Everybody loves “2 For 1” offers, but for this post we are offering a “3 For 1″… free of charge! Just for you we have info on the upcoming Council and Budget Meeting and notes on the April 10th Planning & Development meeting.
Here is the agenda for the upcoming Council meeting on Monday, April 16th at 7:00 pm:
https://grimsby.civicweb.net/filepro/documents?expanded=542,543,90113&preview=93390
Following that, on Tuesday, April 17th at 5:00 pm there will be a special Committee of the Whole to finalize the budget:
https://grimsby.civicweb.net/filepro/documents?preview=93388
April 10 – Planning & Development Committee Notes
Agenda: https://grimsby.civicweb.net/filepro/documents?expanded=542,773,89907&preview=93144
Minutes: https://grimsby.civicweb.net/filepro/documents?expanded=1127,1923,90105&preview=93376
Zoning By-law Corrections Open House
A number of corrections and amendments were proposed for:
- Garages & driveways
- Swimming pools
- Main Street zone setbacks
- Definitions for building depth and garages
- “In-building parking” changed from being considered a garage to a parking lot
- Temporary sales trailers
- Acoustical fence height
- Parking within yards in Residential Zones
In addition, a number of proposed changes to site specific exceptions were presented. These included identifying Block 6 in Lions Gates Estates (147-149 Lake Street) as a “street”. The Zoning By-law defines street as:
“Street
means a right-of-way owned by a public authority and which has been opened, improved, maintained and assumed for public use and for the purposes of this By-law does not include a lane or any private street.”
Member Gillespie said that Block 6 should be clearly defined as a private street, not public. Ms. Amy Shanks, Town planner, stated that she would check the site specific exception for this property.
A number of amendments are proposed for the Vineyard Valley subdivision to change a number of yard setback requirements. Similarly, changes to some property yard setbacks for Bartlett Orchard’s subdivision are proposed. Ms. Shanks suggested that residents of these two developments could contact her directly to see how these proposed amendments impact them as it wasn’t possible to identify each one.
207 and 209 Main Street West, Lots 1-3 currently have an assigned maximum lot coverage of 15%. The by-law amendment proposes a maximum lot coverage of 35% with a minimum front yard of 6 metres. Chairman DiFlavio stated that he did not recall a site plan being approved for these properties and was concerned that the setback of 6 metres may impact the character of Main Street. Mr. Basic, Deputy Director of Planning stated that a subdivision agreement, not site plan, has been registered on title.
Another interesting proposed zoning amendment is for 194 Woolverton Road. The proposal is to add “processing, packaging, storage, or shipment of agricultural products” that previously were permitted uses under the former by-law 71-74, but not included in the new by-law. Interestingly, at the Committee of Adjustment meeting on April 3rd, a medical marihuana facility use for this address was approved, but specifically not to include processing…
b) A-06/18 CANNOLEUM INC
194 Woolverton Road Grimsby ON
L3M 4E7The Committee then considered Submission A-06/18 by Cannoleum Inc. to allow a medical marihuana facility with a southerly sideyard setback of 51.4 metres in a Specialty Crop (SC) Zone at 194 Woolverton Road Grimsby.
Correspondence was received from:
Town Planning Department – Request conditions.Mr. Jarod Marcus of IBI Group, Planner for the owner appeared before the Committee to support the application and outlined for the Committee that the operation is to reuse an existing building used as a printing plant. They propose to install a new septic system to service the building. The requested variance is based on setbacks from adjacent lot lines for properties used for residential purposes. The road allowance appears to belong to the adjacent southerly property and therefore they would request that the application be amended to a setback of 31 metres rather than the requested 51.4 metres. There will be no construction as they proposed to only occupy the existing 26000 square foot building.
Mr. Steven Verbeek of Cannoleum Inc. stated that they have to abide to very strict Health Canada criteria and will not grow plants to a flowering stage as this will be a genetic research lab. The plants will not flower and will not produce the odour associated with grow operations and as a result, the plants do not have any street value reducing the attraction for theft and crime.
Mr. Andrew Van Geest, speaking on behalf of the southerly property owners on Woolverton Road questioned whether this could be converted to a full scale growing operation as the industry is changing rapidly.
Mr. Chris Goater of Woolverton Road, questioned whether this operation would have a odour and how it would impact his property value.
CA-18-16
Moved by N. Andreychuk; Seconded by P. Settimi;
Resolved to amend the application for minor variance by Cannoleum Inc. at #194 Woolverton Road to allow a medical marihuana facility to establish in an existing concrete block & metal clad building as identified in survey dated 09/28/2017 by Matthews, Cameron, Heywood, with a setback of 30 metres to a lot line of a residential use in a Specialty Crop (SC) Zone.CARRIED
CA-18-17
(sic) Moved by ; Seconded by ;
Resolved to allow a medical marihuana facility to establish in an existing concrete block & metal clad building as identified in survey dated 09/28/2017 by Matthews, Cameron, Heywood, at #194 Woolverton Road in a Specialty Crop (SC) Zone with a setback of 30 metres to a lot line of a residential use be approved with conditions for the following reasons:
- The Variance is minor in nature.
- The intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law is maintained.
- The proposal is desirable for the appropriate development of the land.
Subject to the following conditions:
- The medical marihuana facility operates within the existing building at #194 Woolverton Road.
- The medical marihuana facility only grows plants to a non flowering stage and does not include processing
CARRIED
Dave Sharpe raised a concern that standards for driveway width at the street did not take into consideration properties with larger frontage and setbacks and asked why townhomes with small lots have the same rules (6m) as large lots. He suggested that allowance should be made for wider driveways for larger lots. Ms. Shanks replied that driveway width is applicable to urban zones.
Dorothy Bothwell raised a number of questions on parking and the definition of “in-building parking” and parking podiums. She asked if there was a restriction on height or number of levels for in-building parking and if the density counts towards the gross floor area.
Where an apartment building may take up 50% of the lot, and a parking podium may take up 40% of the lot, she asked if it counted towards the total lot coverage. Ms. Bothwell suggested these need to be clearly defined in the zoning by-law as more developments are being built with “in-building parking” and parking podiums.
Planning staff did not answer these questions. Chair DiFlavio requested that her questions be put in writing to the Committee and they would be answered. Ms. Bothwell asked that as Open House comments from the public are not required to be recorded in the minutes that these questions be answered in the public minutes.
Member Finch raised the issue of townhouse driveway parking spaces not having adequate clearance for unobstructed entrance and exit of drivers from their vehicles. This is evident in a recently approved subdivision at the corner of Nelles Road North and Main Street East. Ms. Shanks confirmed that parking space size is defined in the zoning by-law, but that this could be looked at. Mr. Basic noted that he had tried parking in one of these spaces and that it can be done. He stated that purchasers of these units need to be aware of what they’re buying.
Alderman Johnston asked if a carport is considered a garage. Ms. Shanks replied that a carport would be a garage.
10 Windward Drive – Rosebay “Odyssey” 20 Storey Site Plan Application
Read more about this development by clicking this link.
Franz Kloibhofer, Senior Planner with A.J. Clarke & Associates Ltd. presented the revised site plan application. This development was originally proposed as two joined 16 storey towers, then two separate 16 storey towers, then an 18 and 14 storey tower with townhomes on the site, and now a single 20 storey tower with additional townhomes.
The site plan includes 206 units in the apartment building, 10 townhomes above retail and 17 townhomes on Windward Drive. At almost 68 metres in height, it will not exceed the site-specific zoning, even with the additional two storeys. The planner noted that efficiencies have been found by using thinner floor slabs and lower ceiling heights. The 363 parking spaces provided will allow for 1.60 spaces/residential unit. He noted that the single tower will significantly reduce the amount of shadowing and the building is positioned right between Lakehouse’s two six storey buildings for lake views. There will be a sky lounge on the 20th floor.
Member Agnew noted that the revised plan does not incorporate any two bedrooms with den or three bedroom units. The architect for the developer stated that this was an error on the chart and there will be two bedrooms with dens and that there is a possibility other suites may be combined depending on market sales. The units will range in size from 600 to 1,250 sq. ft. The townhomes will be approximately 2,000 sq. ft.
Aldermen also raised the question of how the $100,000 in Section 37 height bonusing was arrived at and how it will be decided what those funds will be used for. Planning staff indicated that a committee will provide advice to Council. Alderman Johnston also requested that the developer consider installing sprinklers in each unit.
Member Gillespie noted that the Conditions of Site Plan Approval, Appendix A, #7 should be rewritten as there are no longer two buildings. Planning staff stated that it does not need to be changed as they just haven’t determined where between “which two buildings” the plaque will go. Confused? You aren’t alone, we don’t understand that explanation either…
“7. The landscape plan for the outdoor corridor between the two buildings on the site is to accommodate a Grimsby Remembers historical interpretive plaque feature provided at the cost of the applicant (approximately $2100). The applicant would be invoiced for the full cost of the plaque.”
Member Gillespie asked the developer, Mr. Silvio Guglietti of Rosebay Construction, “How close are we to the final site plan?”. Mr. Guglietti responded that he “really, really hopes we’ve done it”. Some statements were further made about the increase in height, the $100,000 for community benefits, and the addition of the library.
Chair DiFlavio mentioned that there are a number of Odyssey marketing signs put on poles, beyond reach to remove. He asked that these be taken down. Mr. Guglietti said he would take care of it.
That’s all for this post… didn’t think we would say this in mid-April but drive carefully and stay warm!