Title
NEW COMPREHENSIVE CITY-WIDE ZONING BY-LAW - DRAFT 3 (FILE: D30-016-2024)
Michelle Banfield, Executive Director of Development Services and Liam Munnoch, Planner of the Development Services Department provided a presentation regarding the new comprehensive City-wide Zoning By-Law - Draft 3.
Ms. Banfield and Mr. Munnoch discussed slides concerning the following topics:
• An overview of the public meeting;
• The community consultation process with residents;
• The purpose of a New Zoning By-law;
• The rationale for a Form-based By-law;
• The proposed new zone categories;
• A chart illustrating the expanded building types in neighbourhood zones;
• The proposed new zoning by-law parking standards;
• The proposed new zoning by-law standards related to Community design; and
• The next steps for the new zoning by-law.
Members of Committee asked a number of questions and received answers.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
1. Gerry Pilon was unable to attend. Ryan Stitt on behalf of Salter Pilon Architects spoke in his place. Mr. Stitt outlined concerns relating to architectural design being mixed with the regulations of the Zoning By-law causing a blurred condition. Mr. Stitt expressed that the proposed Zoning By-law does not allow for developments to progress in a positive manner and that the regulations are arbitrary, unsupported by study or rationale, lack legislative support in the Planning Act, will result in increased construction costs and will make the City’s urban factor generic housing.
Mr. Stitt recommended updating the current by-law rather than preparing a form based by-law and the removal of many of the urban design requirements with a report on what has been removed.
Mr. Stitt indicated that he would like to see a detailed rationale for each remaining urban design provision that includes how the requirements implement the City’s Official Plan objectives and Strategic Plan, if the requirements impact on density and if they impact on construction costs. Mr. Stitt would also like to see information on how many lots in the City would become non-conforming under the proposed by-law.
2. Mujtaba Mir from Redwood Park Communities addressed his comments in relation to making housing more affordable and expressed concerns with respect to the need to reduce parking requirements and increase height allowances in key zones.
3. Bob Lehman, 39 Kempenfelt Drive discussed two different ways of treating zoning one being using the existing by-law and the other being pre-zoning which the proposed by-law does. Mr. Lehman stated that in a pre-zoning by-law there is no Council input on land use.
Mr. Lehman outlined concerns relating to the proposed by-law not conforming to the City’s Official Plan and the elimination of public input and Council decision making on land use. Mr. Lehman indicated that you can pre-zone in certain areas but has concerns with the degree of pre-zoning in the draft by-law.
Mr. Lehman had concerns relating to building design regulations which do not offer the opportunity for creativity for architects and which increase costs.
Mr. Lehman shared concerns relating to process and a lack of rationale as to why the amendments in the proposed by-law are being made.
4. Michelle Dada of MNT Consulting was not in attendance.
5. Cathy Colebatch outlined concerns with the proposed by-law relating to the lack of notification to neighbouring property owners of housing activity as well as the lack of affordable building stock. Ms. Colebatch also spoke about historic neighbourhoods and the lack of policies in the by-law and suggested that mapping be included in the next draft of the by-law. Ms. Colebatch also cited concerns regard hen coops.
6. Damon Shareski, 30 Kempenfelt Drive, shared concerns regarding properties becoming nonconforming and the allowance only for cluster townhouses. He cited concerns relating to issues buyers and sellers of properties will face if their property is non-conforming such as obtaining a mortgage.
Mr. Shareski also had concerns relating to zoning designations being different within the same street as well as the lack of personal notification relating to a proposed change in zoning for his property.
7. Jerry Bruce, 5 Kempenfelt Drive discussed concerns relating to the proposed new Zoning By-law. Mr. Bruce shared concerns regarding zoning approval being given in advance to permit four storey apartments as well as no longer notifying neighbouring property owners of proposed developments/changes in the area.
Mr. Bruce shared concerns about losing a voice in the community about neighbourhoods and communities.
8. Ray Duhamel spoke on behalf of Hewitt’s Creek Landowner’s Group as well as individual landowners in the Hewitt and Salem areas and landowners along the intensification corridors in the downtown and employment areas. Mr. Duhamel outlined that over the years the iterations of the Zoning By-law have each generally become more permissive and the draft by-law is more prescriptive and is form based. Mr. Duhamel questioned why the current Zoning By-law needs to be changed.
Mr. Duhamel outlined concerns relating to the removal of site plan approval for buildings under ten units and the increased difficulties faced for land in an employment area or in intensification corridor.
Mr. Duhamel also had concerns relating to building costs specifically with respect to permitted uses in employment areas and the costs associated with angular planes. Concerns relating to nonconformity and transitional provisions were also raised.
Councillor, G. Harvey raised a point of order
Mr. Duhamel asked that staff consider going through the provisions and consider impact on housing and cost affordability, providing justification for provisions, review the Statutory Authority and obtain a legal opinion.
9. Ann Andrews was not in attendance.
10. Darick Battaglia, 205 Jean Street spoke about the change from Open Space Designation to Green Space Designation and the impact that change will have on property owners including limiting future uses. Mr. Battaglia requested that the by-law exempt his property from the change in designation.
11. Janet Lougheed, 206 Kempenfelt Drive expressed concerns relating to the removal of rights of neighbourhoods to be involved in their future relating to the permitting as a right issue with no public input required.
12. Elver Pippo, representing landowners at 380 Mapleview Drive cited concerns relating to not having blanketed conditions, understanding that each site has its own specific conditions and zoning based on road type.
13. Kelly Patterson-McGrath, 19 Maplehurst Crescent spoke on behalf of South Shore Nature Task Force and discussed concerns relating specifically to Allendale Station Park and cited Marshall Green’s report and the recommendation that the Allendale Station Park be zoned Environmental Protection.
Ms. Patterson-McGrath shared concerns that under the proposed by-law an Environmental Protection Designation will not be available for Allendale Station Park and indicated that the South Shore Nature Task Force recommends that there are no buildings and no lighting permitted at Allendale Station Park.
Ms. Patterson-McGrath indicated that nature-based solutions are needed to help address climate change and being good land stewards will help create a thriving area for future generations.
14. Brandon Bortoluzzi, 59 Henry Street, outlined concerns regarding zoning split with different zoning designations on the same street and misalignment with the current direction of the neighbourhood, incongruent scale, incongruent land use and existing non-conforming and legal non-conforming status.
Mr. Bortoluzzi also shared concerns regarding safety and infrastructure related to increased traffic.
15. Alfred Dick, 215 Dunlop Street East provided comments relating to the forest area at Allandale Station Park. Mr. Dick indicated that the current zoning would protect the forest area but the zoning in the proposed by-law would permit outdoor recreation which could include a playing field. Mr. Dick would like the permitted use of outdoor recreation to be removed from that property.
Mr. Dick spoke about the conveyance of the land to the City from CN Rail and the restrictive covenant that came with it relating to using the land only for uses relating to recreational purposes, cultural purposes or public entertainment purposes.
16. Marc Bartolucci, 9 Lang Drive discussed the new Zoning By-law and restrictions regarding window to wall ratio for buildings. He also outlined concerns on the potential cost implications to developers for window glazing and street facing facades, amount of parking spaces potentially discouraging developers from future building in the city.
Mr. Bartolucci discussed the City’s Urban Design guidelines, and risking limiting the ability to design properly for the future
17 Kelly Hubbard on behalf of Hospice Simcoe, 336 Penetanguishene Drive and 69 Larkin Drive requested a revision to the proposed Zoning By-law to permit hospice to be primary use on the property. Ms. Hubbard outlined their long-term use of the existing building and property, including plans for a new facility which would be at risk under the proposed by-law. The property is currently zoned as institutional but under the proposed by-law would be designated as a community hub neighbourhood which represents a shift in zoning designation.
Ms. Hubbard commented on the role Hospice Simcoe plays in the community to provide palliative care, end of life care, grief and bereavement services.
18. William Scott, 126 Burton Avenue shared concerns relating to the impact of the proposed by-law on past provisions to protect the historical character of old Allendale, specifically the 2016 By-law and the Allendale Heritage Urban Design Development Guidelines. Mr. Scott feels that the proposed by-law nearly eliminates the heritage protections for old Allendale and urged Council to preserve the provision of the 2016 By-law and the Urban Design Development Guidelines.
19. Lisa McKee, 100 Blake Street discussed whether people would move to Barrie in the future if there is the potential to be living beside apartment building in a single family neighbourhood. She discussed concerns that the proposed new zoning by-law has the potential to affect population demographics within the community, the erosion of a segment of the community population that provide financial backbone the community in various ways. She discussed the zoning policy with respect to neighbourhoods and four story buildings which she sees as a simple fix in terms of development opportunities but there are other opportunities to repurposing, existing retail commercial properties that are under utilized by partnering with property owners to create a feasible plan to create affordable housing.
20. Creighton Vermeer was not in attendance.
21. Michael McKnight, 32 Parkside Drive feels that the proposed by-law is too prescriptive. He discussed concerns related to increased costs to meet the proposed guidelines, prescribing window glazing, angular planes and designating exterior finishes. Mr. McKnight feels that the proposed by-laws is the wrong place for these prescriptions.
22. Brian Smith , 5 Dove Crescent indicated that he does not object to a form based zoning approach but that it must be done in a away that reasonably aligns with the existing land use across the city and respects and protects the character of existing neighbourhoods. Mr. Smith outlined concerns relating to zoning based on road type and specified that it may be suitable for a new sub-division but not for existing neighbourhoods.
Mr. Smith shared concerns relating to the absence of inclusion of the City’s Urban Design Guidelines in the proposed by-law and recommends that staff ensure the guidelines are reviewed and included in the Zoning By-law.
Mr. Smith also commented on the lack of public input available for the residential sector under the proposed by-law.
23. Edward Tracy was not in attendance.
24. Ryan Stitt on behalf of Salter Pilon Architects outlined concerns relating to window to wall ratio requirements which limit design abilities and the associated costs.
25. Seaghan Hancocks, 305 Pine Drive spoke against the proposed by-law and indicated he views it as a personal attack on neighbourhoods, living conditions, lifestyle as well as rights and freedoms.
Mr. Hancocks felt that the proposed zoning by-law document is not user friendly and should be clear and concise indicating current and new zoning categories
Mr. Hancocks discussed concerns related to increased buildings contributing to the parking issue, winter driving hazards and that developers/speculators will be free to buy up housing and build rental units without neighbours concerns being considered.
Mr. Hancocks discussed the definition of the term affordable housing and provided some suggestions to assist in housing affordability such as a cap on real estate fees and capping profit on new housing.
26 Karen Hansen spoke on behalf of Pratt Homes. Ms. Hansen had concerns relating to affordable housing in the Barrie and shared concerns that the proposed by-law will create a foundation of giving less housing options and that the impacts on affordable housing will be devastating.
27. Heljar Hansen spoke on behalf of the Simcoe County Homebuilders Association. Mr Hansen commented on the major housing crisis and outlined concerns with the proposed by-law removing products that are working and making housing more expensive.
WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE:
1. Correspondence from Lehman and Associates dated September 14, 2024
2. Correspondence from the Jones Consulting Group Ltd. dated September 26, 2024.
3. Correspondence from Salter Pilon Architecture Inc. dated September 27, 2024.
4. Correspondence from Arnie Ivsins dated September 27, 2024.
5. Correspondence from Bradley Homes dated September 30, 2024.
6. Correspondence from the Jones Consulting Group Ltd. dated September 27, 2024
7. Correspondence from Kelly-Patterson McGrath, Ashley Hammell and Pollinate Barrie dated September 29, 2024.
8. Correspondence from Lauro Palomba dated September 28, 2024.
9. Correspondence from L. Gerry dated September 28, 2024.
10. Correspondence from Tom Gerry dated September 29, 2024.
11. Correspondence from the Jones Consulting Group Ltd. dated September 30, 2024.
12. Correspondence from the Jones Consulting Group Ltd. dated September 30, 2024.
13. Correspondence from the Jones Consulting Group Ltd. dated September 30, 2024.
14. Correspondence from Tom and Shawn Fendley dated September 30, 2024.
15. Correspondence from the Simcoe County District School Board dated October 1, 2024.
16. Correspondence from Damon and Kim Shareski dated October 1, 2024.
17. Correspondence from Lehman and Associates dated October 1, 2024.
18. Correspondence from Saeid Amini dated October 1, 2024.
19. Correspondence from Sean Mason dated October 1, 2024.
20. Correspondence from Dorothy McKeown dated October 1, 2024.
21. Correspondence from Dorothy McKeown dated October 1, 2024.
22. Correspondence from the Allandale Neighbourhood Association dated October 1, 2024.
23. Correspondence from the Jones Consulting Group dated October 1, 2024.
24. Correspondence from the Jones Consulting Group dated October 1, 2024.
25. Correspondence from Gary Bell dated October 1, 2024
26. Correspondence from the Jones Consulting Group dated October 1, 2024.
27. Correspondence from the Jones Consulting Group dated October 1, 2024.
28. Correspondence from KLM Planning dated October 1, 2024.
29. Correspondence from Craig Mathieson dated October 1, 2024.
30. Correspondence from Dorothy McKeown dated October 2, 2024.
31. Correspondence from MHBC Planning Urban Design and Landscape Architecture dated October 4, 2024.
32. Correspondence from Arcadis dated September 26, 2024.
33. Correspondence from Agora Research Group Ltd. dated September 26, 2024.
34. Correspondence from the Jones Consulting Group Ltd dated November 1, 2024.
35. Correspondence from James W. Wiegand Barrister and Solicitor dated October 4, 2024.
36. Correspondence from the Jones Consulting Group Ltd. dated October 11, 2024.
37. Correspondence from MHBC Planning Urban Design and Landscape Architecture dated October 4, 2024.
38. Correspondence from MHBC Planning Urban Design and Landscape Architecture dated October 4, 2024.
39. Correspondence from MHBC Planning Urban Design and Landscape Architecture dated October 4, 2024.
40. Correspondence from MHBC Planning Urban Design and Landscape Architecture dated October 4, 2024.
41. Correspondence from MHBC Planning Urban Design and Landscape Architecture dated October 4, 2024.
42. Correspondence from Donna King dated November 1, 2024.
43. Correspondence from Robert Lehman dated November 6, 2024.
44. Correspondence from Petr Malik dated November 11, 2024.
45. Correspondence from Arnie Ivsins dated November 11, 2024.
46. Correspondence from Joe Quinto dated November 11, 2024.
47. Correspondence from Joanne Waddell dated November 10, 2024.
48. Correspondence from Barbara McVeigh dated November 10, 2024.
49. Correspondence from Hospice Simcoe dated November 7, 2024.
50. Correspondence from Kelly Patterson-McGrath of South Shore Nature Park Task Force dated November 10, 2024.
51. Correspondence from William Scott received November 10, 2024.
52. Correspondence from Jeff Garner dated November 12, 2024.
53. Correspondence from Baldwin Planning and Development Consultants dated November 10, 2024.
54. Correspondence from KBJ Mills dated November 14, 2024.
55. Correspondence from Deborah and Paul French dated November 11, 2024.
56. Correspondence from KLM Planning dated November 11, 2024.
57. Correspondence from Gail and Barbara Shotlander dated November 12, 2024.
58. Correspondence from Judy Poyntz dated November 12, 2024.
59. Correspondence from Tanis Maclaren dated November 13, 2024.
60. Correspondence from Colleen Elizabeth dated November 13, 2024.
61. Correspondence from Gary Bell dated November 13, 2024.
62. Correspondence from the Barrie Arts Alliance dated November 13, 2024.
63. Correspondence from Kathy Thompson dated November 13, 2024.
64. Correspondence from Brandon Bortoluzzi dated November 14, 2024.
65. Correspondence from John and Dianne Malinowski dated November 14, 2024.
66. Correspondence from Patricia and Timothy Roebuck dated November 14, 2024
67. Correspondence from MHBC Planning Urban Design and Landscape Architecture dated October 4, 2024.
68. Correspondence from Innovative Planning Solutions dated November 14, 2024.
69. Correspondence from Innovative Planning Solutions dated November 14, 2024.
70. Correspondence from Innovative Planning Solutions dated November 14, 2024.
71. Correspondence from Innovative Planning Solutions dated November 14, 2024.
72. Correspondence from Innovative Planning Solutions dated November 14, 2024.
73. Correspondence from Innovative Planning Solutions dated November 14, 2024.