Planning Advisory Committee Minutes August 11, :00 PM Saugeen Shores Council Chambers

Transcription

1 Planning Advisory Committee Minutes August 11, :00 PM Saugeen Shores Council Chambers The Planning Advisory Committee Meeting of the Corporation of the Town of Saugeen Shores was held on August 11, 2016 at 5:00 PM at Saugeen Shores Council Chambers. PRESENT: REGRETS: Pat O'Connor, Chair Mike Myatt Diane Huber Bill Streeter Marcel Legault Tracey Edwards, Recording Secretary Mollie Kuchma, Planner Leah Barrie, Planner None 1. Call to Order The Meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. 2. Acknowledgement of any Pecuniary Interest None Declared 3. Adoption of Minutes 3.1. July 28, 2016 Moved by: Mike Myatt Seconded by: Marcel Legault That we adopt the Minutes of the July 28th, 2016 Meeting as circulated. CARRIED 4. Business Arising From Minutes 5. Public Hearings 5.1. Plan of Subdivision 41T Zoning By-law Amendment Z Michael McMillan and Lou Murray c/o Ron Davidson Lots 19 to 24 North of Metcalf / South of Gosford / South of Edmund, Part Metcalf and Gosford Street Closed, Town of Saugeen Shores (geographic Town of Southampton) The draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment applications are to facilitate the development of a residential subdivision and protect the significant Natural Heritage Features, by re-zoning the land from 'Planned Development (PD)' and 'Environmental Protection (EP)' to Special Residential and Environmental Protection zones.

2 Lots 1 to 7 are proposed to be zoned 'R1" for single family-residential building lots. Block A is proposed to be zoned 'R3' for multi-residential uses, which could permit a variety of single, semi, duplex, or townhouse dwellings and apartment dwellings. Ms. Barrie presented her Planning Report which recommended preliminary approval of the applications. She added that the County has delegated the mandatory Public Meeting for the Draft Plan of Subdivision application required by the Planning Act to the Planning Advisory Committee, in order to obtain municipal and public comments on the proposed Draft Plan. The proposal is utilizing the land and services in an efficient way, while still protecting the environment. She indicated that the Applicant has prepared the following documents which support the application: 1. Planning Report, by Ron Davidson Lan Use Planning Consultant Inc. 2. Functional Servicing & Stormwater Management Report, by Darryl M. Robbins Consulting Inc. (April 2016); 2. Natural Heritage Environmental Impact Study (EIS), by AWS Environmental Consulting (January 2015); and 3. Archaeological Assessment Stages 1 & 2, Mayer Heritage Consultants Inc. (July 2104). The Applicant, Planner, Engineer and Biologist were in attendance. Ron Davidson, Planner for the Applicant, summarized his Planning Report recommending approval of the applications. He added that the above noted Reports identified additional Environmental Protected areas, and identified a Tree Conservation Plan, which the applicant feels is restrictive, but agrees with protecting the environment. Block B will be dedicated to the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority for protection, which is not included in the parkland dedication. Block A is identified as medium density residential development, to satisfy the requirement in the Official Plan. The Provincial Policy statement requires an efficient use of Municipal services. This is the first medium density development north of the river, and is possible with the installation of Municipal services. The Applicant will be proceeding with Block A at a later date, as the road and services will need to be extended. The Applicant questioned the necessity of and time for the sidewalks, and requests that the provision for sidewalks be negotiated through the Subdivision Agreement and not a condition of draft approval, as there are currently no sidewalks in the area. Carolyn Day 31 Gosford Street, is opposed to the application. She has concerns with the medium density development, development in a significant woodland, the affect the development will have on the wild life in the area, disturbing the wetlands and water drainage. She does not feel the multi residential use on Block A, is in keeping with the development in the area. John Morton, AWS Environmental Consulting, indicated that the EIS Report addresses all the features and functions relating to the significant woodland designation, the wetland protection, and protecting the environment. It identified a larger Environmentally Protected area, it proposed a 15 metre buffer around the protected area, and also a tree retention area. They propose to only develop approximately 16% of the lot, the rest will be protected. Ms. Barrie added that the water was addressed in the Stormwater Management Plan, and the multi-residential area in Block A would have a 'Holding (H)' provision on the zoning, and would be removed when all the conditions of the development have been satisfied.

3 Diane Cunliffe 34 Metcalf Street, is opposed to the application. She expressed concerns with the buffer zone and the tree preservation areas. Once the land is sold, developed and time has passed, there is no mechanism in place to ensure the future owners do not cut the trees or disturb the land. Ron Davidson explained that the draft conditions of approval will require a Notice/Warning clause on every Agreement of Purchase & Sale, and they will also be registered on the title of each lot, so future owners will be made aware when they purchase of the tree preservation requirements. The Town could also look at requiring bollards to be placed on the land, to identify where the line of tree protection begins. If they do not adhere to the regulation, it would be enforceable. Cynthia Everest 23 Deer Run Court, indicated that she is representing 4 property owners in the area who all oppose the application. They agree with all the concerns noted, and summarized the letter she submitted. She stressed that the multi development does not fit in with the wooded, quiet and serene area. Carol Leadlay 30 Metcalf Street, is opposed to the application. She indicated that she is concerned with the additional traffic the proposed 19 units will bring, and indicated that the additional traffic would warrant a traffic signal at the Sauble Road/Highway intersection. She also expressed concern with the deers that run through the property. Peter Walker, owns 2 properties in the area and is opposed to the application. He recognizes that development will happen, but must be done responsibility. A potential 3 story multi-residential development does not fit in with the character of the area. He also expressed concerns with future owners clear cutting their properties, and removing all the trees. Mr. Davidson indicated that the zoning only permits 1 acre to be cleared. Committee had the following comments or concerns: - Feel multi-residential units are not compatible with the R-1 zoning in the area; - Confirmed the shape and configuration of the tree retention plan follows the configuration of the environmentally protected and buffer area. - More details are needed on the multi-residential Block A, before an informed decision can be made; - Agree with the Tree Conservation Plan, but questioned future enforcement; - Would like additional time to research and read documents; - Confirmed the Official Plan, not the Provincial Policy Statement, dictates the number of residential units per hectare. - Suggest deferral to look at the residential development of Block A. Moved by Marcel Legault Seconded by Bill Streeter I move that we deter Item 5.1 Plan of Subdivision 41T to a future meeting, so that the Applicant can explore the options of a proposal that would have single family units on Block A Official Plan Amendment SSOPA # Zoning By-law Amendment Z Ontario Ltd. (Andrew Hill) c/o Ron Davidson Part of Park Lot 18, Plan 111, Town of Saugeen Shores (geographic Town of Port Elgin) 1020 Goderich Street

4 The application for Official Plan Amendment will facilitate the construction of a mixeduse commercial/residential development. The subject lands are currently designated Highway Commercial, which permits a multitude of commercial uses, but limits residential uses to those accessory to the main commercial use. The application seeks to re-designate the subject lands to permit 31 dwelling units. The application for Zoning By-law Amendment will facilitate the construction of a mixed-use commercial/residential development. The subject lands are currently zoned Highway Commercial (HC) which permits Highway Commercial uses and accessory residential dwelling units. The application seeks to re-zone the subject lands to permit residential dwelling units and site-specific relief from the following zone provisions: Maximum Building Height from 10.0 m to 21.0 m Maximum Lot Coverage from 30 % to 49 % Minimum Front Yard Setback from 10.0 m to 3.0 m Exterior Side Yard Setback from 10.0 m to 3.0 m Minimum Setback from the Centre Line of a Provincial Highway from 30 m to 18 m Landscaped Open Space in Front Yard from 15% to 3.2 % Ms. Kuchma read her Report which recommended preliminary approval of the applications. The Applicant's Planner Ron Davidson and Architect Grant Diemert were in attendance. Ron Davidison indicated that the owner sends his regrets, he was unable to attend. He indicated that this will be a very attractive, landmark development for the area. They have taken the recommendations from the Polices, and moved the building to the road, with parking in the rear, and the Zoning By-law does not reflect this Policy. Grant Diemert summarized the design and floors of the proposed building. 50% of the parking will be outside, and the remainder will be on the 1st floor. The building proposes 3 commercial units on the front, 31 residential units, consisting of 5 floors in total. Gerry Moss, indicated that he and Tim Bernard own the abutting property. He summarized the letter they submitted opposing the development as submitted. They are pro development, however there needs to be a balance. Any amendments to the Zoning By-law should be reasonable, and this development is not reasonable and threatens wise development in Saugeen Shores. The By-law permits 1 residential unit accessory to the commercial use, and they are requesting 3 commercial units and 31 residential units. They feel the building uses, the size and the number of floors to not fit in with the neighbourhood. Bryan Tedford 546 Mary Street, is opposed to the development. The 5 story residential development will tower over his home, eliminating their privacy. He is also concerned with the additional traffic and close proximity to the elementary school. Ed Dryngiewicz is opposed to the application and expressed concern that he was not notified of this significant development and also concern with the start time of 5:00 p.m. People, who have to travel to attend the meeting, or work during the day, cannot attend a 5:00 start time.

5 Gerry Melcher, 1014 Bricker Street, is opposed to the application and expressed concern of the visual distraction and the shadow 5 stories will cast on surrounding properties. Committee had the following comments or concerns: - Concern with the number of amendments to the Zoning By-law required for the development; - Concerned with notification of the Public Meeting, and felt a significant development will affect more than just the surrounding property owners; - Feel more involvement from the Community is needed for a new development of this type on the Highway; - Incompatible and not in character with neighbouring properties; - Noise Study recommended; - Nice design wrong lot, the lot is not large enough to accommodate a development of this magnitude; - Considerable amount of work and thought involved in developing a Zoning By-law, and this development does not come close to the permitted provisions. - Supportive of the mixed commercial and residential uses, however would like to see the numbers more balanced. Moved by Marcel Legault Seconded by Bill Streeter We move that Item 5.2 Official Plan Amendment SSOPA# and Zoning By-law Amendment Z be deferred to allow the Applicant to make changes to the proposal as deemed necessary as per comments presented by the Planning Advisory Committee. The Committee requested a broader notification of the next Public Meeting Zoning By-law Amendment Z Jason and Nicole Craig Part Lots 128 and 129, Block 81, Registered Plan 11, Town of Saugeen Shores (geographic Town of Port Elgin) 439 Elgin Street The application proposes construct two additional cottage dwellings on the subject lands. The current zoning permits existing tourist cottage parks, but does not allow for new tourist cottage parks. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment will allow a new tourist cottage park and will provide relief from the following zone provisions: Minimum Separation Distance between structures from 5.0 m to 4.57 m Minimum Front Yard Setback from 6.0 m to 3.35 m (existing) Maximum Height from 4.0 m to 4.57 m Landscaped Open Space from sq m to sq m Ms. Kuchma read her report which recommended preliminary approval of the application. The Applicants were in attendance. Harold Emery 451 Market Street, opposes the application. He indicated that there is too much density proposed on a small residential lot.

6 Hunter Marshall 458 Market Street opposes the application. He advised that there are already too many cottage developments in the area, and it is very noisy in the summer. It affects his quality of life and enjoyment of his property. The use appears to be compatible with the area, but intent of Zoning By-law is to not permit any additional cottage parks. He also added that the yard is currently unmaintained, which may reflect the state of the future development. He is also concerned with traffic in the area. Nicole Craig indicated that when they purchased the house in 2010, it was always their intent of their partners to build 2 additional cottages on the property. They already received the Building Permit, however had to put the development on hold due to a partnership issue. Their Building Permit lapsed, and when they went to renew, they were told it was not a permitted use in the Zoning By-law, and an amendment was needed. She indicated that the property is located in a tourist cottage park area, and it is a compatible use for the area. They did not maintain the lawn, as they hoped to be building the cottages. Paul Martin 451 Elgin Street is opposed to the application. He noted that the number of cottages makes for a noisy area, with camp files, fireworks, etc. It affects his enjoyment of his property. Ed Dryngiewicz is opposed to the application. He is concerned with the change of zoning to permit 3 potential residences on one small residential lot. He is also concern with setting precedence for new cottage parks in the area. Jason Craig indicated that they purchased the property with the understanding that they could have 3 cottages on the lot and they received approval for their development in the past. Committee comments and concerns as follows: - We are a tourist area and need summer rentals, however this is putting 3 potential houses on one 66 ft x 120 ft lot; Moved by Marcel Legault Seconded by Mike Myatt That Zoning By-law Amendment Application Z be approved, in accordance with the draft site specific Zoning By-law Minor Variance A Tibor Bizony Lot 4, Plan 468, Town of Saugeen Shores (geographic Township of Saugeen) The application is for a Minor Variance, to seek relief from the Residential First Density Special (R1-2) provisions of the Zoning By-law to permit a reduced rear yard setback. The By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 m; the applicant is proposing a minimum rear yard setback of to facilitate the construction of a single detached dwelling. Ms. Kuchma presented her Planning Report, which recommended preliminary approval of the application. The Applicant was in attendance, however left before the application was heard.

7 Charlotte O'Leary expressed concerns with drainage and the new elevation of the property. The applicant has trucked approximately 14 truckloads of fill into the property, and she is concerned of the impact this will have on her abutting property. Ms. Kuchma noted that a lot draining plan is a requirement at the Building Permit stage, and will address her drainage concerns. Edith Robinson expressed concerns with the fill trucked in and the change in elevation. She requested the drainage and elevation concerns be address prior to the Building Permit stage. Committee had the following comments or concerns: - Inquired if Applicant could be required to return the property to the original grade. Ms. Kuchma is not aware of any fill restrictions. - Would like condition added to the approval to address draining concerns. Moved by Diane Huber Seconded by Bill Streeter That Minor Variance File No. A be approved subject to the conditions on the decision sheet. 6. Additional Business 6.1. Applications in Progress Applications in progress were noted. 7. Next Meeting Date 7.1. September 1, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. 8. Adjournment Moved by Bill Streeter Seconded by Diane Huber That we do now Adjourn to meet again at the call of the Secretary-Treasurer. The Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.