Planning Advisory Committee - wolfville.ca · Planning Advisory Committee Wednesday, March 30th, 2016 1:30 PM Council Chambers, Town Hall 359 Main Street, Wolfville, NS Agenda 1

Planning Advisory Committee Wednesday, March 30th, 2016

1:30 PM Council Chambers, Town Hall 359 Main Street, Wolfville, NS

Agenda

1. Approval of the Agenda

2. Approval of the Minutes of February 24th, 2016

3. Delegation – Marc Poirier to Address the Committee

4. DA 2016-001 Amendment Application – 2/4 Prospect Street

5. MPS Review – Draft Documents Circulated

6. Question Period

7. Adjournment

Note: Upcoming Public Information Meeting – West End Lands

Tuesday, April 12th, 2016 beginning at 7:00PM

KCI Classroom, K.C. Irving Centre, 32 University Avenue

Town of Wolfville

200 Dykeland Street | Wolfville | NS | B4P 1A2 | t 902-542-3718 | f 902-542-5066

Wolfville.ca

Town of Wolfville Minutes, Planning Advisory Committee Wednesday, February 24th, 2016

Page 1 of 4

ATTENDING Chairperson Deputy Mayor Wendy Donovan, Mayor Jeff Cantwell, Councillor Mercedes Brian, Councillor Dan Sparkman, Paul Cabilio, Robert Barach, Director of Community Development Chrystal Fuller, Planner Devin Lake and Recording Secretary James Collicutt ALSO ATTENDING Members of the public LATE ARRIVAL Dr. Philip Edgar ABSENT WITH REGRETS Steve Mattson and Scott Roberts CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:33 PM. 1. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION: IT WAS REGULARLY MOVED AND SECONDED THAT THE AGENDA BE APPROVED AS CIRCULATED. CARRIED 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: IT WAS REGULARLY MOVED AND SECONDED THAT THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 2nd, 2015 BE APPROVED AS CIRCULATED. CARRIED 3. REQUEST FOR DIRECTION – DA FOR WEST END LANDS

Presentation by Staff outlining the history of DA 99-01 identifying five key topics which require discussion: PIM, Open Space (ref. Open Space Master Plan & 2011 West End Study Plan), DA Structure (difficulties associated with using a singular DA when two developers are involved), Housing and Sustainability Policy, and underground power

The Committee asked if the current DA is still being enforced and if so, for how long? Staff responded by explaining that the Kadray property cannot be developed currently as there is no DA in place, the Viking Venture lands are limited by their existing DA and that another Public Hearing isn’t necessary as it was already held in 2014.

The Committee began their discussion on this matter by addressing the issues systematically. PIM: Committee agrees that another PIM would be useful for the community given the amount of time that has elapsed and directed staff to hold an additional PIM. Open Space: The Committee identified concerns relating to the visibility of the park from the street and concerns regarding maintenance. The Committee agreed that locating the park on a street corner would alleviate the concerns relating to visibility; even more so if CEPTD principles were applied. It was noted that the proposed may not be consistent with the frontage requirements set out in the Open Space Master Plan and that the dedication of land would


Page 2 of 4

better serve the Town if it were in a location that had connectivity with other public/park spaces such as the Ravines, which would also better accommodate the open space needs for those living in the higher-density developments planned for this developed. DA Structure: Staff informed the Committee that the developers have been clear that they will not move forward with a single DA for both properties of the West End Lands. The Committee supports the Staff recommendation to consider both properties under one DA and Staff are to move forward. Housing and Sustainability Policy: Staff confirmed that the Committee would see allotments (by area) for different housing types written into the DA which would address the affordability and sustainability principles outlined in the MPS. The Committee also noted that the DA should ensure that a mixture of housing types be built in each phase of development. Underground Power: The developers are seeking a plan amendment to permit above ground power in areas where 3 phase power is required. The Committee asked questions and staff made it clear that all technical details will be addressed MOTION: IT WAS REGULARLY MOVED AND SECONDED THAT THE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS TO COUNCIL THAT A PLAN AMENDMENT CONCURRENT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHICH WOULD CONSIDER ALLOWING OVERHEAD POWER IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES BE INITIATED.

CARRIED ACTIONS: Staff is directed to hold an additional PIM regarding the West End Lands application. Staff to discuss the PAC comments on Open Space with the developers. Staff are to move forward with negotiations of a single DA for both properties unless the

issues identified by staff can be dealt with by the developers. Staff are to return to PAC with a more detailed presentation on the West End Lands

conceptual plans. Staff will look into whether or not the Woodmans Grove apartments are supplied with 3-

phase power.

4. HERITAGE DE-REGISTRATION OF CHRISTIE HOUSE (503-505 MAIN STREET)

A brief presentation by Staff on the heritage deregistration of Christie House was followed by the following Committee motion: MOTION: IT WAS REGULARLY MOVED AND SECONDED THAT THE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROVIDE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL TO DEREGISTER 503-505 MAIN STREET (PID 55271365) AS A REGISTERED MUNICIPAL HERITAGE PROPERTY.

CARRIED


Page 3 of 4

5. MUNICIPAL PLANNING STRATEGY REVIEW

a. PHASE II

Director Fuller informed the Committee that a draft of the planning documents would go to COW on Tuesday and intended to be put forward as a starting point that will be reviewed at the following COW meeting (April) along with the consultation schedule for Phase II.

Director Fuller informed the Committee of the possibility of forming a sub-committee of PAC to address the following issues: housing, downtown development guidelines and parks and open spaces – consisting of non-political members of PAC – by forming task groups to address each of these issues with the intent of having very well-informed individuals or organizations advise these task groups in their discussions. The Committee expressed concerns about this sub-committee consisting of entirely non-political members due to the legislative understanding that Council members could bring to the sub-committee, even if acting in a non-Council capacity.

ACTIONS: Staff to give more thought to the establishment of this sub-committee and supporting task groups before coming back to PAC. b. BOARDING HOUSE DISCUSSION

Director Fuller addressed a question from the Committee regarding how planning can address the issues relating to rooming houses in Wolfville by referencing the draft definition for “Household” that begins to approach the issue of landlords renting by the room, which is where most complaints originate from.

c. “WHAT WE HEARD” REPORT

Director Fuller introduced FOTENN’s memo to the Committee on how the discussion has evolved as the product of the previous PAC Workshops. The Committee was pleased with the report as presented.

6. FUTURE MEETING DATES

Dates approved.

7. CORRESPONDENCE RE: MPS REVIEW Received by PAC.

8. QUESTION PERIOD Comment from Robbie Harrison: Pleased to see that the FOTENN report is going to be included in the Phase II document that will allow citizens to get involved and have their opinions heard as part of the process.

9. ADJOURNMENT OF PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MOTION: IT WAS REGULARLY MOVED AND SECONDED THAT THE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING BE ADJOURNED AT 3:30 PM.

CARRIED


Page 4 of 4

Approved at the Planning Advisory Committee Meeting Day of Week, Month DD, YYYY (date of meeting) As recorded by James Collicutt, AA Community Development

REPORT TO PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE DA Amendment Application – 2/4 Prospect Street Date: March 30, 2016 Department: Community Development

APPLICANT Marc Poirier

PROPOSAL To amend the existing development agreement (registered February 1, 2013) to allow for additional hard surface coverage on the property.

LOCATION 2/4 Prospect Street (north side of Prospect Street almost to Gaspereau Avenue - PID 55521132 & 55521140)

LOT SIZE 3,185 sq. ft. (PID 55521132) & 4,175 sq. ft. (PID 55521140)

DESIGNATION Medium Density Residential

ZONE Medium Density Residential (R-2/4)

SURROUNDING USES Residential, Wolfville School

NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION

Email list from PIM meeting; Newspaper ads and notices mailed to surrounding property owners within 100 metres; Sign placed on property

1) PROPOSAL Marc Poirier is seeking to amend the existing development agreement (DA) registered at 2/4 Prospect

Street to allow for an increase in the hard surface coverage on the property(s).

2) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff considers the proposal inconsistent with relevant policy and recommend the development agreement amendment application be submitted to Council with a negative recommendation and a revised plan be submitted by the applicant to bring the property into compliance with the 50% hard surface coverage and brought back to PAC for its review and recommendation to Council.

3) PROCESS The process for making a substantial amendment to the existing development agreement is outlined in

Section 5.1.8 of the development agreement (see Attachment 4) and Section 230 of the Municipal

Government Act (MGA).Given the requested increase of 17% to hard surface coverage is a substantive

amendment and pursuant to Section 8.2.4 of the Municipal Planning Strategy that states that three and

four unit dwellings will require a development agreement, this process requires review by the Planning

Advisory Committee and the holding of a Public Hearing by Council prior to a decision by Council to

approve or reject the proposal. This proposal is located within the Prospect Street Architectural Control

area and comment was sought from the Design Review Committee on the application. Council’s decision

may be appealed to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board by an aggrieved person or by the

applicant.

REPORT TO PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE DA Amendment Application – 2/4 Prospect Street Date: March 30, 2016 Department: Community Development Staff held a public information meeting on February 18, 2016 in Council Chamber at Town Hall.

Comments and the notes from the session are included as Attachment 3. Property owners within 100

metres of the property were notified by mail of the application, a sign has been placed on the property

indicating that the site is subject to a development agreement amendment application and notification

was placed on our website and social media feeds regarding the application.

4) BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT The development agreement on the property was registered on February 1, 2013. This agreement approved a 4-unit building along with associated parking, landscaping, and other terms and conditions (see Attachment 4 for the full agreement). The applicant is seeking an increase to the amount of hard surface coverage on the site. This is the percentage of total lot area that is covered in hard surface. The development agreement restricts the amount of hard surface coverage to 50% of total site area (see Attachment 2) but the applicant has since completed the project with approximately 67% hard surface coverage (see Attachment 1). It has been determined by the Town’s Development Officer (DO) that the development has been completed in compliance with the terms of the development agreement except for the hard surface requirement and related issues (i.e. landscaping, parking, amenity areas, front yard requirements). Staff have been working with the developer to ensure compliance for over 2 years. Once the developer submitted an as-built plan in November of 2015, which indicated the 67% hard surface coverage, the DO confirmed the non-compliance with the 50% hard surface requirement and related issues. The applicant has chosen to pursue an amendment to the existing development agreement to allow for the 67% hard surface coverage that has been completed on the site. Clause 5.1.7.2 of the development agreement outlines the requirement for completion of the development, as per the agreement, within 3 years of the effective date (November 7, 2015). The property is located in the Medium Density Residential (R-2/4) zone in the Land Use By-law and is designated ‘medium density residential’ in the Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS). The property is also

Figure 1: Location Map

REPORT TO PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE DA Amendment Application – 2/4 Prospect Street Date: March 30, 2016 Department: Community Development located in the Prospect Street Architectural control area and is subject to the residential architectural control guidelines. Figures 1 and 2 provide context on the location and current condition of the property.

Figure 2: Subject site from Prospect Street looking north (Google Streetview)

5) POLICY REVIEW AND DISCUSSION The MPS provides a number of policies that Council is to consider when reviewing such an application. A

summary and discussion of relevant policies is provided in this section.

Section 8.2 of the MPS outlines provisions relevant to properties designated Medium Density

Residential. Policy 8.2.4 states that 3 and 4 unit dwellings shall only be considered by

development agreement.

Policy 8.7.3 of the MPS outlines criteria to be considered for development agreements specifically related to proposals in the Medium Density Residential designation:


Policy 8.7.3 (b) requires a landscape plan be prepared by a landscape architect. The applicant submitted a plan prepared by a landscape architect; however, hard surface coverage and the amount of landscaped area on a property are directly related. With 67% hard surface coverage, Staff questions whether the intent of Policy 8.7.3(b) has been compromised: “adequate landscaped buffers required to adequately separate parking areas from adjacent residential uses and to ensure a high landscape value is provided by the development” when comparing Attachments 1 and 2.

Policy 8.7.3(d) speaks to the proposal providing space for leisure or recreation facilities and the existing development agreement, clause 5.1.2.3 also speaks to this:

5.1.2.3 The Town agrees that the front porches on the building and the open lawn areas fulfill the

developer’s obligation to provide useable outdoor amenity space for use of residents of the development. The Developer shall not unreasonably restrict use of these amenities by the residents.

It is the opinion of Staff that the additional 17% hard surface coverage (see Attachment 1 and 2) and the reduction in landscaped areas on the site compromises the intent of clause 5.1.2.3 of the existing development agreement and the intent of policy 8.7.3(d) of the MPS.

Other relevant policies from the MPS and Land Use By-law that deal specifically with hard

surfacing include Section 8.6 of the MPS:

The accepted level of hard surface in the Town’s residential areas is better defined in the Land Use By-law, Section 5.5.


Communities vary in their requirements for hard surface coverage. Typically higher hard surface coverage is permitted on more urban properties (i.e. Wolfville’s Main Street) while less coverage is permitted in residential areas. Stormwater management, aesthetics, parking, and community landscaping standards (particularly in architectural control areas) are the primary issues that are dealt with through hard surfacing requirements. The 50% hard surface coverage requirement in the land use by-law is a long-standing requirement in Wolfville and has been the standard set through community dialogue in the adoption of the Town’s planning documents. A development agreement can vary the Land Use By-law requirements however it has not been the practice of the Town to vary this particular requirement when approving DAs. The definitions of ‘hard surface’ and ‘landscaping’ from the Land Use By-law are included here:

It should be further noted that the as-built site plan may also be in contravention of Policy 5.6 of the Land Use By-law as it relates to the percentage of the front yard dedicated to parking areas and the width of the access (as-built) with the additional 17% hard surface coverage. These requirements, although not required in the development agreement, should be noted for reference as they are directly related to rationale behind the 50% hard surface coverage requirement. These requirements would be confirmed if a negative recommendation is supported by Council and compliance is sought on the property.

It should also be noted that the as-built landscaping plan shows 6 parking stalls currently present on the property as a result of the additional hard surface coverage. Five parking stalls were initially


approved (1.25/dwelling unit requirement) and outlined in the development agreement. One of these stalls also seems to be projecting onto the Town right-of-way. Bringing the site into compliance with the 50% hard surface requirement would likely bring the number of parking stalls to five.

Policy 18.6.1 of the MPS outlines criteria to be considered for all development agreements. The relevant provisions to hard surface coverage are included here:

The application is seeking to modify the required hard surface coverage requirement of the MPS and Land Use By-law by 17% (approximately 1,250 square feet).

The applicant has installed an extensive stormwater system (drywells) and a letter has been received by Staff from adjacent property owners at 34 and 36 Gaspereau Avenue indicating stormwater run-off and drainage from this property have not been an issue to-date. Section 7 of this report provides additional information on stormwater management.

Given that landscaping and hard surface coverage are directly related, the proposal is not compliant with policy 18.6.1(g)iv. and ix. with the additional 17% hard surface coverage that has been built on the property from what was approved (see Attachments 1 and 2).


Residential Architectural Guidelines (Prospect Street Architectural Control Area)

The Town’s Residential Architectural Guidelines apply to this application given the location of the property within the Prospect Street architectural control area. The guidelines relate to aspects of the property which contribute to the streetscape, including landscape treatment and by extension hard surface coverage. Section 4.1, Principles for Development, states the following in relation to landscaping in architectural control areas:

Although it is recognized in the guidelines that the north side of Prospect Street has a narrow setback line from the street, landscape treatment is still regarded as an important element of the streetscape:

Given the above, comment from the Design Review Committee was sought regarding the increased hard surface amendment and are included in Section 8 of this report.

Finally, the existing Development Agreement, Section 5.1.3 speaks to landscaping and site improvements and is included here.

5.1.3 Landscaping & Site Improvements

5.1.3.1 The Developer shall landscape the lands in conformity with the landscape plan

attached as Schedule “C” of this Development Agreement.

5.1.3.2 The Developer shall establish and maintain all non hard surface areas on the lands as landscaped areas.

5.1.3.3 All hard surfaces and landscaped areas on the lands that are disturbed by construction related to the development shall be reinstated

The original landscape plan was amended and an updated plan was provided (see Attachment 2) that allowed 50% hard surface coverage on the property.

6) DISCUSSION – ISSUES 1. SUBDIVISION


It should be noted that the original parcel has been subdivided as per Section 5.1.2.2 of the existing

development agreement:

5.1.2.2 The building and lands may be subdivided as per the normal Land Use By Law requirements for a semi-detached dwelling unit, provided the construction is in compliance with the Town of Wolfville Building By-Law.

The development agreement requirements are related to the parent parcel (PID 55273635). The

agreement was entered into by the Town and the Developer pre-subdivision and remains in force on

both parcels, as per the approved schedules of the development agreement. The fact there are now

two separate parcels is irrelevant to the hard surface issue at hand.

2. OTHER CLAIMS BY THE APPLICANT

The applicant has expressed to Staff a number of reasons to support the request to amend the DA

to permit an increase in the hard surface on the property to 67%. These are outlined here:

It is claimed that verbal conversations with Staff gave the impression to the Applicant that

proceeding with site work and potentially increasing the hard surface coverage could be done at

his own risk.

It is also claimed that changes had to be made because of unanticipated site constraints (i.e.

subdivision related to accessible unit requirements; not knowing the telephone pole location on

the south west corner of the property; pedestrian access to the property; and because of the

fence that was also installed along the western property line).

Finally, the applicant claims he had a contractor on-site ready to pave and had to make changes

in-the-moment because of unforeseen constraints.

7) OPTIONS 1. Negative recommendation and have Staff work with the applicant on DA amendments to

ensure compliance with hard surface coverage and related issues: That PAC recommend the development agreement amendment application be submitted to Council with a negative recommendation and that Staff be directed to work with the applicant to bring back amendments to the agreement that bring the property into compliance with the 50% hard surface coverage.

Staff Comment: This is the recommended option from Staff. Given the extensive work that has been carried out on the site and the recent road work on Prospect Street (i.e. curb cuts), it may be cost prohibitive to restore the site to the exact condition approved in the development agreement (Attachment 2). This option provides the developer an opportunity to work with a Staff and a landscape architect to bring the site into compliance with the 50% hard surface coverage and deal with the other related issues (i.e. amenity space size, parking, front yard


requirements) in a more flexible manner. This approach recognizes there are different ways of achieving the key principles that the policy outlines related to hard surface, landscaping, amenity areas and parking. Approximately 1,250 square feet (111 square metres or 17% of total lot area) of hard surface would have to be removed to bring the property into compliance. This option would see Staff working with the applicant to bring amendments to the DA back to PAC for a recommendation to Council given the changes would be considered substantive from the plan approved within the development agreement.

2. Negative recommendation and require the approved plan be built: That the PAC recommend the development agreement amendment application be submitted to Council with a negative recommendation and changes be carried out on the site as per the approved Landscaping Plan (Attachment 2) and DA compliance sought through the office of the Development Officer. Staff Comment: This option is not recommended by Staff. This option would see the site restored to the condition approved with the development agreement (Attachment 2). Given the work carried out already this may be an expensive undertaking for the developer. This would be the most rigid option to bring the site into compliance however would achieve the result. This option would be dealt with through the office of the Development Officer and would not return to PAC or Council given there would be no changes proposed from what was approved.

3. Positive recommendation and amendment(s) be drafted:

That the PAC provide a positive recommendation for the amendment to the existing

Development Agreement to allow for 67% hard surface coverage and that Staff draft

amendments for Council’s consideration.

Staff Comment: This option is not recommended by Staff given the inconsistency of the 67%

hard surface coverage and related issues to relevant policy; however, it may be the view of PAC

and/or Council that an argument can be made for the hard surface coverage being consistent

with the intent of our current policy. This option would involve Staff drafting the necessary

amendments and bringing these forward with the Staff Report to Council for their review and

decision.

8) REVIEW FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been reviewed by other Town Departments including Public Works and the Traffic

Authority. Concern was noted by the former Community Development Committee during the initial

approval of this project (2012/2013) regarding the hard surface area and drainage to the rear of the

property. It was established at the time of approval by the Town that the site was in compliance with

acceptable hard surface requirements (50%) and that additional run-off could not be directed onto

adjacent properties. A direct connection to the storm sewer on Gaspereau Avenue was discussed at the

time as an alternative if additional run-off were generated from the property. The applicant seems to

have appropriately dealt with stormwater and drainage concerns through the inclusion of drywells on

REPORT TO PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE DA Amendment Application – 2/4 Prospect Street Date: March 30, 2016 Department: Community Development the property however the question would remain as to the additional 17% hard surface and what impact

this has or will have on water moving over the site. The Town’s public works department have not

encountered any issues with water on this property or adjacent properties to-date. The development

agreement speaks to stormwater as follows:

5.1.3 Storm water runoff from the lands shall not be directed onto adjacent properties unless permission is obtained from the adjacent property owner for the direction of such storm water runoff.

5.1.4 The Developer shall obtain approval from the Town prior to directing any storm water runoff to the Town Street or storm sewer systems.

5.1.5 Adjacent lands shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation caused by construction on the lands.

9) OTHER REVIEWS Public Information Meeting

The Town held a public information meeting on February 18, 2016 and the notes are included as

Attachment 3. Staff also received three letters/emails from residents on the application. The main

issues raised were:

The issue of having a procedure in place that was not followed when making substantial changes

to the development and how this is fair to others who have followed this process.

Technical aspects of having hard surface requirements in the Town.

Stormwater management.

Design Review Committee

Given the property is located within the Prospect Street architectural control area, the amendment

application was circulated by email to the Design Review Committee for comment however comments

on the specific design and streetscape were not received.

10) COMMENTS & CONCLUSIONS The amendment application for an increase in hard surface coverage is not consistent with relevant policy as follows:

Policy 8.6.4 of the MPS states that hard surfacing will be limited in residential zones. In this case the limit was set at 50% consistent with the requirements from the Land Use By-law and Town practice to-date.


Policy 8.7.3(b) of the MPS outlines “ensure a high landscape value is provided by the development.” When comparing Attachment 1 and 2 the landscape value has been degraded with the additional hard surface coverage.

Policy 8.7.3(d) of the MPS and Clause 5.1.2.3 of the DA require useable outdoor amenity areas that have been reduced by the increase to hard surface coverage.

Policy 18.6.1(g)iv. and ix. also related to landscaping and amenity areas, has been reduced from the approved landscaping plan.

Section 5.1.3 of the Development Agreement states: 5.1.3.1 The Developer shall landscape the lands in conformity with the landscape plan attached as Schedule “C” of this Development Agreement; and 5.1.3.2 The Developer shall establish and maintain all non hard surface areas on the lands as landscaped areas. These clauses have not been complied with.

The property is located within the Prospect Street Architectural Control area and a high landscape value should be expected from properties in this area.

As such, Staff recommends to the Planning Advisory Committee that the proposed development agreement amendment be submitted to Council with a negative recommendation, as per Option #1, for its review and decision.

11) ATTACHMENTS

1. As-built landscaping plan

2. Approved landscaping plan (as amended)

3. Public Information Meeting Notes

4. Original/Existing Development Agreement


ATTACHMENT 1 – AS-BUILT LANDSCAPING PLAN


ATTACHMENT 2 – APPROVED LANDSCAPING PLAN (AS AMENDED)


ATTACHMENT 3 – PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING NOTES

February 18, 2016 (7.00 PM – Council Chambers) Development Agreement Amendment Proposal

2/4 Prospect Street

Attending:

Staff – Devin Lake, Town Planner & James Collicutt, Administrative Assistant One Member of the Public – Jim Morgenstern Property Owner – Marc Poirier Mr. Lake began by presenting an overview of the proposed amendment to allow for 67% hard surface coverage on the property.

Mr. Poirier then spoke to his proposal:

Mr. Poirier began by stating that it was not his intention to over-step the hard surface allowance; however, given the requirement for parking spaces when coupled with limitations it was necessary.

Mr. Poirier also noted that the two-car parking in front had to be reduced to allow for pedestrian access to the front of the building as well as the construction of a fence along the lot line and that he had spoken with Mr. Morrison to this effect – Mr. Gregg Morrison being the Director of Planning at this time.

Two corrections were noted by Mr. Poirier: Unit #4 is actually on the left, shown reversed in drawings, and that the plan shown as the original in the PIM presentation was actually the amended plan.

Mr. Morgenstern replied to Mr. Poirier’s comments:

Mr. Morgenstern noted that the original DA reviewed by the CDC acknowledged that the property could be subdivided but that it would be dealt with as a single development.

The original proposal that went through the approval process allowed for approximately 46% coverage although some minor allowances were made during the approval process to increase the hard surface allowance in order to make the development a success; however, there was no new plan submitted prior to the hard surfacing as it exists today – why?

Mr. Poirier responded:

Mr. Poirier stated that he had a conversation with Mr. Morrison on site and had explained that the timeline and expense of the development didn’t allow for the process to be started anew. Mr. Poirier stated that Mr. Morrison granted him permission (verbally) to proceed at his own risk and that the issue of noncompliance could be dealt with at a later date.

After Mr. Lake responded to a question from Mr. Poirier regarding the nature of hard surface limitations, Mr. Poirier noted that there were numerous run-off mitigation measures in place


and that he has letters from two neighbours (Pyrcz and Haliburton) which state their support for the development and that the run-off has been reduced since development.

Mr. Morgenstern replied to Mr. Poirier’s comments:

These measures were part of the original proposal with 46% hard surface and no additional measures were taken, which was confirmed by Mr. Poirier.

Mr. Lake asked:

Why was it necessary to change from the approved proposal to that hard surface as it exists? Mr. Poirier responded by saying that he needed 2 parking spaces for #4 but he didn’t know that the approved plan wouldn’t work until construction was already underway. Mr. Poirier reiterated that he had spoken to Mr. Morrison about the issues he encountered, as he encountered them, and he was verbally told to proceed with the changes to the hard surface orientation/allowance of the development.

Mr. Poirier noted that he is not a professional landscape architect and wasn’t aware the plan he submitted was unrealistic until he began to develop but that he had worked with the Town to reduce his hard surface amount by removing some asphalt and installing flower beds in the backyard.

Mr. Morgenstern:

Mr. Morgenstern pointed out that the approval process for this development agreement took six months during which time these issues could have been addressed.

Mr. Poirier responded by noting that the reversal of the orientation of the building on the lots was approved by Mr. Morrison after the development agreement was signed (as per the DA) but that the hard surfacing wasn’t decided on until the contractor was there to pave.

The original DA was dealt with as one development and that is why 30% on one side and 70% on the other was approved because it averaged out to 50% for the whole development.

In closing, Mr. Poirier stated:

He was unaware that Mr. Morrison did not have the authority to give him verbal approval at the time.

The hard surface allowance rule is flawed – a muddy driveway conforms when a safe and attractive paved surface does not.

Removing some of the hard surfacing would make the development less attractive to premium tenants and hurt his business.

STAFF ACTIONS

Investigate possible changes to run-off issues on neighbouring properties and Mr. Lake and Mr.

Poirier to arrange a meeting at a later date.

At this time there were no more questions or comments and the meeting was adjourned at 8:05PM.


ATTACHMENT 4 – DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT