[1:58:29] on the property, they would have to go
through site plan approval, whether that
[1:58:31] be through a site plan waiver or a
formal site plan application.
[1:58:35] » Okay. Um through the chair, I can also
add that no structures are permitted
[1:58:39] within the hazard land and the um
applicant will continue to use it for
[1:58:44] parking as um Olivia mentioned.
>> Okay, Christine, does that satisfy your
[1:58:49] concerns?
[1:58:53] » It does. Thank you very much everybody.
>> Okay, thank you very much. Is there
[1:58:57] anybody else that wishes to speak to
this application?
[1:59:01] No. Okay. Thanks, Kayla.
Uh, we have a recommendation for
[1:59:05] approval, Lisa
[1:59:11] and Phil.
BNPL 2026124. All in favor?
[1:59:18] And that's carried.
[1:59:25] Well, we're getting down there.
[1:59:34] NPL 2026170
and the planner can give the report
[1:59:39] please. Thank you. Through the chair, an
application has been received to seek
[1:59:44] relief of 16.4 hectares from the
required lot area of 40 hectares to
[1:59:49] permit a total lot area of 23.62
hectares within the egg zone as a
[1:59:54] condition of a previous boundary
adjustment. BP uh BNPL 2024242
[2:00:02] and uh Ontario Land Tribunal file number
OLT 24 0001058.
[2:00:10] The subject lands are located at the
corner of Highway 3 and Middleton Church
[2:00:13] Road to the east of Portland
um
[2:00:18] in the geographic township of Middleton.
It is both zoned and designated
[2:00:21] agricultural. Uh the area of the subject
lands is approximately 23.6
[2:00:28] hectares with approximately 197 meters
of frontage on the north side of highway
[2:00:33] 3. The subject lands are occupied by an
existing single detached dwelling
[2:00:38] accessory detached garage and two
agricultural buildings. The application
[2:00:42] seeks relief from the minimum 40 hectare
lot requirement to permit uh a minimum
[2:00:47] lot area of 23.62 62 hectares in the egg
zone to satisfy a condition of consent
[2:00:53] file NPL 2024242.
Uh the lot was already undersized prior
[2:00:59] to the minor boundary adjustment
approved by committee and the Ontario
[2:01:03] Land Tribunal. Uh given the minor nature
of the boundary adjustment of
[2:01:07] approximately 0.07 acres, the retained
lot while smaller remains largely
[2:01:12] unchanged in lot area. Given this was a
legal non-complying lot prior to the
[2:01:17] boundary adjustment, it is considered
that this minor reduction in lot size
[2:01:20] can be considered appropriate and in
keeping with the intent and purpose of
[2:01:24] the zoning bylaw. Uh it should be noted
that the applicant's appeal to the O2 is
[2:01:29] based on the Ministry of Transportation
imposed conditions uh relating to an
[2:01:33] existing driveway access and an existing
shed located on the adjacent property.
[2:01:39] The uh tribunal opined that the MTO
conditions were unreasonable and were
[2:01:43] stricken from the provisional consent
approval granted by the committee of
[2:01:47] adjustment on September 18th, 2024. The
OOLT decision has no implications on the
[2:01:53] current minor variance application
beyond confirming that a minor variance
[2:01:57] for deficient lot size of the retained
lands remained a condition of the
[2:02:01] consent approval.
Uh given the above, it is the
[2:02:04] professional opinion of planning staff
that this proposal meets the four tests
[2:02:08] of a minor variance. This proposal is
recommended for approval. Thank you.
[2:02:13] » Okay. Thank you. Any questions?
Is there an agent or applicant present?
[2:02:19] Yes. Anything to add?
>> Sorry. Uh Paul Murray, I am legal
[2:02:26] counsel for the retained landowner and
just to add that this only arose as a
[2:02:32] result of minor boundary adjustment that
was required to bring the lands all into
[2:02:36] compliance due to a slight encroachment
of the neighboring garage and we agree
[2:02:40] with everything that the planner has
said in terms of their position on this
[2:02:44] matter.
>> Okay, thank you. And there that's your
[2:02:47] representative. Okay, very good. Um, is
there anyone else online or present that
[2:02:53] wishes to speak to this application?
[2:02:58] Okay, we have a recommendation for
approval. Joel and Linda
[2:03:13] PL 2026170. All in favor?
That's carried.
[2:03:24] And PL 2026131
uh planner can give the report please.
[2:03:30] Thank you. Through the chair, an
application's been received to seek
[2:03:33] relief of 2 meters from the permitted
maximum accessory building height of 6
[2:03:37] meters to permit a total height of 8
mters and 314 square meters from the
[2:03:42] permitted maximum accessory building
usable floor area of 100 square meters
[2:03:47] to permit a total total usable floor
area of 414 square meters in the Hamlet
[2:03:53] residential zone for a newly constructed
existing detached garage outbuilding.
[2:03:58] Uh the subject lands are located to the
west of old highway 24 within the Hamlet
[2:04:03] OP designation of Wilsonville. Uh the
subject or the area of the subject lands
[2:04:08] is approximately 0.9 hectares in area
with approximately 66 meters of frontage
[2:04:13] on the north side of concession three
towns and the subject lands are occupied
[2:04:18] by an existing single detached family
dwelling and an existing garage out
[2:04:21] building which is the subject of this
application. An order to comply has been
[2:04:26] placed on the subject property as it
relates to the previously constructed
[2:04:29] detached garage uh that was built
without benefit of a building permit. In
[2:04:34] order to bring the property into
compliance, the applica applicant is
[2:04:38] seeking relief from the maximum
permitted height and usable floor area
[2:04:42] in the zoning bylaw for the previously
constructed detached garage.
[2:04:47] Um, the application site is more than
double the excuse me, the application
[2:04:52] site is more than double the required
lot area for a dwelling in the Hamlet
[2:04:56] residential zone of 0.4 hectares. The
proposed usable floor area of the garage
[2:05:01] out building would be 314 square meters
above the 100 meters allowed. Whilst
[2:05:07] this is a significant increase in usable
floor area, it accounts for less than 5%
[2:05:11] of the lot coverage. The zoning bylaw
would allow up to 10% lot coverage or
[2:05:16] 100 square meters, whichever is the
lesser of the two. Given the lot size
[2:05:21] and the limited impact the requested
increase in maximum usable floor area
[2:05:25] would have on the subject lands and
neighboring properties. It is the
[2:05:28] opinion of staff the requested increase
in usable floor area for the detached
[2:05:32] garage can be considered minor in this
instance.
[2:05:36] Additionally, the requested increase in
height from the maximum permitted 6
[2:05:39] meters to a maximum permitted 8 meters
is considered minor. The garage
[2:05:43] outbuilding is set well back behind the
rear lot line of the adjacent dwelling
[2:05:47] and to butts in agricultural field. The
proposed height increase would not
[2:05:52] result in any adverse impacts to the
residential amenity of surrounding lands
[2:05:56] and given the low slope of the roof, it
appears to be as low as possible for the
[2:06:00] structure given its footprint. Given the
above, it is professional opinion of
[2:06:04] planning staff that this proposal meets
the four tests of a minor variance and
[2:06:08] is recommended for approval.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any questions?
[2:06:12] Is there an agent or applicant present?
And do you have anything to add?
[2:06:17] » Okay. Thank you. Nothing to add. Is
there anyone present online that wishes
[2:06:22] to speak to this application?
Seeing none, we have a a recommendation
[2:06:28] for approval. Joe and Lisa.
[2:06:37] Sorry, councelor Van Passan. Go ahead.
>> I have a question for staff on
[2:06:43] » um when I look at that building, it sure
looks like either it's going to have an
[2:06:49] accessory dwelling unit in it or it
potentially could have. And I'm not sure
[2:06:54] that it would meet the criteria. I don't
think the far corner of the building
[2:06:57] would be within the 40 m required. And I
wonder if the intent is to have an
[2:07:04] accessory line, which I got no problem
with, um, shouldn't we also clean up
[2:07:08] those other conditions like the floor
area of an accessory was has to be what,
[2:07:14] 75 square meters in there? It has to be
totally within 40 m of primary. Um, are
[2:07:20] any of those conditions missing? Because
again, I'd rather get it all cleaned up
[2:07:24] at once rather than have come back when
they get caught again doing something
[2:07:28] else. And I also noticed that there is
driveways that you're not allowed to
[2:07:33] have two driveways and maybe they got to
take that one driveway out because they
[2:07:38] probably didn't get a permit for that.
They didn't get a permit to build this
[2:07:41] building. I know they got a permit to
build the driveway. So I, you know, they
[2:07:45] would give me a letter from the road
engineering that their conditions are
[2:07:49] satisfied and they've removed that other
driveway. So um is that does that make
[2:07:53] sense?
>> That's the question.
[2:07:56] » Yes.
>> Okay.
[2:07:58] Andrew
>> through the chair.
[2:08:00] » I knew there was a question.
>> Um, basically we have to look at things
[2:08:04] as they're presented and submitted to
us. There is no second story to that
[2:08:09] building. It is just a singlestory
building. Yes, I myself when I first saw
[2:08:14] it thought, oo, this has an ARD written
all over it. However, they've not
[2:08:19] applied for that. So, we couldn't
condition it um to require them to meet
[2:08:24] conditions of something they've not
applied for.
[2:08:27] um if in the future they decide that
they want to put an ARDU into that
[2:08:32] building, then they'll have to come back
for another minor variance. Um and
[2:08:36] that's about all that they can do. We
can't we can't for guess and try and and
[2:08:42] condition away every possibility that
could happen in the future. In terms of
[2:08:47] the road or the second driveway, I don't
know. Um, I didn't actually uh notice
[2:08:52] whether or not it was a new driveway or
an existing uh vehicle access that was
[2:08:58] just upgraded. Um, if it's existing,
then there would have been no need for
[2:09:03] an entrance permit. Um, if it's new,
then they probably would have needed an
[2:09:07] entrance permit. Um, and that's
something that will be dealt with when
[2:09:10] they get back to permits after getting
their minor varants. Well, I I don't
[2:09:14] think any of that existed 5 years ago
when you look at the aerial photography,
[2:09:18] but um that is actually my sort of point
that if there and maybe the agent should
[2:09:23] look and ask or answer this if they
think they may want an accessory
[2:09:27] dwelling unit because when I look at a
like even the picture you show here, a
[2:09:32] beautiful front door with a a roof over
it, windows on the second floor, um and
[2:09:39] I just pending covering it down that
would save them having to come back
[2:09:43] later and apply all over again and pay
the money twice. So maybe the agent is
[2:09:47] there any intent of
>> that was brought up and the intent was
[2:09:54] » so I think you should come up to the
microphone and get this on the record
[2:10:00] put these conditions in all the time in
especially on boat houses point when
[2:10:05] they have a second floor for storage and
they have to make sure it's not built in
[2:10:09] such a way that possibly it becomes a
bunky layer. She's made her way to the
[2:10:13] microphone. Let's hear her response.
>> So, there was prior discussion with the
[2:10:18] owner on is there any future intent
because we might as well loop it all in
[2:10:22] in case you want to do that later. I was
told no.
[2:10:26] » Okay.
>> So, I said, "Okay, here's my number.
[2:10:29] Call me back
>> if you do it later."
[2:10:32] » Okay. Thank you.
>> This would be the same owners who built
[2:10:35] a 414
square meter building without a building
[2:10:39] permit.
>> Okay. Well, we're not we're not going to
[2:10:42] surmise that anyway.
>> Anything else?
[2:10:46] » Rec. Oh, so we have a motion on the
floor. Uh moved by Joe, second by Lisa.
[2:10:51] All in favor? And uh opposed?
Two opposed?
[2:10:57] Still carried.
Um,
[2:11:12] okay. Last but certainly not least, BNPL
20226090.
[2:11:19] The planner can give the report, please.
>> Thank you. Through the chair, I'll be
[2:11:24] presenting this on behalf of my
colleague, Kendall. An application has
[2:11:28] been received to sever a parcel having
no frontage and a regular width and
[2:11:31] depth and an area of 2300 square meters
and to retain a parcel having an area of
[2:11:37] 74.6 hectares as a boundary adjustment
in the Hamlet residential zone. The
[2:11:42] lands will be added to the lot
immediately adjacent to the east having
[2:11:46] the address of 261 Talbot Street and a
final lot size of 5,746
[2:11:52] square meters.
The subject lands are located on the
[2:11:56] north side of Telbot Street, north of
its intersection with Main Street of the
[2:11:59] Ma with Main Street of Courtland within
Courtland itself. Um
[2:12:05] the area of the subject lands is
approximately 2300 square meters with
[2:12:10] approximately 31 mters of frontage onto
Talbot Street. The lands proposed to be
[2:12:15] added to the subject property are
approximately 3,400 square meters with
[2:12:20] no frontage. The subject lands are
occupied by a single detached dwelling
[2:12:25] and three accessory structures. The land
the giving lands are farmed and occupied
[2:12:29] by two single detached dwellings and
several farm buildings, none of which
[2:12:33] are located on the lands to be severed.
The property seeks to sever a portion of
[2:12:38] lands within the urban agric urban area
of Courtland as a boundary adjustment
[2:12:43] with the lands being used for
residential purposes which is permitted
[2:12:46] within settlement areas. The lands are
designated urban residential, hazard
[2:12:51] lands and agricultural with the lands to
be severed being wholly designated as
[2:12:56] urban residential and are intended to be
added to the adjacent property. The
[2:13:01] giving property and the proposed lands
to be severed for the boundary
[2:13:03] adjustment are as I say zoned uh hamlet
residential which permits single
[2:13:08] detached dwellings as a use. The severed
lands would be added to a res an
[2:13:12] existing residential lot to increase the
amenity uh the amenity space of the lot.
[2:13:19] The lands are not farmed and thus the
removal of these lands would not
[2:13:22] negatively affect farming operations.
Uh it is the professional opinion of
[2:13:27] planning staff the proposal meets the
planning act. The PPS conforms with the
[2:13:31] official plan and meets the intent and
purpose of the zoning bylaw and this
[2:13:35] proposal is recommended for approval.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any questions?
[2:13:41] Is there an agent or applicant online?
[2:13:47] » There was.
>> Yes, there is.
[2:13:51] » Anything to add, sir?
>> No, I'm just here to see it.
[2:13:55] » Okay.
What if we have questions? Are you okay
[2:13:59] with that?
>> Absolutely.
[2:14:01] » Okay. Is there anyone present or on the
line that wishes to speak to this
[2:14:05] application?
[2:14:08] Being none, uh, recommendation for
approval. Move or second. Chris B, Chris
[2:14:14] and Joe.
>> Mr. Chairman, I think this it's a good
[2:14:18] move. It's separated from the rest of
the farm by municipal drain anyway, so
[2:14:21] we're not really losing anything, right?
>> BNPL 2026090.
[2:14:27] All in favor? That's carried.
Motion to adjurnn.
[2:14:35] Linda Phil 712.
Thank you everybody. We'll see you next
[2:14:40] month.