Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc 52 Frank Street ...calendar.strathroy-caradoc.ca/meetings/Detail/2017... · Regular Council Session 6:30 p.m. - In the Council Chamber In-Camera

1

Council Meeting Minutes – March 20, 2017

Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc 52 Frank Street, Strathroy

Minutes of Council Meeting Monday, March 20, 2017

Regular Council Session 6:30 p.m. - In the Council Chamber

In-Camera Session 6:00 p.m. – Committee Room

IN CAMERA SESSION

1. Roll Call. Cell phones and pagers are to be turned off.

Present: Mayor Joanne Vanderheyden

Deputy Mayor Brad Richards

Councillor Marie Baker

Councillor John Brennan

Councillor Dave Cameron

Councillor Steve Pelkman

Councillor Larry Cowan

Councillor Steve Dausett

Councillor Neil Flegel

Also Present: Ralph Coe, Chief Administrative Officer

Angela Toth, Director of Corporate Services

2. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest. None.

3. Motion to Move in Camera Moved by Councillors Baker and Pelkman: That: Council Move In-Camera to discuss a personnel matter about an identifiable individual and a procedural matter to approve meeting minutes, all in accordance with the Ontario Municipal Act and Council’s Procedural Bylaw. Carried.

3. Conclude In Camera Session.

Moved by Councillors Cowan and Flegel:

That: The In Camera session be closed. Carried.

The In-Camera meeting adjourned at 6:20p.m.

OPEN SESSION

1. Roll Call. Cell phones and pagers are to be turned off.

Present: Mayor Joanne Vanderheyden

Deputy Mayor Brad Richards

Councillor Marie Baker

2


Councillor John Brennan

Councillor Dave Cameron

Councillor Steve Pelkman

Councillor Larry Cowan

Councillor Steve Dausett

Councillor Neil Flegel

Also Present: Ralph Coe, Chief Administrative Officer

Angela Toth, Director of Corporate Services

Matthew Stephenson, Director of Building, Planning & Waste Services

Jennifer Huff, Planner

Rob Lilbourne, Director of Parks and Recreational Services

Mark Harris, Director of Environmental Services

Ruth Alcaidinho, Executive Assistant

Brianna Hammer-Keidel

Laverne Kirkness KCI, Cuddy Corporation

Rick Dykstra, RICO Engineering Ltd.

Dean and Brenda Dolbear

Johan Tangelder

Rita Aalbers

Gary Aalbers

Doug Brown

Dan Joynt

Bonnie Joynt

Brenda Miller

Steve Stapelton

Nick Stockman

Elaine Brown

Brian Linker

Harry Zekveld

Chris Soares, MyFM

2. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest. None.

3. Approval of Minutes

Moved by Councillor Dausett and Deputy Mayor Richards:

That: the Regular Council Meeting Minutes of March 6, 2017 be approved as written. Carried.

4. Presentations/Delegations/Petitions

4.1 RICOR – 22828 Rougham Road Mt. Brydges – Proposed Subdivision

2617 Queen Street, Mt. Brydges – Proposed Condominium - Sanitary Sewer Outlet.

Directors Matthew Stephenson and Mark Harris presented the above request for extension

of services as received from RICOR Engineering Ltd. The proposed developments are

3


located in the area north of Glendon Drive and east of Rougham Road, explaining the three

options as proposed, for servicing of 12 acres. The request was brought before Council to

seek Council’s approval on the proposed servicing route prior to proceeding with further

consultations and plan review.

Rick Dykstra, P. Eng. RICOR Engineering Ltd. presented the request on behalf of his

clients, speaking to the request of the servicing options which will service both development

proposals, which are separate to each other. The preferred servicing option is along Lions

Park Road, projects towards the west end and follows the master plan that was completed

for this area, explaining this is north of the Lipsit Drain and proposes to be the best servicing

option. Also shown on the plan layout, is the proposed watermain extension, looping out to

Rougham Road and the watermain is already there for the condominium site. The request is

seeking Council’s approval, in principle, on the proposed route of servicing in order to

proceed and move further with draft plan applications.

Councillor Pelkman indicated the route appears to be favourable along Lions Park Drive and

referenced the opened lands south of the drain as it is open territory and whether an

easement may be required. Mr. Dykstra explained the servicing study, topography of the

area, nearby drains and the nature of the soil in this southerly area, did not prove to be the

best route. Also, the route on the north side would provide an opportunity to provide service

to the Community Centre as well as the Lions Park Drive areas. Matthew Stephenson

referenced the area mapping outlining the proposed route for this servicing, along Lion’s

Park Drive advising this would require a full road reconstruction and would be included in

the agreement, should this be the approved route. Also identified was the one foot reserve

which would be required to be lifted prior to development of agreements.

Councillor Cowan questioned the proximity and involvement with the areas of the soccer

field area ensuring restoration and minimal or no interruption to those areas. Mr. Dykstra

explained the alignment as proposed, is to keep as close to the north proximity as possible

and will work jointly with parks staff to ensure restoration and appropriate timing of work in

the area to avoid interruptions to park land users.

Councillor Dausett referenced the servicing plans of 2010 and believes that servicing should

be installed within a road network system, also keeping in mind, servicing requirements for

future developments. Mr. Dausett expressed concern that servicing proposals not deviate

from the municipal servicing standards. Mark Harris briefly reviewed BM Ross Master Study

of 2010 for this area in general and concept plans for servicing including the current five

year servicing plan explaining servicing solutions, taking into consideration engineering and

costs for such servicing solutions.

The following motion was subsequently moved.

Moved by Deputy Mayor Richards and Councillor Pelkman: That: the request, as received from RICOR Engineering Ltd., is approved, in principle, as described in their letter dated February 23, 2017 and on the attached proposed sanitary and water layout area plan. Carried.

4


5. Public Meetings

5.1 Public Meeting No. 1

The purpose of this public meeting was to consider an application to facilitate the

development of a draft residential plan of subdivision through an amendment to both the

Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw, for Pt Lt 20, CONC 4 SER, geographic Township of

Adelaide and Parts of Lot 22 and Dominion Street and all of Lots 23 & 24, RP 239, formerly

Town of Strathroy – Cuddy Corporation. A report from Jennifer Huff, Planner, was provided.

5.1.1. Motion to open the public meeting.

Moved by Councillors Cowan and Brennan:

That: the public meeting to consider an application to facilitate the development

Of a draft plan of subdivision through an amendment to both the Official Plan

and Zoning Byalw for Pt Lt 20, CONC 4, SER, geographic Township of

Adelaide and Parts of Lot 22 and Dominion Street and all of Lots 23 & 24,

RP 239, formerly Town of Strathroy – Cuddy Corporation, be hereby

opened. Carried.

5.1.2. Report to be presented by the Planner.

Jennifer Huff, Planner, explained this application is subject of a draft plan of

subdivision brought forward by Cuddy Corporation requiring an amendment to the

official plan and zoning bylaw. The Planning Consultant, Mr. Laverne Kirkness

provided a number of supporting documentation and is the lead on this

application. Ms. Huff invited Mr. Kirkness to provide an initial summary on the

proposal.

Mr. Kirkness, presented a power point presentation offering a layout and general

review of the development, including phasing and servicing. He advised an

information meeting was held last November with approximately forty people in

attendance. He indicated that some revisions have been made following

comments received from residents and Council and is appreciative of the

recommendation staff have put before Council, to defer the application so to

provide additional time to further review/amend the proposal.

The development site was described as approximately 60 acres, a rectangular

shaped parcel between Dominion and Pannell Lane to the north, with proximities

to existing residences. Comparison plans were provided with explanation of both

the original and revised layout, phasing of development and the proposed general

commercial centre as the gateway to the development. Approximately 15,000 sq

ft floor space is proposed for the commercial strip intended to be a centre for the

north west area. Pannell Lane is proposed to be extended to Street C while the

Municipality wishes the extension to extend further to Street G. Mr. Kirkness

advised his clients did not agree with the need to an additional extension. Mr.

Kirkness commented this is agricultural land, situated outside of this property and

into another jurisdiction and that Council direction would be appreciated.

5


Plan Phasing was also explained. Mr.Kirkness also confirmed that a

Transportation Impact Assessment, Archaeology Study, Functional Engineering,

Geotechnical Study and Commercial Marketing Study have been completed and a

brief explanation of each was provided. A planning justification report has also

been completed and the proposal does conform to all three policy documents

(County Official Plan, Strathroy-Caradoc Official Plan and Provincial Policy). Mr.

Kirkness further described the secondary planning area, in particular the need to

ensure the Cuddy and Peters lands are developed in a compatible and

coordinated manner. Mr. Kirkness referenced the R3 development and willingness

to consider reconfiguration of the extent of the zone category to accommodate

neighbours concerns. Criteria used to determine land use suitability and

compatibility was also outlined.

5.1.3. Comments in support of the proposed rezoning.

Mr. Rick Dykstra, RICOR Engineering Ltd. spoke on behalf of his client, (Peters’

lands to the west) and have worked with the developer over the past month

regarding servicing layout for this development with consideration of future

development within that area. They are in general support of this development and

ask Council’s considerations to ensure planning and servicing that will integrate

future developments.

5.1.4. Comments in opposition of the proposed rezoning.

Mr. Brian Linker, is builder for the condo units under construction in this vicinity

and is concerned with the proposal of the commercial strip. While not opposed to

the development of the property, would be opposed to a drive through lane or

dumpster and inasmuch as a site plan is not yet available at this stage, would

recommend to ensure buffering and a holding symbol be put in place to allow an

opportunity to review the details of this development.

Dean and Brenda Dolbear are property owners on Dominion Street representing

two households in this neighbourhood. The development outlined connects to

three of their property boundaries. Two primary concerns are the commercial

and R3 components of the proposal and feel this is not in keeping with the current

residential uses. Mr. Dolbear acknowledges some suggestions or concerns were

outlined in the presentation made by Mr. Kirkness. One question is regarding the

Planner’s report as submitted and whether a separation or barrier may be required

between an R3 and R1 zone such as an R2. Mr. Dolbear also referenced the

close proximity to the existing commercial corridor by the Superstore of which is

easily travelled to by vehicle or by walking. It is a concern that the commercial

market is saturated already. The need for additional commercial space is not

apparent.

Brenda Dolbear also reiterated her concerns that consideration be given to

reviewing the location of the high density developments throughout the 60 acres

rather than close proximity to the existing residential properties.

6


Mr. Johan Tangelder explained he is a property owner on Saulsbury Street and

voiced his concerns with the location of the high density development and not

being migrated throughout the area of development. As a property owner, his

concerns are regarding the development of a high rise overlooking their rear yard

and the high traffic volumes that result from high density housing. Mr. Tangelder

mentioned at this point in the process, residents are not aware as to what market

is proposed for the multi-housing; such as retirement or geared to income.

Mr. Tangelder also asked if the buffer zone would include a fence or sidewalk.

Construction traffic also poses a concern for Saulsbury street and feels the

road is not built for heavy trucks and equipment as used during construction of

such a development. Regarding the commercial development, Mr. Tangelder

feels the plaza changes the dynamic of the neighbourhood and is not aware of

any requests for a plaza or commercial establishment for this area.

Brenda Miller submitted a petition on behalf of a number of residents of the

neighbourhood, with concerns about the proposed high density development

and particularly the proposed commercial development. Petitioners also

requested consideration be given to relocation of the higher density and

commercial development to lessen any detrimental impact to the existing

neighbourhood. It is felt the proposed high density development will negatively

impact the value of their properties, impact privacy and peaceful enjoyment of their

properties. Also noting, the size of the commercial property compares closely with

the area designated for parkland within the development and residents are

disappointed the commercial proposal is still included in the plan.

Bonnie Joynt is owner of property on Saulsbury Street across from the proposed

development and is opposed to the commercial strip. In her observations does

not see that a commercial strip is common within residential developments

throughout the municipality. Mrs. Joynt does not feel that a need for commercial

development in this area has been identified and is opposed to the commercial

proposal included with this development.

Nick Stokman resides at Mullifarry Drive, north to this proposal and presented with

some questions. The consultant at the previous information session, indicated

there was a fairly high water table in the area and storm water management was

required as opposed to infiltration across the whole development. How deep will

the storm water management area be. How close will the bottom of the storm

water management area be in relation to the water table and how will this affect

the ground water aquifer. Have source water protection regulations been included

in the design of the project. Lastly, how many individual establishments will be

included within the commercial strip.

Harry Zekveld owns rural property to the westerly area of the Cuddy parcel. One

of the suggestions made at the information meeting was that the R3 development

be located to the north east corner and believes this is a good location in terms of

7


traffic flow and offers less impact on the surrounding neighbourhood.

Jennifer Huff, Planner, answered the questions presented from the residents.

Ms. Huff explained it would be advisable to place an H holding on the commercial

and high density developments to permit review of the measures proposed on the

site. Regarding the layering of zones, Ms. Huff further explained the number of

residential uses permitted in the R3 zone and is dependent more specifically on

what is being proposed on the site. Also commenting that in future any further

development to the north would follow the development of the R3 zone.

The consultant’s revised plan seems to be addressing some of the privacy

concerns expressed. Ms. Huff explained the 15 metre height requirement pertains

to high rises and also any residential property in the municipality can be permitted

to that height. With regards to the market type for housing developments, the

approval process evaluates the housing form not the tenure. A buffer or fence

area for the storm water management pond, may be open for discussion and

would merit some discussion with the developer and dealt with during the approval

process. With regards to traffic, Saulsbury Street will require to be reconstructed

and approved servicing will result in road upgrades and reconstruction.

Construction access may be considered from the Pannell Lane area after Phase 1

of the development and will be discussed during the planning stages. The ground

water and source water protection policies are all technical in nature and

consultants will be addressing these matters and accommodated

through the design work for the development. At this time in the process, a site

plan is not yet available and are not aware of the number of units for the proposed

commercial development.

5.1.5. Comments and Questions from Members of Council.

Councillor Brennan commented he is pleased to see the second version of the

proposed plan and efforts made by the consultant to ensure existing residential

uses are not overshadowed by the R3 development. Councillor Brennan

referenced the plan layout and is pleased with the inclusion of the buffer in block

207 and the measures to distance the multi-family developments from the existing

R1 properties. The Planner’s recommendation regarding the H holding on the

areas identified will assure that site planning process will allow for further input.

Also pleased to hear the major access for Phase 2 be from the north. Councillor

Brennan appreciates the flexibility exhibited by the Consultant and process to deal

with as many concerns as possible.

Councillor Pelkman referenced the multi-unit development and layout of the parking

lot to add to the buffering area and suggested consideration of fencing along the

storm water management pond to prevent access to that buffer area. Councillor

Pelkman also commented while such development may warrant commercial

development for the area would ask to review the size of the commercial

development to minimize any commercial impact on the neighbourhood as well as

existing commercial in the area.

8


Councillor Baker asked for some clarity with regards to amending the Official Plan

and whether this was respective that such development must be located on a

collector road. Ms. Huff advised that in accordance to the Official Plan, these

types of neighbourhood commercial blocks are permitted within a residential area

provided located on or near a collector or arterial road. According to the traffic

specialist analysis, Saulsbury Street is on the cusp of acting as a collector road.

Although Saulsbury Street is not functioning presently as a collector, the proposed

amendment to the Official Plan will permit the location of the application as

proposed.

Councillor Baker also commented the commercial proposal is large and we

currently have existing properties in the municipality to fill which presently are in

busy corridors and suggested making this a smaller commercial footprint for this

development.

Councillor Cameron shares in the concerns of the existing residents with regards to

the commercial development. Present shopping areas already exist within close

proximity for residents of this area. Councillor Cameron referenced the Parkview

subdivision which at that time included a couple of lots for local commercial

development and today are now sold and homes have been built. Also, there is a

block of land north of Head and Second Streets, designated as highway

commercial and has yet to be developed. Councillor Cameron questions the need

for commercial development in this area, however, should it proceed to be included

with this development asks that consideration be made to minimize the impact to

this area.

Councillor Cowan commented that the inclusion of a commercial strip seems to be

a significant issue for the residents this evening. He asked what would replace the

commercial plaza if it were to be removed. Councillor Cowan asked to verify the

size of the parkland area to which Mr. Kirkness confirmed it is 1.7 hectares and part

of the woodlot is included in this area. Councillor Cowan asked that if it is to be a

playground will the development also include playground equipment. Councillor

Cowan suggested that any such equipment should all be in place before the

municipality is required to assume the park, as it does with developments

throughout the municipality.

Councillor Baker asked if direction was requested regarding the extension of

Pannell Lane. The Clerk confirmed it would be included in the deferral as per

staff’s recommendation and advised that this matter is to be further discussed

between staff and the applicant.

Deputy Mayor Richards asked for clarification on the process to which this

development application follows from this point, should it be deferred. The Planner

advised that consultation will continue with the applicant. If a revised plan is

submitted as anticipated, a second public meeting will be held to allow for more

input and consideration of a formal recommendation.

9


5.1.6. Decision/Resolution.

Moved by Councillors Brennan and Pelkman: That: Consideration of draft plan approval to the County of Middlesex and consideration of official plan amendment and rezoning approval to the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc be deferred pending matters in respect of finalization of subdivision design and layout, coordination of planning matters with adjacent lands, and the extension of Pannell Lane. Carried. 5.1.7. Motion to close the public meeting. Moved by Councillors Baker and Deputy Mayor Richards: That: the public meeting to consider an application to facilitate the development of A draft residential plan of subdivision through an amendment to both the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw for Pt Lt 20, CONC 4 SER geographic Township of Adelaide and Parts of Lot 22 and Dominion Street and all of Lots 23 & 24, RP 237, formerly Town of Strathroy-Cuddy Corporation, be hereby closed. Carried.

6. Communications

6.1. Municipality of Thames Centre – Defibrillators in Ontario Schools

Resolution requesting the Premier, and Minister of Education, develop a policy that enables

all schools and school boards in Ontario, including the Thames Valley District School

Board, that allows individual elementary and secondary schools to have AED’s installed in

their schools.

Reference: Received for Information.

6.2. Middlesex Municipal Day – April 27, 2017 Ilderton Community Centre

Reference: Councillors interested in attending to contact the Corporate Services Department by April 13th 2017.

6.3. 2017 Strathroy Downtown Farmer’s Market Letter from Kim Schlegel on behalf of the Downtown Strathroy Market requesting road closure for Front Street from Caradoc Street North to conclude just before Libro Credit Union drive through and for Frank Street, from Front Street to Centre Street; on Saturday Mornings from 7:00 a.m. to 1:00p.m. commencing June 17th to September 16th 2017.

Letter of Support from Dave Brock, Chair, Strathroy Business Improvement Area (BIA) was also received in support of the request. Mayor Vanderheyden noted that proper barricades be provided, to identify all approved boundaries, including the vicinity of the Libro drive through location. Moved by Deputy Mayor Richards and Councillor Pelkman: That: Council approves the request from the Downtown Strathroy Market for the 2017 Season for a temporary road closure from 7:00am to 1:00p.m. on Saturdays, on Front Street from Caradoc Street North to conclude just before the Libro Credit Union drive

10


through on Front Street, and for Frank Street from Front Street to Centre Street between June 17th to September 16th 2017; subject to any provisions required by emergency services and coordination with the Turkey Festival Committee for the weekend involving both events. Carried.

7. Unfinished Business. None.

8. Reports from Departments

8.1. Environmental Services – Councillor Steve Dausett, Chair

Councillor Dausett presented the following reports from Environmental Services and

Director Mark Harris provided a brief summary and answered Councils questions on each

report.

a) 2016 Unaccounted Water (Strathroy and Mount Brydges)

Moved by Councillors Cameron and Flegel:

That: the 2016 Unaccounted Water Report for Strathroy and Mount Brydges be received

as information and filed. Carried.

b) Drinking Water Quality Management Standard – Updates to Operational Plan

Moved by Deputy Mayor Richards and Councillor Cowan:

That: Council endorses the proposed amendments to the Operational Plan and further;

Council authorizes the Mayor and noted staff to sign the Commitment and Endorsement

Section of the updated Operational Plan. Carried.

c) Mount Brydges Sewage 2016 Annual Report

Moved by Councillors Brennan and Cowan:

That: the 2016 Mount Brydges Sewage Annual Report be received as information and

filed. Carried.

d) Strathroy Sewage 2016 Annual Report Moved by Deputy Mayor Richards and Councillor Cameron: That: the 2016 Strathroy Sewage Annual Report be received as information and filed. Carried.

e) Strathroy-Caradoc Water Distribution 2016 Summary Report

Moved by Councillors Cowan and Pelkman: That: the Strathroy-Caradoc Water Distribution 2016 Summary Report be received as information and filed. Carried.

f) Request for Tree Removal at 71 Keefer Street, Strathroy

Moved by Councillors Brennan and Cowan:

That: Staff be authorized to proceed with trimming of the tree at 71 Keefer Street,

Strathroy. Carried.

9. Reports from Boards and Committees

11


9.1. Board and Committee Meeting Minutes Moved by Councillors Baker and Cameron: That: Council concurs with the recommendations of the following committee minutes and that the minutes be received and filed:

a) Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Minutes – March 1 2017 b) Progress Through Partnership Committee Minutes – January 19, 2017

Moved by Councillors Brennan and Cowan: That: the following Committee and Board Minutes be received and filed: c) Tri-Township Arena Minutes – February 2, 2017 d) Committee of Adjustment Minutes – March 14, 2017

9.2. Strathroy-Caradoc Police Service Reports

a) Strathroy-Caradoc Police Services – Activity Report – January 2017 b) Strathroy-Caradoc Police Services – Uniform Crime Report – January 2017 c) Strathroy-Caradoc Police Services – Criminal Investigation – January 2017

Reference: Received for Information.

10. Consideration of Bylaws

10.1. Bylaw 4-17

Moved by Councillors Dausett and Baker:

That: Bylaw 4-17receives first, second and third and final reading:

A bylaw to authorize the execution of a Site Plan Agreement between the Corporation

of the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc and Strathroy Animal Clinic Professional

Corporation RE 425 Frances Street. Carried.

10.2 Bylaw 17-17 Moved by Councillors Cowan and Pelkman: That: Bylaw 17-17 receives first, second and third and final reading:

A bylaw to remove the Holding (H) Symbol from Certain Lands located in the

Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc (South Creek Subdivision – Johnston Homes).

Carried.

10.2. Bylaw 18-17

Moved by Councillors Flegel and Cameron:

That: Bylaw 18-17 receive first, second and third and final reading:

A bylaw to authorize the execution of an Amending Agreement between the

Corporation of the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc and Southgrove Meadows Inc.

Carried.

10.3. Bylaw 19-17

Moved by Councillors Baker and Brennan:

That: Bylaw 19-17 receives first, second and third and final reading:

A bylaw to authorize the execution of an Amending Agreement between the

12


Corporation of the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc and The Truck Shop Strathroy

Ltd. Carried.

10.4. Bylaw 20-17

Moved by Councillors Flegel and Pelkman:

That: Bylaw 20-17 receives first, second and third and final reading:

A bylaw to authorize the execution of a Subdivision Amending Agreement between the

Corporation of the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc and 1822056 Ontario Inc. (Matt

Johnstone). Carried.

11. New Business. None.

12. County Council Report.

Deputy Mayor Richards advised that the County Council Budget was approved March 7th 2017.

A pilot project has been undertaken under the Community Paramedicine Pilot Project, providing

services that help patients with complex health conditions, while helping to reduce emergency

visits and hospital admissions. The Pilot project has had good results overall and will be taken to

the provincial level for consideration of implementation. Deputy Mayor Richards also offered a

reminder that Middlesex Municipal Day is April 27th 2017.

13. Enquiries or Comments by Members.

Councillor Pelkman advised of the Wright Family Research Room coming up for Saturday March

25th at 11:00am at the Strathroy Library. All are welcome to attend.

14. Schedule of Meetings.

Council – Monday, April 3, 2017 @ 6:30 p.m.

Council – Tuesday, April 18, 2017 @ 6:30 p.m.

Council – Monday, May 1, 2017 @ 6:30 p.m.

Council – Monday, May 15, 2017 @ 6:30 p.m.

15. Adjournment.

The meeting adjourned at 8:35p.m., on a motion by Councillor Dausett, seconded by Councillor

Pelkman. Carried.

Documents

Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc 52 Frank Street ...calendar.strathroy-caradoc.ca/meetings/Detail/2017... · Regular Council Session 6:30 p.m. - In the Council Chamber In-Camera