Chair Hammell advised that this was a Public Meeting under the Planning Act to consider Minor Variance Application A-2024-037 for Candue Homes 2020 Ltd., Agent: Cobide Engineering c/o Dana Kieffer for a vacant lot at Part Lot 51, Plan 73, Chesley.
Megan Stansfield, Planner for Bruce County, presented the planning report and read correspondence that had been received from the public. The purpose of this application is to sever the subject parcel to place two semi-detached units on separate lots of record. The minor variance is required to facilitate this consent by permitting a reduced lot area of approximately 265 sq m and frontage of 9m. This lot was created 2 years ago, by consent, along with 2 other lots surrounding the property. The lots meet the minimum required lot size and frontage as stated in the zoning by-law, so permission from the municipality’s council was not required. The lots are zoned R2 – Residential: Low Density Multiple. A duplex dwelling is permitted in this zone.
Section 45(1) of the Planning Act provides for the granting of minor relief from the provisions of the Zoning By-law to the Committee of Adjustment. Relief may only be granted if the Variance passes the “Four Tests of a Minor Variance”. The Committee must be satisfied that the application has satisfied all four tests to approve the Minor Variance.
Agency Comments:
- Works/Water Department
- This property is not serviced individually for subdividing. This lot has Water and Sewer to the property line only for the south unit. A second set would need to be installed and paid for as a capital cost for the north unit if this is approved. The existing services for the south unit also have not been paid for as Arran-Elderslie covered the cost of installing them for future use when the street was re-constructed. Once the services are connected to, then the capital cost will be billed to the owner.
- Building Department
-
- Clerk's Department
- This application will be subject to Parkland Dedication Fees for each lot.
-
- Fire Department
-
- Saugeen Ojibway Nation Environment Office: No comments received, Planning Staff did follow up with SON staff. The property is not within an area of high archaeological potential, and at the time of severance in 2022, an assessment was not required.
- Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority: Application is acceptable, no natural hazards on the property
Public Comments:
Planner Megan Stansfied provided a summary of the public comments:
Historic Home/ neighbourhood character:
Public Commenters: Concerns that this proposal would not fit with the surrounding neighbourhood character. One commenter noted that the proposed development would detract from their historic home, which is significant to Chesley.
Planner Comment: The Local Plan notes that proposed development is compatible with surrounding development. This residential use is compatible with the surrounding residential uses. While the proposed development may be newer and look different than the surrounding neighbourhood, that doesn’t negate the merit of this proposal.
Zoning and Privacy:
Public Commenters: Concerns with lot coverage (dwelling being too large for the lot), building height and setbacks to surrounding homes and the street. This was exacerbated by existing stakes on the lot, which property owners assumed were for the proposed development.
Planner Comment: The builders confirmed, and it was relayed to the commenters, that the stakes on the property were not representative of the proposed development. The proposed development meets all setbacks required in the zoning by-law. While one commenter noted that they were informed development would only be one-storey in height, staff relayed that maximum building height in this area is 10 metres. The proposed development is also under the required maximum lot coverage of 35%, which may satisfy some concerns that the dwelling is “too large”.
Parking and Infrastructure:
Public commenters: Concerns that the proposed development would put a strain on Municipal services – like water and sewer. It was also noted that parking would be an issue.
Planner Comment: Municipal Public Works/Water Staff confirmed that municipal water and sewer connection were available to this lot. The concern regarding parking is common in Arran-Elderslie. In this instance, each unit has parking for 2 cars (one in the garage, one in the driveway), which meets municipal by-laws.
Housing:
Public Commenter: Opined that the additional housing was not needed, as there were other homes for sale.
Planner Comment: While this may be the case, the merit of a planning application is not based on other available housing. It is also important to add that the Country as a whole and the Province, have been working to provide more housing options, as it is known that available housing stock is not sufficient to support growing populations.
General Construction Concerns:
Public Comment: It was noted that the proposed construction would be disruptive to neighbours day-to-day lives.
Planner Comment: Again, the merit of the planning application is not impacted by construction noise. This development is permitted, and the developer could proceed with construction at any time, without approval of this application. This application seeks only to sever the two units, so they can be separately conveyed.
Council Meeting Time:
Public Comment: The meeting time for this proposal is during work hours and many people therefore cannot attend.
Planner Comment: This would need to be reviewed by council.
The Chair said if attendees wished to be notified of the adoption of the proposed Minor Variance or of further proceedings regarding the variance a written request could be made by email to [email protected].
Chair Hammell asked if the Committee had any questions.
Chair Hammell asked if the applicant or agent was present and if they had any further comments regarding the application. Planner for the applicants, Dana Kieffer of Cobide Engineering.
Ms. Kieffer noted that the Arran-Elderslie by-law allows for a semi-detached, but the by-law does not contemplate severing that into two sections to accommodate a semi-detached. The use is permitted in the zone. The stakes on the property are not survey stakes. They belong to the previous owner and the new owner has not staked anything yet. The proposal meets everything else in the zone including the height. The property will be staked out prior to possession.
Chair Hammell asked if there were any comments from the public either in support or opposition to the application.
Ali Wilde noted that she expressed strong opposition to the application. She has collected significant community feedback including 40 signatures opposing the application. The current plan for a two-storey duplex has come as a shock. She does not want high-density homes encroaching on her property. Her house is a historically relevant property and she feels there are risks of damage to her home during construction. If development must proceed they are requesting that it be scaled back.
Carol Woods185 3rd Ave SW had a question if there was a definition of a minor variance and felt that this was not a minor variance.
Christine Dazoo 195 2nd Ave her understanding that this new build is not meeting the character of the neighbourhood and how can there be two buildings on one lot.
Garrett Wilde - said the stakes were put in by the surveyors and it was done after the property had left the original owner's possession.
Chair Hammell asked the Clerk if any written comments had been received. The Clerk noted that no public comments had been received to her office.
Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Hammell declared the public meeting closed at 9:46 a.m.
The Committee passed the following resolution