Planning Advisory Committee Minutes

Present:         Mayor Bailey, Councillors Wheat, MacAlpine, Laferriere, Howes, Bell, Peirce, Chambers, Miller, Coleman and Gatward

Staff:               Bradley, Trotter, Davidson, Angrish, Cummins, Kitchen and Kennedy

Councillor Wheat in the Chair.

 

Councillor Wheat called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. and informed members that agenda item 8(f) will not be heard this evening as it has been deferred to go directly to Council in two weeks. At the request of the applicant item 7(c) will be heard after item 7(d).

Approval of Agenda

Moved by – Councillor Howes
Seconded by – Councillor Miller

That the Planning Advisory Committee agenda and addendum for July 10, 2019 be approved as amended.

.Carried

Approval of the Minutes

Moved by – Councillor Peirce

Seconded by – Mayor Bailey

 

That the Planning Advisory Committee minutes of June 4, 2019 be approved.

.Carried

 

Public Hearings Under the Planning Act to Receive Information from the Public

ZBA 21/19/RC – Reinders, 1118 Colborne Street East

Ryan Cummins, Planner, reviewed the application.  In response to questions he noted that the intent of the site specific zoning is recognize what currently is recognized as deficient parking. While a minor variance may be appropriate in certain similar circumstances it is staff’s opinion that rezoning is more appropriate in this case in order to recognize a significant reduction of the parking requirement.

Rob vanPoorten, J.H. Cohoon Engineering, Agent

Mr. vanPoorten explained that the business is located in two buildings with one used as a shop and the other as an office. Shipping containers are used as exterior storage. The applicant wishes to link the buildings by constructing a 350 square metre addition for storage of raw and finished material. The intent of the application is to amend the zoning and reduce the parking requirement to a 1:100 square metres for a total of nine spaces plus one accessible parking space. The applicant does not anticipate increasing the number of employees beyond the four current positions. Visitors to the business are by appointment only. The loading space will be inside the building to facilitate loading of finished material. Other custom cabinet shops in the area have a similar parking ratio to what is requested here. The applicants wish to continue to operate their successful business in the Cainsville location.

Members of the Public – None

Committee Consideration

Moved by – Councillor Peirce

Seconded by – Councillor Coleman

 

That presentations regarding planning application ZBA 21/19/RC (Reinders, 1118 Colborne Street East) be received as information.

.Carried

ZBA 24/19/RC – Corner, 4 Middleport Road

Ryan Cummins, Planner, reviewed the application.  In response to questions, Mr. Cummins explained that a contractor yard use is not an unusual use in an Agricultural Zone as many businesses are related to agricultural uses and that the property, when rezoned, will be subject to site plan control. Questions referred to the applicant and agent included interpretation of photos provided, the location of the building housing the contractor operation and the percentage of business that can be attributed to the agricultural sector.

Rob vanPoorten, J.H. Cohoon Engineering, Agent

Mr. vanPoorten reviewed the application noting that the intent is to rezone a small portion of the property. The property is adjacent to but outside the settlement boundary of Middleport. It contains several farm buildings including a newly constructed building occupied by the contracting business. Approximately 70% of the current business is serving the agricultural sector. The applicant seeks to continue a use related to the Agricultural Zone and to achieve an Agricultural Employment zoning on a portion of the property.  Mr. vanPoorten read a letter from the applicant outlining the various services provided by the business and expressed his option that the rezoning meets the spirit and intent of the County of Brant Official Plan and Zoning By-law and that site plan control can regulate a number of matters not regulated by zoning.

In response to questions, Mr. vanPoorten explained the locations of the various buildings on the property, adding that Middleport Mechanical had operated in a plaza until the lease was not extended and it moved into a building constructed on the property. The need for rezoning became evident during the building inspection process. He suggested that the company business plan would reveal the sectors served by the business. Mr. Corner stated that the trailer was not occupied and that it was removed following instruction from by-law enforcement. The building in which the business is located has been occupied for approximately eight months.

Members of the Public

Byron Soules, 12 Hager Street, Middleport stated that he lives directly behind the subject property and that the location of the business has negatively affected property values. He expressed the opinion that the business does not serve the agricultural sector and that its presence is creating privacy and traffic concerns.

 

Mike Reisiger 1184 Highway #54 stated that his farm is located to the east of the Corner property and questioned the fact that this Agricultural Zone is located immediately adjacent a Residential Zone. In his view there should not be exceptions to rules when located adjacent to residential areas. Mr. Reisiger questioned the statement that 70% of the business served the agricultural sector.

 

Derrick Kuipers,16 Middleport Road, stated that he has lived at his property all his life and recently purchased a lot from his father assuming adjacent properties would be used for agricultural purposes. Mr. Kuipers expressed concern that no notices were received about construction of the business building, bright LED lights around perimeter shine into his bedroom and rear yard, noise begins at 6 a.m. with trucks entering and exiting the property, emptying dumpsters, etc. and interferes with sleep. He believes his property value to be negatively affected and stated that he has experienced issues on his property that began shortly after construction of the building started. Mr. Kuipers expressed concern about increased traffic on the roadway and loss of privacy due to security cameras on the building. He stated that the showroom in the building contains BBQs and fireplaces without any emphasis on agricultural services.

 

Catherine Reisiger, 1184 Highway #54, questioned what happens if the application is not approved and whether this is up to the property owner or to the County.

 

Tricia Collins, 1176 Highway#54, questioned why the building was placed adjacent to neighbouring backyards when there was 55 acres of land available.

Committee Consideration

Moved by – Councillor Coleman

Seconded by – Councillor Miller

 

That presentations regarding planning application ZBA 24/19/RC (Corner, 4 Middleport Road) be received as information.

.Carried

In discussion, it was noted that the motion is to receive and the matter could be before Committee again in September although it could be longer. Committee expressed a desire to have some of their questions answered in the form of a report before the next meeting if they cannot be verbally addressed at this meeting. Committee was advised by staff that any decision of Council in this matter could be appealed to the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal. If the decision is to refuse the rezoning request the business would then have non-conforming status.

OPA A/19/DN & ZBA 23/18/DN – Pearce and Birdsall, 120 McBay Road

Marcus Davidson, Senior Planner, reviewed the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

Howard Snodgrass, Agent

Mr. Snodgrass requested that Committee review all application package materials that were submitted and referred to the minutes of the January meeting, at which Committee requested an accompanying Official Plan amendment.  He stated that following the January meeting discussions were held with the former General Manager of Development Services and referred to correspondence received indicating that the designation was included in the Official Plan in error.  Mr. Snodgrass referred to a previously adopted 2013 amendment pertaining to a property on Blue Lake Road and suggested that based on that decision this application has merit. Mr. Snodgrass reviewed a summary of reasons for approval of both applications noting comments made by staff at other hearings that there was additional development potential for the property. He stated that in his opinion the current proposal is infill in nature, complies with MDS requirements, the lot can be serviced and the proposed amendment is of a technical nature to re-establish a right incorrectly removed.

 

In response to questions, Mr. Snodgrass stated that the current land use is farm pasture, that he was advised in 2012 that there would be no loss of Rural Residential zoning and at that time it was believed there could be a legal challenge if the zoning was changed.

Members of the Public

Larry and Tara Laskowski,110 McBay Road stated that when they purchased their property they carried out due diligence and selected the lot in part because it is the last lot adjacent to 120 McBay Road. They expressed concern about water availability in the immediate area noting that neighbours have recently required a new well while another needs to have water brought in. In their view lack of water presents a serious hardship with attendant costs and referred to Provincial Policy Statements requiring protection for agricultural lands. Mr. and Mrs. Laskowski stated that two lots have already been severed from the subject property and objected to the creation of two additional lots via this application.

 

Peter Birdsall, 120 McBay Road, the Applicant, responded that at the time the previously severed lots were created they chose not to sever a potential third lot and that there is plentiful water supply on the property.

Committee Consideration

Moved by – Councillor Coleman

Seconded by – Councillor Gatward

 

That presentations regarding planning applications OPA A/19/DN and ZBA 23/19/DN (Pearce and Birdsall, 120 McBay Road) be received as information.

.Carried

In discussion it was noted that the forthcoming Staff Report will address some of the outstanding questions. In response to a question, Mr. Trotter advised that at this time staff is not prepared to comment on the content of the email referred to during Mr. Snodgrass’ presentation.

ZBA 16/19/RT – Lyons Shady Acres, 296 West Quarter Townline Road

Rob Trotter, Acting General Manager of Development Services, reviewed the application.

 

In response to questions, Mr. Trotter stated that if the application is approved the temporary use allowed could be reviewed at expiry and extended for a further term or approved as a permanent use if Provincial Policy has changed. At this time this is the only such application that has been received and is site specific to this property. There may be an opportunity to work collaboratively with other municipalities and with the Province with respect to Provincial Policy on trailer park occupancy. Provincial Policy requires all such decisions to be in conformity with Provincial Policy Statements. It was noted that this matter is being received for information at this meeting with a formal recommendation being presented at a future meeting.

James Hitchon, Agent

Mr. Hitchon introduced the Park Administrator and Park Manager along with numerous residents and supporters attending in support of the application who were invited to stand.

 

Mr. Hitchon explained that there are 67 residents and most have been located in the park for a considerable time, some in excess of 17 years. By-law Enforcement served notices to the residents outlining the requirement to vacate for the month of February each year. Mr. Hitchon stated that the prospect of moving adds considerable stress to the residents’ lives. It was determined the best way to proceed is with an application for rezoning to allow a 3-year temporary use as this will allow residents to remain and allow any safety concerns to be addressed by creating standards that ensure residents’ safety and comfort. The park is a seniors’ community that is affordable. The applicant wishes to work with the County to resolve any existing issues. A new septic system has been installed along with a water system that is monitored to Provincial standards and roads have been recently re-paved.

In response to questions, Mr. Hitchon stated that he does not know if staff support the application and that the Province will be able to appeal any decision that is made.

Members of the Public

Janice Gumpline 296 West Quarter Townline Road stated that she has been living in the park for four years. She expressed the view that living in a trailer park imposes a stigma on residents and noted that the park community is beautiful. The residents support and have concern for one another. It is a very safe community. Ms. Gumpline asked that Councillors think of the park as an alternative way of life providing enjoyment of the natural environment. She explained that she has limited financial means to spend on housing. In her opinion park residents would be unable to pay for alternate housing given current market conditions. The park is affordable and her home is winterized with a stand-by generator. Many neighbours have done the same thing. If forced to move out they have nowhere else to go. The community is small with well maintained buildings and a community of people who help each other when needed.

 

Bonnie Pellow, 296 West Quarter Townline Road stated that she has lived in the park for twenty-one years.

Committee Consideration

Moved by – Councillor Coleman

Seconded by – Councillor Bell

 

That presentations regarding planning application ZBA 16/19/RT (Lyons Shady Acres, 296 West Quarter Townline Road) be received as information.

.Carried

 

In discussion, Committee noted that this is a complex matter that has a direct effect on individuals’ lives.

Public Hearings Under the Planning Act to Consider Staff Recommendations

ZBA 18/19/JK – Zoning By-law Housekeeping Amendment

Jessica Kitchen, Planner – Zoning Administrator, reviewed the application.  In response to questions Ms. Kitchen stated that the amendment affects only cannabis operations that are regulated through the Zoning By-law and does not affect operations that are otherwise licensed. Ministry licensed facilities are subject to Site Plan Control. The change in setback requirement from 70m to 150m is intended to address proximity to residential areas. If Ministry requirements change in the future those changes can be incorporated into the Zoning By-law at that time. The other change affecting cannabis operations as noted in the by-law is a change in language from “marijuana” to “cannabis”.

Members of the Public

None.

Committee Consideration

Moved by – Mayor Bailey

Seconded by – Councillor Laferriere

 

That application ZBA 18/19/JK, being a Housekeeping Amendment to County of Brant Zoning By-law 61-16 be approved, in accordance with the amendments proposed in Staff Report PA-19-30A;

And that a by-law be presented to the Council of the County of Brant for its consideration.

.Carried

ZBA 15/19/RA – Varey, 421 Highway 2

Ruchika Angrish, Senior Planner, reviewed the application.

Jane and Peter Varey, Applicants

Jane Varey, Applicant attended to answer any questions pertaining to the application. None were received.

Members of the Public

None.

Committee Consideration

Moved by – Mayor Bailey

Seconded by – Councillor Peirce

 

That application ZBA 15/19/RA from Jane and Peter Varey, applicants and owners of Part Lot 21, Concession 1, Parts 1 and 2 on Plan 2R-1763, geographic Township of Burford in the County of Brant, located at 421 County Highway 2, to amend the current Temporary Zone (T-37) to Special Exception Agricultural (A-142) to permit an additional use of a boarding facility for a maximum of 25 dogs and 15 cats, be approved.

.Carried

ZBA 19/19/RA – Clarkson, 452 Bishopsgate Road

Ruchika Angrish, Senior Planner, reviewed the application.  In response to questions, Ms. Angrish stated that fees for these applications are in accordance with the County of Brant Fees and Charges By-law.

Nathan and Danielle Clarkson, Applicants

Nathan Clarkson, Applicant attended to answer any questions pertaining to the application. None were received.

Members of the Public

None.

Committee Consideration

Moved by – Councillor Laferriere

Seconded by – Councillor McAlpine

 

That application ZBA 19/19/RA from Nathan and Danielle Clarkson, applicants and owners of Part Lots 1 and 2, Concession 3, RP-7766, Part 1, geographic Township of Brantford in the County of Brant, located at 452 Bishopsgate Road, to amend the current Temporary Zone (T-31) to Special Exception Agricultural (A-144) to permit an additional use of a boarding and training facility for a maximum of 30 dogs be approved.

.Carried

ZBA 5/19/DN & PS 1/19/DN – Arthur Subdivision, Oakland Road and Bannister Street

Marcus Davidson, Senior Planner, reviewed the application.  In response to questions Mr. Davidson stated the low impact design (LID) avoids using storm water management ponds and utilizes infiltration to achieve post-development flows that are less than pre-development flows. Mr. Davidson clarified that the proposed rezoning affects only a portion of the property. The remaining lands will retain the Agricultural zoning.

Eric Saulesleja, GSP Group, Agent and Jason Fleury, Development Engineering

Mr. Saulesleja stated that the modified draft plan includes traffic study results previously requested by area residents and reveals peak traffic flow of approximately 20 trips in the morning and approximately 24 in the afternoon peak. All intersections are rated as A or B and therefore there is no significant traffic impact. The design provides residents the ability to walk around in the community. The potential easement at the rear of lot 9 can be addressed through discussions between the owner and the client to address access to the rear yard. The lots located on the cul de sac have sufficient frontage to allow for a landscaped area.

 

In response to questions Mr. Fleury explained that the proposal does not include a Storm Water Management system. The low-impact development system is designed to a 100 year storm capacity. It is a targeted system designed to retain more water and allow it to absorb into the ground on the site and thereby mitigate groundwater flow concerns expressed by owners of neighbouring properties. Water supply concerns have been tested using two residential wells approximately 20 metres deep placed 100 metres apart with two monitoring wells placed 150 metres apart. A standard draw down test showed results well within acceptable measures with a full recharge between 1 and 2 minutes.

 

In response to questions, Mr. Fleury clarified that the infiltration system uses shallow ditches with trenches and sub-drains built to 100 year storm requirements. Mr. Fleury stated that it is in everyone’s best interest to maintain an access from Oakland Road for as long as possible and this could be considered as a requirement at the discretion of the County. He further explained the draw down test noting that it was a 3 hour pump test with a flow of 20 gallons per minute over 3 hours. Both the pump test and the hydrogeological study confirm adequate water supply and recharge meaning there is no requirement for additional monitoring of existing wells on neighbouring properties. Mr. Fleury explained that there is an existing County of Brant unopened road allowance noted on the draft plan as “Yarek Street” that may be opened at some time in the future at the discretion of the County.

Members of the Public

 

Elysha Wale, 6 Bannister Street stated that her family has owned this property for 30 plus years and addressed the Committee in opposition to the proposal. She noted that she has previously requested that there not be access from Malcolm Street and that access be from Oakland Road only. The revised draft plan shows two entrances off Bannister Street. Ms. Wale noted concerns with traffic safety and specifically speed of traffic noting that the two entrances are 150 metres apart with Bannister Street residents having traffic flowing beside and toward their homes. Ms. Wale proposed Oakland Road as a first choice or Malcolm Street as a second choice for access to the proposed subdivision noting there is a property owned by the applicant that could be used as access. Ms. Wale expressed concern about the speed of existing traffic and noted that Oakland Road does not have sidewalks and there is currently only one access. Tyson’s Way is the most recent street constructed in Oakland and has no sidewalks and one access. Ms. Wale suggested that the current proposal could be constructed in the same way. There are currently approximately 28 cars on Bannister so if there are 22 new homes with cars that can only enter and exit via Bannister that is adding a minimum of 44 vehicles. She further requested that an investment be made in Oakland Park as this draft plan doesn’t provide for green space. Ms. Wale stated that construction will result in dirt and debris affecting neighbouring property and questioned whether the 4 recently installed wells are permitted under County of Brant policy.

 

Cynthia Zuidervliet, 176 Oakland Road stated that she has resided at her current address for 47 years and expressed concern about adequate supply of clean, potable water, commenting on agricultural water uses and periods where residents have historically had to conserve.  She questioned who will be responsible if her well goes dry and whether this will be a County of Brant responsibility. Ms. Zuidervliet expressed concerns about traffic on Oakland Road as it is currently extremely busy and traffic currently travels at speeds in excess of the posted limit in a 50 km zone. She suggested that consideration should be given to lowering the posted speed limit on the entire stretch of road to 50 km. Noting that the applicant owns additional land, she questioned how residents will be notified about future potential development. In closing, Ms. Zuidervliet outlined concerns about protecting agricultural heritage, water resources and wildlife habitat with bald eagles currently next along Mackenzie Creek.

 

Leonard Lefebvre, 8 Bannister Street expressed concern about additional traffic on Bannister Street, speeding traffic and that in his view traffic should go directly to Oakland Road. He questioned whether the lots will be developed by a single developer or be sold to multiple builders.

 

Kelly Geerts, 10 Bannister Street expressed concerns about traffic safety at the hill and when turning onto Bannister Street from Oakland Road. There are homes in the area with small children and pedestrian safety in general is a concern. Traffic issues in general require further review.

 

Gerry Kempers 18 Cummings Street stated he did not receive notification of this hearing and questioned wither he is located within the notification area. Mr. Kempers explained that Malcolm Street will possibly have 44 additional vehicles travelling on a narrow roadway. A previously completed 5 lot subdivision was required to widen the road. He expressed concern about water run-off stating that water pools at the bottom of Cumming Street. Mr. Kempers noted that the engineer for the applicant stated existing wells are not at risk and questioned whether he can approach the County if his well capacity is not sufficient after this development is completed.

Eric Saulesleja, GSP Group, Agent and Jason Fleury, Development Engineering

Mr. Fleury explained that Condition 11 addresses water concerns by requiring groundwater testing for quality and sustainable quantity prior to final approval and that tests must be compliant with Ministry of Environment requirements to the satisfaction of the County.

 

Paradigm Transportation conducted the traffic study referred to and an update using County of Brant counts and a projection for growth to 2028 uses generally accepted methodology for single detached dwellings reviewing peak time traffic and assesses the projected impact on County roads and intersections. Speed limits are a County of Brant decision.

 

A number of development options are being considered. At this time it is not known if the development will be completed by one builder or by multiple builders.

 

In response to questions, Mr. Davidson stated that the subject lands are within the Village of Oakland settlement area. A new public process will be required for any future development beyond this proposal. Notices were circulated to owners of property located within a 400 foot circle was drawn around the entire 120 acre property.

Committee Consideration

Moved by – Councillor Coleman

Seconded – Councillor Peirce

 

That a construction entrance be maintained from Oakland Road across Lot 8 for as long as possible during development of the site.

            `                                                                                                                       .Carried

 

Moved by – Councillor Coleman

Seconded by – Councillor Miller

 

That the access easement referred to in Clause 28(d) be provided across lot 5.

 

                                                                                                                                    .Carried

 

Moved by – Councillor Coleman

Seconded by – Councillor Peirce

 

That application PS 1/19/DN from GSP Group Inc., agent on behalf of Stonehenge Acres Ltd. and 959261 Ontario Inc., applicants and owners of Concession 1, Part Lots 5 & 6, geographic Township of Oakland, County of Brant, located at the intersection of Oakland Road and Bannister Street, proposing a residential plan of subdivision consisting of 22 single detached dwellings on private services be approved, subject to the following conditions of approval:

 

1.    The Subdivision Agreement shall include provisions that all easements and blocks required for utilities, servicing and drainage purposes, both internal and external to the Development, including any easement required to convey storm water to a legal outlet, shall be granted and conveyed by the Owner/Developer to the County of Brant or the appropriate authority at no cost to the County and free from all encumbrances and under which all costs associated with the design and construction of any required infrastructure are to be paid for by the Developer/Owner, and to the satisfaction of the County.

 

2.    That at the time of registration, the Developer conveys Blocks identified for daylight triangles, fire reservoir, 0.3 meter reserves, drainage and access easements to the County of Brant, Specifically:

 

a)    That the existing 0.3 reserve known as Block 10 on RP-1591 be lifted prior to the time of registration.

 

b)    Daylighting triangles are to be provided to the satisfaction of the County of Brant.

 

c)    All road centerline radii are to be a minimum of 12m to allow for emergency vehicle access.

 

d)    A 0.3m reserve is to be provided to the County along the entire Oakland Road frontage of the subject lands (rear of Lots 8 & 9).

 

e)    A 0.3m reserve is to be provided along the ‘Street A’ side for ‘Existing Lot 8’ and proposed Lot 1. R.O.W. is to be widened by an additional 0.3m in order to maintain a total of 20m R.O.W. width.

 

f)     Rear lot drainage maintenance easements are required along the rear lots of Lots 1 to 7 to the satisfaction of the County of Brant.

 

g)    Rear lot drainage maintenance easements are required along the rear of Lots 9 to 18. An access easement is also required to legally access the rear lots. The Lot drainage maintenance easement and access easement will be provided to the satisfaction of the County of Brant.

 

h)    A large daylighting triangle is to be provided at the South West corner of Lot 5 to accommodate the required fire cistern. To be provided to the satisfaction of the County of Brant.

 

3.    That Yarek Street from Bannister Street to Street A, is to be constructed at the sole expense of the applicant and is to be completed to the satisfaction of the County of Brant.

 

4.    That the intersection of Malcolm Street and ‘Street A’ is to be designed to be straight and constructed as a straight alignment through the intersection as opposed to the proposed curve.

 

5.    That typical road cross section design be completed to the satisfaction of the County of Brant.

 

6.    That the road allowances, road widening and daylighting triangles indicated on the draft plan of subdivision be dedicated as public highway at no cost to the County, shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the County and free and clear of all encumbrances.

 

7.    That the proposed street be named to the satisfaction of the County and that the name shall be selected from the list of names of War Veterans.

 

8.    That 10% of the total number of lots/units proposed in the draft plan shall have the potential for grading that meets the accessibility standards of the Ontario Building Code and Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), as amended.

 

9.    That the prospective purchasers are advised that the County of Brant requires the installation and maintenance of specialized septic systems with tertiary treatment and high nitrate removal systems for all dwelling units despite soil conditions, and at the time of the issuance of the residential building permit, the Owner/Developer will be required:

 

a)      To show how the proposed effluent disposal system will reduce effluent to have a nitrate count of less than 10 m/l at the Property Line of the said lot.

 

b)      To have entered into an Agreement between the Owner/Developer and the Maintenance Contractor for the effluent disposal system, that provides for annual reporting of the results of operation of the said system (and more frequently reporting if the Maintenance Contractor so recommends).

 

c)      That the Agreement between the Owner/Developer and the Maintenance Contractor, clearly shows that any modified or replacement specialized septic systems with tertiary treatment and high nitrate removal systems, must meet the same standards and performance criteria as the original system that was installed when the Dwelling was constructed.

10.  That with the written authorization of the County of Brant the Subdivision Agreement between the Owner/Developer and the County of Brant be registered by the Owner/Developer against the lands to which it applies and the County shall be entitled to receive whatever notice and documentation of such registration the County of Brant deems appropriate.

 

11.  That prior to the final approval of the plan, the Owner/Developer shall submit groundwater tests verifying groundwater supplies in terms of both quality and sustainable quantity in accordance with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Guidelines for potable water to the satisfaction of the County of Brant.

 

12.  That prior to the approval of the final plan, the Owner/Developer prepares, submits, and obtains approval from the County of Brant and the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), if required, for the following plans:

 

a)        A detailed Stormwater Management report in accordance with the 2003 Ministry of Environment Report entitled, “Stormwater Management Practices, Planning and Design Manual”. It will also address the need to convey storm waters to a proper legal drainage outlet to the satisfaction of the County of Brant in consultation with the GRCA;

 

b)        An erosion and siltation control plan, in accordance with the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area Conservation Authorities Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Urban Construction, dated December 2006,

 

c)        Detailed landscaping, lot grading and drainage plans;

 

d)        An application for Permission pursuant to the Conservation Authority’s Regulation of Development, Interference and Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses, Ontario Regulation 150/06 as amended, if required.

 

13.  That the mitigation measures recommended in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (Project Number 2006, Nov 2016) to limit impacts on natural features and species be implemented, specifically noted: 

 

a)    The limit of development should be clearly delineated in the field prior to the start of construction.

 

b)    Permanent fencing should be erected along the back of lots 19-22 to clearly demarcate the boundary of the residential lots, outside the 5 m woodland buffer.

 

c)    Tree protection fencing should be installed along the woodland dripline. Adjacent to the road connection between Malcom Street and Street A, Tree Protection Fencing should be installed along the limit of grading. Fencing must be installed and inspected by a Certified Arborist prior to construction and maintained during construction.

 

d)    Aside from a minor 0.0190 ha encroachment, site grading will occur outside of the required 30 m wetland buffer.

 

e)    Vegetation removal is recommended to occur outside of the breeding and nesting season for migratory birds as established by the Canadian Wildlife Service. The peak breeding period for birds in southern Ontario extends from approximately April 1 through August 31 (Government of Canada 2017).

 

f)     Develop and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to the County’s satisfaction prior to construction. Siltation control measures such as silt fencing, a mud mat at the construction entrance, and tree protection fencing are recommended.

 

g)    Disturbed areas should be kept to a minimum and re-vegetated in a reasonable timeframe in order to minimize dust.

 

14.  That the Subdivision Agreement between the Owner/Developer and the County of Brant contain provisions for the completion and maintenance of the works in accordance with the approved plans and reports noted in the Conditions of Draft Approval.

 

15.  The Subdivision Agreement will include a requirement that the Owner/Developer shall ensure that no stockpiles of fill or any overland drainage patterns be altered on the west, east and south sides of the total holdings within 30 meters of the property boundary unless otherwise approved by the County. That all stockpiles shall be encircled with appropriate silt fence. The height of any stockpiles of fill shall not exceed 6 meters in height. Any stockpile with greater than a 2 to 1 slope shall be fenced and the areas posted as dangerous.

 

16.  That the Subdivision Agreement shall require that the Owner/Developer is to maintain the site in a safe and satisfactory condition, free of debris, weeds and other such materials, until the plan is fully developed and the servicing is assumed by the County as contemplated by the Subdivision Agreement.

 

17.  The Subdivision Agreement shall require that, prior to registration of all or any part of the Subdivision, the telecommunications, natural gas supply, electrical utilities, Hydro One and any other public utility company are to advise the County that they are satisfied with the servicing arrangements between the Owner/Developer and the telecommunications, natural gas supply, electrical utilities and any other public utility company.

 

18.  The Subdivision Agreement shall require that, prior to registration of the Subdivision, Canada Post is to advise the County that they are satisfied with the servicing arrangements between the Owner/Developer and Canada Post.

 

19.  The Subdivision Agreements shall include the requirements of Bell Canada be satisfied prior to registration and final approval of all or any part of the Subdivision. To this end, the following matters are to be addressed:

 

a)        The Owner shall agree in the Subdivision Agreement, in words satisfactory to Bell Canada, to grant to Bell Canada any easements that may be required for Telecommunication services. Easements may be requires subject to final servicing decisions. In the event of any conflict with the existing Bell Canada facilities or easements, the Developer/Owner shall be responsible for the relocation of such facilities or easements.

 

20.  That the Owner/Developer shall provide an overall plan showing the proposed building envelopes, existing and proposed wells and private sewage disposal bed envelopes for each lot prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. Such drawings shall be in compliance with the Ontario Building Code and to the satisfaction of the County of Brant.

 

21.  That the Owner/Developer provides 5% cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication to the County of Brant in accordance with the Parkland Dedication Policy in the Official Plan. The value of the land will be determined by a certified appraisal at the expense of the Owner/Developer.

 

22.  Prior to the final registration of all or any part of the Subdivision, the Owner/ Developer provide to the General Manager of Development Services through an Ontario Land Surveyor confirmation that all proposed Lots, Blocks and Units meet the minimum lot and/or unit area and frontage requirements of the Corporation of the County of Brant Zoning By-Law 61-16.

 

23.  That the Owner/Developer is hereby advised that prior to commencing any work within the Plan, the Owner/Developer must confirm that sufficient wire-line communication/ telecommunication infrastructure is currently available within the proposed development. In the event that such infrastructure is not available, the Owner/Developer is hereby advised that the Owner/Developer may be required to pay for the connection to and/or extension of the existing communication/telecommunication infrastructure, the Owner/Developer shall be required to demonstrate to the municipality that sufficient alternative communication/telecommunication facilities are available within the proposed development to enable, at a minimum, the effective delivery of communication/telecommunication services for emergency management services (i.e. 911 Emergency Services).

 

24.  The Subdivision Agreement shall require that the Owner/Developer to deposit in digital format the Plan of Subdivision, to the satisfaction of the County.

 

25.  Prior to the final registration of all or any part of the Development, the Owner/Developer’s surveyor shall submit to the County horizontal co-ordinates of all boundary monuments for the approved Development to the satisfaction of the County.

 

26.  The Subdivision Agreements shall require the Developer/Owner to deposit Mylars and digital copies of the Plan of Subdivision, to the satisfaction of the County. The digital copies shall be submitted in ESRI compatible format, such as shapefile or file geodatabase.

 

27.  The Subdivision Agreement shall include provisions for the completion and maintenance of works in accordance with the approved plans and reports set out in the Schedule or in the conditions of draft approval for the Development.

 

28.  The Subdivision Agreement shall provide that each offer of purchase of all or any part of the Development shall contain a caution to the purchaser of the following:

 

a)        That no alteration of the drainage plan for the property or surrounding properties is permitted without the express written approval of the County;

 

b)        That no buildings or structures, including but not limited to a single detached dwelling, accessory structure, fence, swimming pool or septic tank or tile bed, shall be erected on or over any easement required due to this Development;

 

c)        That the purchaser on occasion may be subject to noise, odour and dust of agricultural origin due to the proximity of an existing agricultural operation; and

 

d)        That an access easement in the favor of the property known as CON 1 PT LOT 5 (171 Oakland Road), be provided, if required.

 

e)        That a construction entrance be maintained from Oakland Road across Lot 8 for as long as possible during development of the site.

 

29.  The Subdivision Agreements shall include the following “warning clause” for Lots/Blocks along Oakland Road:

 

a)        Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may on occasions interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels may exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

 

30.  The Subdivision Agreement shall provide that each offer of purchase of all or any part of the Development shall contain a caution to the purchaser of the following:

 

a)        A detailed review of the Building Permit Application may impact the size of the house due to the setback requirements of the Building Code with respect to the location of septic, well, drainage features, stormwater management and other aspects.

 

31.  The Subdivision Agreement shall include language to ensure that the Owner/Developer is responsible for the decommissioning of any boreholes drilled on the Development as part of a hydrogeological investigation, or for any other subsurface investigation and for decommissioning any wells located on the Development in accordance with the requirements of the Ontario Water Resources Act and Ministry of the Environment guidelines; and for any additional steps as may be required in order to obtain and forward to the County a certificate of a licensed Professional Engineer certifying such decommissioning has been done on the Development.

 

32.  The Subdivision Agreement shall include the following engineering requirements, and that the County of Brant be satisfied prior to the registration and final approval of all or any part or all of the Development. To this end, the following matters are to be addressed:

 

a)      The Owner/Developer will be required to ensure that a sight distance consistent with County of Transportation Association of Canada’s (TAC) Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads (as amended) is provided and to allow for proper road drainage;

 

b)      The Owner/Developer is to pay, for and install street lighting that is to be located along the proposed Yarek Street Extension and proposed Street A as required and to the satisfaction of the County.

 

c)      Relocation of any existing infrastructure, such as but not limited to, hydro poles and telecommunication pedestals, shall be at the expense of the Owner/Developer;

 

d)      That the Owner/Developer installs trees at a minimum of 1 tree per lot frontage and 2 trees per lot flankage, being 50mm in caliper DBH, and of a native species as listed in the County’s Recommended Planting Species List and Recommended Boulevard Trees List, to the satisfaction of the County;

 

e)      That the Owner/Developer delineate rear property lines between the proposed development (along the limits of the Oakland Settlement Boundary) and the existing agricultural operation to the west by way of a continuous fence line, plantings or combination of, to the satisfaction of the County of Brant.

 

f)       That noise attenuation considerations be implemented through landscaping between the rear property line of Lots 8 & 9 and Oakland Road.

 

g)      Approval of the drawings for the Development shall be in accordance with the Schedule and the draft conditions of approval of the Development and such requirement shall be included in the Subdivision Agreement and shall be consistent with the County’s Development and Engineering Standards to the satisfaction of the County of Brant;

 

h)      The Geotechnical Investigation shall encompass all of the subject property including off site infiltration area and be to the satisfaction of the County and GRCA.

 

i)        The Hydrogeological Investigation shall encompass all of the Subject Lands and shall be acceptable to the County, in consultation with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

 

33.  The Subdivision Agreement shall provide for the Owner/Developer’s consent to the County, at its sole discretion, employing the services of a peer review engineering consultant to review all engineering drawings related to infrastructure and transportation systems relating to the Development, and possible off-site impacts related to such infrastructure and the transportation systems on the surrounding neighbourhoods. At the time of the execution of the Subdivision Agreement, the Owner/Developer shall pay any and all such peer review costs incurred by the County to that date and, in the Subdivision Agreement, the Owner/Developer shall commit to paying all such peer review costs incurred by the County thereafter. In connection with these peer reviews, the County will provide the Owner/Developer with a schedule of peer review consultant rates and sufficient billing details for each peer review task.

 

34.  No earth moving, tree removal, grubbing activities and any other site work shall be undertaken on the Development until the Owner/Developer has entered into the Subdivision Agreement or has received a Site Alteration Permit in accordance with the County of Brant Site Alteration By-Law. No servicing of the Development or any other work will be permitted without the execution and registration of the Subdivision Agreement which includes the provision for security and $5.0 million public liability insurance and all required provincial and agency approvals. This works prohibition excludes normal maintenance and those interim grading works which are specifically permitted by a Pre-Servicing Agreement with the County. In order for the Owner/developer to undertake any interim grading work under such a Pre-Servicing Agreement, the following items must be addressed and/or provided to the satisfaction of the County and GRCA (where required):

 

a)    Archaeological Potential Report and Assessment and proof that it has been accepted by the Province;

b)    Detailed drainage and grading plan for the Development;

c)    Interim stormwater control plan for the Development;

d)    Erosion and sediment control plan for the Development;

e)    Public Works permit;

f)     Interim road care plan for Bannister Street, Malcom Street & improvement of Yarek Street;

g)    Haul road designation if materials are to be removed from the Development;

h)    Hydrogeological and Geotechnical reports;

i)      Dust control plan;

j)      Securities to address and implement any necessary measures noted in the above plans and reports;

k)    Liability insurance; and

l)      Tree Inventory and Preservation Report.

 

35.  That, prior to any interim grading and servicing works under a Pre-Servicing Agreement under Condition 34, the Developer/Owner provides a full report on the archaeological significance of the Subject Lands and the County is advised by letter from the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport that the Ministry is satisfied and has no objection to the development of the plan of subdivision or to its final approval for registration. Even if there is no Pre-Servicing Agreement under Condition 34, this requirement will also be addressed in the Subdivision Agreements.

 

36.  Prior to any interim grading and servicing works under a Pre-Servicing Agreement under Condition 34, the Developer/Owner provides a Tree Inventory and Preservation Report to the County and evidence that the Trees Conservation Committee and/or Forester for the County is satisfied. Such comments must clearly establish what areas, if any, are to be protected from development, what areas are to be developed and what areas, if any, are to be reserved for new tree plantings. Even if there is no Pre-Servicing Agreement under Condition 34, this requirement will also be addressed in the Subdivision Agreements.

 

37.  The Subdivision Agreements shall satisfy all of the County’s requirements, financial and otherwise, concerning the provisions and installation of associated municipal works both within and external to the Subject Lands and may include but not limited to securing the works to be done by an irrevocable letter of credit and payment of municipal fees, development charges, road works, street lights, underground services, drainage works, storm water management, fencing, parkland development, landscaping and other matters that may be specified by the County.

 

38.  At any time prior to final approval of the Subdivision, the County may ask for additional information or material that the County may consider it needs.

 

39.  County Development Charges and Surcharges are payable in accordance with the applicable County Development Charges By-Law, as amended from time to time.

 

40.  The Subdivision Agreements shall provide that, at any time and from time to time prior to final approval of the Subdivision and specifically at the time of registration of the Subdivision, the Owner/Developer shall provide proof to the County that the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act have been complied with.

 

41.  At least 90 days prior to final approval of the Development, the County of Brant is to be advised in writing, by the Owner/Developer, how conditions 1 through 42 have been satisfied.

 

42.  That pursuant to Section 51 (32) of the Planning Act, draft plan approval, together with all conditions, shall hereby lapse in three years from the date of granting draft plan approval by the County of Brant, should final approval not be given.

 

NOTES TO DRAFT PLAN APPROVAL:

a)    It is the Developer/Owner’s responsibility to fulfill the conditions of draft plan approval and to ensure that the required clearance letters are forwarded to the County of Brant by the appropriate agencies.

b)    The final plan approved by the County of Brant must be registered within 30 days of final clearance by the County or the County may withdraw its approval pursuant to Section 51 (59) of the Planning Act.

c)    As noted as a condition, the County will require registration of the Subdivision Agreement against the subject lands, to which it applies, as notice to prospective purchasers.

d)    The Developer/Owner shall be responsible for notifying the County of Brant six (6) months in advance of the lapse date of its intention with respect to the extension of draft plan approval of the Residential Subdivision.

e)    For certainty, any reference to final registration of all or any part of the Subdivision shall refer to that portion of the lands which the Developer/Owner is seeking to have registered at that particular time and not the entirety of the lands owned by the Developer/Owner.

 

And that application ZBA 5/19/DN from GSP Group Inc., agent on behalf of Stonehenge Acres Ltd. and 959261 Ontario Inc., applicants and owners of Concession 1, Part Lots 5 & 6, geographic Township of Oakland, County of Brant, located at the intersection of Oakland Road and Bannister Street to rezone the subject lands from Agricultural (A) to Suburban Residential (SR) and Suburban Residential with a special exemption to permit a minimum frontage of 22.5 meters on Lots 8, 9, 18 and 19, where a minimum frontage of 30 meters is required be approved.

.Carried

 

During discussion, Mr. Davidson explained that in the event a well goes dry the onus is on the owner to prove how and why this happened. Traffic concerns can be addressed to the Public Works Committee to request traffic counts, control measures and enforcement.

 

It was noted that traffic concerns on Oakland Road have been addressed by lowering the speed limit through to the settlement boundary although drivers do not always obey posted speed limits. Enforcement is provided by the OPP. An option for residents is to use either Mountain Street or Garrett Street.

 

Moved by: Peirce

Seconded by: LaFerriere

 

That the hour be extended past the 10 p.m. curfew to permit completion of the agenda.

 

                                                                                                                                    .Carried

ZBA 35/16/MD & PS 3/16/MD – Green Farms, 299 Oakhill Drive

Marcus Davidson, Senior Planner, reviewed the application.

Jason Fleury, Development Engineering, Agent and Hugh McNeil, Owner

 

Mr. Fleury stated that municipal water will be available for the site. Storm water management is being accomplished using roadside ditches with galleries. The properties will be serviced by septic systems. In response to questions, Mr. Fleury explained that storm water flows were modeled based on a 250 year storm. Once installed, the channel will properly manage flows.

Members of the Public

 

Katie Kirby, 52 Kirby Crescent expressed concern that area soil is deeply contoured sloping drastically to a natural channel taking rain water into a cold water trout stream adjacent the proposed subdivision. The sandy soil was disturbed with recent planting and resulted in sandy soil flowing down to the stream. Trout require clear cold water. Mrs. Kirby stated that construction of basements and roads are likely to cause extreme run-offs and questioned whether there was a better location for 24 homes rather than to disturb an environmentally sensitive and fragile area. She expressed the opinion that the land should be designated a water protection area.

 

Kristin Sim, 7 Ellington Place stated that she appeared at Committee on July 3, 2018 and had an opportunity to learn about three pending developments that will impact area, Forrest Road, Willowdale Street and this application. She expressed concern that these developments are being considered separately rather than taking a broader perspective of the area as a whole.   When this application was presented on July 3, 2018 the lands were zoned AG and now they are noted as AG and Heritage. Originally the plan was 23 units and has been increased to 24 units without a substantial reason being given. The three developments together will result in over 100 units being added to the area of Greens Road all adding traffic to the local area roads and contributing to a more significant area impact. Ms. Sim stated that she has previously spoken about traffic, safety, animal life and lacking services in the Oakhill Community and these concerns still exist with this application. A traffic study previously raised as a concern has not been addressed this evening and she questioned County plans to address services such as transportation, bussing and school capacity. Ms. Sim stated that a number of children walk to school and expressed concern about pedestrian safety to and from St. Theresa’s School due to traffic volume, speed and the lack of sidewalks. Lots fronting onto Greens Road are on a curve creating a safety concern as will cars backing out onto Greens Road. The Water Tower project progress, drainage, natural heritage issues require clarity. She questioned the change in zoning from 2018 to the present. Ms. Sim requested Committee consider the impact of the three pending applications and the potential addition of 100 homes and 300 to 400 residents in the area and expressed the opinion that the area is not prepared for this level of growth.

 

Ryan Sim, 7 Ellington Place stated that when the area is viewed in isolation it looks like a small street or a few houses. He questioned whether there is a possibility for commercial development and whether sidewalks will be added for safety. Mr. Sim expressed concern that developers are not required to include these elements. He expressed concern about water run-off to Ellington Place to the south of this subdivision as the land to be developed is at a higher elevation and stated that water has been pooling already this year due to heavy rains. Mr. Sim noted that concerns raised last year do not appear to have been considered by either the developer or Committee.

 

Terry Kirby, 53 Kirby Crescent expressed concern about a lack of realization that this is one single system. In his option it is not possible to build housing at one end of the stream that will not impact the lower end of the stream. Mr. Kirby explained his opinion that this is happening all over in the natural environment and water resources are being destroyed by piecemeal development. He stated his opinion that 50% of the rainfall will be run-off and that this plan must be modified with environmental protection for natural species and wildlife. Mr. Kirby objected to the roadway construction and to the enclosed channel stating that in his opinion run-off will not be able to be controlled with a technical solution. He requested Committee to not vote for approval.

 

In response to questions, Mr. Davidson stated that the 32 draft conditions are included in the online agenda and are comprehensive, dealing with the storm water, traffic and issues that have been raised. The naturalized channel is in what used to be termed an Environmental Protection Zone and is now a Natural Heritage Zone. The other two developments are not at the stage of this development and will come forward at a later date.

Jason Fleury, Development Engineering, Agent and Hugh McNeil, Owner

Mr. Fleury noted that there are conditions that address traffic impact to collectively contribute to traffic solutions for all area developments. Building permits will not be issued until the Water Tower is complete with capacity is available. A proposed improvement to the curve of Greens Road will widen the curve and improve sight lines from the driveways. The engineered channel side slopes will be finished with turf reinforcement to hold sandy soils in the banks to prevent erosion. Erosion control plans and measures will be in place during construction of roads and homes. There is one additional lot in the plan attained by eliminating the dry ponds. The lots are 70 metres deep and larger than the Ellington Way lots. There was no plan to increase the density but rather to be consistent with what is currently in the area. There are rear yard swales and intervention trenches to a 100 year storm event to prevent run off to Ellington Place. This is designed into the infiltration systems to contain water within the side and direct flows. The County of Brant currently has a registered drainage easement along Greens Lane to deal with overflow.

Committee Consideration

Moved by – Councillor Laferriere

Seconded by – Councillor Coleman

 

That application PS 3/16/MD from Development Engineering (London) Limited, agent for 2500113 Ontario Inc., applicant for Concession 4, Part Lots 18 & 19, geographic Township of Brantford, County of Brant, located at 299 and 301 Oakhill Drive to allow for a residential plan of subdivision consisting of 24 single detached dwellings and a stormwater management block be approved, subject to the following conditions of approval:

 

1.    That the prospective purchasers are advised that the County of Brant requires the installation and maintenance of specialized septic systems with tertiary treatment and high nitrate removal systems for all dwelling units despite soil conditions, and at the time of the issuance of the residential Building Permit, the Owner/Developer will be required:

a. To show how the proposed effluent disposal system will reduce effluent to have a nitrate count of less than 10 m/l at the Property Line of the said lot.

 

 

b.   To have entered into an  Agreement between the Owner/Developer and the Maintenance Contractor for the effluent disposal system, that provides for annual reporting of the results of operation of  the said system  (and more frequently reporting if the Maintenance Contractor so recommends).

c.   That the Agreement between the Owner/Developer and the Maintenance Contractor, clearly shows that any modified or replacement specialized septic systems with tertiary treatment and high nitrate removal systems, must meet the same standards and performance criteria as the original system that was installed when the Dwelling was constructed.

2.    The Subdivision Agreement shall include provisions that all easements and blocks required for road purposes, utilities, servicing and drainage purposes, both internal and external to the Development, including any easement required to convey storm water to a legal outlet, shall be granted and conveyed/dedicated by the Owner/Developer to the County of Brant or the appropriate authority at no cost to the County and free from all encumbrances.

3.    The Development shall be developed on partial municipal services, including municipal water and storm water management practices; and, following receipt of notice from the County that there are no appeals of the draft approval of the Development, the Owner/Developer of the lands shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the County of Brant and satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, concerning the provisions and installation of all municipal services both within and external to the subdivision and including but not limited to municipal fees, design and construction of any required infrastructure, road works, underground services, storm water management, watermain, water services and securing the works and all other matters to be done, that may be required and specified by a letter of credit to the satisfaction of the County of Brant.

4.    That with the written authorization of the County of Brant the Subdivision Agreement between the Owner/Developer and the County of Brant be registered by the Owner/Developer against the lands to which it applies and the County shall be entitled to receive whatever notice and documentation of such registration the County of Brant deems appropriate.

5.    That prior to the approval of the final plan, the Owner/Developer prepares, submits, and obtains approval from the County of Brant and the Grand River Conservation Authority if required, for the following plans:

a.    A detailed Stormwater Management report in accordance with the 2003 Ministry of Environment Report entitled, “Stormwater Management Practices, Planning and Design Manual”.  It will also address the need to convey storm waters to a proper legal drainage outlet to the satisfaction of the County of Brant in consultation with the GRCA;

b.    An erosion and siltation control plan, in accordance with the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area Conservation Authorities Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Urban Construction, dated December 2006,

c.    Detailed landscaping, lot grading and drainage plans;

d.    An application for Permission pursuant to the Conservation Authority’s Regulation of Development, Interference and Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses, Ontario Regulation 150/06 as amended, if required.

 

6.    That the Subdivision Agreement between the Owner/Developer and the County of Brant contain provisions for the completion and maintenance of the works in accordance with the approved plans and reports noted in the Conditions of Draft Approval.

7.    The Owner/Developer shall submit and receive final approval of the servicing plans including the connection and supply to the municipal water and fire service to the satisfaction of the County of Brant.

8.    The Subdivision Agreement referred to in Condition 3 and 27 will include a requirement that the Owner/Developer shall ensure that no stockpiles of fill or any overland drainage patterns be altered on the west, east and south sides of the total holdings within 30 meters of the property boundary unless otherwise approved by the County. That all stockpiles shall be encircled with appropriate silt fence. The height of any stockpiles of fill shall not exceed 6 meters in height. Any stockpile with greater than a 2 to 1 slope shall be fenced and the areas posted as dangerous.

9.    That the Subdivision Agreement referred to in Condition 3 and 27 shall require that the Owner/Developer is to maintain the site in a safe and satisfactory condition, free of debris, weeds and other such materials, until the plan is fully developed and the servicing is assumed by the County as contemplated by the Subdivision Agreement.

10.  The Subdivision Agreement shall require that the Owner/Developer engage the services of a qualified Landscape Architect to develop a landscaping program to meet County requirements as outlined in the Official Plan and for the landscaping of the Development, including lands within the municipal right of way, to the satisfaction of the County. Any planting materials shall be of native species in accordance with the County’s Recommended Planting Species list (August 2005) and Recommended Boulevard Trees list (July 13, 2010).

11.  The Subdivision Agreement shall require that, prior to registration of all or any part of the Subdivision, the telecommunications, natural gas supply, electrical utilities and any other public utility company are to advise the County that they are satisfied with the servicing arrangements between the Owner/Developer and the telecommunications, natural gas supply, electrical utilities and any other public utility company.

12.  The Subdivision Agreement shall include the requirements of Energy + Inc. be satisfied prior to registration and final approval of all or any part of the Subdivision. To this end, the following matters are to be addressed:

a.    The Owner/Applicant will be required to enter into an Agreement with Energy+ Inc. to establish the terms and conditions of electrical service, including the financial requirements for servicing the residential units in the plan.

b.    The Owner/applicant must grant easements to our satisfaction.

c.    The Owner/Applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with relocation of existing electrical plant if required as a result of this development.

d.    That the County of Brant be advised by Energy+ Inc. that our conditions have been satisfied.

13.  The Subdivision Agreement shall require that, prior to registration of the Subdivision, Canada Post is to advise the County that they are satisfied with the servicing arrangements between the Owner/Developer and Canada Post.

14.  That the Owner/Developer shall agree in the Subdivision Agreement, in words satisfactory to Bell Canada, to grant Bell Canada any easements that may be required for telecommunication services. Easements may be required subject to final servicing decisions. In the event of any conflict with existing Bell Canada facilities or easements, the Owner/Developer shall be responsible for the relocation of such facilities or easements.

15.  That the Owner/Developer provide to Union Gas Limited the necessary easements and/or agreement required by Union Gas Limited for the provision of gas services for this project, in a form satisfactory to Union Gas Limited.

16.  That the Owner/Developer shall provide an overall plan showing the building envelopes and private sewage disposal bed envelopes for each lot prior to the issuance of any building permit.  Such drawings shall be in compliance with the Ontario Building Code and to the satisfaction of the County of Brant.

17.  That the Owner/Developer provides 5% cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication to the County of Brant in accordance with the Parkland Dedication Policy in the Official Plan. The value of the land will be determined by a certified appraisal at the expense of the Owner/Developer.

18.  That the Owner/Developer provides a list showing all lot frontages and lot areas to assess compliance with the zoning by-law requirements. This list shall be prepared and certified by a qualified Ontario Land Surveyor.

19.  That the Owner/Developer is hereby advised that prior to commencing any work within the Plan, the Owner/Developer must confirm that sufficient wire-line communication/telecommunication infrastructure is currently available within the proposed development. In the event that such infrastructure is not available, the Owner/Developer is hereby advised that the Owner/Developer may be required to pay for the connection to and/or extension of the existing communication/telecommunication infrastructure, the Owner/Developer shall be required to demonstrate to the municipality that sufficient alternative communication/telecommunication facilities are available within the proposed development to enable, at a minimum, the effective delivery of communication/telecommunication services for emergency management services (i.e. 911 Emergency Services).

20.  The Subdivision Agreement shall require that the Owner/Developer to deposit in digital format the Plan of Subdivision, to the satisfaction of the County.

21.  Prior to the final registration of all or any part of the Development, the Owner/Developer’s surveyor shall submit to the County horizontal co-ordinates of all boundary monuments for the approved Development to the satisfaction of the County.

22.  The Subdivision Agreement shall include provisions for the completion and maintenance of works in accordance with the approved plans and reports set out in the Schedule or in the conditions of draft approval for the Development.

23.  The Subdivision Agreement shall provide that each offer of purchase of all or any part of the Development shall contain a caution to the purchaser of the following:

a.    That no alteration of the drainage plan for the property or surrounding properties is permitted without the express written approval of the County;

b.    That no buildings or structures, including but not limited to a single detached dwelling, accessory structure, fence, swimming pool or septic tank or tile bed, shall be erected on or over any easement required due to this Development; and

c.    That the purchaser on occasion may be subject to noise, odour and dust of agricultural origin due to the proximity of an existing agricultural operation.

d.    That the purchaser on occasion may be subject to noise due to the proximity of the existing Airport.

24.  The Subdivision Agreement shall include language to ensure that the Owner/Developer is responsible for the decommissioning of any boreholes drilled on the Development as part of a hydrogeological investigation, or for any other subsurface investigation and for decommissioning any wells located on the Development in accordance with the requirements of the Ontario Water Resources Act and Ministry of the Environment guidelines; and for any additional steps as may be required in order to obtain and forward to the County a certificate of a licensed Professional Engineer certifying such decommissioning has been done on the Development.

25.  The Subdivision Agreement shall include the following engineering requirements, in consultation with the GRCA, be satisfied prior to the registration and final approval of all or any part or all of the Development. To this end, the following matters are to be addressed:

a.    The Owner/Developer shall ensure that any sight distance restraints on Greens Road as shown on the plans for the Development, onto the County road allowance are to be relocated or removed in order that a sight distance consistent with County of Brant By-Law 45-12 (as amended) for Lots fronting Greens Roadis available in both directions. 

b.    The Owner/Developer shall ensure that any sight distance restraints on Greens Road as shown on the plans for the Development, onto the County road allowance are to be relocated or removed in order that a sight distance is consistent with the Geometric Design Standards (TAC) at the intersection of Street A and Greens Road.

 

c.    The Owner/Developer will be required to regrade the frontages of the Subject Lands to ensure that a sight distance consistent with County of Brant By-Law 45-12 (as amended) is provided and to allow for proper road drainage;

d.    Road widening across the entire frontage of the subject lands will be required to the satisfaction of the County;

e.    Relocation of any existing infrastructure, such as but not limited to, hydro poles and Bell pedestals, shall be at the expense of the Owner/Developer;

f.     The Owner/Developer will be required to provide and install underground services to the development and reconstruct the Greens Road as part of the servicing of the Development, to the satisfaction of the County, the cost of all of which shall be at the sole expense of the Owner/Developer;

g.    That the Owner/Developer installs trees at a minimum of 1 tree per lot frontage and 2 trees per lot flankage, being 50mm in caliper DBH, and of a native species as listed in the County’s Recommended Planting Species List, to the satisfaction of the County;

h.    Approval of the drawings for the Development shall be in accordance with the Schedule and the draft conditions of approval of the Development and such requirement shall be included in the Subdivision Agreement and shall be consistent with the County’s Development and Engineering Standards to the satisfaction of the County of Brant;

i.      The Owner/Developer be required to realign the existing storm water conveyance channel on Block 16, 2M-1921 to the satisfaction of the County;

 

j.      The Owner/Developer shall design and construct to the County’s satisfaction;

                                          i.    All on-site and off-site water supply and conveyance system facilities capable of servicing the Development. In the Subdivision Agreement the Owner/Developer will agree to pay for and to post security to cover the cost of all maintenance and repairs of such facilities until the expiration of all maintenance periods provided for in the Subdivision Agreement and until such facilities are accepted and assumed by the County under the terms of the Subdivision Agreement. If necessary, as determined by the County, the County will install, operate, maintain these some or all of such facilities services at the Owner/Developer’s cost and if this is necessary the Owner/Developer will enter into a contract and/or some other appropriate agreement with the County for this purpose until such facilities are accepted and assumed by the County under the terms of the Subdivision Agreement.

                                         ii.    All on-site and off-site storm water management systems servicing the Development. In the Subdivision Agreement the Owner/Developer will agree to pay for and to post security to cover the cost of all maintenance and repairs of such systems until the expiration of all maintenance periods provided for in the Subdivision Agreement and until such systems are accepted and assumed by the County under the terms of the Subdivision Agreement. If necessary, as determined by the County, the County will install, operate, maintain these some or all of such systems at the Owner/Developer’s cost and if this is necessary the Owner/Developer will enter into a contract and/or some other appropriate agreement with the County for this purpose until such systems are accepted and assumed by the County under the terms of the Subdivision Agreement.

26.  The Subdivision Agreement shall provide for the Developer/Owner’s consent to the County, at its sole discretion, employing the services of a peer review engineering consultant to review all engineering drawings related to infrastructure and transportation systems relating to the Development, and possible off-site impacts related to such infrastructure and the transportation systems on the surrounding neighbourhoods. At the time of the execution of the Subdivision Agreement, the Owner/Developer shall pay any and all such peer review costs incurred by the County to that date and, in the Subdivision Agreement, the Owner/Developer shall commit to paying all such peer review costs incurred by the County thereafter. In connection with these peer reviews, the County will provide the Owner/Developer with a schedule of peer review consultant rates and sufficient billing details for each peer review task.

27.  No earth moving, tree removal, grubbing activities and any other site work shall be undertaken on the Development until the Owner/Developer has entered into the Subdivision Agreement. No servicing of the Development or any other work will be permitted without the execution and registration of the Subdivision Agreement which includes the provision for security and $5.0 million public liability insurance and all required provincial and agency approvals, including Environmental Certificates of Approvals. This works prohibition excludes normal maintenance and those interim grading works which are specifically permitted by a Pre-Servicing Agreement with the County. The interim works permitted by a Pre-Servicing Agreement shall be limited to grading the Development. In order for the Owner/developer to undertake any interim grading work under such a Pre-Servicing Agreement, the following items must be addressed and/or provided to the satisfaction of the County:

 

a.      Detailed drainage and grading plan for the Development;

b.      Interim stormwater control plan for the Development;

c.      Erosion and sediment control plan for the Development;

d.      Interim road care plan for Greens Road ;

e.      Haul road designation if materials are to be removed from the Development;

f.       Hydrogeological and Geotechnical reports;

g.      Water Distribution System Model update in support of this Development;

h.      Dust control plan;

i.       Securities to address and implement any necessary measures noted in the above plans and reports; and

j.       Liability insurance.

28.  That the Owner/Developer be required to pay to the County their apportioned monetary contribution for the road improvements at the intersection of Colborne Street West & Forced Road/Pleasant Ridge Road.

29.  At any time prior to final approval of the Subdivision, the County may ask for additional information or material that the County may consider it needs.

30.  County Development Charges and Surcharges are payable in accordance with the applicable County Development Charges By-Law, as amended from time to time.

31.  At least 90 days prior to final approval of the Development, the County of Brant is to be advised in writing, by the Owner/Developer, how conditions 1 through 27 have been satisfied.

32.  That pursuant to Section 51 (32) of the Planning Act, draft plan approval, together with all conditions, shall hereby lapse in three years from the date of granting draft plan approval by the County of Brant, should final approval not be given.

 

NOTES TO DRAFT PLAN APPROVAL:

 

1.    It is the Owner/Developer’s responsibility to fulfill the conditions of draft plan approval and to ensure that the required clearance letters are forwarded to the County of Brant by the appropriate agencies.

 

2.    The final plan approved by the County of Brant must be registered within 30 days of final clearance by the County or the County may withdraw its approval pursuant to Section 51(59) of the Planning Act.

 

 

3.    As noted as a condition, the County will require registration of the Subdivision Agreement against the subject lands, to which it applies, as notice to prospective purchasers.

 

4.    The Owner/Developer shall be responsible for notifying the County of Brant six (6) months in advance of the lapse date of its intention with respect to the extension of draft plan approval of the Residential Subdivision.

And that application ZBA 35/16/MD from Development Engineering (London) Limited, agent for 2500113 Ontario Inc., applicant for Concession 4, Part Lots 18 & 19, geographic Township of Brantford, County of Brant, located at 299 and 301 Oakhill Drive to rezone the subject lands from Agricultural (A) and Natural Heritage (NH) to Suburban Residential (SR) and Open Space (OS2) be approved.

.Carried

 

In discussion, Mr. Davidson suggested that an “H” provision be applied to the development to ensure water infrastructure is in place before building permits are issued. He confirmed that storm water management will be overseen by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) and by Grading Inspectors. Committee expressed concerns about creek protection, general environmental protection and whether the three developments should be considered together. Mr. Davidson explained that the Willowdale application requires further environmental work and the resubmission for Forrest Road is not complete.

 

In response to questions, Mr. Trotter clarified that each application is a separate application by individual developers under the Planning Act. This application is before Committee because it is complete. The other two applications are not and it is not reasonable to bring them forward at this time. The three applications were submitted over a year ago and the County of Brant has continued working with the developers as water was not available.

PS 2/18/MD & ZBA 11/18/MD (Kingwood Subdivision, 274 Pottruff Road)

Deferred.

Committee Reports

Moved by – Mayor Bailey

Seconded by – Councillor Bell

 

That the following recommendations of the County of Brant Heritage Committee form its meeting on June 6, 2019 be approved:

 

1.    That the Brant Heritage Committee supports the design / architectural renderings as submitted for the property at 199 Grand River Street North;

And that the Brant Heritage Committee offer information on the historical significance of this property to the owner.

 

2.    That the Brant Heritage Committee does not support the removal of the field stone, circa. 1865 Georgian Structure at 452 West River Road, South Dumfries;

And that any endeavour that would preserve the structure for future use would be supported.

.Carried

Other Business

In response to questions, Mr. Trotter stated that the notice requirement is to owners within 120 metres of a development. An updated property notice sign has been drafted and will be presented to Committee for review.

 

General Manager’s Update

Rob Trotter, Acting General Manager of Development Services, updated Committee on the following:

·         Regulations pertaining to Bill 108 have not been released. A report will be forthcoming when it can be compiled.

Next Meeting and Adjournment

Committee adjourned at 10:57 p.m. to meet again on Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. at the County of Brant Council Chambers.

 

 

 

                                                                                    __________________________________

                                                                                    Secretary