THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF MISSISSIPPI MILLS COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA

Transcription

1 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF MISSISSIPPI MILLS COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA Wednesday, May 23, 2018, at 5:30 P.M. Council Chambers, Municipal Office, 3131 Old Perth Rd., Almonte A. CALL TO ORDER B. APPROVAL OF AGENDA C. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Committee of Adjustment Pages 1 to 3 Committee motion to approve the Committee of Adjustment Minutes from the meeting held on April 11 th, E. NEW BUSINESS None. F. HEARINGS 1. Application A Pages 4 to 30 Owners: Marcus & Katherine Abramenko Legal Description: Ramsay Con 8, NE Pt Lot 17, Plan 26R-1224, Pt 1 Almonte Con 8, NE Pt Lot 16, Plan 26R-1224, Pt 1 Ward: Ramsay & Almonte Zoning: Rural (RU) & Development (D) The applicant is requesting relief from the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS I) setback calculated using the MDS Formula provided through the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). Section 6.10 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law #11-83 stipulates that no use shall be erected or altered unless it complies with the MDS I calculation, or unless approved by the Committee of Adjustment. The relief would reduce the calculated setback of 191m (626ft) to 126m (413ft) to accommodate a single-detached dwelling. 2. Application A Pages 31 to 38 Owners: John & Kathleen Unrau Address: 297 Spring Street Legal Description: Con 10, Pt Lot 14, Plan 27M-68, Lt 34 Wards: Almonte Zoning: Residential First Density Exception 20 (R1-20) The applicant is requesting relief from the rear yard setback within the Residential First Density Exception 20 (R1-20) Zone from 7.5m to 5.98m to legally permit the

2 conversion of an existing projecting deck to an enclosed structure at the northern corner of the single-detached dwelling. 3. Application A Pages 39 to 63 Owner: Ontario Inc. (Doyle Homes) Applicant: Fotenn Planning + Design Address: 865 Jack Dalgity Street Legal Description: Con 10, Pt Lot 14, Plan 27M-78, Lt 11 Wards: Almonte Zoning: Residential First Density Subzone I (R1I) The applicant is requesting relief from the bungalow lot coverage maximum within the Residential First Density Subzone I (R1I) Zone from 45% to 46% to legally permit the construction of a single-detached bungalow within the Riverfront Estates Subdivision (Phase 4). 4. Application A Pages 64 to 88 Owner: Ontario Inc. (Doyle Homes) Applicant: Fotenn Planning + Design Address: 864 Jack Dalgity Street Legal Description: Con 10, Pt Lot 14, Plan 27M-78, Lt 17 Wards: Almonte Zoning: Residential First Density Subzone I (R1I) The applicant is requesting relief from the bungalow lot coverage maximum within the Residential First Density Subzone I (R1I) Zone from 45% to 46.83% to legally permit the construction of a single-detached bungalow within the Riverfront Estates Subdivision (Phase 4). 5. Application A Pages 89 to 113 Owner: Ontario Inc. (Doyle Homes) Applicant: Fotenn Planning + Design Address: 852 Jack Dalgity Street Legal Description: Con 10, Pt Lot 14, Plan 27M-708, Lt 23 Wards: Almonte Zoning: Residential First Density Subzone I (R1I) The applicant is requesting relief from the bungalow lot coverage maximum within the Residential First Density Subzone I (R1I) Zone from 45% to 46.83% to legally permit the construction of a single-detached bungalow within the Riverfront Estates Subdivision (Phase 4). G. OTHER BUSINESS None. H. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. I. ADJOURNMENT

3 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF MISSISSIPPI MILLS COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Wednesday, February 21, 2018, at 5:30 P.M. Council Chambers, Municipal Office, 3131 Old Perth Rd., Almonte PRESENT: ABSENT: Stacey Blair (Acting Chair) Christa Lowry Patricia McCann-MacMillan APPLICANTS/PUBLIC: A-03-18: Rod Ayotte A-04-18: Marcus Abramenko Bryant Cougle STAFF: Planner called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. Andrew Scanlan Dickie, Junior Planner, Recording Secretary Niki Dwyer, Director of Planning A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved by Christa Lowry Seconded by Stacey Blair THAT the Agenda be accepted. CARRIED B. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST None C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. March 14 th, 2018 PUBLIC MEETING Moved by Christa Lowry Seconded by Stacey Blair THAT the Minutes be accepted. CARRIED D. NEW BUSINESS None. E. HEARINGS: 1. Application A Owner/Applicant: Rod Ayotte 1

4 Address: 142 Princess Street Legal Description: Plan 6262, Mitcheson Section, Lot 53 Ward: Almonte Zoning: Residential Second Density (R2) The applicant requested relief from the triplex dwelling minimum lot area and rear yard setback within the Residential Second Density (R2) Zone from 690m 2 to 618m 2 and 7.5m to 1.2m, respectively. The relief would legally recognize the future development of a triplex dwelling. The applicant did not wish to speak to the application, nor did the Committee express concern over the request. Without further discussion, the Committee took to a vote and passed the following motion: Moved by Stacey Blair Seconded by Christa Lowry THAT the Municipality of Mississippi Mills Committee of Adjustment APPROVES the Minor Variance for the land legally described as Plan 6262, Mitcheson Section, Lot 53, Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills, municipally known as 142 Princess Street, to reduce the minimum lot area and rear yard setback to a front lot line from 690m 2 (7,427.10ft 2 ) to 618m 2 (6,652.10ft 2 ) and 7.5m (24.60ft) to 1.2m (3.94ft), respectively, to permit the construction of a triplex development, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Minor Variance is approved based on the plans submitted or those resubmitted that are to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning; 2. That the owner, if plans include access from Martin St N, receive entrance approval from the County; 3. That the owner enter into Site Plan Control, as per By-law #15-60; and 4. That the owner obtains all required building permits. CARRIED 2. Application A Owner/Applicant: Marcus & Katherine Abramenko Legal Description: Ramsay Con 8, NE Pt Lt 17, Plan 26R-1224, Pt 1 Almonte Con 8, NE Pt Lt 16, Plan 26R-1224, Pt 1 Ward: Ramsay & Almonte Zoning: Rural (RU) and Development (D) The applicant requested relief from the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS I) setback calculated using the MDS Formula provided through the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). Section 6.10 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law #11-83 stipulates that no use shall be erected or altered unless it complies with the MDS I calculation, or unless approved by the 2

5 Committee of Adjustment. The relief would reduce the calculated setback of 191m (626ft) to 126m (413ft) to accommodate a single-detached dwelling. A member of the public spoke to the application, with concerns regarding the setbacks from the industrial designation adjacent to the property, as well as the sewage lagoons nearby. The Planner spoke to the concerns, specifically that the setback between industrial properties and sensitive land use is when a use is involved the land currently sits vacant and thus no setbacks are required. The Committee discussed the application and identified questions that they would like to see addressed, such as more information as to how the proposal would impact the expansion of a livestock operation on the adjacent agricultural land. With no other concerns to discuss, the Committee took to a vote and passed the following motion: Moved by Christa Lowry Seconded by Stacey Blair THAT application A be deferred until the next Committee of Adjustment meeting and that Staff provide supplemental information regarding the impact on the adjacent agricultural land. CARRIED F. OTHER BUSINESS None. G. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. H. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:57 p.m. Andrew Scanlan Dickie, Recording Secretary 3

6 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF MISSISSIPPI MILLS PLANNING REPORT MEETING DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: OWNER/APPLICANT: Wednesday May 23, 5:30pm Committee of Adjustment Andrew Scanlan Dickie Junior Planner MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION A (D13-AB-18) Ramsay Conc 8, NE Part Lot 17, Plan 26R-1224, Part 1 Almonte Conc 8, NE Part Lot 16, Plan 26R-1224, Part 1 Ramsay & Almonte Wards, Municipality of Mississippi Mills Located near the corner of Gleeson Rd & County Rd 29 Marcus & Katherine Abramenko RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Municipality of Mississippi Mills Committee of Adjustment APPROVES the Minor Variance for the land legally described as Ramsay Concession 8, Northeast Part Lot 17, Plan 26R-1224, Part 1, Ramsay Ward, and Almonte Concession 8, Northeast Part Lot 16, Plan 26R-1224, Part 1, Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills to reduce the calculated MDS I setback between a new dwelling and a livestock facility from 191m (626ft) to 126m (413ft), subject to the following conditions: 1. that the Minor Variance is approved based on the plans submitted; 2. that the Owner register a covenant on the title of the property stating that the lot is adjacent to an agricultural property and/or livestock facility and may therefore be subject to noise, dust, odours, and other nuisances associated with related activities; 3. that the Owner not disturb land within 30m of a watercourse or wetland, except for minor disturbances resulting from construction, without consulting with the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA); 4. that the Owner contact the MOECC to confirm, to the satisfaction of the Municipality, that there is no land conflict between the subject property and the adjacent Industrial designated property; and 5. that the owners obtain all required building permits. PURPOSE AND EFFECT Minor Variance application A was originally put forward to the Committee of Adjustment on April 11 th, Feeling that more information was required to make a final decision on the request, the Committee deferred the application to May 23 rd so Staff could address a number of questions. The April 11 th report has been amended to reflect new information, notably the inclusion of Addendum A at the end of this report. The applicant is requesting relief from the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS I) setback calculated using the MDS Formula provided through the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). Section 6.10 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law #

7 stipulates that no use shall be erected or altered unless it complies with the MDS I calculation, or unless approved by the Committee of Adjustment. The relief would reduce the calculated setback of 191m (626ft) to 126m (413ft) to accommodate a newly constructed single-detached dwelling. The Minor Variance request is outlined below: Table 1. Requested Relief from Zoning By-law #11-83 Section Zoning Provision By-law Requirement Requested 6.10 Minimum Distance Separation (MDS I) setback calculated using the MDS Formula 191m (626ft) 126m (413ft) DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT LANDS The subject property is located near the corner of Gleeson Road and County Road 29, within both the Ramsay and Almonte Ward. The entire property is ±3.7ha (9.10ac) in size with a frontage of ±143.3m (470ft); whereas the portion of property within the Ramsay Ward that is zoned appropriately for a residential use is ±1.9ha (4.7ac). The property is generally surrounded by low density rural residential lots to the east and west, with an agricultural property to the immediate north and commercial uses to the southeast. The subject land is presently vacant with no immediate past history of development. The location of the subject property is depicted in the following photos: Figure 1 Property Location 5

8 Figure 2 Aerial Photo (2017) SERVICING & INFRASTRUCTURE The subject property does not have existing servicing but would require private well and septic as part of the site s expected development. The lot has frontage on, and is accessed from, Gleeson Road, a municipally owned and maintained road. Municipal servicing and infrastructure demands would not change due to the application. COMMENTS FROM CIRCULATION OF THE APPLICATION COMMENTS FROM INTERNAL CIRCULATION Comments received based on the circulation of this application have been summarized below: Acting CAO: No objections granted the adjacent farm owner is deemed to not be negatively impacted and that covenants are required for the subject land owners. Acting Clerk: No comments or concerns. CBO: No comments received. Fire Chief: No comments received. Director of Roads and Public Works: No technical reason why the application cannot proceed but is concerned of a precedent that can be used as an argument for future applications. Recreation Coordinator: No comments or concerns. 6

9 COMMENTS FROM EXTERNAL AGENCIES Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority: The proposed development meets the required setbacks. However, the property owner shall not disturb land within 30m of a watercourse or wetland, save for minor disturbances resulting from construction. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Two objections were received from an individual associated to an adjacent property, as seen in Schedule I. The individual has expressed that the proximity to an industrial zone requires particular setbacks must be maintained. The relevant sections of the COP have been added to this report for analysis. EVALUATION FOUR TESTS Section 45 of the Planning Act provides the Committee of Adjustment with the authority to grant relief from the requirements of a municipal zoning by-law. In properly evaluating such requests, the Committee needs to be satisfied that the proposal meets the four (4) tests set out in the Planning Act. Staff comments concerning the application of the four (4) tests to this Minor Variance request are as follows: 1. DOES THE PROPOSAL MAINTAIN THE INTENT OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN? The subject property is designated both Rural and Industrial in the Municipality s Community Official Plan (COP). The Rural designation permits a variety of uses, inclusive of agricultural, commercial, industrial, and residential uses; whereas the Industrial permits a variety of commercial and industrial (Class I to III) uses. The proposed dwelling construction would be entirely within the Rural designation. Minimum Distance Separation Under the Rural policies are those specifically addressing the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) requirements, as per OMAFRA. The policy is as follows: Section General Policies [Rural] 1. The establishment of new buildings and structures or the expansion or change of use of existing structures within the Rural designation shall be subject to the appropriate Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) calculation as developed by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). According to OMAFRA, MDS setbacks are used to reduce odour conflicts by separating incompatible uses. There are various circumstances where a Planning Act application or construction requiring a building permit may meet the intent of the MDS Document, if not the precise setbacks required by MDS I (the distance of a new dwelling from a livestock facility) or MDS II (the distance of a new livestock facility from a dwelling). In some circumstances, it may be appropriate for a municipality or other approval authority to consider the merits of allowing for a reduced MDS setback through a minor variance or other type of planning application. Generally, OMAFRA does not support or encourage reductions to MDS setbacks. Allowing for 7

10 reductions can increase the potential for land use conflicts and undermine the MDS intent. Nonetheless, Implementation Guideline #43 of the MDS Document provides specific direction on reducing required MDS I setbacks. It states: MDS I setbacks should not be reduced except in limited site specific circumstances that meet the intent of this MDS Document. Examples may include circumstances that mitigate environmental or public health and safety impacts, or avoid natural or human-made hazards. If deemed appropriate by a municipality, the processes by which a reduction to MDS I may occur could include a minor variance to the local zoning by-law, a site specific zoning by-law amendment or an official plan amendment introducing a site specific policy area. As such, municipal policy does not object to a relief to the MDS requirements, granted that said relief maintains the intent of the MDS Document and its guidelines. To assess whether the request is appropriate, OMAFRA recommends that a review address particular questions as part of the minor variance process. These questions will be addressed as part of Section 3 of this report. To understand the sites in question, please refer to Schedules C and D of this report for setback context both from nearby barns and water features. Influence Areas and Sensitive Uses The subject lot is uniquely located within two designations, wedged between agricultural land to the north and industrial land belonging to the Almonte Ward Settlement Area to the east and south. The Industrial designation, although predominantly vacant, requires that its permitted industrial uses be set back from those that are sensitive, such as dwellings, to mitigate land use conflicts. Section Industrial Policies 2. Influence areas for Classes I, II and III industrial uses shall apply between industrial uses and sensitive uses (reciprocally). Sensitive uses shall not be permitted within the influence area unless it is clearly demonstrated by a developer that adverse effects are clearly and fully mitigated to the satisfaction of Council and, where applicable environmental approval has been obtained from the Ministry of Environment. Immediately adjacent to the subject property, at its southeast corner, is a lot that contains two (2) businesses: New Age Automotive (an automobile service station use) and SMR Electric (a contractor s or trade establishment use). Both uses are permitted within their Light Industrial (M1) Zone. However, they are commercial uses and are also permitted within the Commercial designation and subsequent Highway Commercial (C3) Zone. Furthermore, the uses do not adhere to the Class I Industry definition a place of business for a small scale, self contained plant or building that produces, manufactures, assembles, or warehouses a product which is contained in a package and has a low probability of fugitive emissions. As such, the commercial uses do not have an influence area that impacts the location of the dwelling. If they did, a 70m (230ft) setback would be required without ministry approval. In addition, if such uses are deemed industrial, then Commercial policies would stipulate setbacks as well which is not contemplated within said designation although it permits automotive uses. Nonetheless, 8

11 Staff recommend that the applicants contact the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change to receive written support for their proposal. The setbacks between light industrial and sensitive uses are reciprocal. In the event that a Light Industrial use is proposed on the M1 property, it would have to adhere to the buffer from the sensitive use unless approved by the MOECC. In this particular circumstance, there are already homes located adjacent to the industrial property; thus, a potential industrial use would be subject to the buffer regardless. Furthermore, it is important to note that setbacks are required from uses and not vacant land; thus, the industrial property which lies predominantly vacant is not of concern. If the land was not a greenfield, but rather an operating industrial business, setbacks would apply. 2. DOES THE PROPOSAL MAINTAIN THE INTENT OF THE ZONING BY-LAW? The subject property is zoned both Rural (RU) and Development (D) by the Municipality s Comprehensive Zoning By-law # The RU Zone permits a variety of uses, inclusive of a detached dwelling, a home-based business, agriculture, and accessory uses, buildings and structures. The D Zone serves as a holding zone, which legally permits existing uses but controls the impact of future development. All construction is proposed to remain within the boundaries of the RU Zone. See Schedule A for a Zoning Map. Minimum Distance Separation The Comprehensive Zoning By-law #11-83 makes specific reference to OMAFRA s Minimum Distance Separation formula, stating: Section 6.10 Minimum Distance Separation 1. Notwithstanding any other yard or setback provisions of this By-law to the contrary, no residential, institutional, commercial, industrial or recreational use, located on a separate lot and permitted in the Zone in which the lot is situated, shall be erected or altered unless it complies with the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS I) calculated using the MDS Formula. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, existing vacant lots which cannot be developed as a result of MDS I may be developed subject to the approval of the Committee of Adjustment. The subject application pertains to an existing vacant lot that cannot be developed as a result of the calculated MDS I setback. No location on the lot, save for across the watercourse, falls exterior to the 191m buffer. In addition, environmental features such as a meandering stream and a potential wetland further impact the home s location (see Schedule B for Wetland Mapping). As such, Staff are of the opinion that the requested relief maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law, granted that the request is deemed to be appropriate and minor for the lands in questions, as discussed in sections 3 and 4 of this report. The Municipal Sewage Lagoons The subject application indicates that the property is within 500m (1640ft) of a sewage treatment facility/lagoon, specifically referring to the Municipality s sewage lagoons that are zoned Waste Disposal (WD). Consequently, Staff are required to assess whether the proposal meets any associated setbacks, notably the following: 9

12 Section 6.25 Setbacks from Waste Disposal (WD) Zone 2. No building or structure used for human habitation shall be located closer than 200 metres (656 feet) from any area zoned for and/or containing a licensed sewage treatment works or a closed waste disposal site either within or outside the limits of the Corporation. The lagoon parcel boundary is located approximately 375m (1230ft) from the proposed building location, providing sufficient space between uses to mitigate a land use conflict. 3. IS THE PROPOSAL DESIRABLE FOR THE APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LANDS IN QUESTION? The following is a list of questions a municipality or a Committee of Adjustment may ask when considering a reduction to an MDS I setback as per Implementation Guideline #43. OMAFRA states that the list of questions does not represent an exhaustive list, as other site-specific circumstance might be relevant, and that some may not be determinative of whether the application is appropriate or not. In some cases, a surrounding land use, environmental, safety or practicality issue may warrant a reduced MDS I setback if the intent of this MDS Document can still be met. Surrounding Land Uses Q1. Is the proposed development similar to others on surrounding lands in the vicinity? The proposed development is a single-detached dwelling, as permitted by the RU Zone. Similar uses are present to the east and west of the property. The immediate east, towards County Road 29, is characterized by smaller lots with dwellings setback from the meandering watercourse; whereas, the west, towards Ramsay Concession 8, are smaller lots surrounded by larger agricultural properties. The agricultural property influencing the development is located to the immediate north. Its agricultural structures, inclusive of livestock facilities, are all located near Gleeson Road, with availability to expand inwards. Q2. Is the proposed location further away from the surrounding livestock facility or anaerobic digester than other existing development or dwellings in the area? No, the proposed home would be the closest dwelling to the livestock facility. Only one other dwelling, located 115 Gleeson Road, falls within the 191m setback at ~182m. Q3. Is there a history of complaints in the area related to nuisance issues? At the time this report was written, Staff were not aware of complaints related to the nearby livestock facility, nor were objections received regarding the application. Such complaints would be received by the Municipality and not by the Ministry. Environmental Concerns Q4. Would meeting the MDS setback mean that the proposed development or building would affect surface water features? To locate further away from the livestock facility, the proposed dwelling would either have to encroach within an environmental setback, build atop a water feature, or be located across said feature. All options could potentially have a negative environmental impact. 10

13 Q5. Would meeting the MDS setback mean that the proposed development or building would affect groundwater features? The subject lands would require a well and would thus have an impact, albeit negligible, on the aquifer s available supply. However, this would be assessed by a licensed professional and required as part of the Building Permit process prior to issuance of occupancy. A possible concern for development in proximity of the Almonte Ward is potential impact on municipal wells. The subject lot falls entirely outside of any Wellhead Protection Area. Q6. Are there other natural or environmental features on the lot that should be considered? The property has two unevaluated wetlands identified on the property along the stream (see Schedule B). Although they are not regulated, the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) still requires a minimum 30m setback to mitigate environmental impacts. Q7. Would meeting the MDS setback mean that the proposed development or building would require a stream crossing or create more potential for environmental risk? Safety The lot does extend passed the meandering watercourse and would thus require a crossing to adhere to the MDS setback. However, meeting the setback would place the dwelling within the Industrial designation, which does not permit dwellings as a principal use. To allow such a use would require an Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment. Since the land is also identified as employment land, the PPS requires that any change of use be accompanied by a Comprehensive Land Review of the Municipality to assess whether the industrial land is surplus. This requirement is considerable expense for the average land owner. Q8. Is there a safety issue related to the poor state of repair of an existing building that should be replaced? Since the property is vacant, there are no issues pertaining to disrepair or potential building replacement. Q9. Would siting the new building or development in a location that met MDS I setbacks result in a public safety concern? Siting the new building to meet the MDS I setback would require construction on the other side of the watercourse passing through the lot. Apart from the environmental risk, locating the dwelling within the D Zone would not be permitted, would require both an Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment, and would hinder the long-term vision of the surrounding property as employment lands. Practicality Q10. Would the proposed development or building improve the existing situation? There is no existing situation to be improved upon; the property stands vacant. Q11. Does the proposed reduction to the MDS I setback permit the new development or building to meet some other regulatory setback requirement? 11

14 The location of the dwelling at 126m from the livestock facility is meant to generally meet MVCA regulations concerning setbacks from watercourses and wetlands. Regardless of whether the applicant obtained relief from these setbacks, the building would still fall within the MDS I buffer. The only possible location outside of the setback is in the Industrial designation of the Almonte Ward, which would require Official Plan and Zoning amendments, additional permits, and engineering work to cross the watercourse. Q12. Can site plan design assist in reducing the potential for nuisance complaints? The site is intended for the use of the current property owners as a single-detached dwelling, who are aware of the agricultural operation north of their lot. Consequently, a site plan design would not further reduce any nuisance complaints; MVCA regulations limit where the lot can be located, specifically when considering distance from the livestock facility. Furthermore, a condition of the Minor Variance approval would require the owner/applicant register a covenant on title identifying the nearby nuisance. The proposed MDS I relief for single-family home development is a response to a variety of unique circumstances for the subject lot. In an ideal world, a water crossing would be the advised option to circumvent the building restrictions of being within proximity of a livestock facility. However, locating across the stream would still require relief from the MDS and would impose a risk to the surrounding environment. Extending out of the MDS buffer would put the property in the Industrial designation, which does not permit dwellings as principal uses. Furthermore, amending the Official Plan would be a costly endeavour as it requires a Comprehensive Review of the Municipality to assess whether there is an excess of Employment Lands. As such, Staff believe that the proposed location on the northern side of the watercourse which adheres to environmental setbacks is a desirable and appropriate location for development on the subject lands. Staff is also aware that the increase in dwellings adjacent to the agricultural property may create nuisance complaints. Unless a dwelling, livestock facility, or manure storage is illegally constructed, the majority of complaints would be a civil dispute. Although a condition may not reduce complaints, it does protect agricultural property owners if disputes were to escalate. Furthermore, the livestock facilities have coexisted with the existing adjacent dwellings without complaint to the Municipality, regardless of the prevailing westerly winds (see Schedule F). 4. IS THE PROPOSAL MINOR? Although all applications are meant to be evaluated on their own merits, there always remains a concern of precedent set by approving a minor variance. Thus, Staff must be cautious in evaluating a request whether it may cause an influx of applications of similar circumstance. Furthermore, Staff must assess what impact the relief would have on the subject property, those abutting, the neighbourhood, and to a lesser extent to the Municipality. Few applications for relief to the MDS I have been processed by the Municipality; however, there are some. Notably, application D13-BL-13 which reduced its setback from 212m (695.5ft) to 165m (541.3ft) for simpler circumstances than that of the subject application. Nonetheless, the MDS Document has been amended and updated since. Determining if a proposed reduction in MDS setbacks is minor depends on the context in which the reduction is being proposed. Minor means different things to different people. OMAFRA 12

15 does not endorse a specific % decrease (e.g., 5% or 10%) for MDS setbacks. In some circumstances, a very small reduction in an MDS setback may not be considered minor given the surrounding land uses and potential odour conflicts. In other instances, a significant reduction in an MDS setback may be considered minor. The perception of what is small or minor in nature varies depending on site-specific circumstances. Further to the questions of Section 3, it is important to consider the following aspects: 1. Is the MDS setback reduction really necessary or should another suitable alternative location (relocating the proposed lot/designation/building) be considered? 2. Is the reduced setback going to impact the type, size or intensity of agricultural uses in the surrounding area? 3. Is the reduced setback going to impact flexibility for existing or future agricultural operations, including their ability to expand if desired? If this reduced setback is allowed, will it set precedent for others in the local community? It is Staff s opinion that the proposal is unique. The combination of its proximity to similar uses, its dual designation and zoning, the presence of environmental features, its location at the border of the Ramsay and Almonte Wards, and its potential impact on the future development of employment lands is an exceptional situation not easily replicated by other properties across the Municipality. Unless the property owner wishes to amend the designation and zoning at the rear of the property to locate a home outside of the MDS I setback, there are very limited, if any other, options to consider. Consequently, the owner is well aware of the potential nuisances associated with being adjacent to an agricultural parcel that has a livestock facility. To ensure transparency with future landowners, the applicant will be required to register a covenant on title identifying the possible nuisances. However, those nuisances may already be somewhat mitigated by the existing environment. For instance, existing mature vegetation (see site photos in Schedule E) visually divides the neighbouring residential and agricultural uses. Furthermore, wind statistics collected between February 2012 and February 2018 (see Schedule F) indicate odours would move across the rural residential property approximately 23.3% of the year (inclusive of those winds coming from between the western and northwestern directions). Said statistics could be evaluated as a considerable amount of time; however, the application is solely for one dwelling unit which would have said factor clearly on title as a covenant, and there is no evidence that the odour would indeed be a nuisance. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to advise as to the expected duration or anticipated intensity of odours, as this can be dependent upon weather conditions and individual sensitivities. One (1) agricultural holding would be impacted by the MDS I setback, being the Purdy farm that the livestock information was collected from. As of the submission of this report, no concerns have been shared with Staff regarding the relief from the farm property owner. However, the Municipality must not only consider the current owner, but those that may come later. As requested by the Committee of Adjustment on April 11 th, 2018, Staff have made further comment regarding the application in the form of a series of questions and answers. These have been included at the end of this report as Addendum A. Staff do recognize that there are operations surrounding settlement areas that are limited by the proximity of dwellings that do not share the same MDS restrictions. Nonetheless, the adjacent agricultural property has available land to accommodate a higher intensity operation. As such, 13

16 Staff believe that the proposed relief is a minor request that, due to its unique circumstances, would not create a precedent for future applications. Furthermore, the application is a logical form of development since the existing dwellings already impose sufficient restrictions to influence the location of a potential expansion to the west or north of existing livestock facilities. CONCLUSION Overall, Staff supports the Minor Variance application. The variance would allow the owners to maximize the use and enjoyment of the existing vacant property with negligible impacts to other stakeholders. Staff believes that Minor Variance Application A meets the four (4) tests for evaluating a Minor Variance as established under the Planning Act. Therefore, Planning Staff recommends that the Minor Variances be granted, provided the Committee is satisfied that any issues raised at the public hearing do not require additional Staff evaluation and comment or the submission of additional information, and that the applicant adhere to the conditions outlined at the beginning of this report. All of which is respectfully submitted, Andrew Scanlan Dickie Junior Planner Niki Dwyer, MCIP, RPP Reviewed by Director of Planning ATTACHMENTS: Schedule A Zoning Map Schedule B Wetland Mapping Schedule C Setbacks from Water features Schedule D Setbacks from Barns Schedule E Site Photos Schedule F Wind Statistics Schedule G MDS I Data Sheet Schedule H MDS II Example Data Sheet Schedule I Objections Schedule J Elevations Addendum A Questions & Answers 14

17 SCHEDULE A Zoning Map A Agricultural Zone D Development Zone M1 Light Industrial Zone RU Rural Zone 15

18 SCHEDULE B Wetlands Mapping (provided by the MVCA) 16

19 SCHEDULE C Setbacks from Barns 17

20 SCHEDULE D Setbacks from Water features 18

21 SCHEDULE E Site Photos Applicant s Property Vegetation Buffer Purdy Farm Vegetation around Water Course 19

22 SCHEDULE F Wind Statistics (Windfinder: Carleton Place) 20

23 SCHEDULE G MDS I Data Sheet 21

24 SCHEDULE H MDS II Example Data Sheet 22

25 SCHEDULE I Objections From: Insert Name Here Sent: April 7, :19 PM To: Shawna Stone Cc: Nicole Dwyer Subject: Minor variance on Gleason I am assuming you are changing our land to residential as the environment guidelines do not fit leaving it as industrial has to be 300 meters away from this application and the one that SS gave out on a home last year. I also stress that the town used fraud to place industrial zoning on our property 42 years ago and I will be discussing that on Wed. Please make sure council receive this letter of objection to this minor variance. You can include the letter of Mar 21st that I sent to council. I need to add to this letter that SS did not send off the certified cheque to Ont Minister of finance as I requested the zone change back in The town had no right to hold onto that cheque. I also spoke with Troy Dunlop who informed me that before he left the town that it was discussed and moved by council [another back room deal] our property would be developed last as residential when other developers used other lands up. Insert Name here From: Insert Name Here Sent: May 3, :00 PM To: Nicole Dwyer; Andrew Scanlan Dickie Cc: Shawna Stone; Kelly Egan Subject: setbacks for environment to residential At the minor variance meeting for the home owner on Gleason side road you indicated that you would go with a class one set back of 0 meters when it is clear that their set back is 20m meters minimum. You must have a buffer of 66 feet.or YOU ARE DEFYING THE ENVIRONMENT GUIDELINES AND THEY WON`T APPROVE YOUR OP.PERIOD. 23

26 SCHEDULE J Elevations 24

27 ADDENDUM A QUESTIONS & ANSWERS 1. Which portion of the adjacent agriculturally zoned land is Prime Agricultural Land? Prime Agricultural Land, identified as Class 1 to 3 soils, makes up approximately 70% of the agriculturally designated property as shown in Figure 1. The Class 6 soils are located primarily along Gleeson Road and near the western lot boundary. The majority of Class 6 land falls within an MDS setback. 2. What are the impacts of the Urban Area on the existing agricultural operation, both current and for the future? According to Guideline #36 of OMAFRA s MDS Document (Publication 853): MDS I setbacks are NOT required for proposed land use changes within approved settlement areas, as it is generally understood that the long-term use of the land is intended to be for non-agricultural purposes. This means that those lands to the east of the Purdy farm that belong to the Almonte Settlement Area would not require MDS I setbacks be calculated. However, this flexibility is not reciprocal future livestock facilities would have to adhere to the MDS II setbacks. Consequently, those agricultural properties most closely situated to settlement areas are hindered in their use as livestock operations, particular if said operations are limited by their properties lot dimensions. The subject farm would have sufficient land to expand if necessary. Unfortunately, large expansions would likely require use of Class 2 soil. 3. What are the impacts of a Road Allowance on the existing agricultural operation, both current and for the future? According to Guideline #39, livestock facilities, manure storage, and anaerobic digesters are required to meet particular setbacks from road allowances. Road allowance MDS II setbacks are calculated as 0.2 multiplied by the Building Base Distance F (for this application, F means the setback from a dwelling). Hypothetically, if the livestock operation were to expand to a size that equates a required setback of 126m from a dwelling, a new livestock facility would be required to meet a 25.2m setback from the Gleeson road allowance. If the operation were to expand to the potential design capacity of 140 NU which equates a 191m setback, a potential livestock facility would have to be minimum 38.2m from the road allowance. This setback would largely eliminate most building placement options along Gleeson Road. No road allowance setbacks are required as part of MDS I calculations. If an anaerobic digester were to be installed, a fixed 40m setback from the road allowance would be required. MDS II setbacks for anaerobic digesters cannot be reduced through Guideline #43, which contemplates the mechanism for decreasing setback requirements. The cumulative impacts of MDS II setbacks from potential future dwellings in the settlement area, those existing dwellings, and road allowances are illustrated in Figures 2 to 4. Each figure showcases a different NU total and associated setback. 4. How does the Minor Variance impact the future locations on the agricultural property for livestock facilities or digesters? 25

28 If the current/future property owner wished to expand the livestock operation and could do so within the confines of the current buildings, they would be allowed an approximate total of 84.6 NU (based off of a proportional increase for each of already present livestock types). This would be just below double the current livestock total on site. If the livestock could not be contained within the current structures, available lands between the existing structures and the dwelling could likely be used close to the existing laneway. However, if the property owner were to choose to pursue a larger operation regardless of the Minor Variance that would increase the number of NU to above the potential design capacity calculated by the MDS I formula (140 NU), no land would remain available for expansion within the Class 6 lands along Gleeson Road (see Figures 2 to 4 for an illustration). As the NU increase, the pressures from the dwellings to the west and those to the east become more distinct (see Figure 5 which showcases a 300 NU setback as a possible, although unlikely, example). The major implication of the proposed dwelling location is the limitation on reconstruction or alteration of existing livestock facilities. If the agricultural property increased the number of livestock above 84.6 NU and wished to better the quality of an existing structure (specifically, the closest barn to Gleeson Road), the owner would only be permitted (as per Guideline #11) to reconstruct on the same footprint if: 1) the livestock types are equally or less odorous than before reconstruction; 2) the number of livestock, required area, and volume of manure storage remains the same; 3) the type of manure does not change (i.e. solid to liquid); and 4) a new manure storage does not have an increased odour potential than previously. If the intent was to better the capacity of the existing building, the facility would have to adhere to MDS II setbacks. When building a new facility elsewhere on the property, the MDS II setback is calculated based on the total number of NU, inclusive of those housed within existing structures. This MDS II setback only applies for the new building those existing remain legal until they are altered. 5. How would the inclusion of manure storage or an anaerobic digestor impact setbacks? If manure storage is planned for the site (meaning manure is not used or sent away within 14 days) then it requires appropriate setbacks from sensitive land uses, as calculated via the MDS I and MDS II formulas. The Storage Base Distance S depends on the type of manure and thus the potency of the odour. Very low odour manure storage requires a setback that is at least equivalent to that of the Building Base Distance F more potent odours require larger setbacks. The inclusion of manure storage would impose further restrictions from all nearby dwellings, not only those proposed. An anaerobic digester (AD) has a fixed setback of 200m, which already exceeds the potential design capacity setback of the agricultural property (191m). Furthermore, ADs require a minimum 40m setback from a road allowance. 6. Is there any other spot the applicant can move to? If so, where and what process? The applicant s operations are primarily located along Gleeson Road in proximity to the Almonte Settlement Area. If the livestock were to undergo large expansion, the most 26

29 appropriate locations would be to the west or north, away from the settlement area and road allowance, to avoid later implications when phasing-in additional nutrient units. 7. How will the MDS impact agricultural operations non-related to livestock? The property will continue to be able to operate as a non-livestock operation. The only consideration the current and future land owner may be impacted by is manure storage for application to crops. 8. Would this create precedence for future applications, both in the immediate area and around the Municipality? As an application under the Planning Act, precedence does not apply. However, there is always a possibility that an application may spark more residents to submit their own to the Municipality. Nonetheless, each application would be considered based on its own merits. After a review of rural and agricultural land located near the Almonte Settlement Area border, only one property was identified to have a barn and possibly similar circumstances, being 5553 County Road 29. However, all adjacent lots to said property have already constructed a dwelling and thus would not require a minor variance. If any infill were to occur within the settlement area, no MDS I calculation would be required. The expansion of livestock within said barn or to other livestock facilities would require an MDS II calculation. No other lots around other settlement areas have been observed to have similar lot implications as the subject property along Gleeson Road there is no environmental or industrial land conflict, and most adjacent properties in the rural area have been developed. However, there are a few properties that may become more limited as infill proposals increase within the villages. These include 211 Five Arches Road and 4713 Dark s Side Road near the Village of Pakenham; 6443 Martin Street N and 325 Blakeney Road near the Village of Blakeney; and 406 River Road and 4132 Appleton Side Road near the Village of Appleton. Figure 1 Soil Type 27

30 Figure 1 Soil Type Figure 2 62m setback (46.3 NU current) 28

31 Figure 3 126m setback (84.6 NU) Figure 4 191m setback (140 NU - potential) 29

32 Figure 5 249m setback (300 NU NMP required) 30

33 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF MISSISSIPPI MILLS PLANNING REPORT MEETING DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: OWNER/APPLICANT: Wednesday May 23, 5:30pm Committee of Adjustment Andrew Scanlan Dickie Junior Planner MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION A (D13-UN-18) Concession 10, Part Lot 14 Plan 27M-68, Lot 34 Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills Municipally known as 297 Spring Street John & Kathleen Unrau RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Municipality of Mississippi Mills Committee of Adjustment approves the Minor Variance for the land legally described as Concession 10, Part Lot 14, Plan 27M-68, Lot 34, Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills, municipally known as 297 Spring Street, to reduce the minimum required rear yard setback from 7.5m (24.6ft) to 5.98m (19.6ft) in order to legally recognize the conversion of an existing deck to an enclosed structure, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Minor Variance is approved based on the plans submitted; and 2. That the owners obtain all required building permits. PURPOSE AND EFFECT The owner is requesting relief from the rear yard setback within the Residential First Density Exception 20 (R1-20) Zone from 7.5m to 5.98m to legally permit the conversion of an existing 10 x10 projecting deck to an enclosed structure at the northern corner of the single-detached dwelling. The requested relief is outlined in the table below: Table 1. Requested Relief from Zoning By-law #11-83 Section Zoning Provision By-law Requirement Requested 13.2 Table 13.2A Rear Yard Setback Minimum 7.5m (24.6ft) 5.98 (19.6ft) The property currently has a projecting deck that adheres to the Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw s Section 6.19 Permitted Projections into Required Yards. The By-law defines a projection as having no more than two (2) enclosed sides. Now that the owner plans to enclose the structure on all sides, it can no longer be defined as a projection but rather a part the home; thus, it must meet the setbacks of the principal dwelling. A site plan, the building 31

34 elevations, and sketches of the proposed enclosure are included in the Schedules of this report. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT LANDS The subject property is located at the corner of Spring Street and Merrithew Street in the Riverfront Estates Subdivision. The property is ±653.4m 2 (0.16ac) in size with a frontage of ±20m (65.6ft) along Spring Street. The property is generally surrounded by low density residential properties, inclusive of both single-detached and semi-detached dwellings. The location of the subject property is depicted in the following aerial photo: Figure 1. Aerial Photo of Property (2017) SERVICING & INFRASTRUCTURE The subject property is serviced by municipal water and sewer services and has driveway access from Spring Street, a municipally owned and maintained road. The municipal servicing and infrastructure demands would not change as a result of the application. COMMENTS FROM CIRCULATION OF THE APPLICATION COMMENTS FROM INTERNAL CIRCULATION Comments received based on the circulation of this application have been summarized below: CAO: No concerns. CBO: No comments received. 32

35 Fire Chief: No comments received. Director of Roads and Public Works: No concerns. Recreation Coordinator: No concerns. COMMENTS FROM EXTERNAL AGENCIES No comments have been received from external agencies as of the date this report was prepared. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No comments have been received from the public as of the date this report was prepared. EVALUATION FOUR TESTS Section 45 of the Planning Act provides the Committee of Adjustment with the authority to grant relief from the requirements of a municipal zoning by-law. In properly evaluating such requests, the Committee needs to be satisfied that the proposal meets the four (4) tests set out in the Planning Act. Staff comments concerning the application of the four (4) tests to this Minor Variance request are as follows: 1. Does the proposal maintain the intent of the Official Plan? The subject property is designated Residential in the Municipality s Community Official Plan (COP). The Residential designation permits low and medium density residential uses and accessory uses. The Municipality s COP does not specifically address or contain policies related to minimum rear yard setbacks for properties located within the Residential designation. As such, the requested variance conforms to the general intent and purpose of the COP. 2. Does the proposal maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Residential First Density Exception 20 (R1-20) by the Municipality s Comprehensive Zoning By-law # The R1-20 Zone permits a detached dwelling and specific provisions in relation to front, interior side, and exterior side yard setbacks - there is no alternative rear yard setback. Consequently, the rear yard requirement reverts to the parent R1 Zone s 7.5m (24.6ft). The owner is applying to reduce this requirement to legally recognize the conversion of a deck to an enclosed structure. Minimum Rear Yard Setback Requirement The intent of the minimum rear yard setback requirement for principal dwellings is to ensure that there is sufficient separation between the building and the rear lot line in order to allow for maintenance around the building, prevent runoff onto neighbouring properties, mitigate any potential visual and privacy impacts between neighbouring properties, and maintain appropriate amenity space for the owners. 33

36 Maintenance: The 5.98m setback provides adequate room for maintenance purposes and retains 3.58m (11.7ft) from the 2.4m (7.9ft) swale and subdrain easement along the rear lot line. Furthermore, the relief would only apply to the 10 x10 deck footprint, which is at most one third of the dwelling s rear wall width. Any further plans to extend the rear of the building would require further Planning Act approval. Runoff: The enclosed structure would not expand on the already existing deck footprint. No alterations to the land are proposed except for the relocation of the staircase to grade from the rear (northeast) of the deck to its side (southeast). See Schedule C for illustrations. Privacy Impacts: Although the minor variance would reduce the minimum setback from 7.5m (24.6ft) to 5.98m (19.6ft), the relief would only impact a portion of the rear building wall. The adjacent property along Spring Street would experience negligible difference in privacy or impact of view because its rear wall sits similarly at the 7.5m rear yard requirement. Furthermore, the use of the enclosure would mimic that of the deck but with better protection from the elements. At the time this report was submitted, no complaints had been received from adjacent owners about potential impacts. Amenity Space: Since the structure would not expand passed the already existing deck footprint, no amenity space would be impacted by the proposal. Given the above, Staff is of the opinion that the Minor Variance in question maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law # Is the proposal desirable for the appropriate development of the lands in question? The proposal is desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land as it would allow a future enclosed structure belonging to a single detached dwelling to be legally recognized, thereby maximizing the owners personal enjoyment and use of the land. In addition, the location of the enclosure is favourable due to its use of an already existing deck that protrudes negligibly from the dwelling s rear wall. The proposal is desirable within the context of the neighbourhood and the Municipality as a whole as there are no foreseeable negative impacts as a result of the proposed variance. As noted, the setback will have no additional impacts on maintenance, runoff, and privacy. Due to the site-specific nature of property (i.e. the location of the enclosure, its size, and the negligible impacts), the proposal would not set a precedent for future applications where these features are not present. Therefore, Staff is of the opinion that the proposal is a desirable and appropriate development of the subject lands. Staff do note that other residents have inquired about minor variances for sunroom expansion into the rear yard. However, their intended sizes, location, and subsequent reliefs generally involved more substantial impact to neighbours. 4. Is the proposal minor? The proposed variance to the minimum rear yard setback for single detached dwellings would reduce the requirement from 7.5m (24.61ft) to 5.98m (19.6ft), resulting in a requested relief of 1.52m (5.0ft). Due to the relief being isolated to only the northern corner of the home, the request is not significant from a quantitative standpoint and responds appropriately to the lot characteristics (i.e. swale and subdrain easement). The proposal demonstrates no foreseeable 34

37 maintenance, runoff, and privacy impacts to the property in question or those neighbouring. Staff is therefore of the opinion that the requested variance is considered to be minor in nature. CONCLUSION Overall, Staff supports the Minor Variance application. The variances would allow the owners to maximize the use and enjoyment of their property with no foreseeable impacts to any other stakeholders. Staff believes that Minor Variance Application A meets the four (4) tests for evaluating a Minor Variance as established under the Planning Act. Planning Staff therefore recommends that the Minor Variances be granted, provided the Committee is satisfied that any issues raised at the public hearing do not require additional Staff evaluation and comment, the submission of additional information, or the application of conditions other than as follows: 5. That the Minor Variances are approved based on the plans submitted; and 6. That the owners obtain all required building permits. All of which is respectfully submitted, Andrew Scanlan Dickie Junior Planner Niki Dwyer, MCIP, RPP Reviewed by Director of Planning ATTACHMENTS: SCHEDULE A Site Plan SCHEDULE B Building Elevations SCHEDULE C Proposed Enclosure 35

38 SCHEDULE A Site Plan 36

39 SCHEDULE B Building Elevations 37

40 SCHEDULE C Proposed Enclosure 38

41 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF MISSISSIPPI MILLS PLANNING REPORT MEETING DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: OWNER: APPLICANT: Wednesday May 23, 5:30pm Committee of Adjustment Andrew Scanlan Dickie Junior Planner MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION A Concession 10, Part Lot 14 Plan 27M-78, Lot 11 Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills Municipally known as 865 Jack Dalgity Street Ontario Inc. (Doyle Homes) Fotenn Planning + Design RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Municipality of Mississippi Mills Committee of Adjustment approves the Minor Variance for the land legally described as Concession 10, Part Lot 14, Plan 27M-78, Lot 11, Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills, municipally known as 865 Jack Dalgity Street, to increase the maximum bungalow lot coverage from 45% to 46% to legally recognize the construction of a single-detached dwelling, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Minor Variance is approved based on the plans submitted; 2. That the Council of the Municipality of Mississippi Mills approves the lifting of the two-year moratorium for minor variance applications; and 3. That the owners obtain all required building permits. PURPOSE AND EFFECT The applicant is requesting relief from the bungalow lot coverage maximum within the Residential First Density Subzone I (R1I) Zone from 45% to 46% to legally permit the construction of a single-detached bungalow within the Riverfront Estates Subdivision (Phase 4). The requested relief is outlined in the table below: Table 1. Requested Relief from Zoning By-law #11-83 Section Zoning Provision By-law Requirement Requested 13.2 Table 13.2A Lot Coverage (Bungalow) Maximum 45% 46% 39

42 The request is in response to an observed error in the Zoning By-law Amendment process. In Summer 2016, Riverfront Estates submitted an application to rezone its Phase 4. Among the requests was the proposed Residential First Density Subzone I Exception X (R1I-X), which generally adhered to the provisions of the R1I Zone but with an increased lot coverage allowance from 40-45% (two-storey and bungalows, respectively) to 45-50%. As part of the public process, no comment was made regarding the lot coverage, nor had staff provided notification of an intent to modify the requested lot coverage. The ensuing recommendation to the Committee of the Whole on August 23 rd, 2016 was approved, reading as follows: THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends that Council approve the proposed changes to the draft plan of subdivision for Riverfront Estates Phase 4 and directs staff to advise the County of Lanark of Council s support of the proposed amendment; AND FURTHERMORE THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends that Council approve the necessary Zoning By-Law Amendment to change the zoning of the lands described as West ½ Lot 14, Concession 10, Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills, known as Riverfront Estates Phase 3, from Residential First Density Exception 20(R1-20) Zone, Residential First Density Exception 21 (R1-21) Zone and Residential Third Density Exception 8 (R3-8) Zone to Residential First Density-Subzone I Exception X (R1I-X) Zone, Residential Second Density-Subzone E (R2E) Zone and Residential ThirdDensity Exception 8 (R3-8) Zone. The reference to the R1I-X Zone indicates that the proposal, inclusive of lot coverage, was agreed by Council to proceed to By-law approval. However, By-law #16-74 was incorrectly written, referring not to the R1I-X but R1I Zone, which has stricter lot coverage maximums. The error was not caught at the time and has only now emerged as building permits begin to be processed. To legally allow construction to proceed in a timely manner, the applicant has elected to pursue a Minor Variance before the appropriate amendments can potentially be made by the Municipality. A copy of Fotenn Planning + Design s report and associated literature is found in the Schedules of this report. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT LANDS The subject property is located along Jack Dalgity Street, perpendicular to Old Almonte Road, within Phase 4 of the Riverfront Estates Subdivision. The property is ± m 2 (0.10ac) in size with a frontage of ±12.8m (42.00ft). The property will generally be surrounded by low density residential properties, with higher density townhouses located closer to the Mississippi River. The location of the subject property is depicted in the following aerial photo: 40

43 Figure 1. Aerial Photo of Property (2017) SERVICING & INFRASTRUCTURE The subject property will be serviced by municipal water and sewer services and has driveway access from Jack Dalgity Street, a municipally owned and maintained road. The municipal servicing and infrastructure demands would not change as a result of the application. COMMENTS FROM CIRCULATION OF THE APPLICATION COMMENTS FROM INTERNAL CIRCULATION Comments received based on the circulation of this application have been summarized below: CAO: No comments received. Clerk: No concerns. CBO: No comments received. Fire Chief: No concerns. Director of Roads and Public Works: No concerns. Recreation Coordinator: No concerns. COMMENTS FROM EXTERNAL AGENCIES No comments have been received from external agencies as of the date this report was prepared. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No comments have been received from the public as of the date this report was prepared. 41

44 EVALUATION FOUR TESTS Section 45 of the Planning Act provides the Committee of Adjustment with the authority to grant relief from the requirements of a municipal zoning by-law. In properly evaluating such requests, the Committee needs to be satisfied that the proposal meets the four (4) tests set out in the Planning Act. Staff comments concerning the application of the four (4) tests to this Minor Variance request are as follows: 1. Does the proposal maintain the intent of the Official Plan? The subject property is designated Residential in the Municipality s Community Official Plan (COP). The Residential designation permits low and medium density residential uses and accessory uses. The Municipality s COP does not specifically address or contain policies related to maximum lot coverage for properties located within the Residential designation. As such, the requested variance conforms to the general intent and purpose of the COP. 2. Does the proposal maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Residential First Density Subzone I (R1I) by the Municipality s Comprehensive Zoning By-law # The R1I Zone permits a detached dwelling and specific provisions pertaining to yard setback but reverts to the 40-45% lot coverage of the R1 Zone. The owner is applying to increase the lot coverage maximum to legally recognize the construction of a single-detached bungalow dwelling. Lot Coverage Maximum Requirement The intent of the maximum lot coverage requirement is to ensure sufficient land remains landscaped and usable for the benefit of property owners and neighbours. Furthermore, it maximizes the availability of permeable surfaces for stormwater management. At the time of the amendment, the Planning Department received no concerns from the public or other staff pertaining to the above. In addition, Council had already approved similar amendments within the same subdivision, notably the R1I-29 (By-law #14-45) which permits 50-55% coverage. The R1I-29 was the basis for the 2016 amendment. Given the above, Staff is of the opinion that the Minor Variance in question maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law # Is the proposal desirable for the appropriate development of the lands in question? Given that the intent of the previously applied for and approved Zoning By-law Amendment was to implement a lot coverage of 45-50% and that this provision is standard among other areas of the same subdivision, the proposal is desirable and appropriate for the development of the subject lands. 4. Is the proposal minor? The variance proposes to increase the lot coverage for Lot 11 by one (1) percentage point to accommodate the housing requests made by those individuals purchasing the lots/future 42

45 homes. The request is numerically insignificant and poses no further impact than already contemplated by the 2016 zoning amendment and others passed before that. Since the request works within the threshold of the intended amendment, Staff is of the opinion that there is no precedence for future applications looking for relief from lot coverage maximums. However, Staff do advise the Committee of Adjustment that multiple Minor Variance applications are likely to be filed for properties along Jack Dalgity Street to address the same zoning error. CONCLUSION Overall, Staff supports the Minor Variance application. The variances would allow the owners to maximize the use and enjoyment of their property with no foreseeable impacts to any other stakeholders. Staff believes that Minor Variance Application A meets the four (4) tests for evaluating a Minor Variance as established under the Planning Act. Planning Staff therefore recommends that the Minor Variances be granted, provided the Committee is satisfied that any issues raised at the public hearing do not require additional Staff evaluation and comment, the submission of additional information, or the application of conditions other than as follows: 4. That the Minor Variance is approved based on the plans submitted; 5. That the Council of the Municipality of Mississippi Mills approves the lifting of the two-year moratorium for minor variance applications; and 6. That the owners obtain all required building permits. All of which is respectfully submitted, Andrew Scanlan Dickie Junior Planner Niki Dwyer, MCIP, RPP Reviewed by Director of Planning ATTACHMENTS: SCHEDULE A Site Plan SCHEDULE B Fotenn Letter SCHEDULE C By-law #16-74 SCHEUDLE D August 23 rd, 2016 Staff Report (no Appendices) 43

46 SCHEDULE A Site Plan 44

47 SCHEDULE B Fotenn Letter 45

48 46

49 47

50 48

51 SCHEDULE C By-law #

52 SCHEDULE D August 23 rd, 2016 Staff Report (no Appendices) MEETING DATE: August 23, 2016 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: OWNER: PLANNING REPORT Committee of the Whole Stephen Stirling Municipal Planner ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION Z AND DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION (REDLINE REVISION) Part of West 1/2 Lot 14, Concession 10 Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills Municipally known as Riverfront Estates Phase 4 Houchaimi Holdings Inc. (HHI) APPLICANT/AGENT: Holzman Consultants Inc. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends that Council, approves the proposed changes to the draft plan of subdivision for Riverfront Estates Phase 4 and directs staff to advise the County of Lanark of Council s support of the proposed amendment AND FURTHERMORE THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that Council approves the necessary Zoning By-Law Amendment to change the zoning of the lands described as West ½ Lot 14, Concession 10, Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills, known as Riverfront Estates Phase 3, from Residential First Density Exception 20 (R1-20) Zone, Residential First Density Exception 21 (R1-21) Zone and Residential Third Density Exception 8 (R3-8) Zone to Residential First Density-Subzone I Exception X (R1I-X) Zone, Residential Second Density-Subzone E (R2E) Zone and Residential Third Density Exception 8 (R3-8) Zone. BACKGROUND Houchaimi Holdings Inc (HHI) is the landowner of the subject lands, described as Part of West ½ Lot 14, Concession 10, Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills. On June 24, 2010, the developer received approval for a multi-phased subdivision development known as Riverfront Estates. The plan of subdivision consisted of approximately 380 residential units that included a mix of residential housing forms, being single detached lots, semi-detached lots, townhome blocks and an apartment block. To date phases 1 and 2 of the development has been completed and phase 3 is approaching completion. As a result the developer is initiating Phase 4 of the development. 50

53 As draft plan approved, Phase 4 of the Riverfront Estates subdivision consists of a total of 56.5 residential dwelling units, of which all of the dwelling units are single detached dwellings with lot frontages that range between 15m and 18m. Since the draft plan approval, market conditions have changed such that the residential housing market requires a greater mixture of residential forms and smaller lots. As a result, the developer has proposed revisions to Phase 4 of the plan of subdivision that will provide a greater mixture of residential dwellings to include single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and townhouse dwellings with reduced zoning performance standards instead of just single detached dwellings. The proposed zoning by-law amendment will not have any impact on the road layout as approved in the draft plan of subdivision. Phases 2 to 5 of the Riverfront Estates subdivision as draft plan approved currently consists of a total of 372 residential dwelling units plus the apartment block. The table below depicts the breakdown of residential form in Phases 2 to 5 as currently draft approved: PURPOSE RIVERFRONT ESTATES PHASES 2 TO 5 Housing Form Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Single Detached Semi-Detached Townhouse Condominium Apartment TBD The purpose of this application is to revise the approved draft plan of subdivision issued on August 30, 2013, and revised in May 2014 in order to change the housing form in Phase 4 to include a broader range of residential housing forms demanded by the market and establish zoning provisions to reflect the proposed housing form. The amendment would change the form of housing from 56.5 single family dwellings to 24 single family dwellings, 5 semi-detached dwelling (10 units) and 11 townhouse block (51 townhouse units). The intent of the redline change is to provide a form of housing and lot fabric that reflects local market demands. SUMMARY OF REVISIONS: Current market trends are showing a greater demand for housing that is more affordable and smaller in size requiring less personal demands. These demands are not just seen locally, but also regionally in surrounding municipalities. As a result, the developer has proposed an amendment to the existing draft plan of subdivision to address these market conditions. The amendment would seek to change the housing form from all single detached dwellings to a mix of residential forms including single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and townhouses. Details of the amendment are as follows: 51

54 RIVERFRONT ESTATES PHASES 2 TO 5 AMENDED Housing Form Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Single Detached Semi-Detached Townhouse Apartment TBD The zoning amendment being sought can be summarized as follows: Provision R1-20 R1-21 New R1I-X New R2E R3-8 Permitted Use Single Single Single Semidetached Towns Min. Lot Frontage 18m 15m 12m 9m 5.5m Min. Lot Area 450m 2 450m 2 360m 2 270m 2 165m 2 Max Building 9m 9m 9.5m 11m 11m Height Min. Front Setback Main building 3m, with garage being no closer than 6m 3m for main building and Endnote 52 3m for main building and Endnote Main Bldg 3m, with garage being no closer than 6m Minimum Interior 1.2m 1.2m 1.2m 1m 1.2 Side yard Minimum Exterior 3m 3m 3m 3m 3m Side yard Min. Rear Yard 7.5m 7.5m 6m 6m 7.5m Coverage 40% 40% two storey, 45% bungalows 45% two storey and 50% for Bungalows 40% two storey and 45% for Bungalows 55% End Note The minimum setback between the vehicular entrance to a private garage or carport and an existing or planned sidewalk is 6.2m. No portion of a private garage or a carport shall be located more than 2.5m closer to a street lot line than the closer of: a building front wall or side or a covered porch or veranda that is at least 2.5m wide. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES The subject lands are located on the east side of Spring Street and Johanna Street, towards the south east corner of the plan of subdivision, along the Mississippi River. The lands currently abut an established residential neighourhood to the north and west, being earlier phases of the subdivision. These earlier phases consist of a mix of residential forms (single detached, semi-detached and townhouses) and lot sizes similar to what is being sought in the

55 amendment. The lands to the east are presently vacant and form part of a future phase of the subdivision. The lands subject to Phase 4 of the subdivision are approximately 3.73ha (9.22 ac) in area and consist of 56.5 single detached residential lots. The property is void of any mature tree vegetation but does consist of brush or grassy lands.the location of the subject lands is depicted in the following Location Map: Figure 1. Location Map 53

56 SERVICING & INFRASTRUCTURE The property is currently unserviced, but will be serviced will full municipal services when it is developed. Access to Phase 4 of the Riverfront Estates subdivision will be from Spring Street or Johanna Street, both municipally owned and maintained roads. COMMENTS FROM INTERNAL CIRCULATION Comments received based on the circulation of this application have been summarized below: CAO: No concerns or objections. CBO: No concerns or objections. Clerk: No concerns or objections. Fire Chief: No concerns or objections. Director of Roads and Public Works: No concerns or objections. Recreation Coordinator: No concerns or objections. COMMENTS FROM EXTERNAL AGENCY CIRCULATION Comments received based on the circulation of this application have been summarized below: Upper Canada District School Board: No comments received. Enbridge Gas Distribution: Enbridge Gas Distribution does not object to the proposed application. Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario: No comments received. Rogers Cable Communications: No comments received. County of Lanark: No comments received. Ottawa River Power: No comments received. Canada Post: No comments received. Bell Telephone: No comments received. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC The Municipality held a public meeting on August 2 nd, 2016, to provide an opportunity for the public to speak to the application. During the public meeting, eight (8) members of the public spoke to the application. The main concerns raised by the public included the increase in the number of homes, increase in traffic, servicing for the additional units, how market demand is determined and compatibility/similarity of similar lot frontage for abutting properties. EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT (PPS) 2014 The PPS provides direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Generally speaking, the PPS encourages new residential development to occur within established settlement areas on full municipal services, and in the form of intensification or redevelopment. This policy direction is highlighted in the following subsections of the PPS:

57 Healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by: a. promoting efficient development and land use patterns which sustain the financial well-being of the Province and municipalities over the long term; b. accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential, employment (including industrial, commercial and institutional uses), recreational and open space uses to meet long-term needs; c. promoting cost-effective development standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs; Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted Land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on: a. densities and a mix of land uses which: 1. efficiently use land and resources; 2. are appropriate for, and efficiently use, the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available, and avoid the need for their unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion Planning authorities shall identify and promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated taking into account existing building stock or areas, including brownfield sites, and the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities required to accommodate projected needs Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range of housing types and densities to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area by: a) establishing and implementing minimum targets for the provision of housing which is affordable to low and moderate income households. However, where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality, the upper-tier municipality in consultation with the lower-tier municipalities may identify a higher target(s) which shall represent the minimum target(s) for these lower-tier municipalities; b) permitting and facilitating: i) all forms of housing required to meet the social, health and well-being requirements of current and future residents, including special needs requirements; and 55

58 ii) all forms of residential intensification and redevelopment in accordance with policy ; c) directing the development of new housing towards locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available to support current and projected needs; d) promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and support the use of alternative transportation modes and public transit in areas where it exists or is to be developed; and e) establishing development standards for residential intensification, redevelopment and new residential development which minimize the cost of housing and facilitate compact form, while maintaining appropriate levels of public health and safety. Staff views the proposed zoning uses and development standards as an efficient and logical use of the subject lands. This form of development is desirable as it costs less to service on a per unit basis, provides more affordable housing options, and allows for growth to be accommodated within existing settlement area boundaries versus requiring boundary expansions. With this in mind, Staff views the proposal to be in keeping with the provisions of the PPS. COMMUNITY OFFICIAL PLAN (COP) The subject lands are designated as Residential by the Municipality s COP. This designation allows for a wide range of low and medium density residential uses, which includes single detached dwellings, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings. The goal of the Growth and Settlement Section of the COP is to Promote managed, coordinate and fiscally responsible growth, which represents an efficient use of land and is environmentally sustainable. Direct the majority of new growth to areas where municipal services are available and where capacity exists to support new development. The following is a list of notable objectives to achieve this goal: Establish an urban density which promotes an sustainable and efficient use of the land. The proposed zoning amendment will create a development standard that will allow for a more efficient use of the serviced urban lands, while creating appropriate lots for development. As per Section of the COP, the goal of the Plan is to Promote a balanced supply of housing to meet the present and future social and economic needs of all segments of the community. The following is a list of notable objectives contained within the COP intended to implement this goal as well as commentary related to the proposed development: Promote and support development which provides for affordable, rental and/or increased density of housing types. The proposed zoning amendment would provide a broader range of housing options on smaller lots which will result in a higher density and the potential for more affordable units. 56

59 Ensure that land use policies and zoning do not establish barriers to a more balanced supply of housing. The proposal would allow for a more balanced housing supply for a neighbourhood which is mainly comprised of single detached residential dwellings and some townhouses. Direct the majority of new residential development to areas where municipal sewer and water services are/will be available and which can support new development. While new infrastructure will be required to service the proposed development, municipal sewer and water services are available within the existing neighbourhood surrounding the subject properties. Ensure that residential intensification, infilling and redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods is compatible with surrounding uses in terms of design. Acknowledging the sensitivity of the established neighbourhood abutting the development, the proposed zoning ensures that single detached dwellings are backing onto the existing single family dwellings to ensure compatibility. The lands zoned for townhouse development, will be subject to the site plan control process which would allow Staff to review the design of the proposed development. Residential Policies Section contains policies regarding the residential development of the community. The following represents a review of the amendment against the policies: Range of Housing Types The Town shall support a wide range of housing types, zoning standards and subdivision design standards. The proposed zoning amendment will create a diversity of housing with appropriate development standards to support the proposed residential form which is consistent with the COP objectives. The Town has established the following housing mix targets: Low Density - 70% Medium Density - 30% Low density residential development shall include single detached, semidetached, duplex, converted dwellings, and triplex housing. In general, the gross density for low density residential development shall be 15 units per hectare (6 units per acre). The proposed zoning amendment would create an increase in the housing mixing density from 77/23 to 68/32. Based on the housing mix target, the proposed amendment would bring the development more in line with the targets set in the Community Official Plan. Medium density residential development shall include four-plex housing, townhouses, 3 storey apartments, converted dwellings of three or more units and similar multi-unit forms of housing. In general, medium density residential 57

60 development shall have a maximum net density of 35 units per net hectare (15 units per net acre). The proposed development consists of 1.5ha (3.7ac) of land dedicated for medium density development. Based on a maximum net density of 35 units per net hectare, the development could accommodate up to an additional 2 townhouse dwelling units and still be consistent with the policy. 2. proximity to shopping, parkland, health care, education and other community amenities; The subject properties are located within a built up area of the Municipality and are in relatively close proximity to the above noted uses and amenities. 3. compatibility with existing land uses in the immediate area and the historical character of existing buildings; The zoning amendment will locate the medium density townhouses towards the middle of the development, away from the single lots and any potential incompatibility with the established neighbourhood. 4. designed with a maximum of three (3) storeys and where possible, a building profile which conforms visually with the surrounding residential structures; The proposed R3-8 Zone has a maximum permitted height of the 11m (36ft) which works out to approximately three (3) storeys 5. availability of adequate off-street parking and appropriate access and circulation for vehicular traffic, including emergency vehicles; Based on the proposed zoning, there would be sufficient area to accommodate required off-street parking on the subject properties. The By-law requires one (1) parking spot per dwelling as well as 0.2 spaces per unit for visitor parking for the townhouse dwelling only. As such a townhouse dwelling consisting of 5 units would require one (1) additional parking space for visitor parking creating a total of six (6) parking spaces. It is important to note that the designs in previous phases all for at least 2 parking spaces per unit, well above by-law requirements. 6. suitable landscaping, lot grading, drainage and on-site amenities; As part of the plan of subdivision approval process, the proponent is required to provide the Municipality with a landscape plan and grading/drainage plan to clear conditions associated with the site, with a more detailed plan at the site plan control stage for the townhouses. 7. the availability of full municipal services to accommodate the proposed density of development. Municipal services are available in close proximity to the subject properties and will be extended as part of the infrastructure works associated with Phase 4 of the plan of subdivision. 58

61 ZONING BY-LAW #11-83 The subject properties are currently zoned Residential First Density Exception 20 (R1-20) Zone and Residential First Density Exception 21 (R1-21) Zone. This low-density residential zoning would only permit Phase 4 of the development to be developed with single-detached residential uses. The applicant has requested to change the zoning of the properties currently zoned R1-20 and R1-21 to R1I-X, R2E and R3-8 to accommodate a mix of residential uses and to allow for smaller lots demanded by the market. Table 1 below outlines the development standards for the single detached lots: Table 1 Single Family Development Standards Provisions R1-20 R1-21 R1I-X (New) Dwelling Type Single Single Single (Permitted) Minimum Lot Area (m²) Minimum Lot Frontage (m) 18m 15m 12m Minimum Front Yard Setback (m) Main Building = 3m with garage being no closer than 6m See end note Minimum Rear Yard m 6.0 Setback (m) Minimum Side Yard 1.2m 1.2m 1.2m Setback (m) Minimum Exterior Side 3.0m 3.0m 3.0m Yard Setback (m) Maximum Building Height (m) 9.0m 9.0m 9.5m Maximum Lot Coverage (%) 40% two storey and 45% for Bungalows 45% two storey and 50% for Bungalows Endnote The minimum setback between the vehicular entrance to a private garage or carport and an existing or planned sidewalk is 6.2m. No portion of a private garage or a car port shall be located more than 2.5m closer to a street lot line than the closer of: a building front wall or side or a covered porch or veranda that is at least 2.5m wide. The proposed amendment is also proposing to create some lots for semi-detached dwellings. The applicant has requested to change the zoning of the properties currently zoned R1-20 and R1-21 to R2E and expand residential form with reduced development standards. Table 2 below outlines the development standards for the single detached lots: Table 2 Semi-Detached Development Standards Provisions R2E (New) Dwelling Type Semi-detached (Permitted) 59

62 Minimum Lot Area (m²) 270 Minimum Lot Frontage 9m (m) Minimum Front Yard See end note Setback (m) Minimum Rear Yard 6.0 Setback (m) Minimum Side Yard 1.8m, with one minimum yard no less than 0.6m. Setback (m) Minimum Exterior Side 3.0m Yard Setback (m) Maximum Building 9.5m Height (m) Maximum Lot Coverage 40% two storey and 45% for Bungalows (%) Endnote The minimum setback between the vehicular entrance to a private garage or carport and an existing or planned sidewalk is 6.2m. No portion of a private garage or a car port shall be located more than 2.5m closer to a street lot line than the closer of: a building front wall or side or a covered porch or veranda that is at least 2.5m wide. The proposed amendment is also proposing to include blocks for townhouses within Phase 4. Table 3 below outlines the development standards for the townhouse lots located within each block: Table 3 Townhouse Development Standards Provisions R3-8 Dwelling Type Town (Permitted) Minimum Lot Area (m²) 165 Minimum Lot Frontage 5.5m (m) Minimum Front Yard Main Building = 3m with garage being no closer than 6m Setback (m) Minimum Rear Yard 7.5m Setback (m) Minimum Side Yard 1.2m Setback (m) Minimum Exterior Side 3.0m Yard Setback (m) Maximum Building Height 11.0m (m) Maximum Lot Coverage 55% (%) 60

63 Endnote The minimum setback between the vehicular entrance to a private garage or carport and an existing or planned sidewalk is 6.2m. No portion of a private garage or a car port shall be located more than 2.5m closer to a street lot line than the closer of: a building front wall or side or a covered porch or veranda that is at least 2.5m wide. It should be noted that the Zoning By-law also contains the following provisions which apply to the townhouses within the R3 Zone: a) The maximum net density shall be 35 units per net hectare. b) The minimum side yard adjoining an end unit shall be 1.2 metres. c) The minimum dwelling unit area shall be 46m² (495 ft²) plus 9.5m² (102ft²) for each bedroom. d) Maximum lot coverage for a townhouse is 55%. Density Both the Zoning By-law and the COP reference a maximum net density of 35 units per net hectare. While the Zoning By-law does not define net density, the COP defines it as: The density of the residential development on the site proposed for development, not including local roads and parks. The proposed lot line adjustment for Phase 4 of the Plan of subdivision proposes a total of 84 units, 24 single detached dwellings, 5 semi-detached (10 units) and 11 townhouse blocks (51 townhome units), which is an increase of 27.5 additional dwelling units. The overall density for Phase 4 of the development increases from 15.3 units/ha to 22.8 units/ha, with 40% being low density and 60% being medium density. ANALYSIS One of the core principles within the PPS and the Community Official Plan is the efficient use of infrastructure and serviced land through intensification. The overall benefit resulting from intensification as proposed in the amendment is affordability for both the Municipality, developer and future owners. For the Municipality, the cost associated with the long term maintenance of the infrastructure is spread over more lots making the community more sustainable in the future. The costs associated with developing the subdivision, including land costs and servicing, allow the developer to create more affordable lots because his costs are spread over more lots, which are in turn passed onto future property owners. Staff is also of the opinion that the proposed zoning amendment reflects the policies outlined by the Province of Ontario and goals and objectives contained in the Community Official Plan. The marginal increase in density resulting from the diversity of housing creates a development that will provide a broad range of housing options in the community with smaller lots that will make the possibility of home ownership more affordable. In monitoring the development activity in Mississippi Mills in both Mill Run and Riverfront Estates, the trend has revealed a 61

64 high demand for townhouse development within the market as these forms of housing are usually sold first with single detached dwellings being the last. One of the core residential policies in the COP is to establish a 70% (Low Density) / 30% (Medium Density) split in diversity of residential housing to address long-term sustainability, affordability for all residents and a diversity of housing choices. Historically, this has been a challenge for the Municipality, which in turn creates higher costs for its residents. The subdivision as draft approved and amendments in Phase 3, had a housing mix of approximately 88% low density, which is 18% above the target set out in the COP. The proposed amendment to Phase 4 would bring the housing mix for the Riverfront Estates subdivision to 72% being low density and 28% being medium density, which is in line with the housing mix target. It is important to note that the apartment dwelling units have not been factored in as the number of units are still to be determined. Even though the housing mix is slightly larger than the objective, it would help to address the historic abundance of low density housing development. The policies of the PPS (2014) and the COP note that zoning is not to be a barrier in achieving a more balanced housing supply. As noted earlier, historically the majority of housing forms in Almonte Ward are single detached dwellings. The zoning that is being sought here is reflective of the community where the development is occurring while providing a more balanced housing supply in the neighbourhood. The lot sizes being requested are also similar to those approved in previous phases and in other subdivisions. The zoning and subdivision amendment being sought will create a community that is inclusive by permitting a broader range of housing options. In considering the proposed amendment, it is clear that the proposal is sensitive to the historic issue of development and intensification when abutting established neighbourhoods, with a goal to ensure compatibility. In this case, the zoning that is being sought is reflective of earlier phases approved by the Municipality in this subdivision and in Mill Run. By scattering the proposed uses throughout Phase 4, the developer has avoided creating pockets of housing form that would create certain perceptions and instead has focused on developing a community of inclusion. The proposed performance standards are appropriate for the proposed form of development and accomplish the ultimate goal of efficiently using existing serviceable lands while ensuring compatibility. Regarding the comments received from the public specific to increased demand for municipal servicing and increased traffic, the Municipality recently completed a Master Servicing Plan and a Master Transportation Plan. The noted capacity in the local infrastructure is able to accommodate the additional demands. Also, the Municipality and the developer recently completed upgrades to the existing sewage pumping station to handle additional capacity. In terms of transportation, the increase in vehicles is considered marginal. It is also noted that upon subdivision completion there will be multiple points of access into the subdivision from two main collectors, being Paterson Street and Spring Street, which have capacity to accommodate the additional traffic levels generated from the additional 27.5 units. CONCLUSION 62

65 Overall, Planning Staff is in support of the zoning amendment as proposed as it represents an efficient use of subject properties and future infrastructure, and is in keeping with the policies of the Municipality s Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends that Council, approves the proposed changes to the draft plan of subdivision for Riverfront Estates Phase 4 and directs staff to advise the County of Lanark of Council s support of the proposed amendment AND FURTHERMORE THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that Council approves the necessary Zoning By-Law Amendment to change the zoning of the lands described as West ½ Lot 14, Concession 10, Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills, known as Riverfront Estates Phase 3, from Residential First Density Exception 20 (R1-20) Zone, Residential First Density Exception 21 (R1-21) Zone and Residential Third Density Exception 8 (R3-8) Zone to Residential First Density-Subzone I Exception X (R1I-X) Zone, Residential Second Density-Subzone E (R2E) Zone and Residential Third Density Exception 8 (R3-8) Zone. All of which is respectfully submitted, Stephen Stirling, MCIP, RPP Municipal Planner Diane Smithson Reviewed by CAO 63

66 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF MISSISSIPPI MILLS PLANNING REPORT MEETING DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: OWNER: APPLICANT: Wednesday May 23, 5:30pm Committee of Adjustment Andrew Scanlan Dickie Junior Planner MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION A Concession 10, Part Lot 14 Plan 27M-78, Lot 17 Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills Municipally known as 864 Jack Dalgity Street Ontario Inc. (Doyle Homes) Fotenn Planning + Design RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Municipality of Mississippi Mills Committee of Adjustment approves the Minor Variance for the land legally described as Concession 10, Part Lot 14, Plan 27M-78, Lot 17, Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills, municipally known as 864 Jack Dalgity Street, to increase the maximum bungalow lot coverage from 45% to 46.83% to legally recognize the construction of a single-detached dwelling, subject to the following conditions: 7. That the Minor Variance is approved based on the plans submitted; 8. That the Council of the Municipality of Mississippi Mills approves the lifting of the two-year moratorium for minor variance applications; and 9. That the owners obtain all required building permits. PURPOSE AND EFFECT The applicant is requesting relief from the bungalow lot coverage maximum within the Residential First Density Subzone I (R1I) Zone from 45% to 46.83% to legally permit the construction of a single-detached bungalow within the Riverfront Estates Subdivision (Phase 4). The requested relief is outlined in the table below: Table 1. Requested Relief from Zoning By-law #11-83 Section Zoning Provision By-law Requirement Requested 13.2 Table 13.2A Lot Coverage (Bungalow) Maximum 45% 46.83% 64

67 The request is in response to an observed error in the Zoning By-law Amendment process. In Summer 2016, Riverfront Estates submitted an application to rezone its Phase 4. Among the requests was the proposed Residential First Density Subzone I Exception X (R1I-X), which generally adhered to the provisions of the R1I Zone but with an increased lot coverage allowance from 40-45% (two-storey and bungalows, respectively) to 45-50%. As part of the public process, no comment was made regarding the lot coverage, nor had staff provided notification of an intent to modify the requested lot coverage. The ensuing recommendation to the Committee of the Whole on August 23 rd, 2016 was approved, reading as follows: THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends that Council approve the proposed changes to the draft plan of subdivision for Riverfront Estates Phase 4 and directs staff to advise the County of Lanark of Council s support of the proposed amendment; AND FURTHERMORE THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends that Council approve the necessary Zoning By-Law Amendment to change the zoning of the lands described as West ½ Lot 14, Concession 10, Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills, known as Riverfront Estates Phase 3, from Residential First Density Exception 20(R1-20) Zone, Residential First Density Exception 21 (R1-21) Zone and Residential Third Density Exception 8 (R3-8) Zone to Residential First Density-Subzone I Exception X (R1I-X) Zone, Residential Second Density-Subzone E (R2E) Zone and Residential ThirdDensity Exception 8 (R3-8) Zone. The reference to the R1I-X Zone indicates that the proposal, inclusive of lot coverage, was agreed by Council to proceed to By-law approval. However, By-law #16-74 was incorrectly written, referring not to the R1I-X but R1I Zone, which has stricter lot coverage maximums. The error was not caught at the time and has only now emerged as building permits begin to be processed. To legally allow construction to proceed in a timely manner, the applicant has elected to pursue a Minor Variance before the appropriate amendments can potentially be made by the Municipality. A copy of Fotenn Planning + Design s report and associated literature is found in the Schedules of this report. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT LANDS The subject property is located along Jack Dalgity Street, perpendicular to Old Almonte Road, within Phase 4 of the Riverfront Estates Subdivision. The property is ±411.54m 2 (0.10ac) in size with a frontage of ±13.72m (45.01ft). The property will generally be surrounded by low density residential properties, with higher density townhouses located closer to the Mississippi River. The location of the subject property is depicted in the following aerial photo: 65

68 Figure 1. Aerial Photo of Property (2017) SERVICING & INFRASTRUCTURE The subject property will be serviced by municipal water and sewer services and has driveway access from Jack Dalgity Street, a municipally owned and maintained road. The municipal servicing and infrastructure demands would not change as a result of the application. COMMENTS FROM CIRCULATION OF THE APPLICATION COMMENTS FROM INTERNAL CIRCULATION Comments received based on the circulation of this application have been summarized below: CAO: No comments received. Clerk: No concerns. CBO: No comments received. Fire Chief: No concerns. Director of Roads and Public Works: No concerns. Recreation Coordinator: No concerns. COMMENTS FROM EXTERNAL AGENCIES No comments have been received from external agencies as of the date this report was prepared. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No comments have been received from the public as of the date this report was prepared. 66

69 EVALUATION FOUR TESTS Section 45 of the Planning Act provides the Committee of Adjustment with the authority to grant relief from the requirements of a municipal zoning by-law. In properly evaluating such requests, the Committee needs to be satisfied that the proposal meets the four (4) tests set out in the Planning Act. Staff comments concerning the application of the four (4) tests to this Minor Variance request are as follows: 1. Does the proposal maintain the intent of the Official Plan? The subject property is designated Residential in the Municipality s Community Official Plan (COP). The Residential designation permits low and medium density residential uses and accessory uses. The Municipality s COP does not specifically address or contain policies related to maximum lot coverage for properties located within the Residential designation. As such, the requested variance conforms to the general intent and purpose of the COP. 2. Does the proposal maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Residential First Density Subzone I (R1I) by the Municipality s Comprehensive Zoning By-law # The R1I Zone permits a detached dwelling and specific provisions pertaining to yard setback but reverts to the 40-45% lot coverage of the R1 Zone. The owner is applying to increase the lot coverage maximum to legally recognize the construction of a single-detached bungalow dwelling. Lot Coverage Maximum Requirement The intent of the maximum lot coverage requirement is to ensure sufficient land remains landscaped and usable for the benefit of property owners and neighbours. Furthermore, it maximizes the availability of permeable surfaces for stormwater management. At the time of the amendment, the Planning Department received no concerns from the public or other staff pertaining to the above. In addition, Council had already approved similar amendments within the same subdivision, notably the R1I-29 (By-law #14-45) which permits 50-55% coverage. The R1I-29 was the basis for the 2016 amendment. Given the above, Staff is of the opinion that the Minor Variance in question maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law # Is the proposal desirable for the appropriate development of the lands in question? Given that the intent of the previously applied for and approved Zoning By-law Amendment was to implement a lot coverage of 45-50% and that this provision is standard among other areas of the same subdivision, the proposal is desirable and appropriate for the development of the subject lands. 4. Is the proposal minor? The variance proposes to increase the lot coverage for Lot 17 by 1.83 percentage points to accommodate the housing requests made by those individuals purchasing the lots/future 67

70 homes. The request is numerically insignificant and poses no further impact than already contemplated by the 2016 zoning amendment and others passed before that. Since the request works within the threshold of the intended amendment, Staff is of the opinion that there is no precedence for future applications looking for relief from lot coverage maximums. However, Staff do advise the Committee of Adjustment that multiple Minor Variance applications are likely to be filed for properties along Jack Dalgity Street to address the same zoning error. CONCLUSION Overall, Staff supports the Minor Variance application. The variances would allow the owners to maximize the use and enjoyment of their property with no foreseeable impacts to any other stakeholders. Staff believes that Minor Variance Application A meets the four (4) tests for evaluating a Minor Variance as established under the Planning Act. Planning Staff therefore recommends that the Minor Variances be granted, provided the Committee is satisfied that any issues raised at the public hearing do not require additional Staff evaluation and comment, the submission of additional information, or the application of conditions other than as follows: 1. That the Minor Variance is approved based on the plans submitted; 2. That the Council of the Municipality of Mississippi Mills approves the lifting of the two-year moratorium for minor variance applications; and 3. That the owners obtain all required building permits. All of which is respectfully submitted, Andrew Scanlan Dickie Junior Planner Niki Dwyer, MCIP, RPP Reviewed by Director of Planning ATTACHMENTS: SCHEDULE A Site Plan SCHEDULE B Fotenn Letter SCHEDULE C By-law #16-74 SCHEUDLE D August 23 rd, 2016 Staff Report (no Appendices) 68

71 SCHEDULE A Site Plan 69

72 SCHEDULE B Fotenn Letter 70

73 71

74 72

75 73

76 SCHEDULE C By-law #

77 SCHEDULE D August 23 rd, 2016 Staff Report (no Appendices) MEETING DATE: August 23, 2016 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: OWNER: PLANNING REPORT Committee of the Whole Stephen Stirling Municipal Planner ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION Z AND DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION (REDLINE REVISION) Part of West 1/2 Lot 14, Concession 10 Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills Municipally known as Riverfront Estates Phase 4 Houchaimi Holdings Inc. (HHI) APPLICANT/AGENT: Holzman Consultants Inc. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends that Council, approves the proposed changes to the draft plan of subdivision for Riverfront Estates Phase 4 and directs staff to advise the County of Lanark of Council s support of the proposed amendment AND FURTHERMORE THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that Council approves the necessary Zoning By-Law Amendment to change the zoning of the lands described as West ½ Lot 14, Concession 10, Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills, known as Riverfront Estates Phase 3, from Residential First Density Exception 20 (R1-20) Zone, Residential First Density Exception 21 (R1-21) Zone and Residential Third Density Exception 8 (R3-8) Zone to Residential First Density-Subzone I Exception X (R1I-X) Zone, Residential Second Density-Subzone E (R2E) Zone and Residential Third Density Exception 8 (R3-8) Zone. BACKGROUND Houchaimi Holdings Inc (HHI) is the landowner of the subject lands, described as Part of West ½ Lot 14, Concession 10, Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills. On June 24, 2010, the developer received approval for a multi-phased subdivision development known as Riverfront Estates. The plan of subdivision consisted of approximately 380 residential units that included a mix of residential housing forms, being single detached lots, semi-detached lots, townhome blocks and an apartment block. To date phases 1 and 2 of the development has been completed and phase 3 is approaching completion. As a result the developer is initiating Phase 4 of the development. 75

78 As draft plan approved, Phase 4 of the Riverfront Estates subdivision consists of a total of 56.5 residential dwelling units, of which all of the dwelling units are single detached dwellings with lot frontages that range between 15m and 18m. Since the draft plan approval, market conditions have changed such that the residential housing market requires a greater mixture of residential forms and smaller lots. As a result, the developer has proposed revisions to Phase 4 of the plan of subdivision that will provide a greater mixture of residential dwellings to include single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and townhouse dwellings with reduced zoning performance standards instead of just single detached dwellings. The proposed zoning by-law amendment will not have any impact on the road layout as approved in the draft plan of subdivision. Phases 2 to 5 of the Riverfront Estates subdivision as draft plan approved currently consists of a total of 372 residential dwelling units plus the apartment block. The table below depicts the breakdown of residential form in Phases 2 to 5 as currently draft approved: PURPOSE RIVERFRONT ESTATES PHASES 2 TO 5 Housing Form Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Single Detached Semi-Detached Townhouse Condominium Apartment TBD The purpose of this application is to revise the approved draft plan of subdivision issued on August 30, 2013, and revised in May 2014 in order to change the housing form in Phase 4 to include a broader range of residential housing forms demanded by the market and establish zoning provisions to reflect the proposed housing form. The amendment would change the form of housing from 56.5 single family dwellings to 24 single family dwellings, 5 semi-detached dwelling (10 units) and 11 townhouse block (51 townhouse units). The intent of the redline change is to provide a form of housing and lot fabric that reflects local market demands. SUMMARY OF REVISIONS: Current market trends are showing a greater demand for housing that is more affordable and smaller in size requiring less personal demands. These demands are not just seen locally, but also regionally in surrounding municipalities. As a result, the developer has proposed an amendment to the existing draft plan of subdivision to address these market conditions. The amendment would seek to change the housing form from all single detached dwellings to a mix of residential forms including single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and townhouses. Details of the amendment are as follows: 76

79 RIVERFRONT ESTATES PHASES 2 TO 5 AMENDED Housing Form Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Single Detached Semi-Detached Townhouse Apartment TBD The zoning amendment being sought can be summarized as follows: Provision R1-20 R1-21 New R1I-X New R2E R3-8 Permitted Use Single Single Single Semidetached Towns Min. Lot Frontage 18m 15m 12m 9m 5.5m Min. Lot Area 450m 2 450m 2 360m 2 270m 2 165m 2 Max Building 9m 9m 9.5m 11m 11m Height Min. Front Setback Main building 3m, with garage being no closer than 6m 3m for main building and Endnote 77 3m for main building and Endnote Main Bldg 3m, with garage being no closer than 6m Minimum Interior 1.2m 1.2m 1.2m 1m 1.2 Side yard Minimum Exterior 3m 3m 3m 3m 3m Side yard Min. Rear Yard 7.5m 7.5m 6m 6m 7.5m Coverage 40% 40% two storey, 45% bungalows 45% two storey and 50% for Bungalows 40% two storey and 45% for Bungalows 55% End Note The minimum setback between the vehicular entrance to a private garage or carport and an existing or planned sidewalk is 6.2m. No portion of a private garage or a carport shall be located more than 2.5m closer to a street lot line than the closer of: a building front wall or side or a covered porch or veranda that is at least 2.5m wide. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES The subject lands are located on the east side of Spring Street and Johanna Street, towards the south east corner of the plan of subdivision, along the Mississippi River. The lands currently abut an established residential neighourhood to the north and west, being earlier phases of the subdivision. These earlier phases consist of a mix of residential forms (single detached, semi-detached and townhouses) and lot sizes similar to what is being sought in the

80 amendment. The lands to the east are presently vacant and form part of a future phase of the subdivision. The lands subject to Phase 4 of the subdivision are approximately 3.73ha (9.22 ac) in area and consist of 56.5 single detached residential lots. The property is void of any mature tree vegetation but does consist of brush or grassy lands.the location of the subject lands is depicted in the following Location Map: Figure 1. Location Map 78

81 SERVICING & INFRASTRUCTURE The property is currently unserviced, but will be serviced will full municipal services when it is developed. Access to Phase 4 of the Riverfront Estates subdivision will be from Spring Street or Johanna Street, both municipally owned and maintained roads. COMMENTS FROM INTERNAL CIRCULATION Comments received based on the circulation of this application have been summarized below: CAO: No concerns or objections. CBO: No concerns or objections. Clerk: No concerns or objections. Fire Chief: No concerns or objections. Director of Roads and Public Works: No concerns or objections. Recreation Coordinator: No concerns or objections. COMMENTS FROM EXTERNAL AGENCY CIRCULATION Comments received based on the circulation of this application have been summarized below: Upper Canada District School Board: No comments received. Enbridge Gas Distribution: Enbridge Gas Distribution does not object to the proposed application. Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario: No comments received. Rogers Cable Communications: No comments received. County of Lanark: No comments received. Ottawa River Power: No comments received. Canada Post: No comments received. Bell Telephone: No comments received. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC The Municipality held a public meeting on August 2 nd, 2016, to provide an opportunity for the public to speak to the application. During the public meeting, eight (8) members of the public spoke to the application. The main concerns raised by the public included the increase in the number of homes, increase in traffic, servicing for the additional units, how market demand is determined and compatibility/similarity of similar lot frontage for abutting properties. EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT (PPS) 2014 The PPS provides direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Generally speaking, the PPS encourages new residential development to occur within established settlement areas on full municipal services, and in the form of intensification or redevelopment. This policy direction is highlighted in the following subsections of the PPS:

82 Healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by: d. promoting efficient development and land use patterns which sustain the financial well-being of the Province and municipalities over the long term; e. accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential, employment (including industrial, commercial and institutional uses), recreational and open space uses to meet long-term needs; f. promoting cost-effective development standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs; Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted Land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on: b. densities and a mix of land uses which: 1. efficiently use land and resources; 2. are appropriate for, and efficiently use, the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available, and avoid the need for their unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion Planning authorities shall identify and promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated taking into account existing building stock or areas, including brownfield sites, and the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities required to accommodate projected needs Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range of housing types and densities to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area by: f) establishing and implementing minimum targets for the provision of housing which is affordable to low and moderate income households. However, where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality, the upper-tier municipality in consultation with the lower-tier municipalities may identify a higher target(s) which shall represent the minimum target(s) for these lower-tier municipalities; g) permitting and facilitating: iii) all forms of housing required to meet the social, health and well-being requirements of current and future residents, including special needs requirements; and 80

83 iv) all forms of residential intensification and redevelopment in accordance with policy ; h) directing the development of new housing towards locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available to support current and projected needs; i) promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and support the use of alternative transportation modes and public transit in areas where it exists or is to be developed; and j) establishing development standards for residential intensification, redevelopment and new residential development which minimize the cost of housing and facilitate compact form, while maintaining appropriate levels of public health and safety. Staff views the proposed zoning uses and development standards as an efficient and logical use of the subject lands. This form of development is desirable as it costs less to service on a per unit basis, provides more affordable housing options, and allows for growth to be accommodated within existing settlement area boundaries versus requiring boundary expansions. With this in mind, Staff views the proposal to be in keeping with the provisions of the PPS. COMMUNITY OFFICIAL PLAN (COP) The subject lands are designated as Residential by the Municipality s COP. This designation allows for a wide range of low and medium density residential uses, which includes single detached dwellings, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings. The goal of the Growth and Settlement Section of the COP is to Promote managed, coordinate and fiscally responsible growth, which represents an efficient use of land and is environmentally sustainable. Direct the majority of new growth to areas where municipal services are available and where capacity exists to support new development. The following is a list of notable objectives to achieve this goal: Establish an urban density which promotes an sustainable and efficient use of the land. The proposed zoning amendment will create a development standard that will allow for a more efficient use of the serviced urban lands, while creating appropriate lots for development. As per Section of the COP, the goal of the Plan is to Promote a balanced supply of housing to meet the present and future social and economic needs of all segments of the community. The following is a list of notable objectives contained within the COP intended to implement this goal as well as commentary related to the proposed development: Promote and support development which provides for affordable, rental and/or increased density of housing types. The proposed zoning amendment would provide a broader range of housing options on smaller lots which will result in a higher density and the potential for more affordable units. 81

84 Ensure that land use policies and zoning do not establish barriers to a more balanced supply of housing. The proposal would allow for a more balanced housing supply for a neighbourhood which is mainly comprised of single detached residential dwellings and some townhouses. Direct the majority of new residential development to areas where municipal sewer and water services are/will be available and which can support new development. While new infrastructure will be required to service the proposed development, municipal sewer and water services are available within the existing neighbourhood surrounding the subject properties. Ensure that residential intensification, infilling and redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods is compatible with surrounding uses in terms of design. Acknowledging the sensitivity of the established neighbourhood abutting the development, the proposed zoning ensures that single detached dwellings are backing onto the existing single family dwellings to ensure compatibility. The lands zoned for townhouse development, will be subject to the site plan control process which would allow Staff to review the design of the proposed development. Residential Policies Section contains policies regarding the residential development of the community. The following represents a review of the amendment against the policies: Range of Housing Types The Town shall support a wide range of housing types, zoning standards and subdivision design standards. The proposed zoning amendment will create a diversity of housing with appropriate development standards to support the proposed residential form which is consistent with the COP objectives. The Town has established the following housing mix targets: Low Density - 70% Medium Density - 30% Low density residential development shall include single detached, semidetached, duplex, converted dwellings, and triplex housing. In general, the gross density for low density residential development shall be 15 units per hectare (6 units per acre). The proposed zoning amendment would create an increase in the housing mixing density from 77/23 to 68/32. Based on the housing mix target, the proposed amendment would bring the development more in line with the targets set in the Community Official Plan. Medium density residential development shall include four-plex housing, townhouses, 3 storey apartments, converted dwellings of three or more units and similar multi-unit forms of housing. In general, medium density residential 82

85 development shall have a maximum net density of 35 units per net hectare (15 units per net acre). The proposed development consists of 1.5ha (3.7ac) of land dedicated for medium density development. Based on a maximum net density of 35 units per net hectare, the development could accommodate up to an additional 2 townhouse dwelling units and still be consistent with the policy. 8. proximity to shopping, parkland, health care, education and other community amenities; The subject properties are located within a built up area of the Municipality and are in relatively close proximity to the above noted uses and amenities. 9. compatibility with existing land uses in the immediate area and the historical character of existing buildings; The zoning amendment will locate the medium density townhouses towards the middle of the development, away from the single lots and any potential incompatibility with the established neighbourhood. 10. designed with a maximum of three (3) storeys and where possible, a building profile which conforms visually with the surrounding residential structures; The proposed R3-8 Zone has a maximum permitted height of the 11m (36ft) which works out to approximately three (3) storeys 11. availability of adequate off-street parking and appropriate access and circulation for vehicular traffic, including emergency vehicles; Based on the proposed zoning, there would be sufficient area to accommodate required off-street parking on the subject properties. The By-law requires one (1) parking spot per dwelling as well as 0.2 spaces per unit for visitor parking for the townhouse dwelling only. As such a townhouse dwelling consisting of 5 units would require one (1) additional parking space for visitor parking creating a total of six (6) parking spaces. It is important to note that the designs in previous phases all for at least 2 parking spaces per unit, well above by-law requirements. 12. suitable landscaping, lot grading, drainage and on-site amenities; As part of the plan of subdivision approval process, the proponent is required to provide the Municipality with a landscape plan and grading/drainage plan to clear conditions associated with the site, with a more detailed plan at the site plan control stage for the townhouses. 13. the availability of full municipal services to accommodate the proposed density of development. Municipal services are available in close proximity to the subject properties and will be extended as part of the infrastructure works associated with Phase 4 of the plan of subdivision. 83

86 ZONING BY-LAW #11-83 The subject properties are currently zoned Residential First Density Exception 20 (R1-20) Zone and Residential First Density Exception 21 (R1-21) Zone. This low-density residential zoning would only permit Phase 4 of the development to be developed with single-detached residential uses. The applicant has requested to change the zoning of the properties currently zoned R1-20 and R1-21 to R1I-X, R2E and R3-8 to accommodate a mix of residential uses and to allow for smaller lots demanded by the market. Table 1 below outlines the development standards for the single detached lots: Table 1 Single Family Development Standards Provisions R1-20 R1-21 R1I-X (New) Dwelling Type Single Single Single (Permitted) Minimum Lot Area (m²) Minimum Lot Frontage (m) 18m 15m 12m Minimum Front Yard Setback (m) Main Building = 3m with garage being no closer than 6m See end note Minimum Rear Yard m 6.0 Setback (m) Minimum Side Yard 1.2m 1.2m 1.2m Setback (m) Minimum Exterior Side 3.0m 3.0m 3.0m Yard Setback (m) Maximum Building Height (m) 9.0m 9.0m 9.5m Maximum Lot Coverage (%) 40% two storey and 45% for Bungalows 45% two storey and 50% for Bungalows Endnote The minimum setback between the vehicular entrance to a private garage or carport and an existing or planned sidewalk is 6.2m. No portion of a private garage or a car port shall be located more than 2.5m closer to a street lot line than the closer of: a building front wall or side or a covered porch or veranda that is at least 2.5m wide. The proposed amendment is also proposing to create some lots for semi-detached dwellings. The applicant has requested to change the zoning of the properties currently zoned R1-20 and R1-21 to R2E and expand residential form with reduced development standards. Table 2 below outlines the development standards for the single detached lots: Table 2 Semi-Detached Development Standards Provisions R2E (New) Dwelling Type Semi-detached (Permitted) 84

87 Minimum Lot Area (m²) 270 Minimum Lot Frontage 9m (m) Minimum Front Yard See end note Setback (m) Minimum Rear Yard 6.0 Setback (m) Minimum Side Yard 1.8m, with one minimum yard no less than 0.6m. Setback (m) Minimum Exterior Side 3.0m Yard Setback (m) Maximum Building 9.5m Height (m) Maximum Lot Coverage 40% two storey and 45% for Bungalows (%) Endnote The minimum setback between the vehicular entrance to a private garage or carport and an existing or planned sidewalk is 6.2m. No portion of a private garage or a car port shall be located more than 2.5m closer to a street lot line than the closer of: a building front wall or side or a covered porch or veranda that is at least 2.5m wide. The proposed amendment is also proposing to include blocks for townhouses within Phase 4. Table 3 below outlines the development standards for the townhouse lots located within each block: Table 3 Townhouse Development Standards Provisions R3-8 Dwelling Type Town (Permitted) Minimum Lot Area (m²) 165 Minimum Lot Frontage 5.5m (m) Minimum Front Yard Main Building = 3m with garage being no closer than 6m Setback (m) Minimum Rear Yard 7.5m Setback (m) Minimum Side Yard 1.2m Setback (m) Minimum Exterior Side 3.0m Yard Setback (m) Maximum Building Height 11.0m (m) Maximum Lot Coverage 55% (%) 85

88 Endnote The minimum setback between the vehicular entrance to a private garage or carport and an existing or planned sidewalk is 6.2m. No portion of a private garage or a car port shall be located more than 2.5m closer to a street lot line than the closer of: a building front wall or side or a covered porch or veranda that is at least 2.5m wide. It should be noted that the Zoning By-law also contains the following provisions which apply to the townhouses within the R3 Zone: e) The maximum net density shall be 35 units per net hectare. f) The minimum side yard adjoining an end unit shall be 1.2 metres. g) The minimum dwelling unit area shall be 46m² (495 ft²) plus 9.5m² (102ft²) for each bedroom. h) Maximum lot coverage for a townhouse is 55%. Density Both the Zoning By-law and the COP reference a maximum net density of 35 units per net hectare. While the Zoning By-law does not define net density, the COP defines it as: The density of the residential development on the site proposed for development, not including local roads and parks. The proposed lot line adjustment for Phase 4 of the Plan of subdivision proposes a total of 84 units, 24 single detached dwellings, 5 semi-detached (10 units) and 11 townhouse blocks (51 townhome units), which is an increase of 27.5 additional dwelling units. The overall density for Phase 4 of the development increases from 15.3 units/ha to 22.8 units/ha, with 40% being low density and 60% being medium density. ANALYSIS One of the core principles within the PPS and the Community Official Plan is the efficient use of infrastructure and serviced land through intensification. The overall benefit resulting from intensification as proposed in the amendment is affordability for both the Municipality, developer and future owners. For the Municipality, the cost associated with the long term maintenance of the infrastructure is spread over more lots making the community more sustainable in the future. The costs associated with developing the subdivision, including land costs and servicing, allow the developer to create more affordable lots because his costs are spread over more lots, which are in turn passed onto future property owners. Staff is also of the opinion that the proposed zoning amendment reflects the policies outlined by the Province of Ontario and goals and objectives contained in the Community Official Plan. The marginal increase in density resulting from the diversity of housing creates a development that will provide a broad range of housing options in the community with smaller lots that will make the possibility of home ownership more affordable. In monitoring the development activity in Mississippi Mills in both Mill Run and Riverfront Estates, the trend has revealed a 86

89 high demand for townhouse development within the market as these forms of housing are usually sold first with single detached dwellings being the last. One of the core residential policies in the COP is to establish a 70% (Low Density) / 30% (Medium Density) split in diversity of residential housing to address long-term sustainability, affordability for all residents and a diversity of housing choices. Historically, this has been a challenge for the Municipality, which in turn creates higher costs for its residents. The subdivision as draft approved and amendments in Phase 3, had a housing mix of approximately 88% low density, which is 18% above the target set out in the COP. The proposed amendment to Phase 4 would bring the housing mix for the Riverfront Estates subdivision to 72% being low density and 28% being medium density, which is in line with the housing mix target. It is important to note that the apartment dwelling units have not been factored in as the number of units are still to be determined. Even though the housing mix is slightly larger than the objective, it would help to address the historic abundance of low density housing development. The policies of the PPS (2014) and the COP note that zoning is not to be a barrier in achieving a more balanced housing supply. As noted earlier, historically the majority of housing forms in Almonte Ward are single detached dwellings. The zoning that is being sought here is reflective of the community where the development is occurring while providing a more balanced housing supply in the neighbourhood. The lot sizes being requested are also similar to those approved in previous phases and in other subdivisions. The zoning and subdivision amendment being sought will create a community that is inclusive by permitting a broader range of housing options. In considering the proposed amendment, it is clear that the proposal is sensitive to the historic issue of development and intensification when abutting established neighbourhoods, with a goal to ensure compatibility. In this case, the zoning that is being sought is reflective of earlier phases approved by the Municipality in this subdivision and in Mill Run. By scattering the proposed uses throughout Phase 4, the developer has avoided creating pockets of housing form that would create certain perceptions and instead has focused on developing a community of inclusion. The proposed performance standards are appropriate for the proposed form of development and accomplish the ultimate goal of efficiently using existing serviceable lands while ensuring compatibility. Regarding the comments received from the public specific to increased demand for municipal servicing and increased traffic, the Municipality recently completed a Master Servicing Plan and a Master Transportation Plan. The noted capacity in the local infrastructure is able to accommodate the additional demands. Also, the Municipality and the developer recently completed upgrades to the existing sewage pumping station to handle additional capacity. In terms of transportation, the increase in vehicles is considered marginal. It is also noted that upon subdivision completion there will be multiple points of access into the subdivision from two main collectors, being Paterson Street and Spring Street, which have capacity to accommodate the additional traffic levels generated from the additional 27.5 units. CONCLUSION 87

90 Overall, Planning Staff is in support of the zoning amendment as proposed as it represents an efficient use of subject properties and future infrastructure, and is in keeping with the policies of the Municipality s Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends that Council, approves the proposed changes to the draft plan of subdivision for Riverfront Estates Phase 4 and directs staff to advise the County of Lanark of Council s support of the proposed amendment AND FURTHERMORE THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that Council approves the necessary Zoning By-Law Amendment to change the zoning of the lands described as West ½ Lot 14, Concession 10, Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills, known as Riverfront Estates Phase 3, from Residential First Density Exception 20 (R1-20) Zone, Residential First Density Exception 21 (R1-21) Zone and Residential Third Density Exception 8 (R3-8) Zone to Residential First Density-Subzone I Exception X (R1I-X) Zone, Residential Second Density-Subzone E (R2E) Zone and Residential Third Density Exception 8 (R3-8) Zone. All of which is respectfully submitted, Stephen Stirling, MCIP, RPP Municipal Planner Diane Smithson Reviewed by CAO 88

91 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF MISSISSIPPI MILLS PLANNING REPORT MEETING DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: OWNER: APPLICANT: Wednesday May 23, 5:30pm Committee of Adjustment Andrew Scanlan Dickie Junior Planner MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION A Concession 10, Part Lot 14 Plan 27M-78, Lot 23 Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills Municipally known as 852 Jack Dalgity Street Ontario Inc. (Doyle Homes) Fotenn Planning + Design RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Municipality of Mississippi Mills Committee of Adjustment approves the Minor Variance for the land legally described as Concession 10, Part Lot 14, Plan 27M-78, Lot 23, Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills, municipally known as 852 Jack Dalgity Street, to increase the maximum bungalow lot coverage from 45% to 46.83% to legally recognize the construction of a single-detached dwelling, subject to the following conditions: 4. That the Minor Variance is approved based on the plans submitted; 5. That the Council of the Municipality of Mississippi Mills approves the lifting of the two-year moratorium for minor variance applications; and 6. That the owners obtain all required building permits. PURPOSE AND EFFECT The applicant is requesting relief from the bungalow lot coverage maximum within the Residential First Density Subzone I (R1I) Zone from 45% to 46.83% to legally permit the construction of a single-detached bungalow within the Riverfront Estates Subdivision (Phase 4). The requested relief is outlined in the table below: Table 1. Requested Relief from Zoning By-law #11-83 Section Zoning Provision By-law Requirement Requested 13.2 Table 13.2A Lot Coverage (Bungalow) Maximum 45% 46.83% 89

92 The request is in response to an observed error in the Zoning By-law Amendment process. In Summer 2016, Riverfront Estates submitted an application to rezone its Phase 4. Among the requests was the proposed Residential First Density Subzone I Exception X (R1I-X), which generally adhered to the provisions of the R1I Zone but with an increased lot coverage allowance from 40-45% (two-storey and bungalows, respectively) to 45-50%. As part of the public process, no comment was made regarding the lot coverage, nor had staff provided notification of an intent to modify the requested lot coverage. The ensuing recommendation to the Committee of the Whole on August 23 rd, 2016 was approved, reading as follows: THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends that Council approve the proposed changes to the draft plan of subdivision for Riverfront Estates Phase 4 and directs staff to advise the County of Lanark of Council s support of the proposed amendment; AND FURTHERMORE THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends that Council approve the necessary Zoning By-Law Amendment to change the zoning of the lands described as West ½ Lot 14, Concession 10, Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills, known as Riverfront Estates Phase 3, from Residential First Density Exception 20(R1-20) Zone, Residential First Density Exception 21 (R1-21) Zone and Residential Third Density Exception 8 (R3-8) Zone to Residential First Density-Subzone I Exception X (R1I-X) Zone, Residential Second Density-Subzone E (R2E) Zone and Residential ThirdDensity Exception 8 (R3-8) Zone. The reference to the R1I-X Zone indicates that the proposal, inclusive of lot coverage, was agreed by Council to proceed to By-law approval. However, By-law #16-74 was incorrectly written, referring not to the R1I-X but R1I Zone, which has stricter lot coverage maximums. The error was not caught at the time and has only now emerged as building permits begin to be processed. To legally allow construction to proceed in a timely manner, the applicant has elected to pursue a Minor Variance before the appropriate amendments can potentially be made by the Municipality. A copy of Fotenn Planning + Design s report and associated literature is found in the Schedules of this report. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT LANDS The subject property is located along Jack Dalgity Street, perpendicular to Old Almonte Road, within Phase 4 of the Riverfront Estates Subdivision. The property is ±411.54m 2 (0.10ac) in size with a frontage of ±13.72m (45.01ft). The property will generally be surrounded by low density residential properties, with higher density townhouses located closer to the Mississippi River. The location of the subject property is depicted in the following aerial photo: 90

93 Figure 1. Aerial Photo of Property (2017) SERVICING & INFRASTRUCTURE The subject property will be serviced by municipal water and sewer services and has driveway access from Jack Dalgity Street, a municipally owned and maintained road. The municipal servicing and infrastructure demands would not change as a result of the application. COMMENTS FROM CIRCULATION OF THE APPLICATION COMMENTS FROM INTERNAL CIRCULATION Comments received based on the circulation of this application have been summarized below: CAO: No comments received. Clerk: No concerns CBO: No comments received. Fire Chief: No comments received. Director of Roads and Public Works: No concerns. Recreation Coordinator: No concerns. COMMENTS FROM EXTERNAL AGENCIES No comments have been received from external agencies as of the date this report was prepared. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC 91

94 One comment was received by a member of the public in support of the application. EVALUATION FOUR TESTS Section 45 of the Planning Act provides the Committee of Adjustment with the authority to grant relief from the requirements of a municipal zoning by-law. In properly evaluating such requests, the Committee needs to be satisfied that the proposal meets the four (4) tests set out in the Planning Act. Staff comments concerning the application of the four (4) tests to this Minor Variance request are as follows: 1. Does the proposal maintain the intent of the Official Plan? The subject property is designated Residential in the Municipality s Community Official Plan (COP). The Residential designation permits low and medium density residential uses and accessory uses. The Municipality s COP does not specifically address or contain policies related to maximum lot coverage for properties located within the Residential designation. As such, the requested variance conforms to the general intent and purpose of the COP. 2. Does the proposal maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Residential First Density Subzone I (R1I) by the Municipality s Comprehensive Zoning By-law # The R1I Zone permits a detached dwelling and specific provisions pertaining to yard setback but reverts to the 40-45% lot coverage of the R1 Zone. The owner is applying to increase the lot coverage maximum to legally recognize the construction of a single-detached bungalow dwelling. Lot Coverage Maximum Requirement The intent of the maximum lot coverage requirement is to ensure sufficient land remains landscaped and usable for the benefit of property owners and neighbours. Furthermore, it maximizes the availability of permeable surfaces for stormwater management. At the time of the amendment, the Planning Department received no concerns from the public or other staff pertaining to the above. In addition, Council had already approved similar amendments within the same subdivision, notably the R1I-29 (By-law #14-45) which permits 50-55% coverage. The R1I-29 was the basis for the 2016 amendment. Given the above, Staff is of the opinion that the Minor Variance in question maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law # Is the proposal desirable for the appropriate development of the lands in question? Given that the intent of the previously applied for and approved Zoning By-law Amendment was to implement a lot coverage of 45-50% and that this provision is standard among other areas of the same subdivision, the proposal is desirable and appropriate for the development of the subject lands. 4. Is the proposal minor? 92

95 The variance proposes to increase the lot coverage for Lot 23 by 1.83 percentage points to accommodate the housing requests made by those individuals purchasing the lots/future homes. The request is numerically insignificant and poses no further impact than already contemplated by the 2016 zoning amendment and others passed before that. Since the request works within the threshold of the intended amendment, Staff is of the opinion that there is no precedence for future applications looking for relief from lot coverage maximums. However, Staff do advise the Committee of Adjustment that multiple Minor Variance applications are likely to be filed for properties along Jack Dalgity Street to address the same zoning error. CONCLUSION Overall, Staff supports the Minor Variance application. The variances would allow the owners to maximize the use and enjoyment of their property with no foreseeable impacts to any other stakeholders. Staff believes that Minor Variance Application A meets the four (4) tests for evaluating a Minor Variance as established under the Planning Act. Planning Staff therefore recommends that the Minor Variances be granted, provided the Committee is satisfied that any issues raised at the public hearing do not require additional Staff evaluation and comment, the submission of additional information, or the application of conditions other than as follows: 1. That the Minor Variance is approved based on the plans submitted; 2. That the Council of the Municipality of Mississippi Mills approves the lifting of the two-year moratorium for minor variance applications; and 3. That the owners obtain all required building permits. All of which is respectfully submitted, Andrew Scanlan Dickie Junior Planner Niki Dwyer, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning ATTACHMENTS: SCHEDULE A Site Plan SCHEDULE B Fotenn Letter SCHEDULE C By-law #16-74 SCHEUDLE D August 23 rd, 2016 Staff Report (no Appendices) 93

96 SCHEDULE A Site Plan 94

97 SCHEDULE B Fotenn Letter 95

98 96

99 97

100 98

101 SCHEDULE C By-law #

102 SCHEDULE D August 23 rd, 2016 Staff Report (no Appendices) MEETING DATE: August 23, 2016 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: OWNER: PLANNING REPORT Committee of the Whole Stephen Stirling Municipal Planner ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION Z AND DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION (REDLINE REVISION) Part of West 1/2 Lot 14, Concession 10 Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills Municipally known as Riverfront Estates Phase 4 Houchaimi Holdings Inc. (HHI) APPLICANT/AGENT: Holzman Consultants Inc. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends that Council, approves the proposed changes to the draft plan of subdivision for Riverfront Estates Phase 4 and directs staff to advise the County of Lanark of Council s support of the proposed amendment AND FURTHERMORE THAT the Committee of the Whole recommend that Council approves the necessary Zoning By-Law Amendment to change the zoning of the lands described as West ½ Lot 14, Concession 10, Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills, known as Riverfront Estates Phase 3, from Residential First Density Exception 20 (R1-20) Zone, Residential First Density Exception 21 (R1-21) Zone and Residential Third Density Exception 8 (R3-8) Zone to Residential First Density-Subzone I Exception X (R1I-X) Zone, Residential Second Density-Subzone E (R2E) Zone and Residential Third Density Exception 8 (R3-8) Zone. BACKGROUND Houchaimi Holdings Inc (HHI) is the landowner of the subject lands, described as Part of West ½ Lot 14, Concession 10, Almonte Ward, Municipality of Mississippi Mills. On June 24, 2010, the developer received approval for a multi-phased subdivision development known as Riverfront Estates. The plan of subdivision consisted of approximately 380 residential units that included a mix of residential housing forms, being single detached lots, semi-detached lots, townhome blocks and an apartment block. To date phases 1 and 2 of the development has been completed and phase 3 is approaching completion. As a result the developer is initiating Phase 4 of the development. 100

103 As draft plan approved, Phase 4 of the Riverfront Estates subdivision consists of a total of 56.5 residential dwelling units, of which all of the dwelling units are single detached dwellings with lot frontages that range between 15m and 18m. Since the draft plan approval, market conditions have changed such that the residential housing market requires a greater mixture of residential forms and smaller lots. As a result, the developer has proposed revisions to Phase 4 of the plan of subdivision that will provide a greater mixture of residential dwellings to include single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and townhouse dwellings with reduced zoning performance standards instead of just single detached dwellings. The proposed zoning by-law amendment will not have any impact on the road layout as approved in the draft plan of subdivision. Phases 2 to 5 of the Riverfront Estates subdivision as draft plan approved currently consists of a total of 372 residential dwelling units plus the apartment block. The table below depicts the breakdown of residential form in Phases 2 to 5 as currently draft approved: PURPOSE RIVERFRONT ESTATES PHASES 2 TO 5 Housing Form Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Single Detached Semi-Detached Townhouse Condominium Apartment TBD The purpose of this application is to revise the approved draft plan of subdivision issued on August 30, 2013, and revised in May 2014 in order to change the housing form in Phase 4 to include a broader range of residential housing forms demanded by the market and establish zoning provisions to reflect the proposed housing form. The amendment would change the form of housing from 56.5 single family dwellings to 24 single family dwellings, 5 semi-detached dwelling (10 units) and 11 townhouse block (51 townhouse units). The intent of the redline change is to provide a form of housing and lot fabric that reflects local market demands. SUMMARY OF REVISIONS: Current market trends are showing a greater demand for housing that is more affordable and smaller in size requiring less personal demands. These demands are not just seen locally, but also regionally in surrounding municipalities. As a result, the developer has proposed an amendment to the existing draft plan of subdivision to address these market conditions. The amendment would seek to change the housing form from all single detached dwellings to a mix of residential forms including single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and townhouses. Details of the amendment are as follows: 101

104 RIVERFRONT ESTATES PHASES 2 TO 5 AMENDED Housing Form Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Single Detached Semi-Detached Townhouse Apartment TBD The zoning amendment being sought can be summarized as follows: Provision R1-20 R1-21 New R1I-X New R2E R3-8 Permitted Use Single Single Single Semidetached Towns Min. Lot Frontage 18m 15m 12m 9m 5.5m Min. Lot Area 450m 2 450m 2 360m 2 270m 2 165m 2 Max Building 9m 9m 9.5m 11m 11m Height Min. Front Setback Main building 3m, with garage being no closer than 6m 3m for main building and Endnote 102 3m for main building and Endnote Main Bldg 3m, with garage being no closer than 6m Minimum Interior 1.2m 1.2m 1.2m 1m 1.2 Side yard Minimum Exterior 3m 3m 3m 3m 3m Side yard Min. Rear Yard 7.5m 7.5m 6m 6m 7.5m Coverage 40% 40% two storey, 45% bungalows 45% two storey and 50% for Bungalows 40% two storey and 45% for Bungalows 55% End Note The minimum setback between the vehicular entrance to a private garage or carport and an existing or planned sidewalk is 6.2m. No portion of a private garage or a carport shall be located more than 2.5m closer to a street lot line than the closer of: a building front wall or side or a covered porch or veranda that is at least 2.5m wide. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES The subject lands are located on the east side of Spring Street and Johanna Street, towards the south east corner of the plan of subdivision, along the Mississippi River. The lands currently abut an established residential neighourhood to the north and west, being earlier phases of the subdivision. These earlier phases consist of a mix of residential forms (single detached, semi-detached and townhouses) and lot sizes similar to what is being sought in the

105 amendment. The lands to the east are presently vacant and form part of a future phase of the subdivision. The lands subject to Phase 4 of the subdivision are approximately 3.73ha (9.22 ac) in area and consist of 56.5 single detached residential lots. The property is void of any mature tree vegetation but does consist of brush or grassy lands.the location of the subject lands is depicted in the following Location Map: Figure 1. Location Map 103