The CAO/Clerk read the regulations and advised that notice has been provided in accordance with the Planning Act. The Consulting Township Planner reviewed the report and advised the purpose and effect of the Zoning By-law Amendment is to permit a detached accessory dwelling unit as a permitted use.
The Consulting Township Planner advised that not all comments were received from the circulated agencies at the time of writing the report. All other comments were noted in the report.
Council discussed the comments from the Mississauga’s of the New Credit First Nation on both of the zoning applications being discussed in the public meeting regarding the need for a Stage 1 Archeological Assessment. The Consulting Township Planner advised that the list of criteria would be reviewed and that they will work with the First Nations regarding the approach to satisfying the comments.
Andrew Welk and Erin Maltais, the applicants, and Nancy, the applicants mother-in-law, were in attendance for questions and comments.
Comments received in writing from Tara Fradette:
Jerome and I had inquired about an additional residence and were told not an option. Only a temporary structure could be built using "existing" septic and well.
Now we see that this property is sold and they are most likely going to be granted the thing we were denied.
In addition, we were told those 2 x 10 acre properties were red circled on the mapping and this would not allow any residential buildings to be built as too close to the farm across the street.
Today, Valerie stated 437 meters from the barn and the new build would only be 120 meters, therefore within range?
This applied to a residential build, and now not only are we getting 1 house, but 2.
In addition, it is protected by Grand River conservation. Wouldn't an application to this authority be required for the same?
Valerie Schmidt mentioned an amendment to the rural zoning to include an additional dwelling unit. The 1st resident being 140.7 square meters (1514 sq ft) and 2nd being 81.2 sq meters (874 sq ft).
2 septic, 1 well
Later, in her summary, she states each dwelling has its own septic and well.
Q: Which is it?
She also states no enquiries or concerns from enbridge?
This properties do not have gas lines, they are propane.
My questions and concerns under the RU-33 and EP-17 are the following:
1) Grand river protected. Where will the layout of these homes be located on the property?
2) Septic needs to accomodate property. Allowance for 1 septic on this land as per current policy.
3) hydro one - the current houses on 8th line (294550 & neighbour) shall be reimbursed for the hydro costs that were paid at the time of building.
4) remainder a healthy natural environment.
5) conservation of natural features
If no residential structures are allowed under the Environmental policy, then how are 2 structures allowed. Doesn't application have to exist to the Grand River?
You are aware of my concerns from my previous email and decisions by your office that did not allow us to add an additional residence for our parents for similar reasons, yet, this is ok?
Thanks for your time, Take care, Tara Fradette
No other comments were received from the public at the meeting.