PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES Wednesday February 7, :00 p.m. Town Council Chambers Page 1

Transcription

1 Page 1 1. CALL TO ORDER Committee Chair, R. Maloney called the meeting to order at and the following were recorded as being present. Committee Members: Regrets: Staff: Deputy Mayor, R. Maloney (Committee Chair) Councillor, S. Clement Councillor, L. Giaschi-Pacini Councillor, B. McMurray Councillor, M. Quemby Councillor, D. Smith Councillor, C. Wilson Mayor, G. Smith Chief Administrative Officer, J. Sisson Director of Corporate Services/Clerk, L. McDonald Director of Planning and Development, C. Kelley Manager of Planning Services, M. Holmes Planning Administrator, S. McCormick 2. DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 3. PUBLIC MEETINGS 3.1. Rezoning Application No. D14-01/18 HMAT Homes Inc. 18-PD-012 Committee Chair, R. Maloney called the meeting to order at The Director of Corporate/Services, L. McDonald, confirmed Notice was issued in accordance with the Planning Act and the Manager of Planning Services, M. Holmes, presented the Statement of Purpose & Effect of the proposed zoning amendment and advised how the proposed by-law will accomplish the purpose required. Statement of Purpose and Effect of the Proposed Zoning By-law 1. The subject property is currently zoned Residential Type 1 (R1) according to Comprehensive Zoning By-law The Residential Type 1 (R1) Zone permits the following uses: Detached Dwelling; Home Occupation; Bed and Breakfast; Group Home A ; Second Dwelling Unit, and Backyard Hens. 2. The proposed zoning by-law would amend Comprehensive Zoning By-law by rezoning the subject lands from Residential Type 1 (R1) to Residential Type 4 Holding (R4-H). The Residential Type 4 Holding (R4-H) zone would limit the permitted uses to the existing uses until the Holding Symbol is removed, at which time the permitted uses are all those uses in the Residential Type 4 (R4) Zone. The permitted uses in a Residential Type 4 (R4) Zone are Row Dwelling; Triplex Dwelling; Fourplex Dwelling; Apartment Dwelling; and Group Housing. Group Housing is more than one residential building on a lot and if the development is Group Housing, the development may include Semi-Detached Dwellings and Duplex Dwellings in addition to any of the dwelling forms permitted in the R4 Zone.

2 Page 2 3. The proposed zoning by-law, as recommended by staff, would include the use of a Holding Symbol (H) based on comments received from the District of Muskoka. The Holding Symbol may only be removed once a servicing agreement has been entered into with the District of Muskoka. Correspondence from Agencies 4. Departmental and agency comments are as follows: Department/Agency Comment 4.1. Chief Building Official No concerns with the application Public Works Department No concerns with the application. The Public Works Department has reviewed the Functional Servicing Report submitted with the application and has provided technical comments, which have been forwarded to the applicant s engineering consultant Fire Chief No concerns with the application Manager of Economic Development No concerns with the application District of Muskoka District staff would not be opposed to the application provided the by-law is amended to include a Holding (H) Symbol. Removal of the Holding (H) Symbol should only be considered when the applicant has entered into a servicing agreement with the District of Muskoka to address capacity allocation and other servicing matters Lakeland Power No concerns with the application Union Gas No concerns with the application Other Agencies No comments have been received from Canada Post, CN Rail, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ministry of Transportation, Infrastructure Ontario, Hydro One, Veridian Connections, Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board, Trillium Lakelands District School Board, Union Gas, Bell Canada, TransCanada Pipeline Ltd. or MPAC. Correspondence from the Public 5. Correspondence in opposition to the application was received from: 5.1. Orval and Terri-Anne McLean 23 Alexandra Street;

3 Page David and Nicole Bush 17 Alexandra Street; 5.3. Don and Sheila Holder 11 Alexandra Street; 5.4. Ian and Jean Hattle 9 Alexandra Street; and 5.5. Beth Van Erp 5 Alexandra Street. 6. A summary of the concerns from the neighbours are: 6.1. Approval would increase number of units to 54 in the area, which is more than other areas in Town; 6.2. Traffic added to Alexandra Street; 6.3. SWM impacts on Alexandra Street. Already water issues and concern this development will add to issues; 6.4. Snow storage on the lot and this adding to water issues on Alexandra Street; 6.5. Lack of privacy along Alexandra Street; 6.6. Concern with the view and request tree or high fence buffer; 6.7. Loss of value to their homes; 6.8. Although considered urban area, located on the outskirts of Town; 6.9. Lack of sidewalks on Cedar Lane and Entrance Dr. for safe walking to Downtown; and Lack of park close by for children to play. 7. The residents have also asked ten questions in their letter and staff provided their comments to assist with the questions: 7.1. Are these part of the low rental program with the District? There has been no indication they are from the developer Are these considered for a single person or families? The units are proposed to be 1 & 2 bedroom. The Town cannot dictate who lives in the units Who will be responsible for the property? The units are proposed to be rental, so the property is the responsibility of the land owner What density is this considered? High density development as it is between 16 and 24 units per acre Is this considered to be apartment buildings or group housing or both? Under the zoning by-law the use is group housing of apartment buildings (i.e. more than one apartment building on the lot).

4 Page Who will be responsible for the property? The units are proposed to be rental, so the property is the responsibility of the land owner What density is this considered? High density development as it is between 16 and 24 units per acre; 7.8. Is this considered to be apartment buildings or group housing or both? Under the zoning by-law the use is group housing of apartment buildings (i.e more than one apartment building on the lot) Does the proposal meet all requirements? Yes the proposal would meet all the R4 Zone provisions Has the property been involved in a previous zoning amendment? No, however the property was previously part of the lands to the west, which currently contain two apartment buildings. Those lands were subject to a zoning amendment to permit the apartment buildings. Comments from the Owner/Agent 8. Lanny Dennis of Wayne Simpson & Associates, agent on behalf of HMAT Homes, addressed the Committee. 9. Mr. Dennis indicated that the presentation was an accurate and fair assessment of the application as well as concurred with the answers by staff of the questions by the neighbours. 10. Mr. Dennis stated the lot was approximately one acre in size and was underutilized for an urban area lot on existing water and sewer. Mr. Dennis noted the lot will only be accessed from Cedar Lane and they are requesting no exemptions from the By-law so it is a straight R1 zone to an R4 zone. 11. Mr. Dennis stated that they the coverage will be 16.5%, well below the required 35%, and there are similar apartment buildings in the area. The owner intends to leave as many trees as possible and the owner is also prepared to build a fence which may address some of the concerns of the neighbours. 12. Mr. Dennis noted the storm water management will be contained on site and the pre-flow and post-flow drainage will be handled through two ponds. 13. Mr. Dennis stated the building height will be low profile, approximately 16 to 19 feet in height and a proposed 2 storey building. He noted that development is within the acceptable limits for high density. 14. In conclusion, Mr. Dennis advised that the proposal complies with the Official Plans of the Town and District, the Provincial Policy Statement, generally reflects the area, the building is proposed to be a low profile building and the proposal is infilling on an underutilized lot using the existing roadways. Mr. Dennis further noted the owner was hoping to get started around the first of May.

5 Page 5 Comments from the Public 15. In Favour - None 16. Against - Terri-Anne McLean of 23 Alexandra Street indicated that she had submitted the letter and was appreciative of the construction of a fence. She noted that most of her questions had been answered. Ms. McLean noted her biggest concerns were the density which causes the increased traffic, lack of sidewalks and no parks for the kids. 17. Ms. McLean asked if the lot coverage of 16.5% included the parking lot. She stated her concern with the height of the building overlooking her home. She also questioned what the building times are for construction during the date. Comments from the Committee 18. Committee noted the site plan shows the buildings, parking and stormwater, however, does not set out any parkland areas. Staff advised that the site plan requirements will come back before Committee and based on the concept provided with the amenity areas, Committee has the purview to decide where the parkland should be located and what that would encompass. Committee questioned if the location of the sidewalks has been decided and staff advised that Public Works have not indicated what they will be looking for in connection with the location and connectivity. 19. Committee questioned if the parking lot is included in the coverage and staff advised that the parking lot is not included in the 35% lot coverage and there is a minimum landscaping coverage of 40%. The owner has indicated that he will be able to meet all coverages. 20. Committee questioned the noise concerns previously stated and how that will be handles. Staff advised that construction noise is prohibited from 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 21. Committee questioned the location of the storm water facilities. Staff advised the storm water facilities are proposed along the property abutting Cedar Lane and the owner has provided a preliminary Functional Servicing Report. The quantity and quality of drainage that occurs once development is complete has to be the same measures of what was existing prior to development. 22. Committee indicated the two storey height proposal is in keeping with the area and questioned if a road widening by the District is required. Staff advised that generally a Town road allowance is 20 metres and Cedar Lane has a 28 metre wide road allowance at the northern end of the property and 44 metre wide road allowance at the southern portion of the property which could accommodate a four lane highway with a sidewalk if required. 23. Committee questioned snow storage on the site and staff advised this will be dealt with at the site plan stage and should there be insufficient areas, the standard site plan agreement deals with the removal of the snow from the site.

6 Page Committee questioned the proposed unit sizes and staff advised there is a minimum size of the unit, however, the Zoning By-law does not set a maximum size. The By-law deals with the size of the building and number of units which generally sets the size of the units within the building. The minimum size of units within an apartment are 18.5 m 2 (199 ft 2 ) and the developer is proposing 600 to 800 ft 2 ; 25. Committee questioned how the drainage can be contained. Staff advised Public Works will review and ensure drainage from the development does not cause concerns to neighbouring properties or roadways. Staff further advised some mitigation measures can be elevations of parking lots, curbing, further ditching and landscaped areas. 26. Committee noted that at the consent stage for the existing dwelling, the concern of the residents was the drainage on Alexandra and privacy issue. Committee also questioned the entrance to the home currently and were advised that the entrance location and design for the new development will be on the site plan for future approval. Staff also advised the lot where the dwelling exists meets the minimum requirements in area and frontage. 27. Committee suggested the privacy fencing should surround the home at the site plan stage and staff advised that this would be a requirement of the Town to buffer either by vegetation or fencing. 28. The following persons requested further notice should this Rezoning Amendment be passed by the Municipal Council: The District Municipality of Muskoka, 70 Pine Street, Bracebridge, ON P1L 1N3 Terri-Anne McLean, 23 Alexandra Street, Bracebridge, ON P1L 1H7 Beth Van Erp, 5 Alexandra Street, Bracebridge, ON P1L 1H7 David and Nicole Bush, 17 Alexandra Street, Bracebridge ON P1L 1H7 Don and Sheila Holder, 11 Alexandra Street, Bracebridge ON P1L 1H7 Ian and Jean Hattle, 9 Alexandra Street. Bracebridge, ON P1L 1H7 No other submissions were made with respect to this proposal. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m Rezoning Application No. D14-19/ Ontario Limited 18-PD-013 Committee Chair, R. Maloney called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. The Director of Corporate Services/Clerk, L. McDonald, confirmed Notice was issued in accordance with the Planning Act and the Manager of Planning Services, M. Holmes, presented the Statement of Purpose & Effect of the proposed zoning amendment and advised how the proposed by-law will accomplish the purpose required.

7 Page 7 Statement of Purpose and Effect of the Proposed Zoning By-law 1. The subject property is currently zoned Rural (RU) according to Comprehensive Zoning By-law The Rural (RU) Zone permits Agricultural Uses and Forestry Operations, as well as a Detached Dwelling Unit, Bed and Breakfast Establishment, Group Home A, Hobby Farm, Home Industry, Home Occupation, Boarding Kennels, Veterinary Clinic, Hunt Camp and Woodland Retreat. 2. The proposed zoning by-law would amend Comprehensive Zoning By-law by rezoning the subject lands from Rural (RU) to Rural Residential Special 29 (RR-29). The Rural Residential Special 29 (RR-29) Zone would permit all uses in the Rural Residential (RR) Zone with the provision that the lot frontage on the date of passing of the by-law being deemed to comply. The Rural Residential (RR) Zone permits a Detached Dwelling; Second Dwelling Unit; Group Home A ; Bed & Breakfast; Backyard Hens; Home Occupation; Home Industry and Hobby Farm 3. Staff did consider recommending an increased north side lot line setback to buffer any future uses from the neighbouring lands to the north, which contain JSW Manufacturing. In reviewing the JSW Manufacturing lands, the current development of the site is located near the north portion of the site and there is a large vegetative buffer on the south portion of their site. If JSW Manufacturing did propose to expand, an amended site plan application would be required and buffering would be required to be retained. Correspondence from Agencies 4. Departmental and agency comments are as follows: Department/Agency Comment 4.1. Chief Building Official No concerns with the application Public Works Department No concerns with the application Fire Chief No concerns with the application Manager of Economic Development No concerns with the application District of Muskoka No concerns with the application Lakeland Power No concerns with the application Union Gas No concerns with the application Ministry of Transportation No concerns with the application.

8 Page 8 Department/Agency Comment 4.9. Other Agencies No comments have been received from Canada Post, CN Rail, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Infrastructure Ontario, Hydro One, Veridian Connections, Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board, Trillium Lakelands District School Board, Bell Canada, TransCanada Pipeline Ltd. or MPAC. Correspondence from the Public 5. Comments from the Owner/Agent 6. Peggie Moore, the owner of the property, addressed the Committee and advised that the property is held by their trust company and she is available together with her husband to answer any questions of Committee. Comments from the Public 7. In Favour - None 8. Against - None Comments from the Committee 9. Committee questioned if there was enough room to construct a home within the narrow part of the property. Staff advised that the setbacks were 15 metres from the front lot line and 4.5 metres to the side lot lines. A building can be constructed anywhere on site provided it meets the setbacks. 10. The following persons requested further notice should this Rezoning Amendment be passed by the Municipal Council: The District Municipality of Muskoka, 70 Pine Street, Bracebridge, ON P1L 1N3 No other submissions were made with respect to this proposal. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.

9 Page 9 4. DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS 4.1 Chamber of Commerce Presentation Brenda Rhodes, Executive Director 18-PD-014 Brenda Rhodes provided an overview of the Chamber of Commerce Report for the 2017 year. In attendance were also Richard Borland, President and past President, David Sprague. To view the entire presentation, please refer to the February 7, 2018 Planning and Development Committee Agenda available at 5. MINUTES FROM ADVISORY COMMITTEES 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1. Rezoning Application D14-01/18 HMAT Homes Inc. 18-PD-015 Councillor, B. McMurray 1. That the property described as Lot 108 and Part of Lots 107 and 109, Plan 30, Bracebridge Ward of the Town of Bracebridge, Part Lot 3, Concession 1 being Part 3 on Plan 35R-22477, be rezoned from Residential Type 1 (R1) in part to Residential Type 4 Holding (R4-H) in part as attached in Appendix A to Staff Report PD That further notice is not required pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act. (PD004-18) CARRIED 6.2. Rezoning Application D14-19/ Ontario Limited 18-PD-016 Councillor, B. McMurray 1. That the property described as Part of Lots 1 and 2, Concession 6, Macaulay Ward of the Town of Bracebridge, be rezoned from Rural (RU) to Rural Residential Special - 29 (RR-29) in part as attached in Appendix A to Staff Report PD (PD005-18) CARRIED

10 Page Agreement with South Muskoka Golf & Curling Club Clearbrook Building Corporation, Phase 5 and Phases PD-017 Councillor, B. McMurray 1. That the Mayor and Director of Corporate Services/Clerk be authorized to execute an agreement between the Town of Bracebridge and South Muskoka Golf and Curling Club (SMGCC) and if required, Clearbrook Building Corporation (Clearbrook) with respect to the retention of vegetation, fence maintenance and drainage course maintenance in accordance with the details outlined in Staff Report PD for Blocks J, S, Y in Phase 5, 8 and 10 in the Draft Plan of Subdivision as shown in Appendix A to Staff Report PD ONGOING BUSINESS 2. That the final form and content of the Agreement be to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development, the Director of Public Works and the Town s Solicitor. 3. That all costs associated with the development and execution of the agreement with SMGCC be at the expense of Clearbrook Building Corporation. (PD006-18) 7.1. Application for Variance under Fence By-law Tammy Parchem CARRIED 18-PD-018 Councillor, M. Quemby That the application by Tammy Parchem for a variance under Fence By-law be approved to permit a 2.44 metre (8 foot) fence to extend into the front yard as outlined in Staff Report PD (PD003-18) AMENDMENT #1 18-PD-019 Councillor, M. Quemby That the preceding motion be amended to delete as outlined in Staff Report PD and insert provided the height of the fence that extends between the front of the dwelling at 37 Fairlawn Boulevard and the street line does not exceed 1.22 m (4 ft). CARRIED Upon the question of the adoption of the original motion as moved by Councillor, A. Buie, and seconded by Councillor, M. Quemby it was CARRIED AS AMENDED BY AMENDMENT #1.

11 Page Health and Safety Update 8. CORRESPONDENCE 9. CLOSED SESSION 10. RESOLUTIONS ARISING FROM CLOSED SESSION 11. ADJOURN 18-PD-020 Councillor, B. McMurray That Committee adjourn until the next regular meeting or any special meeting called by the Chair. The meeting adjourned at 9:24 p.m. CARRIED