Mr. Holy, Acting-Director of Development Services summarized Report COA2021-022 on behalf of Mr. Harding.
This is a returning application previously heard at the February 18, 2021 Committee of Adjustment meeting. It was the Committee’s decision to defer the application for a period of not more than two months returning to the April 15, 2021 meeting to allow the owner and applicant time to explore options that would satisfy staffs’ concerns relating to the proposed development.
Mr. Holy stated that a minor variance is required for the retained lands because they do not meet the minimum 600 square metre lot size under the MRC zone. Currently, the owner is showing 564 Square metres. One of the conditions of consent would be a minor variance for the retained lands to deal with the reduced lot area. There should be sufficient parking so a minor variance may not be required. Also, a minor variance should be considered for several regulations on the severed lot. Looking at the sketch provided, it shows a residential portion close to the new front lot line, which is 2 metres away, which would require a minor variance for front yard setbacks. The applicant is aware of this and will be submitting a minor variance application soon to be put on the next available agenda to deal with these issues. The consent does conform to the relevant Provincial Policy, the Town of Lindsay Official Plan, and meets the intent of the Town of Lindsay Zoning By-law.
Agency comments received from Community Services requested a 5% Cash-in Lieu of Parkland, which would be taken for the newly severed land. Building Division has no concerns. Economic Development previously indicated one of there goals from their strategic plan is to allow sufficient land from this property to allow conversion to commercial uses. Engineering Division has no concerns provided that 3 metre road widenings are taken on St. David’s Street and Queen Street and a site triangle at the intersection of St. David’s Street and Queen Street to accommodate for future road upgrades that are contemplated long term from the Transportation Master Plan.
Comments were received from the public, Lynda and John McCauley, in respect to the severance and their comments are contained in the report.
Staff respectfully recommends the application be granted approval subject to the conditions in the report.
Mr. Holy stated that he has had several lengthy discussions with the owner, Mr. Farquhar and would likely be speaking to those conversations.
The Committee questioned the lot to be severed, and asked if it will it stay as a mixed residential or should it be rezoned residential. Staff replied that the MRC zone has provisions to allow it to stay as MRC zone if used as residential. In accordance with an R1, R2, R3 zone you do not need to re-zone as it will automatically refer to those zone requirements. The Committee followed up by asking if there are new owners, could they open up a grocery store. Staff replied firstly a grocery store is not permitted and secondly there is not sufficient area for parking for that use.
The Committee asked whether the road widening and site triangle applied to the new severed lot and the retained lot. Staff replied that, based on a recent legal opinion obtained from the City’s solicitor, the requirement applies to both the severed and the retained lands. We are therefore requesting the widenings on both pieces. The Committee asked if Engineering plans to widen the streets now or in the near future. Staff replied that they are not aware but suggested that Ms. Sisson, Supervisor of Engineering Division would speak to this.
Ms. Sisson spoke to the Committee and stated that it is the understanding that the roads through and around the Lindsay area are part of the Transportation Master Plan, so they can be widened at anytime. The arterial and collector lanes have been identified in the Official Plan for several years, in fact decades. Specific growth and development targets that are necessary for those widenings identified as the corridors through and around the Lindsay area to both the residential, commercial and industrial components. At this time, there is no plan to widen these two roads.
The Committee asked whether there was room along the frontage of other neighbours along the street to accommodate road widenings. Ms. Sisson replied that when Engineering proceed with a capitol project, it involves an Engineering Assessment Process and through the process, it will identify what their needs are. Sometimes sidewalks both sides of the road or additional infrastructure, or lane width or number of lanes required for that road structure. Ms. Sisson gave an example.
The Committee noted that the applicant mentioned that according to the Planning Act, the City could not acquire land under existing buildings. The Queen Street road widening as well as the sight triangle go under buildings. Ms. Sisson deferred to Mr. Holy. Mr. Holy stated that we would not take land underneath the building; however, we would take land around the building, leaving a strip of land around the building so that the building foundation would not encroach on to the road allowance. The Planning Act does not allow us to take land from underneath buildings as part of widening’s.
The Committee asked if the conditions of consent would speak to that. Staff replied that they prepared two sets of conditions.
1) That went underneath the land subject to encroachment agreement.
2) That went around the building. We would enforce that we would only take lands as it goes around the building.
The Committee asked if the City currently owns all the required road allowance for the expansion along St. David’s Street and Queen Street or will they expropriate when required to do the road widening. Staff responded by saying the City only owns widening’s that had been taken through previous Site Plan, Consent or Plan of Subdivision applications. At this point, Staff cannot confirm what lands are owned by the City along St. David Street and Queen Street. Once the capital projects are activated, there is a land acquisition phase that goes along with that and we purchase all the properties along the corridor in accordance with the design that is approved through the Engineering Assessment Process.
The Committee asked how wide St. David and Queen Street currently. Ms. Sisson’s understanding is that we currently have 20 metres right-of-way on Queen Street and 20 metres right-of-way on St. David’s Street. Through the Official Plan, Transportation Master Plan, and Secondary Plan etc., everything that has been done to date indicates that the arterial and collectors should be a minimum of 26 metres, a further 6 metres to the 20 metres.
The Committee asked if the right-of-way includes sidewalks or excluding sidewalks. Ms. Sisson replied that the right-of-way includes all of the municipal property, everything we have jurisdiction over.
The Committee questioned if and when the expansion happens, would property be taken from both sides of St. David Street and Queen Street. Staff replied typically yes but it relates to the nature of what is situated on either side. If there is an obstruction where you cannot take a widening, for example a potential cemetery for instance, then it would be taken from one side but typically it’s evenly taken from both side where possible.
The Committee noted a 12 metres triangle requirement for this property. If that also means a 12 metre requirement on the east side of St. David Street, the Committee asked if the City planning on putting a round-about there. Ms. Sisson replied that this is not a proposal right now. The intersection is being looked at via the design requirement. Later an Environmental Assessment, whereby any other work that takes place can be provided through the lands and whether the need to take land would be determined, which would be the desired cross section in terms of two side walks, one side walk, bike lanes. Everything goes through the official design process as Mr. Holy suggested and it is a multi stage process.
The Chair noted that if we streamline the process with the design situation at this stage, this will prevent expropriation down the road which can be an adversarial process. Ms. Sisson replied it is her understanding that this is the purpose and reason it is available through the Planning Act process.
The applicant, Mr. Farquhar spoke to the Committee. He noted the lengthy conversations with Mr. Holy regarding the road widening’s and the minor variance requirements and suggested to Mr. Holy to ask permission from the Committee to defer the application and return with the Consent and Minor Variance together which will allow time for more discussions over the issues that are contentious.
Mr. Holy noted that Mr. Farquhar has technical issues to deal with in terms of house siting, access to the newly created lot and to see if there is a lot configuration moving the lot line further south. We are agreeable to tabling as well to try to work through some of these issues. It is also advantageous for the Committee to see the revised layout and variances together. If Mr. Farquhar submits the minor variance shortly, the earliest we could get this on the agenda would be for the July meeting if the Committee approves the deferral today. Hopefully, the applicant can prepare a demonstration plan next week to show the revised proposal to understand whether a revised parking scenario can be provided for consideration. If we are in agreement, the variances would then be based on that. It would then be re-advertised and return to the July meeting.
Mr. McCauley was present and spoke to the Committee. The Chair requested that Mr. McCauley hold his questions until such time as the application returns to the meeting.
There were no further questions from the Committee of other persons.