Mayor Steve Hammell called the public meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. He stated that the purpose of the public meeting was to consider a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Z-2022-104 (Woods Morley) and Local Official Plan Amendment – L-2022-011.
Jack Van Dorp, Planner for the County of Bruce, attended the meeting.
He noted that two residential buildings, with each building containing 4 units, are proposed on the lands addressed as 324 Balaklava Street in Paisley. An Amendment to the Municipality's Official Plan is required to address Section 3.1.7a), which restricts residential development to a density of 48 units per gross hectare.
A Zoning Bylaw Amendment is proposed to rezone the lands from 'Residential: Low Density Multiple (R2)' to 'Residential: Medium Density Multiple Special R3-14-2023'. Special site-specific zoning provisions are being sought for each of the proposed lots to address the definition of 'Dwelling Multiple', minimum lot area, frontage, minimum front yard setback as well as the size and number of required parking spaces.
There is currently a single-detached home on the lands, which is proposed to be demolished. A related severance application (File # B-2022-111) proposes to split the lot in half so that each structure is on its own lot.
He noted that this is the type of housing that is encouraged under Bill 23. There is less impervious areas as there is a smaller footprint.
Comments were received from the following agencies:
- Chief Building Official: No concerns at this time
- Public Works: The new lot will require an entrance permit, water and sewer services along with a capital trunk watermain charge. No issues with a triple laneway. Looks like they may need 3 entrance permits. Only issue will be if they park on the road. No parking within 9 metres of an intersection.
- Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority: No concerns.
A summary of the issues and concerns raised in public comments received to date include:
-Does not fit the character of the neighbourhood
-Impact on property values, lack of pride in ownership
-Stormwater runoff
-Privacy, Screening, and buffering
-Traffic impacts and safety for children
-Lack of sidewalks
The Mayor asked Members of Council if they had any questions.
There were no questions from Members of Council.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or agent were present and wished to make a submission.
The planner from Cuesta Planning made a presentation to Council. He noted that the application is for a rezoning and a local official plan amendment. He noted that the staff report has provided a comprehensive discussion of the application.
Without an appraisal from a qualified appraiser, there is no evidence that surrounding houses will decrease their value. The proposal is not considered as unprecedent development in Paisley. The owners have advised that if a tenant requires more parking, they would not be considered a suitable tenant.
The public works department has not requested a traffic study due to the increased traffic flow.
There will be adequate screening.
The applicant addressed Council regarding the application.
The Mayor asked if any members of the public wished to make a submission either in favour or opposed to the proposed application.
Pat Cecchetti of 157 George Street spoke against the zoning amendment. The group lives close to the location and are not in favour of the proposed zoning amendment. They feel the change is not in the best interest of the neighbourhood as the increase in density is excessive and it will go from a single family home to a unit that will house eight families.
The development is more for a city rather than a rural community and it does not fit the character of the community. They are concerned for Paisley at large as it will set a precedent and feel that Paisley's character is at risk.
He understands there is a need for additional housing, and are in favour of progress and change, but increasing housing density can be a benefit, but not disadvantage the residents. They are concerned that the planning department, along with Council, in an attempt to achieve more density, will make the village a less desirable place to live. There is no immediate imperative to approve this rezoning. They feel there is not enough space, there will be an absent landlord, transient tenants and degrading conditions to the neighbourhood. The parking will lead to parking on the street.
Michael Patterson, 150 Albert Street, asked about water management as it is a problem in the neighbourhood. There is a new development at 160 Albert which increases the density in that neighbourhood. The neighbourhood is saturated with multi-residences. He has not seen anything about stormwater management. There is already a flow from Albert Street with the new development. He wants to know how this is going to be managed.
Brian Cumming asked about sewer and water. Has there been a review to ensure there is sufficient sewer and water capacity for this proposal.
The Clerk read the written submissions had been received in relation to the application. These submissions deal with opposition to the multi-unit complex, increase in traffic and height of building.
Members of Council and the public were provided a final opportunity for questions prior to the closing of the public meeting.
No further questions were raised and the Mayor declared the public meeting closed at 9:57 a.m.