The Chair requested staff to advise on the manner of giving notice for the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment. He also asked staff to briefly describe the proposal and summarize the correspondence, if any, received to date.
Mr. LaHay confirmed that the required notice was given in accordance with the Planning Act and circulated to each owner of land within 120 metres, and that a sign was posted on the subject property. He summarized the application, explaining that it proposes to rezone the north portion of the property from the “Residential Two (R2) Zone” to the “Residential Multiple One Exception (RM1-**) Zone” to permit four townhouses with site specific development standards and facilitate a future severance. The effect of the amendment will permit four 2-storey stacked townhouses, each containing a primary and an additional residential unit, for eight dwelling units on the north half of the subject land. The proposed townhouses are intended be subdivided in the future into four separate lots. The site-specific development standards in the zoning by-law would include:
- reduced rear yard setback;
- modified parking requirements;
- reduced interior side yard setbacks for the end dwelling units;
- reduced minimum lot area per dwelling unit; and
- increased maximum lot coverage and gross floor area as a percentage of lot area for the interior dwelling units.
Consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), and conformity to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and the Town of Lindsay Official Plan will be determined upon further evaluation of the application. Mr. LaHay summarized the comments received to date, as detailed in his report, noting that subsequent to the writing of the report additional comments and concerns to the application, were received from the following individuals:
- Bill Fountain
- Krysta McCallum and Eric Redshaw
- Don and Briedge Lutes
- Mike and Cathy Puffer (and their agent, Kevin Duguay)
- Daniel and Valerie Obress
- Shirley Toombs
- Rhys Warren
- Brenda Cooper
- Tejas Shah (who also submitted a petition containing 54 signatures in opposition to the application).
Mr. LaHay summarized the comments received by the members of the public noting the following issues raised:
- Non-conforming compatibility with the single-detached home neighbourhood;
- Traffic Safety, including increased noise and congestion,
- Lack of parking, including for visitors;
- Lack of a cross-walk to cross Colborne St. W. to nearby school;
- Privacy, including fencing and balconies;
- Loss of mature trees, with little new landscaping;
- Street aesthetic, and change to neighbourhood character;
- Lack of snow storage areas;
- Lot coverage and setbacks;
- Drainage, swales, and lack of impervious surfaces;
- Potential for reduced property values;
- Loss of sunlight, and views; and
- Lack of yard and amenity space.
Mr. LaHay also noted that staff received a response from Beverly Saunders at Ecovue Consulting (attached to the minutes) addressing many of the issues raised by the members of the public. Staff are recommending that the application be referred back to staff for further evaluation and until such time as comments have been received from all circulated Agencies, City Departments and the public, and that any comments and concerns have been addressed.
The Chair inquired if the applicant wished to speak to the application.
Beverly Saunders of Ecovue Consulting spoke as the applicant and provided an overview of her correspondence as noted by Mr. LaHay noting responses to the following issues:
- Lot characteristics;
- Ownership details;
- Neighbourhood characteristics;
- Rationale for gentle intensification;
- Neighbourhood compatibility;
- Landscape protections;
- Explanation of the proposed new zone and exceptions;
- Snow storage;
- Traffic;
- Driveway and entrance safety;
- Stormwater;
- Public outreach and offer for adjustments; and
- Offer for additional engagement, including an issue resolution workshop.
In conclusion, Ms. Saunders requested that the committee listen to the issues raised by the members of the community, and requested that the report be referred back to staff for additional evaluation and review. She responded to questions from the members of the committee.
The Chair inquired if anyone wished to speak to the application.
Kevin Duguay of Kevin M. Duguay Community Planning and Consulting, and retained by Mike and Cathy Puffer, provided an overview of his prepared presentation to the committee (as attached to the minutes). He provided comments regarding:
- The site in relationship with the neighbourhood;
- The proposed building; and lack of design compatibility;
- A summary of the proposed zoning by-law amendments, including additional residential unit regulations; and
- Planning Issues, including over-development, impacts on mature vegetation, conformity with the Growth Plan and Town of Lindsay Official Plan, and consistency with the PPS.
He summarized his comments stated that he did not believe this application represented good planning, and made himself available for any questions.
Mike Puffer of 12 Walker Street spoke in opposition to the application and reiterated the concerns raised by Mr. Duguay, and stated that his major concerns were with traffic safety, parking, over-crowding, distance of entrances from Colborne St. W., and snow removal.
Paul Jolicoeur spoke in opposition to the application and stated that while there are lot of places in the GTA where you have to get creative with land use, Lindsay isn't one of them, as there is plenty of additional land, and affordable options here.
Krysta McCallum spoke in opposition to the application and stated that everyone in the neighbourhood has 2 or 3 cars per household, and with only 8 parking spots for 8 residential units, there will be a lot of on-street parking.
Janet Di Bello questioned who received the public meeting notice, and how traffic from the new units could be enforced to restrict access away from the rest of Walker Street.
Robert Stewart spoke in opposition to the application and stated that this proposal is not gentle intensification. He noted concerns with the traffic in the area, vehicle crowding at the Canada Post community mailboxes, and existing issues crossing Colborne St. W. to the school and medical centre.
No other persons spoke to the application.
The Chair permitted Ms. Saunders to respond to the issues addressed at the Public Meeting. She provided an explanation for the following issues raised:
- Lot coverage calculations;
- Public Consultation process;
- Compliance with the PPS and Growth Plans;
- Level of intensification;
- Walker Street and Colborne St. access;
- Landscaping and building design on renderings;
- Stormwater management plan
- Vehicle crowding at community mail box;
- Public consultation including the option for an issue-resolution workshop; and
- Additional residential units within a townhouse development.
Overall, Ms. Saunders summarized her comments by stating that this proposal is consistent with planning policies, and that developments such as townhomes should not be restricted from single detached residential neighbourhoods. She noted that they will continue to address the compatibility issues raised with the local community. Ms. Saunders and Mr. Holy responded to questions from the members of the committee.
The Public Meeting concluded at 3:03 p.m.