R. Brown, Manager of Planning Services.
i) Notice of Complete Application and Public Meeting: Zoning By-law Amendment, dated March 2, 2021;
ii) Report of R. Brown dated March 4, 2021 together with Appendices A through H; and
iii) Proposed By-law 29-2021, being a By-law to amend By-law 1-2014, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law of the Town of Kingsville.
Mr. Brown presented his Report in detail.
Comments from representative of the Applicant (Harry Froussios, Planning Consultant, representing Brotto Investments Inc.):
Mr. Froussios indicated that he represents the Applicant, and that the Applicant, along with members of the project team, are also present this evening.
He provided a PowerPoint presentation outlining steps in the application process to date, including the Site Plan submitted with the original application (3 storey townhouse and 6-storey apartment building proposed for the rear of the property). He indicated his client has revised the application and provided a number of options leading to where we are today. The first revision was for two apartment buildings; to take the height down from 6 storeys to 4 storeys while maintaining the number of units.
More adjustments were made, and the present proposal is to retain the existing dwelling, to preserve the view of the existing dwelling, to permit a 3-storey apartment building with a maximum of 22 dwelling units, reduce required rear yard setback from 12.2 m to 7.5 m, reduce required lot frontage of the land to be retained as a result of the severance of the existing single detached dwelling from 25 m to 16 m, and increase the permitted maximum height from 11 m to 12.2. The rear yard setback of 7.5 m only applies to one portion of the building because of the configuration of the property and the building height of 12.2 metres is requested to allow for a pitched roof. He said this satisfies the PAC concerns, reduces density, and reduces traffic. He commented that he supports Mr. Brown's Planning Report and the recommendation contained therein.
Comments from the public:
Tony Youssef, Resident, commented that having heard the discussions and comments made so far this evening, he had no further comments.
Brenda Gagnier, Resident, pointed out that Appendix A of Mr. Brown's Planning Report "states 4 storeys on the right side of the drawing and 3 storeys in the centre of the drawing" and while she is aware that this has been amended by the developer to 3 storeys, she asked that that her comment in regard to this discrepancy be included in the record. She commented also that Appendix E still refers to 6 storeys (same issue). As well, she commented that the traffic study contained in the Planner's report appears to have been presented in 2019, but the facts were gathered in 2018. She stated that the Town's population has changed drastically since that traffic study.
Ms. Gagnier stated she is opposed to the development of this property the way it is presented and that the property should be kept as a single family home. She has concerns regarding the close proximity of the existing home to the apartment complex and the potential loss of mature healthy trees. She also indicated that as a member of the Main Street Development Committee her comments this evening are not representative of the group of which she is a part, but only herself. She stated that the recommendations to be presented by the Committee at a future Council meeting are in direct conflict to what is being recommended by this proposal including: facade should be in keeping with buildings in the area, the front of the building should face Main Street, maximum height of 10 metres, and traffic concerns. She asked that Council defer this application until the Committee has presented its findings to Council. She feels the Town is focusing on not only providing additional housing in the area, but as well having those developments produce more taxes to maintain the Town's infrastructure. She wrote emails to Council regarding an idea of a tourism tax being imposed. In summary, Ms. Gagnier stated that while she appreciates the developer has amended the plan many times, she feels that allowing this would open the door for other lots to have apartment buildings squeezed in behind them as well.
Mayor Santos asked for clarification as to the discrepancy on the Appendices as mentioned by Ms. Gagnier, and Mr. Froussios confirmed that the current proposal is for 3 storeys and 22 units.
Anne Marie Lemire, 171 Main St. East, indicated that she lives in the Bon Jasperson House situated to the west of 183 Main St. East. She stated she is in opposition to the Application and has, along with 2,573 people to date, signed her online petition and 450 people have signed in person. The petitions were addressing both the issue of saving the home from demolition and stop the rezoning.
Ms. Lemire provided a history of the past Council and Planning Advisory Committee meetings attended. She indicated that this type of development will have a negative impact on her neighbouring property and stated that amendments to this latest proposal make an "already bad situation worse as they are asking for a taller building from 36 feet to 40 feet". Ms. Lemire described concerns relating to the proximity of the proposed building to the existing residence, the shared driveway access and insufficient parking, lack of secondary access, streetscape, and the proposal being an eye sore. She commented that a heritage impact statement should have been done in regard to the impacts on 183 Main St. East and that the heritage advisory committee should have commented on this application. She read aloud an excerpt from a letter she received from Ms. Sarah Sacheli, the Chair of the Committee to Ms. Lemire. Ms. Lemire stated that this proposal will dramatically alter her family's enjoyment of their property and the value of their property.
Mr. Brown provided clarification as to parking, noting that the proposal meets parking requirements. As far as the shared driveway access, Mr. Froussios indicated that the intent is to share the driveway in perpetuity as a more efficient way of addressing traffic impact concerns. Mr. Brown stated that ideally a single family dwelling would have its own access but if there is a circumstance where it cannot happen, a formal right-of-way must be established.
Mr. Brown stated that a revised impact statement was done on 183 Main St. East (see: Appendix included with his Report) and clarified that the heritage committee was circulated with the application. Ms. Astrologo read aloud the list of specified identified heritage attributes included in the Notice of Intention to Designate. The outbuildings were not included.
A recorded vote was requested.