Application from Van Harten Surveying Inc. on behalf of 27 Janefield Inc. for a Zoning By-law Amendment to change the zoning from the current “Residential Single…

3:24:18Rumpel and it looks like we have one delegate on this Jeff is in the wings there so Eric I'll turn

3:24:25it over to you excellent thank you mr. mayor I believe there's a presentation so good afternoon

3:24:41mayor Guthrie members of city council staff and members of the public my name is Eric Rumpel and

3:24:46I'm the development planner reviewing this application and I know we've had a long morning

3:24:50so far so I'll try and make my presentation brief so the city has received an application for a

3:24:55zoning bylaw amendment from Jeff Buisman of van Hart and land surveyors on behalf of 27

3:25:00Janefield Incorporated to rezone the properties known municipally as 35 and 41 Janefield Avenue

3:25:06to permit the development of four semi-detached dwellings and associated additional dwelling

3:25:12units the land would be severed into four separate lots each lot would have a semi-detached

3:25:18dwelling unit a basement adu and a rear yard adu today's meeting is both the statutory public

3:25:24meeting required under the planning act as well as the decision meeting for the proposed application

3:25:35the subject site is 1868 square meters in size located on the west side of Janefield Avenue just

3:25:41south of mason court the subject site currently features one existing single detached dwelling

3:25:46and one recently removed single detached dwelling that front onto Janefield Avenue the site's immediate

3:25:52surroundings are comprised of townhouses to the east existing semi-detached dwellings to the north

3:25:57and west and two single detached dwellings to the south I'm sorry I'm not sure what happened here

3:26:08so last December a similar zoning bylaw amendment was passed by council for 27 Janefield Avenue

3:26:14and the northern portion of 35 Janefield Avenue to permit six semi-detached dwellings with

3:26:19associated adus these lands are located directly to the north of the subject site for this application

3:26:26there we are so the subject property is designated low density residential in the city's official

3:26:38plan the low density resident residential designation applies to lower density residential

3:26:43neighborhoods and permits detached semi-detached and duplex dwellings townhouses and apartment

3:26:49dwellings the subject lands are currently zoned residential single detached r1b in the 1995 zoning

3:26:58bylaw and the applicant is requesting to change the zoning of the subject lands from the current

3:27:02r1b zone to a specialized residential semi-detached duplex r2 35 zone the specialized regular

3:27:11population for the r2 35 zone would permit semi-detached dwellings and would permit a maximum

3:27:16driveway width of five meters other than that five meter driveway width it would already conform

3:27:22with the r2 zone that has been in existence for several years in the 95 bylaw the subject lands

3:27:31are also zoned a low density residential rl1 in the 2023 comprehensive zoning bylaw and the applicant

3:27:37is also requesting to change the zoning of the subject lands from the current rl1 zone to a site

3:27:41specific low density residential rl1-25 zone so this zone would be identical to the standard rl1

3:27:49zone as approved by council last april this site specific zone is necessary as the adu provisions

3:27:56parking provisions and driveway provisions in the 2023 zoning bylaw are currently under appeal

3:28:01with the Ontario land tribunal so if these provisions are not captured in a site specific

3:28:06zone under the 2023 zoning bylaw the development would be delayed until the appeal to these provisions

3:28:12are resolved as such the specialized regulations for the rl1-25 zone would bring the adu provisions

3:28:18outlined in section 4.12 and relevant residential parking and driveway width provisions from section

3:28:24five of the 2023 zoning bylaw into effect for the subject lands on the screen now you can see the

3:28:34proposed severance plan as proposed all four parcels would front onto janefield avenue

3:28:39shown on the right of the screen and would contain one semi-detached dwelling unit one basement adu

3:28:44and one detached rear yard adu each a portion of the semi-detached units approved last december

3:28:51can be seen near the top of the screen directly north of parcel one just to orient yourself

3:28:56so staff's review of this application has included evaluation of the proposal's conformity and

3:29:01consistency to the 2020 provincial policy statement and the growth plan for the greater golden horseshoe

3:29:07as well as evaluation of the proposal's conformity with the official plan review of the proposed

3:29:12zoning and review of supporting documents submitted with the development application

3:29:16through consultation two comments from the public have been received regarding the proposed

3:29:21application the comments have raised concerns regarding increased traffic and parking demand

3:29:26on janefield avenue regarding these concerns each of the proposed parcels conforms with the

3:29:32parking requirements outlined in the 1995 and 2023 zoning bylaws and the proposed semi-detached

3:29:38lots provide three parking spaces two in each driveway and one in each attached garage traffic

3:29:44engineering staff have reviewed the application and in their professional opinion the proposal

3:29:48will have an insignificant impact on traffic in the neighborhood as such a traffic impact study

3:29:54was not deemed necessary and was not requested as part of this application as outlined in the

3:29:59staff report staff recommend approval of the proposed application with a holding provision

3:30:04to ensure that development of the subject lands does not proceed until an updated storm water

3:30:08management storm water management report an updated site servicing plan are provided to

3:30:13the satisfaction of the city engineer due to recent revisions by the applicant engineering staff

3:30:20are satisfied with the submitted noise study and have removed the requirement for revised

3:30:24noise study as a requirement of removal of the holding provision other than that everything

3:30:29is as presented in the in the staff report thank you very much and i would be pleased to answer

3:30:34any questions council may have thank you we have one just one delegate so we'll we'll jump to the

3:30:40delegate and then we'll we'll go back to questions just in case unless there's other delegates

3:30:44which i'll ask for but please come on down jeff you're here on behalf of the applicant and

3:30:56i'll turn over to you yes i am thank you mayor and council um eric did a great job of presenting

3:31:02i'm really here to answer questions i think the application is very straightforward and as mentioned

3:31:07it's very similar to the one that was recently approved to the north a little bit of history

3:31:12these lots are very very large i think that because they had septics in the past when they were first

3:31:17built that's why they're so large um it is interesting it's kind of a good example of the

3:31:22long discussion you just had as to where this this will go um and andrew who was one of the

3:31:29speakers earlier is is behind this project here um i think it's a a great project and um the you

3:31:37know the two things left in the uh rl the ad used in the driving width it's only because if the whole

3:31:44new zoning viola was approved in its entirety then those little special provisions wouldn't be needed

3:31:50okay so we're good in in that respect i'd be happy to answer any questions i'd like to keep it brief

3:31:56thanks sure i'll go councillor or work then goer then karan please thank you mayor guthrie through

3:32:03you to our delegate um i just had a couple questions from the reports that we received

3:32:07so our staff comments indicate on water capacity assumptions um it's assumptions of two bedrooms

3:32:14per unit and two occupants per bedroom so i'm just wondering what's the number of bedrooms

3:32:19in this project because we have elevations and we have you know um conceptual drawings but we

3:32:26don't have a bedroom count four on the main two in the basement two in the backyard or four in three

3:32:47four three two how's that okay so i'm just i'm just trying to um understand how the staff assumptions

3:32:54align with this and completely understand that should our comprehensive zoning bylaw have passed

3:33:00that this would be clear to go i'm just trying to answer all my own questions right um so through

3:33:05you may i got through my other question is about um the ardu in the yard uh and the request from a

3:33:14in the correspondence looking for a privacy fence i'm just wondering what are the efforts to

3:33:18minimize impacts on the rear yard neighbors can you can you move the unit closer to the main dwelling

3:33:25can can there be plantings or fencing or something like that the proposal is to put

3:33:29privacy fencing along the whole perimeter that's the proposal right now to put privacy

3:33:34fence along the whole perimeter excellent okay thanks thank you goer then karan please

3:33:43actually you worship my questions were asked thank you okay no problem uh karan please

3:33:49thanks and i know that the decision can't be based on this but i think in terms of full

3:33:55transparency for the neighborhood um given the location uh and its proximity to other rental

3:34:02and and to the university are these 36 bedrooms intended for rental by bedroom are they intended

3:34:10for ownership by semi-detached unit uh what is what is the intended um ownership model

3:34:19versus rental model for the 36 bedrooms on this on these sites i think the neighbors are

3:34:27interested in the answer to that question but each unit is intended for rental the people who own

3:34:32it now we're going to use the owner for a number of years and each unit is intended for rental

3:34:36rental by unit or rental by bedroom per unit that's what it's for unit yeah okay thank you

3:34:48nothing further thank you very much thank you is there anyone else here that wants to speak

3:34:52to this particular item no okay and oh i was just okay christa did you want to jump in

3:35:02yeah to the to the clerk i believe this is the public meeting as well so i do think we have to do the

3:35:08two-minute call in uh or maybe that was done i was literally about to say that okay sorry no it's

3:35:13okay no we're on the same page i just was asking in the room first and then i was going to say

3:35:17we're going to take a four or five minute just to pause uh the number's going to come up on the

3:35:20screen five one nine eight three seven at some point i'll memorize this 5603 five one nine eight

3:35:30three seven 5603 we'll be back in just a few moments to see if anyone wants to speak specifically

3:35:35to this item thank you okay i'm just going to give a 30 second warning before we call it back

3:37:55okay i'll call us back to order then and uh we the clerks have confirmed that no one had called

3:37:59in at all and and there's nobody here that i asked to ask to speak to it so we'll consider

3:38:04that matter closed for delegations councillor Goller is is willing to move the application and

3:38:11and busatil is willing to second for us so thank you uh now it technically over to us if there's any

3:38:17follow-up questions to our staff seeing none i actually just have one quick question i'm sorry

3:38:25i just very quick why why was a noise study required for this like there's there's all there's all

3:38:31like a ton of homes and stuff all along there is it a mto issue it is okay i'll stop i'll stop

3:38:38guessing you answer through you mr merits due to the proximity to the to the handlin expressway

3:38:43if it was further away from the expressway there would be no requirement for a noise study

3:38:49okay it is what it is okay oh a follow-up question i shouldn't have started not getting

3:38:55councillor bark thanks mayor go through through you to our planning staff can we have as a follow-up

3:39:01an answer to my question i'm just curious in that staff comments document about the water

3:39:06capacity assumptions i just like it to be clear in my own mind um whether those assumptions are

3:39:13lining up with uh with the number of bedrooms and and i know like our water assumption for a

3:39:19three bedroom house might be there'll be six people there and suddenly people are empty nesters

3:39:23and all the children are gone so i know it's not a perfect thing but just for my own ongoing

3:39:29edification if uh if somebody could get back to me just to understand what those assumptions are in

3:39:33terms of the number of bedrooms and the number of occupants thanks great thank you is there anything

3:39:40further on this okay and this is again uh combining sort of both meetings into one the public part

3:39:48and the approval part so i just want to make sure everyone's aware of that and so is anyone against

3:39:55nobody that's unanimous thank you very much and i think a big takeaway there other than councillor

3:39:59orork's uh point is if we didn't have ongoing appeal issues on this matter uh this could have

3:40:06been done even faster so with that councillor Goller over to you for bylaws thank you your worship