6:00 P.M. AGENDA - Strathroy-Caradoc · The power point presentation forms a part of the minutes. Rob Gennoe, 291 Thorne ... Strathroy (the final phase of Saxonville Estates). Subsequently

Council Minutes September 4, 2012

1MUNICIPALITY OF STRATHROY-CARADOC

NOTICE OF

REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2012

52 FRANK STREET, STRATHROY COUNCIL CHAMBER

6:00 P.M.

AGENDA

1. Roll Call. Cell Phones/Pagers Off Present: Mayor Joanne Vanderheyden Deputy Mayor Brad Richards Councillor John Brennan Councillor Marie Baker Councillor Dave Cameron Councillor Steve Pelkman Councillor Larry Cowan Councillor Steve Dausett Councillor Neil Flegel Deputy-Mayor Richards, absent with Notice Also present: Ralph Coe, Chief Administrative Officer Angela Toth, Director of Corporate Services/Clerk Mary Weber, Assistant Director of Corporate Services/Deputy Clerk Paul Hicks, Planner Matthew Stephenson, Director of Building & Waste Services Mike deVos, Spriet Associates Andrew Meyer, Community Development Manager Julie Morris, United Way Louie Cosentino

Tim Flint Karen Hicks John Desmet Linda Flint


2Rob Gennoe Robert & Sharon Tremain Bill & Willa Bartholomew John Derbyshire Alan Cherneski Les and Carol Hartle Rob and Carlie Forbes Ron & Champagne Parrington’s Judy Raaymaker Linda & Ken Burr Colleen Arbeau (presenter) Carlie Forbes (presenter) Cesar Aguiar Albert B. Soares Emeria Soares Karen Smeekens Tanner Sauve Jaclyn Costa Manual de Sousa Mario Picanco Jeremy VanHaaren Rob Stevens Jose Ferreira Alissa Boris Steven De Sousa Nick Strik Mike Dwyer Claudia Thar Clarence Linker Manuel Medeiros Matt Johnstone Frank Smeekens Alex Linker Jose DeBrum Anne Rublik Anne Wolf Brian Linker Ron Tyler Paul VanHoof Ed Veeke Peter Bakker Teresa Bakker Brad Hemeryck Cindy & Steven De Sousa


3Bill Loyens Vito Frijio Peter McClure Al Aarts Rob Dack Maria De Sousa Paulus Van Hoof Ann Heynen Nancy Strik Keith Purves Christine Purves Marianne Issendorf Reiner Issendorf Wayne Turner Barry Wolfe, Public Meeting 3 (presenter)

Nancy Powers, Strathroy Age Dispatch Representative from MYFM Radio 2. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest 3. Drainage Matters

a) Court of Revision 1) Parker Drain 2012 Report was provided

2) Moved by Councillors Cowan and Cameron:

THAT: Court of Revision for the Parker Drain 2012 be hereby opened. Carried. Matt Stephenson said that this meeting is to deal with assessments and to hear any possible appeals. There were no appeals. Moved by Councillors Cowan and Baker: THAT: Court of Revision for the Parker Drain 2012 be hereby closed. Carried.

4. In-Camera Recommendations (if any) 5. Approval of Minutes Moved by Councillors Flegel and Pelkman: THAT: the following minutes be approved as written. Carried.

a) Regular Council Minutes – August 7, 2012 b) Council Minutes – July 24, 2012


4 6. Presentations, Delegations & Petitions

a) United Way Needs Assessment & Community Engagement Project Julie Morris, United Way, London & Middlesex, gave a presentation on the Needs Assessment & Community Engagement project. The presentation is to inform councillors of the project, encourage councillors to promote the needs assessment and to foster resident participation, and to invite councillors to participate in an expert panel. Mayor thanked Julie for the presentation. Councillor Pelkman

Good luck on this project, the undertaking of these service review are a very large task

Referred quite often to Strathroy-Caradoc as being the service provider for Western Middlesex County and Eastern Lambton County as quite a large drawing area so I am sure that all that will be taken into consideration. We thank the United Way for remembering that there is a County perspective outside of the City of London

b) Concerns of homeowners backing onto Cassie

Crescent and Cassie Court and area regarding water, drainage and privacy issues

1. Carlie Forbes, on behalf of homeowners noted above,

provided a letter noting concerns and recommendations regarding the concerns with water, drainage and privacy. Ms. Forbes provided a PowerPoint presentation with the following subjects being covered –

History Recent developments Unresolved issues As a result

The power point presentation forms a part of the minutes. Rob Gennoe, 291 Thorne

Has been flooded twice and loss his insurance Lived there since house built and have watched

the land behind getting higher and higher as the years went on


5 Have not seen changes in the revision of the plan

in the development over the years Has house on the market for sale for a year,

everyone who looks at it loves house but hates the backyard

2. Colleen Arbeau, expressed concerns regarding

drainage due to the change in elevation of land behind her property on Agnes Drive. Ms. Arbeau’s letter forms a part of the minutes.

Councillor Brennan:

What if any drainage infrastructure was constructed prior to the new homes being built?

Carlie Forbes:

Two years ago on the north side of the back yards of Thorne Drive a 12” pipe was installed underground and the dirt was moved to create a swale. A berm was created and that is all that was done

According to the plans there is to be catch basins on both the west and east end draining to Agnes and Deborah Drive. There is a catch basin at the east end but cannot find anything at the west end. There is nothing on Agnes.

Mayor Vanderheyden said that a report will be forthcoming from the Building and Planning Department within the next two meetings, and to the presenters appreciate all your concerns that were brought forward and thank you for speaking on behalf of the people that you all represent.

7. Public Meetings 7.1 Public Meeting No. 1 Applicant: Piedro Farms Ltd.

Property: 8795 Wightman Drive (Lot 19, Range 4 South of Longwoods Road, Part 1, Reference Plan 33R-10593). Moved by Councillors Brennan and Cameron: THAT: Public Meeting No. 1 for an amendment to Strathroy-Caradoc Zoning Bylaw 43-08 for property located 8795 Wightman Drive be hereby opened. Carried. Report from Paul Hicks, Planner was provided.


6“The subject property is a 81 ha (200 acre) parcel located on Wightman Drive a short distance west of Cooks Road in Caradoc. The lands are designated “Agricultural” in the Official Plan and are zoned “General Agricultural (A1)” in the Zoning Bylaw. In October 2011, the applicant was granted a provisional consent by the Committee of Adjustment to sever approximately 8000 m2 (1.97 acres) of land occupied by a single detached dwelling and accessory buildings under the auspices of a surplus farm dwelling severance. As a condition of severance, the Committee required the lands be rezoned to an appropriate A2 Zone and A3 Zone to recognize the size of the residential parcel and to prohibit any new dwellings on the vacant farmland, respectively. The Provincial Policy Statement, County and Municipal Official Plans all permit severances for the purpose of disposing of a surplus farm dwelling, conditional on a rezoning of the balance of the farmland to prohibit any new residential dwellings. Additionally, the proposed rezoning of the residential parcel to the A2 Zone will bring the parcel into conformity with the Zoning Bylaw.”

Purpose for the meeting - to consider a rezoning application for the above noted property. The zoning is proposed to be changed from ‘General Agricultural (A1)’ to ‘Agricultural Small Holdings (A2)’ and ‘Agricultural Purposes Only (A3)’ to facilitate a surplus farm dwelling severance.

1. Comments in support of this zoning amendment – None. 2. Comments in opposition to this zoning amendment – None. 3. Questions or comments from members of Council – None. 4. Decision

Moved by Councillors Dausett and Pelkman: THAT: the application for property at 8795 Wightman Drive to rezone a parcel of land from General Agricultural (A1) to an Agricultural Small Holdings (A2) Zone and an Agricultural Purposes Only (A3) Zone to facilitate a surplus farm dwelling severance be approved and that the Bylaw be referred to the Bylaws section for approval. Carried.

5. Motion to close public meeting. Moved by Councillors Baker and Cowan: THAT: Public Meeting No. 1 for an amendment to Strathroy-Caradoc Zoning Bylaw 43-08 for property located 8795 Wightman Drive be hereby closed. Carried.


77.2 Public Meeting No. 2

Applicant: 766503 Ontario Limited and 774440 Ontario Incorporated. Property: North half of lot 9, Concession 10, Part of lots 14 and 15, Plan 33M-419. Moved by Councillors Brennan and Flegel: THAT: Public Meeting No. 2 for an amendment to Strathroy-Caradoc Zoning Bylaw 43-08 for property located Saxonville Estates Phase 5 be hereby opened. Carried. Report from Paul Hicks, Planner was provided. “In March 2012 Council passed a zoning bylaw amendment to rezone the subject property to a combination R1 Zone and site-specific R1 and R1-1 zone to facilitate the development of an 84-lot plan of subdivision located on 7.77 ha (19 acres) of land Metcalfe Street West approximately 0.5 km from Park Street in Strathroy (the final phase of Saxonville Estates). Subsequently the applicant has identified 7 lots within the approved plan that in which the Zoning Bylaw requirement of a 5m (16.5 ft) exterior side-yard setback would cause issue siting a house as the lots did not take into account the additional land required for the setback and he has applied to exempt seven of these lots from the requirement. In its place, the applicant is seeking to reduce the requirement to 1.2m (4ft.). The rationale behind the requirement of the 5 metre setback on a corner lot is to ensure that the home located on the corner that will be setback a distance equal to the house on the adjacent street. In this particular subdivision, this scenario does not exist, save and except for two lots, one of which the applicant is seeking the exemption (Lot 84). As this scenario does not exist for 6 of the lots, staff does not take issue with the proposed rezoning, however staff cannot support the requested rezoning of Lot 84 as the intention of the Zoning Bylaw would not be maintained. Based on the analysis, the application for rezoning under Section 34 of the Planning Act should be approved in part, except for Lot 84.” Paul said that when we have a house that fronts on to the same street that the exterior side yard does that front yard of that house will have a 5m set back. We are looking for the exterior side yard to match the front yard setback of the adjacent house. Paul recommended that the requested reduction from 5m to


81.2m be permitted on the requested lots with the exception of lot 84. Purpose for the meeting - to consider a rezoning application for the above noted property. The rezoning is proposed to exempt lots within Saxonville Estates Phase 5 from the requirement of the ‘R1’ zone to maintain a 5 meter (16.5 foot) exterior side-yard setback, instead providing for a 1.2 meter (4 foot) setback to address an error made by the applicant during the original rezoning of the lands.

1. Comments in support of this zoning amendment – None. 2. Comments in opposition to this zoning amendment. A

letter of objection from Mr. Keith Purves on this proposal was provided. Albert Stanley:

If I purchase a lot in the City and it is a former lot, are you not setting a precedent because if I came in and asked to have the set back from 6m down to 1m I do not believe Council would approve it. Because it is a developer are they getting preferential treatment? Paul said it would depend on the situation and what is adjacent to the exterior side yard.

3. Questions or comments from members of Council; Councillor Pelkman:

In conjunction to Mr. Stanley’s question I believe the answer may be it would depend on what is prebuilt versus there is nothing built.

4. Decision Moved by Councillors Brennan and Cowan: THAT: the application for property in Saxonville Estates Phase 5 proposing to exempt lots from the requirement of the ‘R1’ zone to maintain a 5 meter (16.5 foot) exterior side-yard setback, instead providing for a 1.2 meter (4 foot) setback to address an error made by the applicant during the original rezoning of the lands be approved in part, being except for Lot 84, and that the Bylaw be referred to the Bylaws section for approval. Carried.

5. Motion to close public meeting. Moved by Councillors Brennan and Pelkman:


9THAT: Public Meeting No. 2 for an amendment to Strathroy-Caradoc Zoning Bylaw 43-08 for property located Saxonville Estates Phase 5 be hereby closed. Carried.

7.3 Public Meeting No. 3 Moved by Councillors Baker and Cameron: THAT: Public Meeting No. 3 for the consideration of a

comprehensive zoning amendment regarding garages in residential zones be hereby opened. Carried.

Report from Paul Hicks, Planner was provided. “This matter was originally brought before Council on August 7th and Council deferred their decision on the bylaw requesting further discussion of the matter with local builders. A meeting of builders was organized by builders on August 14th. Staff requested an invitation to the meeting, advising of the constrained timelines in order to bring this matter back to Council. The request was turned-down however representatives offered to meet with staff following their meeting, however no meeting was scheduled. Staff advised representatives of the building community again of the constrained timelines and a meeting was requested by builders on August 28th, where an alternative bylaw standard was proposed to staff. It was advised at that meeting, that staff needed more time to review the proposal and that Council submissions for the September 4th meeting were due the following day. Staff recommended at that meeting that the original proposed amendments be passed by Council in order to assist builders awaiting for these changes to be made, while if a broader discussion of the bylaw is required this could follow. In light of the timelines and seeking to move forward on the matter, staff are recommending that the original amendments as proposed at the August 7th Council meeting be passed, and that Council provide direction on the further review of these provisions of the bylaw with local builders.”

Purpose for the meeting – to consider a comprehensive zoning amendment regarding garages in residential zones. (This matter was deferred from August 7th Council meeting.)

1. Comments in support of this zoning amendment – None.


10

2. Comments in opposition to this zoning amendment – Mr. Barry Wolfe, citizen and representation for the builders, presentation forms a part of these minutes. Rob Dack, Solicitor:

On behalf of some builders, the builders in this community are not happy, they are concerned. There are two main issues that exist now in the 2008 Bylaw and are carried forward in the amendment. The builders are against full front housing. The builders want to be able to build the garage in front of the main dwelling, partially or totally. Secondly they do not want to be limited in how many garages or bays you can build;

What the 2008 bylaw did and the new bylaw does it regulates and mandates the freedom of choice. That is a major decision that must be considered by Council;

The builders should be able to work with people and have some freedom in designing what they want;

The builders still want this bylaw not to be passed and Council to mandate planning staff to meet with the builders and come up with a solution;

Let’s pass the bylaw now then meet with the builders, our concern is then there is no way of enforcing things to move and meet with the builders. If we defend this now it is going to provide the impulse to get something done.

Claudia Thar:

Presentation forms a part of these minutes.

Vito Frijio, Saxonville Estates, part of the Southside Group: Passed around some pictures of homes he said

everyone would love. These are some of the homes people want to build in Saxonville Estates. None of these home would be allowed based on the current 2008 bylaw;

Urban design is to make it more sustainable, you cannot dictate life styles.


113. Questions or comments from members of Council

Councillor Pelkman: In 2008 did realize what we were attempting to do,

and reasons for looking at full front houses. The issue was that we were allowing developments that had parking problems;

Looking out front windows there was no site lines because they were dominated by the 20’ garage protruding out from the front of the house. Lack of front porches being built at the front of the house;

Parking issues, trying to address some of these issues;

At the time did not see a down side to it, however as much as we want to try we cannot dictate peoples life styles, will agree with that, we will try to do something;

Also agree, we are limiting choice, however do not agree going back to allow the 20’ garage protruding out the front;

Am prepared to reconsider my opinion of 2008. Councillor Brennan:

In 2008 I realized what we were attempting to do, fully understood as Councillor Pelkman did, what we were voting for in terms of house design;

The extremely projected garage pushed forward reduces the length of the driveway;

Parking issues; Not necessarily against a garage or particular style of

house, we have a parking problem in many of our subdivisions;

It is possible for our Planning Department and this Council to work with builders, citizens, developers in trying to come up with a solution that will address your concerns concerning design and salability of homes, and about the parking issues;

Not willing to vote on anything tonight; In a civil society compromise and regulation

generally has to occur so that the interest of both parties are addressed.

Councillor Baker:

In 2008 was fully aware of what I was supporting; Parking issues; Spoke on urban design;


12 Did not intend to limit peoples options, more

concerned with planning our subdivision better; Willing to take a second look at this.

Councillor Flegel:

More inclined to let the market decide with the understanding of safety etc;

Have to think that there is a compromise here somewhere;

20’ garage out front is not preferred, 5 to 6’ perhaps;

Important to me are parks, safety components, and economic development.

Councillor Cameron:

Heard a lot of concerns at the meetings, and hopefully a compromise can be reached.

Councillor Dausett:

There were concerns from the community, builders, developers, and prepared to put bylaw off till we have everything in front of us of which we seem to have more of tonight;

Concerned with some builders waiting for some permits and how many and if we put this off another month is that going to create hardship for them. Paul said there are some 4+ waiting for permits. Recommending Council pass the initial amendments to allow those who have designed a home to meet the proposed changes set out in August and that we go back to the table with the builders to have further discussions on the bylaw. If the building community does not want to see the changes passed tonight that is fine.

Councillor Cowan:

Let’s see if there is a compromise; Do believe we should set some time element and

bring this back hopefully in a month.


13Mayor Vanderheyden:

This has been a wholesome discussion, a lot of points made on each side. Do believe that there will be a compromise.

Paul advised that on Thursday a meeting is set up to further discuss.

4. Decision

Moved by Councillors Brennan and Pelkman: THAT: the Zoning Bylaw amendment be tabled and further that the Planner meet with the builders in order to bring back to Council a compromise position. Carried.

5. Motion to close public meeting. Moved by Councillors Pelkman and Dausett: THAT: Public Meeting No. 3 for the consideration of a comprehensive zoning amendment regarding garages in residential zones be hereby closed. Carried.

8. Communications

a) Rotary Club of Strathroy Re: Temporary Road Closure Request, October 14, 2012, Frank Street between Centre and Albert Street, for the Ontario Provincial Police Golden Helmets Precision Motorcycle Team exhibition. Moved by Councillors Brennan and Cameron: THAT: the temporary road closure of Frank Street between Centre and Albert Street on October 14, 2012, 11:00 am to 1:00 pm for the Ontario Provincial Police Golden Helmets Precision Motorcycle Team exhibition be approved. Carried.

b) Strathroy Business Improvement Area Board

Re: Concerns with the beautification of the downtown/core areas. Moved by Councillors Dausett and Flegel: THAT: the communication received from the BIA Board regarding concerns with the beautification of the downtown/core areas be referred to staff to prepare a report to Council. Carried.


14

c) Jackie Tiedeman, Clerk, Municipality of North Middlesex Re: Request Moratorium on Wind Turbine Projects

Reference: received for information

Item 1 is provided for the information of Council: 1. Val Gibson and Family

Re: Thank you for the flower arrangement in honour of Bill Gibson.

9. Unfinished Business - None 10. Reports from Departments.

a.) Matthew Stephenson, District Deputy Chief, Mount Brydges Fire Station

Strathroy-Caradoc Fire Department Proposed Muscular Dystrophy Boot Drives.

Moved by Councillors Cowan and Cameron: THAT: the Strathroy, Melbourne and Mount Brydges

Stations to conduct their annual Muscular Dystrophy Boot Drive as follows; Strathroy on September 29, Mount Brydges on September 22, and Melbourne on September 8 be approved. Carried.

b.) Paul Hicks, Planner

Proposed Street Names, Saxonville Estates Phase 5, 766503 Ontario Limited and 774440 Ontario Incorporated. Moved by Councillors Pelkman and Baker: THAT: the proposed street names in Saxonville Estate Phase 5 be approved; Nagel Gate, Drake Court, Veale Crescent, Ashby Crescent. Carried.

c.) Paul Hicks, Planner About Face Community Façade Improvement Program Moved by Councillors Cameron and Pelkman: THAT: Council endorses the staff recommendation for applications submitted under the About Face Community Improvement Plan for the 2012 Project Year and hereby


15directs staff to apportion funds to the applicants as recommended, and further that an execution agreement between the Municipality and Amanda Kenney for the façade grant be approved. Carried.

d.) Andrew Meyer, Community Development Manager Strathroy and Area Seniors’ Centre Improvements – Community Infrastructure Improvement Fund Moved by Councillors Pelkman and Cameron: THAT: Council supports the application to the Federal Government through the Community Infrastructure Improvement Fund for funding in support of the Strathroy & Area Senior’s Centre Improvements project. Carried.

e) Angela Toth, Director of Corporate Services/Clerk Animal Control Contract Moved by Councillors Dausett and Baker: THAT: the contract for the provision of Animal Control

Services with Gertie Dieleman be renewed at the current price for an additional two year period. Carried.

11. Committee Reports Moved by Councillors Cowan and Brennan: THAT: the following Committee Reports be received and filed.

Carried. a.) Police Service Reports

1 Monthly Activity Report July 2012 2 Criminal Investigations/Identification July 2012 3 Platoon July 2012

b.) Tri Township Arena July 12 2012 c.) Committee of Adjustment August 7 2012 Moved by Councillors Baker and Cameron: THAT: the following Committee Reports be received and filed and that Council concurs with the Committee’s recommendations. Carried. d.) Committee of the Whole August 7, 2012


16

12. Reading of Bylaws Moved by Councillors Brennan and Pelkman:

THAT: Bylaw 48-12 be tabled for further discussions to take place. Carried.

a) Bylaw 48 12 (from Public Meeting No. 3) A Bylaw to amend Bylaw 43-08, being the zoning bylaw of the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc. Moved by Councillors Baker and Pelkman: THAT: the following bylaw be given first, second and third and final reading. Carried.

b) Bylaw No. 51-12 A Bylaw to amend Bylaw 45-12 being a bylaw to authorize the borrowing of funds for Mount Brydges Roadworks and to provide funds for 2011 Tax Rate Stabilization. A brief staff report is provided. Moved by Councillors Cameron and Cowan: THAT: the following bylaw be given first, second and third and final reading. Carried.

c) Bylaw 52-12 (from Public Meeting No. 1) A bylaw to amend the zoning bylaw of the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc. Moved by Councillors Dausett and Pelkman: THAT: the following bylaw be given first, second and third and final reading. Carried.

d) Bylaw 53-12 (from Public Meeting No. 2) A Bylaw to amend the zoning bylaw of the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc. Moved by Councillors Dausett and Baker: THAT: the following bylaw be given first, second and third and final reading. Carried.

e) Bylaw 54-12 (from Reports of Departments Item 10 c) A Bylaw to authorize the execution of an About Face Façade Improvement Grant between the Corporation of the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc and Amanda Selena-Anne Kenney. Moved by Councillors Cameron and Pelkman: THAT: the following bylaw be given first, second and third and final reading. Carried.


17f) Bylaw 55-12

A Bylaw to authorize the execution of a trust agreement between the Corporation of the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc and In & Out Maintenance and Construction Incorporated. A report from Paul Hicks, Planner, is provided.

13. New Business – None. 14. County Council Report Mayor Vanderheyden provided highlights on County Council matters.

Warden’s Charity Golf Tournament proceeds of $13,669.94 to VON Middlesex-Elgin-Dorchester Senior Services

Check the communications at the County web site Tuesday, October 23rd a public meeting re 5-year view of County

Official Plan

15. Enquiries or Comments by Members Councillor Brennan:

As work continues at the intersection of Second Street and Hickory Drive would like to see a design layout of the area and enquired on the time line for completion

Councillor Baker:

Requested the status on the Tree Policy. Ralph Coe, C.A.O. working on it to come forward late Fall. Also, working on upgrading Servicing Standards.

Councillor Flegel:

Congratulations to the organizers of the Rock ‘n Wheel event. Opportunities from a learning perspective for the future. Forward any suggestions, recommendations or issues that came forward. For what is was to do in raising funds for Spinal cord & brain research it was a great success.

Councillor Pelkman:

Provided comment on an issue of concern for him in perception between the drainage presentation as to the public meeting regarding garages.

Mayor Vanderheyden:

Attended AMO conference, interesting sessions and brought some issues forward;

Commented on VIA Rail services;


18 Congratulations to Twin Elm on their community center,

great facility; Attended VON Mayor’s challenge; Spoke to Season’s Seniors; October 14 to 20th, 5th annual local government week.

16. Schedule of Meetings

Monday, September 17, 2012 – Council/Committee @ 6:30 p.m. Monday, October 1, 2012 – Council/Committee @ 6:30 p.m. Monday, October 15, 2012 – Council/Committee @ 6:30 p.m.

17. Adjournment

On a motion by Councillors Dausett and Flegel the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. _________________________ ______________________ Mayor Clerk

From: Keith Purves Sent: August-23-12 12:03 PM To: Paul Hicks Cc: Brad Richards; Dave Cameron; John G.. Brennan; Larry Cowan; Marie Baker; Neil Flegel; Steve Dausett; Steve Pelkman Subject: RE: Proposed Rezoning Hi Paul: Since this e-mail string has become a little long I would like to summarize my comments so they are clear. I am making the assumption that the applicant is applying to have the reduction of the exterior side yard setback on all seven lots with the reason for the rezoning as the lots cannot be developed due to the size after the setbacks are applied because you stated that the notice contained a typographical error being that the number 6 was used instead of the number 7. You indicated earlier in this e-mail the exterior side yard setback of 5metres on corner lots does not deal with the safety of intersections with regards to line of sight issues for motorists, rather that the 5metre setback was created so that a house located on the corner will be setback a distance equal to the house on the adjacent street. For lots 34, 35, 59, 60, 76 and 77 whether the lot can be developed or not is not an issue as you have stated that this scenario does not exist for these lots and as such the by-law provision is considered to be redundant. For lot 84 you stated it would be subject to the 5metre exterior side yard setback as the front of lot 83 is at a 90 degree angle to lot 84. I am making the assumption that the applicant is stating that lot 84 cannot be developed if the 5 metre setback is observed and would like it reduced to 1.2 metres. I would have to disagree. Based on the frontage of lot 84 of 20.0 metres (65.6’) and observing the 5metre exterior side yard setback and the 1.2 metre setback for the interior side yard a dwelling can be constructed with a maximum width of 13.8 metres (45.28’). This width is representative of the width available for the construction of a dwelling on anyone of the interior lots with a frontage up to 53.1’ which is a substantial number of interior lots. This means that a home could be constructed on lot 84, in keeping with the aesthetics of the subdivision, while observing all required setbacks. As stated before I would not be in favour of the rezoning for lot 84 for the reason stated above and that the bylaw provisions apply and should be observed in keeping with the aesthetics for the adjacent street. Thank you for your consideration Keith Purves

From: Paul Hicks [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: August-22-12 10:47 AM To: Keith Cc: Brad Richards; Dave Cameron; John G.. Brennan; Larry Cowan; Marie Baker; Neil Flegel; Steve Dausett; Steve Pelkman Subject: RE: Proposed Rezoning Hi Keith It’s the applicant’s application, and he identified which lots he was seeking to have exempted so it’s his job to defend / explain his request, particularly for Lot 84. Notice only reflects what the applicant is requesting.

mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]

I would not suggest it’s necessary for notice to be reissued as the date and time of the public meeting are correct along with the description of the proposed changes. Notwithstanding there is a typographical error in the number of lots subject to the rezoning, the key map is clear about which lots are subject to the proposed change. I will add your correspondence to the Council submission. Any further questions or comments please advise. PH From: Keith Sent: August-22-12 10:35 AM To: Paul Hicks Cc: Brad Richards; Dave Cameron; John G.. Brennan; Larry Cowan; Marie Baker; Neil Flegel; Steve Dausett; Steve Pelkman Subject: RE: Proposed Rezoning Hello Paul: Thank you for your reply. I was wondering whether or not the notice issued Aug 13th should be reissued. I say this as the notice refers to six lots not seven and the notice gives the applicants reason for only 6 lots which is that they are not large enough to develop. This leaves no reason stated for the rezoning of the seventh lot and the map does not properly identified which 6 lots are being referred to by the applicant where development is not possible with the 5 metre exterior side yard setback. For lots 34, 35, 59, 60, 76 and 77 I agree with your explanation that the rationale of the 5 metre setback on a corner lot is to ensure that the home located on the corner will be setback a distance equal to the house on the adjacent street and that this scenario does not exist for these lots and as such the by-law provision is considered to be redundant. However as you have already mentioned this very scenario does exist for lot 84. If the rezoning was allowed for this lot the potential exists that the side of the home would be in the adjacent homes front yard. I would not be in favour of the rezoning for lot 84 as it is the purpose of the by-law provision to prevent such possibilities. Keith Purves

From: Paul Hicks [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: August-21-12 2:45 PM To: Keith Cc: Larry Cowan; Neil Flegel Subject: RE: Proposed Rezoning Hi Keith The applicant identified 7 lots that they wished to be exempt. Lots 34, 35, 59, 60, 76, 77 and 84. You are correct lot 84 would follow my explanation. As it is the developer’s application I am required to identify the lots that the developer is seeking to have exempted and he has asked

mailto:%5bmailto:[email protected]%5d

for 84 to be included. That does not mean however he will be granted that or any of the exemptions. That discretion lies with Council. I hope that clarifies. Any other questions please advise. PH From: Keith Sent: August-21-12 11:03 AM To: Paul Hicks Cc: Larry Cowan; Neil Flegel Subject: RE: Proposed Rezoning Hello Paul: Thank you for your clarification regarding this rezoning application. I was wondering if you could clarify for me which lots are actually to be rezoned. I mentioned before that the notice stated 6 lots yet 7 lots were shaded on the map located on the reverse of the notice. One of those lots shaded is number 84 which by your explanation of the zoning would be subject to the 5 metre setback as the lot next on the street has a house front that is in line with the side yard of lot 84. Thanks Keith Purves

From: Paul Hicks [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: August-20-12 9:46 AM To: Keith Cc: Larry Cowan; Neil Flegel Subject: RE: Proposed Rezoning Dear Mr. Purvis Thank you for your email. For clarification, the rationale of the 5 metre setback on a corner lot is to ensure that the home located on the corner that will be setback a distance equal to the house on the adjacent street (please see the attached diagram), as opposed to road safety. In this particular subdivision, this scenario does not exist and as such the that by-law provision is considered to be redundant. Unfortunately this was not picked-up by the developer or their engineer when they originally applied to rezone the property for residential purposes. In terms of road safety, if this rezoning were approved, it would permit a dwelling to be constructed 1.2 metres (4 ft) away from the property line. Beyond the property line, there is an additional 6.05 metres (20 ft) from the property line to the actual roadway (i.e. the boulevard) as per our Servicing Standards. A 7.25 metre (24 ft) setback from the building line to the roadway would be maintained.

mailto:%5bmailto:[email protected]%5d

I hope this clarifies the reasoning for the rezoning. Should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Paul Hicks From: Keith Sent: August-17-12 1:39 PM To: Paul Hicks Cc: Larry Cowan; Neil Flegel Subject: Proposed Rezoning

Mr. Hicks:

Proposed rezoning application of 766503 Ontario Limited and 774440 Ontario Limited

Subject Lands: 496 Metcalfe Street West, Strathroy

North Half of Lot 9 Concession 10, Part 4 and Part of Part 3, Reference

Plan 33R-14332, Geographic Township of Caradoc

This proposed rezoning is to change the exterior side yard setbacks for the following corner lots 34, 35, 59, 60, 76, 77 and 84 from 5 metres to 1.2 metres. (The notice stated 6 lots however 7 lots were outlined on the reverse side of the notice)

The Municipality approved the 83 lot plan of subdivision in Feb 2012.

Car accidents usually take place at intersections and in residential subdivisions they occur because the drivers can’t see around the corner. The requirement for a corner lot to have a 5 metre exterior side yard setback where nothing is erected, placed or planted is designed to provide for the unobstructed sight distance of motorists entering or leaving an intersection.

The fact that the applicant recently noted that the lots in question (this is the fifth phase of Saxonville Estates) were not made large enough to develop should not be a reason to challenge public safety.

I do not believe that it is the Municipalities job when approving subdivision plans to ensure that when the exterior side yard setbacks for a corner lot are observed that the lots are big enough to develop. You would expect that a developer would design a subdivision with all of the required setbacks being observed. This exterior side yard

setback of 5 metres for corner lots is not special and is a standard for low density residential development.

Taking into consideration it is difficult to control the parking of vehicles to close to intersections impeding a motorists view, having a building as high as they are, closer to the road by 3.8metres (12 ft) will make it that much more difficult to have a clear unobstructed sight line for motorists.

I would request that this proposes rezoning not be approved in the interests of public safety.

Thanking you in advance for your consideration

Keith Purves

97 Saxonville Court

Strathroy, Ontario

Comments to Strathroy‐Caradoc Council on September 4, 2012 by Claudia Thar on behalf of Calvin & Claudia Thar 15 Parkview Drive Strathroy, ON N7G 4A1 (519) 245‐1433

My name is Claudia Thar and I currently live at 15 Parkview Drive in Strathroy. I represent my husband Calvin Thar, who is unable to attend this evening, and myself.

The subject amendment is of concern to us because we have paid a booking deposit on a lot in Phase 5 of Saxonville Estates and have plans to construct a new home. In order to accommodate current and future accessibility requirements, our home will be a bungalow style.

It is our understanding that the subject amendment will restrict the plans of the new home we may construct based on garage setbacks or “flush front requirements“.

I realize we are coming in on this matter late in the debate since requirements were first introduced in 2008 and public and builder meetings have been held in recent months. However, I would like to point out that future residents in a new subdivision have little or no opportunity to comment on a Zoning By‐law Amendment which will impact the type of dwelling they may construct and the look and feel of their new neighbourhood. We chose Saxonville Estates based on the quiet location and the quality of builders in that area.

Since garage setbacks impact not only the exterior of a residence but also the interior plans and rooflines, our choice of plans will be considerably restricted. If the subject zoning by‐law amendment is passed this evening, it is our understanding our only recourse would be an application for minor variance at an additional cost and which may or may not be approved, in order to construct the dwelling with the layout, roof line and exterior appearance we desire.

I understand the concepts of urban design which encourage development of people oriented subdivisions. However, it is my opinion that this cannot be achieved solely by mandating flush front home styles. I do agree that garages which protrude excessively from the main front wall of a home (in the order of 15’ to 20’) are unattractive especially when they are the only style on the street as is the case in some of the worst case scenario photographs provided in Mr. Hicks report. Permitting garages to be either flush or extend a modest length from the main front wall of the dwelling or covered porch would result in a greater variety of tasteful styles, be more aesthetically pleasing and afford new and future residents a measure of flexibility in selecting their plans.

It is also our observation that many contemporary urban homeowners choose to use their garages (set back or otherwise) as storage space and routinely park vehicles in their driveway or on the street. The proposed amendment will prohibit three car garages and while we do not wish to construct a three car garage, we believe that limiting residential plans in this way would actually be counterproductive to pedestrian friendly neighbourhoods as even more cars will find their way into driveways and onto streets.

We are very much in favour of promoting attractive, pedestrian friendly streetscapes and community interaction. However we believe the municipality can promote these outcomes by working collaboratively with the builders, encouraging a variety of building styles, limiting and monitoring traffic speeds and restricting parking over sidewalks and on municipal streets.

In conclusion, we respectfully request this Zoning By‐law Amendment be denied.

KPurves.pdfFrom: Keith Purves Sent: August-23-12 12:03 PM To: Paul Hicks Cc: Brad Richards; Dave Cameron; John G.. Brennan; Larry Cowan; Marie Baker; Neil Flegel; Steve Dausett; Steve Pelkman Subject: RE: Proposed RezoningFrom: Paul Hicks [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: August-22-12 10:47 AM To: Keith Cc: Brad Richards; Dave Cameron; John G.. Brennan; Larry Cowan; Marie Baker; Neil Flegel; Steve Dausett; Steve Pelkman Subject: RE: Proposed RezoningFrom: KeithSent: August-22-12 10:35 AM To: Paul Hicks Cc: Brad Richards; Dave Cameron; John G.. Brennan; Larry Cowan; Marie Baker; Neil Flegel; Steve Dausett; Steve Pelkman Subject: RE: Proposed RezoningFrom: Paul Hicks [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: August-21-12 2:45 PM To: Keith Cc: Larry Cowan; Neil Flegel Subject: RE: Proposed RezoningFrom: Keith Sent: August-21-12 11:03 AM To: Paul Hicks Cc: Larry Cowan; Neil Flegel Subject: RE: Proposed RezoningFrom: Paul Hicks [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: August-20-12 9:46 AM To: Keith Cc: Larry Cowan; Neil Flegel Subject: RE: Proposed RezoningFrom: Keith Sent: August-17-12 1:39 PM To: Paul Hicks Cc: Larry Cowan; Neil Flegel Subject: Proposed Rezoning

Documents

6:00 P.M. AGENDA - Strathroy-Caradoc · The power point presentation forms a part of the minutes. Rob Gennoe, 291 Thorne ... Strathroy (the final phase of Saxonville Estates). Subsequently