K. Brcic, Town Planner
i) Notice of Complete Application and Public Meeting: Zoning By-law Amendment, dated April 19, 2021;
ii) Report of K. Brcic dated April 26, 2021;
iii) Proposed By-law 41-2021, being a By-law to amend By-law No. 1-2014, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Town of Kingsville.
Ms. Brcic presented the Planning Report and recommendation, indicating that the Applicant is seeking an amendment to the current zoning to permit a residential dwelling to be constructed on the site.
Comments from the Applicant's Solicitor:
William Good (Scaddan & Jakob LLP) representing the Applicant (Giuseppe Quadrini) and also representing, Norm Zorzit, an abutting neighbour who submitted correspondence in support of the application.
Mr. Good stated that he is in support of the Planner's recommendation presented this evening. He confirmed that his client has gone through multiple studies and soil test samples and the property is free and clear of any contaminants. He indicated that setbacks are best dealt with during site plan review.
Comments from the Public:
Norm Zorzit commented that he and his wife have lived at the property at the corner of the Inman Sideroad and County Road 34 East since 1980, and his wife since 1950. He indicated that any contaminants were removed and properly disposed of. He indicated he is in support of the application at this time, stated he was present at the meeting nine years ago when this application was rejected, that the cattle are gone, there has been no farm expansion for cattle, and he does not believe there will be any expansion.
Bruce Boyd, 367 County Road 34 E indicated that he in fact had cattle in his barns until about a year ago and that the only thing that has happened on this property is that it has become a dump site and further, that the current owner has been draining his land onto Mr. Boyd's and he had to disconnect the drain. He stated that he wants the right to farm and understands from the planner that he is being limited to what he can do on his farm. He stated that the application does not comply with provincial law, and is concerned that if the application is approved, he will receive noise complaints, complaints about livestock, and complaints about general farming operations (weed control/spraying). He asked for clarification as to the number of livestock he would be allowed to have and commented that he was of the understanding that a home could not be built within 1,000 feet of his barns. He asked that Council deny the application, but if the application proceeds, that the property be cleaned up.
Mr. Brown explained the legislative updates and the minimum distance separation calculations in terms of setbacks for livestock and that the 1,000 foot setback is a dated requirement, and no longer applies. There are a number of factors that are taken into consideration to calculate the minimum distance separation requirements under the Nutrient Management Act.
Solicitor Good indicated he attended the site and there is a ditch that is approximately 2 1/2 feet deep on the applicant's property surrounding the fence perimeter. The ditch directs water to the ditches that abut the main roads. He suggested that all of the road and the property would have to be flooded for any water from the applicant's site to go on the adjacent parcel.
Mr. Boyd explained that the headland furl is on his property, it is not a ditch; the school property was higher in that corner so he was forced to do that. The fence is on his property to keep the cattle in. He reiterated his drainage concerns.