R. Brown, Manager of Planning Services
i) Notice of Complete Application and Public Meeting: Zoning By-law Amendment dated September 22, 2021;
ii) Report of R. Brown, dated September 24, 2021.
Mr. Brown presented his Planning Report and recommendation to deny the application for the reasons stated therein.
Comments from the Applicant's representative:
Jackie Lassaline (Lassaline Planning Consultants Inc.) presented her Planning Rationale Report (PRR dated September 6, 2021 regarding the suitability of the requested site specific zoning by-law amendment) on behalf of the applicant (SEE: Appendix C to Mr. Brown's Planning Report).
Comments from the Applicant:
Simone Chisholm (representing the owner, 2791854 Ontario Inc. operating as 'Plan A Windsor', a human resources firm) provided further details and perspective in connection with this application. She indicated that she had made several inquiries with the Town prior to purchasing the building and moved forward based on the information they were given. She commented that there is a shared driveway with a neighbour and the neighbour has been, and continues to be, supportive of the shared driveway. She explained that it was not until her business took possession of the building and started investments into the building that a complaint was made. She described the nature of the business and outlined her business background and experience. She indicated that 9 Pulford is her primary residence.
Comments from the public:
Helen and Don Noels, 63 Division St. North--Ms. Noels stated that she and her husband object to the application, highlighting that they live right beside and next door to 9 Pulford and as such, it affects them directly; She commented that the property owner is 'asking too much', that the application has been made by the numbered company, not Ms. Chisholm, and that the only activity happening there now is a professional office which has been operating for 6 months. She stated that 9 Pulford is no longer a place of residence, and that the Town's Zoning By-law is not intended to allow such an operation. She asked that Council support the neighbourhood, uphold the Zoning By-law, and support Mr. Brown's recommendation to deny the application.
Linda and David Valentine, 79 Division St. North--Mr. Valentine stated that he and his wife object to the application. Their home is directly across the street from 9 Pulford, and as a result they have a good idea as to what is happening there, including the fact that there is no home occupancy at this location, but rather an intrusion of an incorporated business into a residential neighbourhood. He stated that the employees and Ms. Chisholm arrive during the day to work at the business and it is lit-up at night like a commercial property. He described parking and traffic concerns and concerns regarding the number of employees at the site. Mr. Valentine also stated that he has provided written submissions in this matter. He asked that Council deny the application for the reasons stated, and because it could open the door to other businesses of this nature in this Pulford neighbourhood.
Deputy Mayor Queen presented comments and concerns, stating that he believes that the application is flawed in that it would "lead us to believe that it was an extension of an existing home occupation, rather than a commercial activity in a house in a residential zone". He explained that he had asked Administration to provide Council details of the current by-law for home occupations, which was provided by the Planner. Deputy Mayor Queen provided examples of compliant past home occupations. He stated that Council is now tasked with a decision that may well affect the future of not only this street but others.
Larry Harrison, 57 Division St. North, indicated his property is west of 9 Pulford. He is concerned about the use of the swimming pool in the rear yard by the employees of the business and their guests, and as well is concerned about the use of the pool house as a temporary residence. He indicated Mr. Brown has responded to such questions, and he has no further comments at this time.
There were no further comments from the public.