TITLE
APPLICATION FOR A ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT - 149, 151 AND 153 DUNLOP STREET EAST AND 5 MULCASTER STREET (WARD 2) (FILE: D30-029-2024)
Maurizio Rogato, David Riley, and Andrew Shields representatives of Blackthorn Development Corporation advised that the purpose of the Public Meeting is to review an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment for lands known municipally as 149, 151, and 153 Dunlop Street East, Barrie.
The representatives discussed slides concerning the following topics:
• The subject site and surrounding areas;
• The site plan and proposal overview;
• Rendered views 1, 2, 3, and 4;
• Official Plan Designation;
• Zoning By-law 2009-141: North Section; and
• The requested Zoning By-law Amendment.
Celese Kitsemetry, Supervisor of Growth Management of Development Services provided an update concerning the status of the application. She advised that the primary planning and land use matters are currently being reviewed along with the comments that were received regarding the development. Ms. Kitsemetry discussed the anticipated timelines for the staff report regarding the proposed application.
Members of Committee asked a number of questions and received responses.
Verbal Comments:
1. Diane Vetter, 140 Dunlop Street East spoke to photos of the proposed development and created a visualized view moving along the waterfront until the proposed development is reached. Ms. Vetter questioned if the proposed development is the best use of these environmentally sensitive lands. Ms. Vetter indicated that changes will come but that those changes should not be the development that is being proposed.
2. Ian Rowe, discussed being against the proposed development citing concerns relating to blocking the view of the waterfront, impacts to the park and nature in the area and restricting the ability to utilize underground parking.
Mr. Rowe indicated that the Official Plan speaks to waterfront development and high rises. Mr. Rowe indicated the proposal does not retain nor enhance the view or vistas in the area. He indicated planning justification with respect to parking is inadequate, and he outlined concerns regarding the amount of parking for Electric Vehicles. Mr. Rowe discussed concerns with the time of day and season of the traffic study as apposed to a peak period. He also raised concerns with the groundwater and contaminated soil and spoke to water concerns. Mr. Rowe referenced a hydro geology report, which speaks to soil issues with this site. He indicated that the soil study identified that the soil is not weight bearing. He shared his concerns relating to noise during the construction and impacts on neighbouring properties due to the non weight bearing soil, as well as water usage concerns during construction. Mr. Rowe also outlined concerns regarding the excessive height of the building and shadow impacts. Mr. Rowe also had concerns with impacts to area parks and liability concerns for the City if the proposal proceeds.
3. Glenn Wood did not speak and instead gave his five-minute time frame to a previous speaker, Ian Rowe.
4. Beverly Medland discussed being against the proposed development and shared her concerns related to blocking the view of the waterfront, the environment and traffic infrastructure, as well as the demands on sewage infrastructure.
5. Livia De-Gennaro - name was called and was not present.
6. Laura Reid, 150 Dunlop St East discussed being against the proposed development and cited concerns relating to traffic and timing of when the traffic study was completed. Ms. Reid outlined her concerns relating to traffic jams at different times of the day as well as the lack of available parking proposed with the development. Ms. Reid spoke to the need for additional housing in the City and suggested that this development will not be the solution for low cost housing in the City.
7. Mehdi Shemirani did not wish to provide comments.
8. Jacques Guilbault did not speak and instead gave his five-minute time frame to a previous speaker, Ian Rowe.
9. Ana Vincente did not wish to provide comments.
10. Dianne Jones, 150 Dunlop Street East discussed being against the proposed development and raised concerns regarding impacts to parks, and traffic congestion. Ms. Jones spoke about preserving the waterfront and suggested there are other development options that would be better suited and urged Council to consider public comments.
11. Jake Nogy, 150 Dunlop Street East discussed being against the proposed development stating that it blocks the view of the downtown waterfront, adds to an already congested area, and shared concerns relating to parks, trails, and maintaining the integrity of those spaces.
12. Stephanie San Miguel did not speak and instead gave her five-minute time frame to a previous speaker, Ian Rowe.
13. Marianna Koljubakin did not speak and instead gave her five-minute time frame to a previous speaker, Ian Rowe.
14. Sean Wensel, 140 Dunlop Street discussed being against the proposed development and cited concerns relating to ratio of units to parking spaces and the unsuitability of the transit service to the area.
15. Jelani Bartlett, 185 Dunlop Street East, discussed being in favour of the proposed development as it would be an asset with a few simple changes including parking requirements, as well as 1 to 1 bike stalls required in the development, right in right out requiring two parking spots in the street to facilitate this, requirement to provide car share if there is a reduction in parking standards in future developments.
16. Jorge Gomez, 150 Dunlop Street East discussed being against the proposed development stating there is no access for service trucks to get in and out causing heavy traffic congestion.
17. Bill Hunter, 140 Dunlop Street East discussed being against the proposed development stating that the traffic situation that was reviewed for the study is not the same as the traffic situation now. Mr. Hunter advised that it is quite hard to get in and out of this area and adding this development would cause more congestion.
18. Barb Wensel, 140 Dunlop Street East discussed being against the proposed development stating it takes away from the natural beauty of the waterfront and expressed her concerns about this being a way for the City to increase tax dollars.
19. Beverly Forge, 108 Collier Street discussed being against the proposed development and raised concerns with respect to pedestrians crossing at intersections, particularly seniors.
20. Manon Heran, 140 Dunlop Street discussed being against the proposed development and spoke to the beauty of the waterfront. She noted her concerns related to parking issues and traffic concerns. Ms. Heran shared concerns that the proposed development will not be affordable housing. She also raised concerns associated with the shadow effect, parks and environmental impacts and access for emergency medical services.
Written Comments:
1. Correspondence received from Lisa Traarbach dated February 4, 2025.
2. Correspondence received from MAV Capital Inc. dated February 6, 2025.
3. Correspondence received from Robert McEachern dated February 6, 2025.
4. Correspondence received from Paul Campbell dated February 18, 2025.
5. Correspondence received from Ian Rowe dated February 18, 2025.
6. Correspondence received from Mary McAlpine dated February 18, 2025.
7. Correspondence received from Wanda Morden dated February 24, 2025.
8. Correspondence received from Jocelyn Gillespie dated February 24, 2025.
9. Correspondence received from Donna Taylor dated February 25, 2025.
10. Correspondence received from Anne L. Kerry dated February 25, 2025.
11. Correspondence received from Lloyd Spooner dated February 25, 2025.
12. Correspondence received from Cindy Madden dated February 26, 2025.
13. Correspondence received from Donna Crowley dated February 26, 2025.
14. Correspondence received from Evelyn Bell-Frappier dated February 26, 2025.
15. Correspondence received from Elaine Helwig dated February 26, 2025.
16. Correspondence received from Bob Luffman dated February 26, 2025.
17. Correspondence received from Stephanie San Miguel dated February 26, 2025.
18. Correspondence received from Erin Steingard dated February 26, 2025.
Mayor Nuttall and Councillor Nixon indicated that they would go to Bayshore to speak with the residents to obtain the feedback to allow for open communications.
Committee recessed from 7:55 pm until 8:00 pm.