[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[5:42] automatically deferred or withdrawn.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[5:54] was withdrawn.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.

Committee of Adjustment

Transcript