Loading...
02 15 1994 Sp Public Minutes IftB COR.PORAIfIOlf OP IftB IfO1INSJIIP OP oao-lIBDOftB 8PBCIAL PUBLIC DftDIQ '8BD1ŒSDAY. PBBRUUY 15. 1tt4 .. 7:00 P... - CO'UliCIL ~ BLBVItNTH KBBTING 1tt4-1tt7 COUNCIL t The following members of Council were present: 8 Mayor Ian Beard Deputy Mayor Murray Martin Councillor Walter Dickie councillor Don Bell Councillor Neil Craig Councillor Larry Cotton Councillor Ron Sommers staff Present: Gary cunnington, Menzies, Planner C.A.O. , Kris Also Present Were: Mel Mawdsley, Chris Clark, Brian Shelswell, Shirley Woodrow, David Murray, Barry Moore, Dorothy Moore, Alastair Crawford, Jean Crawford, Don McDougall, Shelley McDougall, Margaret Ayers, Harvie Johnstone, Janet Currie, Guy Wainman Mayor Ian Beard chaired the meeting. Mayor Ian Beard opened the meeting by explaining to those present that this Public Meeting was to receive public comments with respect to a proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment, under provisions of Section 34, of the Planning Act. The applicant has applied to rezone certain lands, Part of Lot 14, Concession 1" RP 51R-10913, Part 1, former Township of Orillia, to revise generic policies in the former Township of orillia Zoning By-law as it affects the geographic area of the Township of Oro- Medonte. 8 To date, the Council of the corporation of the Township of Oro- Medonte have not made a decision on this application, other than proceeding to this Public Meeting. Only after comments are received from the Public, requested agencies and Township Staff, within the appropriate time period, will Council make a decision on this application. I Notice of the Public Meeting was mailed out on January 26, 1995, to all property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands. Notice of the Public Meeting was also placed in both the Barrie Examiner and Orillia Packet and Times on January 26, 1995. Mayor Beard then asked the Clerk if there had been any correspondence received on this matter. The Clerk responded by indicating that no correspondence had been received. -2- t The Mayor then stated that those persons present would be afforded the opportunity of asking questions with respect to the proposed Amendment. He then turned the meeting over to the Township Planner, Ms. Kris Menzies, to explain the purpose and effect of the proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment. Kris Menzies 8 Thank you, Your Worship. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to allow Council to hear public comments on various items having to do with the former Township of orillia zoning By-law. It's in numerous parts and as the Mayor has mentioned, part of the public meeting tonight has site specifically to do with an individual property on Part of Lot 14, Concession 1. The R Plan Number which the Mayor has identified is a Reference Plan Number which specifically identifies a piece of property owned by Mr. Guy Wainman. The public meeting tonight is also to consider various other generic aspects of the former Township of Orillia By-law. By way of explanation Mr. Mayor, the reason why Oro- Medonte is taking a look at these various aspects is when we amalgamated on January 1, 1994, Oro-Medonte was blessed with various planning documents of the various municipalities or portions thereof which it had amalgamated with, part of which was the former Orillia Township. Thus in a geographic area of Oro-Medonte which made up the former Orillia Township, we are subject to the former Township of Orillia' s Zoning By-law. There are various aspects in that zoning By-law which have typographical errors which need to be cleaned up, which have fundamental errors which are not consistent with the Township of Orillia's Official Plan and in the case of Mr. Wainman's property there was a mapping error. These issues were never dealt with with the Township of Orillia because the Zoning By- law was approved by the ontario Municipal Board on October 31, 1994. Because the By-law was adopted by the Council of the Township of Orillia before we amalgamated, the Council of Oro- Medonte is left with this document. Because the document did not come into force and effect until well after amalgamation, the Township of Orillia can not clean up, if I can use that term, it's typographical errors and so forth in Oro's portion of the By-law. So this municipal Council is left with the obligation to do that. 8 I'll briefly go through some of the changes. On Mr. Wainman's property, his property for some time has been zoned in the former Township of Orillia's By-law, prior to this By-law, as C2, General Commercial. When the consultant who prepared orillia Township's By-law was doing the mapping for the By-law, they inadvertently, and it was a mistake, zoned the property to Urban Fringe, which is a very restrictive nondevelopment zone. It should not have happened. The planning consultant has conceded that this was a mapping error and so has the former Township of Orillia. Because the property is now in Oro- Medonte, this Council is left with the decision as to whether or not to rezone the property back to what it should have been in the first place and this is the issue before Council this evening. I The other aspects which are before Council primarily have to do with typographical errors. In one case, there are two permitted uses in a particular zone. This being the Rural Zone, Shoreline Zone, Agricultural Zone, Residential Type 2, Residential Type 3 and Extractive Industrial Zone and the Mobile Home Park Zone which typically when you look at the permitted uses in a Zoning By-law, it lists things like "This use is allowed or this use is allowed or this use is allowed". In this particular case, there was a typographical error and the word "and" was used. So in this case, it has "This permitted use is allowed and this -3- Kris Menzies (continued) t permitted use is allowed". The intent was not to allow for multiple uses on one lot and because of that typographical error it compromises the integrity of the Zoning By-law and that is one issue before Council. 8 Another typographical error is the maximum unit size in the Mobile Home Park Area. Anybody who wants to place a mobile home in a Mobile Home Park, the current By-law says that there must be a minimum unit size. In fact that word should be maximum unit size in order to ensure that there aren't very very large mobile homes being placed on mobile home lots and in order to help preserve the ability of people what I would conceive as mega homes on these small lots. So that's another typographical error which has great significance in this By-law in my opinion and needs to be cleaned up. There is another section which refers to erroneous parts of another By-law. Typically you'll see in other Zoning By-laws, reference to another section of the By-law. As you're reading some of the text, it may say "and please refer to section 2 of this By-law". In this particular case under section 4.20.2, it makes reference to a wrong section of the By-law that needs to be in my opinion cleaned up. There were some aspects which it refers to in various sections of the By-law being Section 4.22 where they forget to tell you to refer to certain aspects of the By-law where in fact you should. I am also suggesting to Council that they change all the reference to the Township of Orillia, change that to the Township of Oro-Medonte. In other words, there are some jurisdictional requirements in a By-law which says as an example "And this section is as per the discretion of the Township of Orillia". In this particular case, it would not be appropriate for the Township of Oro-Medonte to ask the Township of Orillia what they felt about a portion of a By-law which is now in Oro- Medonte. 8 There are some definitions which are not typical to Provincial Policy or are not typical to general planning thinking which I am making recommendation to Council that they should consider changing. I am also suggesting that additional uses be permitted generically in the Type 3 (R3) Residential Zone and I am also suggesting to Council that they remove any reference to the set back of a building from the centre line of a Provincial Highway and the reason why this is zoning By-laws typically dictate how far back buildings must be from lot lines. In some cases in the Orillia Township By-law, they also make reference to building set backs from the centre line of roadways. That is confusing because there is no generic policy which says which aspect supersedes the other. As an example, a By-law may say "The set back for a building from the front lot line must be a minimum of 10 metres and the set back from the centre line of roadway must be a minimum of 15 metres". If you measure the set back from the middle of the roadway path back 15 metres and the front of the lot line back 10 metres if they are not consistent wi th each other, the By-law does not speak to which one you should follow, so it's very confusing from an interpretation standpoint. I Basically Your Worship, members of the public and Council, the issue before Council tonight for consideration by yourselves is to take a look at cleaning some of these primarily typographical errors and mapping errors which in the opinion of the Planning Department should be adequately dealt with by Council. Thank you. -4- Mayor Beard t Thank you Kris. I will now ask for questions from those present and Council members if you have any questions on this issue, I would remind you that the meeting is being recorded, is it not, so that we can type up the minutes afterwards, I would ask that anyone who addresses questions to state their name. Do any members of the public have a question on this issue. Barry Moore. 8 I live in the former Township of Orillia and it was brought to my attention last night about these changes. I didn't get a copy of this letter and when it was read to me it was very vague. I called the Township Office today after speaking to a number of people last night in the area and they just mentioned Lot 14 and all these different changes in the By-law and we assumed that we were going to have trailer parks and everything else in our backyard. We didn't definitely want that. We had a fight with the Township of Oro a few years ago over our road. We wanted it fixed and everybody said no you can't fix it because it's not worth fixing and all kinds of other things and we assumed this was going to bring out more traffic to our road. So when I called down today, I was talking to Mrs. Shoebridge and she clarified that all this didn't pertain to Lot 14. You've got a large area of property between Barrie and Orillia to look after and I would like to comment that in future reference this type of thing is not written in the paper this way because this doesn't all pertain to Lot 14. There is only a minor part and you're going to have a lot of residents upset. It's ridiculous. There's no reason why it couldn't have been put in the paper in two different parts. You see it all the time. City of Orillia might have five or six different articles all the same night. Why couldn't this be done here. Furthermore, I asked, I'm on the edge of Lot 14, I asked which particular Lot 14 it was. Mrs. Shoebridge told me it was old Mapleneuk Lumber property and I couldn't understand, it didn't make sense to me but anyway she referred me to a Mrs. Andria Leigh and then she told me it was the Wainman property. They can't even get the story straight. I think that now that you're a large Township that you need to clean up and not be quite so sloppy. You're talking here about typographical errors, well this to me is almost worse. Very very sloppy. I don't know why it was all put under this Lot 14. Another thing I'd like to comment is that who gets letters. I was under the assumption, what is it now 110, 120 metres, to me that's not satisfactory especially if you get an area, in a rural area where you have maybe not a lot of concentration and that you could have something go on in one corner of that property and not necessarily all the people in the area even know about it given the facts of this one here. I phoned a number of people last night and there was only a couple people that even got letters about this and when it's so misguiding as this we had a lot of residents pretty upset last night. There has been certain transfers when it was the Township of Orillia that there was changes to be done through By-law and everything else and I've seen letters to two lots down still getting letters which is a lot more than 120 metres and I would think it would be a good idea if that be adopted by this Township. It's only a matter of decency I think. I think that pretty well says everything I'd want to say. Now that it's clarified a little bit but in the future I think you should when you put things like that in the paper it should be clarified a lot more. Thank you. 8 I Mayor Beard Thanks for the comments. They are apprecia ted. We aren't perfect and we like to hear the bad as well as the good when we t 8 8 I . . -5- Mayor Beard (continued) do something. Are there any further comments from the people in the audience or from Council on this issue. I think Kris, if I'm not mistaken the intention, there is no intention to change any other property from it's present use and present zoning besides the clarification with the exception of the Wainman property. Kris Menzies That's correct. Mayor Beard I hope that we cleared up most of that issue and I can understand your concern. Is there any further comments on this? Councillor craig Mr. Mayor, I would like to inquire what the present use of this property is now. Kris Menzies It is my understanding it's vacant. stand corrected. No? It's not vacant? I Barry Moore There is also a residential house on it. Four bedroom home. Kris Menzies That's a permitted use. Councillor Sommers Kris, maybe you could tell us where this is. Kris Menzies It fronts onto Highway 11 I believe. If I could, Mr. Mayor, maybe I can help clarify some of the notification issues and some of the uses on the property in relation to what is permitted. Mr. Wainman's property was zoned C2 under the old Orillia By- law. When the new By-law came up like I explained, there was a mapping error. Basically the draftsman hiccoughed and moved a line inadvertently. It wasn't done intentionally. The permitted uses on the property are quite extensive but a detached single family dwelling house is permitted as well as well as various types of businesses. Notwithstanding the fact that under the current Zoning By-law those uses are not permitted, Mr. Wainman is in a situation which is called legal but nonconforming to the By-law. The uses that he currently has on the property, because they existed before this mistake made are allowed to continue but it is my understanding that he is desirous to bring the property back to the zoning that it used to be because if he wanted to change that use he wouldn't be in a position to be able to do so under the existing rules and in all honesty was a mistake, it shouldn't have happened. In relation to the notice issue, the municipality under the Planning Act is governed by how notice is given. The Planning Act speaks to basically two types of notice. One is notice to f 8 8 I , . -6- Kris Menzies (continued) all surrounding land owners, not tenants, land owners within 120 metres of the boundary of the property which is approximately 400 feet or notification in a newspaper. Because of various concerns that can be found in rural municipalities and perhaps the Planning Act didn't really foresee this being applicable to rural municipalities, in my opinion it tends to be more suited to an urban area especially when your dealing with urban addresses and I can understand how it can be confusing especially when you're using a big rural address as we were with Mr. Wainman's property. That's why we put down the Reference Plan Number. We're not in a position to put the owner's name in the notice unfortunately. This municipali ty for years has decided that that aspect was perhaps somewhat prejudicial so what they do is they do both. We notify people within 120 metres of the property boundary and we put notice in the newspaper. One of the reasons why the municipality in the past has chosen not to go more than 120 metres is that typically this issue could become an issue before the Ontario Municipal Board and then there is an issue of jurisdiction. If you give more than the Planning Act, is that going to cause problems for the municipality in a court situation, if you do it less than the Planning Act well then it will definitely cause problems. So that's one of the issues the municipality is going to have to consider. The other thing that is going to happen is that there is a new Planning Act which is going to receive Royal Proclamation on March 28th and there are new rules and regulations as to how notice is given in that Act. They're a little bit better than now but once again it's an either or situation and this municipality is going to have to take a look at that issue before March 28th and I'm sure they welcome you're comments. Mayor Beard Thank you Kris. Is there any further comments from the members of the public present or from members of Council? Call a second time for any comments, questions? Hearing none. For the third and final time? The Council wishes to thank all of those in attendance and for your participation and will consider all the matters before reaching a decision. If anyone wishes to be notified of the passing of the proposed By-law, would they please leave their name and address with the Clerk. MOTION NO.1 Moved by Martin, seconded by Bell Be it resolved that this Special Public Meeting of Council (Part Lot 14, Concession 1, RP 51R-10913, Part 1, formerly Township of Orillia) now be adjourned at 7:22 p.m. Carried. ~~ MAYOR IAN B ARD ,,¿Jo, .â .<' r .!~K ..H~~ ~DARLENE BHOEBRIDGE, ERK