Rob Lavecchia, KLM Planning Partners, Planners for the property owners at 133184 Sideroad 28 and 29 appeared virtually. He advised KLM had provided written comments and was attending to answer questions relating to the written comments.
Mayor Soloman requested questions or comments for Mr. Lavecchia. No questions or comments were provided.
Mayor Soloman requested Council's questions and comments.
Councillor Paul Latam requested clarification regarding permitted as-a-right 2 additional residential units where an existing dwelling is located on a lot within the rural and prime agricultural areas subject to criteria as stated in the Background Report - Additional Residential Units (ARUs). J.L. Richards (Consultants) provided clarification that the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 (PPS 2024) speaks specifically to allowing ARU’s on prime agricultural land providing it meets criteria and the Planning Act, is the legislation that implements the PPS 2024 and permits 2 additional ARU’s as-of-right in the urban area.
Meghan Townsend, CAO/Clerk inquired as to whether the list provided in the background report was from the PPS 2024. Consultants confirmed the list provided was from the PPS 2024 and not the Planning Act.
Councillor Latam inquired as to whether ARUs could be restricted to zones. Consultants advised ARUs are as-of-right in the urban area where municipal services are available. Council Latam sought further clarification as to whether ARUs could be restricted for mixed use. The Town’s consultants advised ARUs are tied to residential housing which includes single detached, semi-detached and townhomes in the urban areas where municipal services are available.
Councillor Latam requested clarification as to whether surplus farm dwelling severances, 5 km, on page 28 of the background report required property owners to reside in Grand Valley or ownership of another farm in Grand Valley, to permit a surplus farm dwelling severance. Mark Kluge, Manager of Planning advised that the surplus farm dwellings section was not revised from the current OP and it required ownership. Councillor Latam was not in support of ownership to obtain a surplus farm dwelling severance. He referred to the Dufferin Federation of Agriculture surplus farm dwelling severance sizes and requested surplus farm dwelling severances be permitted to only the smallest lot permitted. Mr. Kluge advised surplus farm dwelling sizes could be reviewed.
Councillor Latam sought clarification on the recommended policy update for permissions for private roads, bulleted item on page 41 of the Background Report. Mark Kluge stated the current OP states private roads are not permissible, however, private roads have been approved and are currently in use in the Town. Mr. Kluge advised the OP update includes the permission of the use of private condo roads.
Councillor Latam inquired as to whether the number of Cannabis retailers could be restricted. Consultant stated restrictions on types of retail uses are not permitted, except for cannabis production facilities where retail could be prohibited or restricted.
Councillor Latam inquired as the reasoning to focus on condos, freehold and townhouses in section 4.9 Lot Creation, in consideration is it a requirement to provide affordable housing. Mr. Kluge advised condos are considered an affordable housing option and ownership. Consultants advised condos reflect lifestyle choices and condos offer services such as snow removal and yard maintenance which reflect owner’s lifestyle choices.
Councillor Latam inquired as to the permitted use identified in section 6.13 i) Wayside pits, wayside quarries, portable asphalt plants and portable concrete plants subject to the Aggregate Resources Act in the prime agricultural designation. Consultants stated there are limits on extraction in the PPS 2024 and if there is an option for extraction, it cannot be regulated or restricted under Provincial Legislation. A further review of the legislation would be required on permissions for portable asphalt and concrete plants.
Councillor Latam requested clarification on the meaning of “legal or technical reasons” relating to Severance Policies Section 6.15(d) lot adjustments in prime agricultural areas. Consultants stated legal or technical lot adjustment could include situations where structures were built on neighbouring property and required a lot line adjustment to incorporate the structure within the lot boundary of the owner.
Councillor Latam inquired as to whether lot line adjustments were included in section 6.15 severance policies. Mr. Kluge stated lot line adjustments are included within this section.
Councillor Latam inquired as to the inclusion of section 6.15 b) New lots may be permitted for new or existing agriculture-related commercial or industrial uses that are small scale and directly related to the farm operation and are required to be in close proximity to the farm operation, provided that the size of the lot is kept to the minimum required to site the proposed use, and appropriate services and accessory uses. He stated the section goes against keeping continuity for agricultural uses if permitted through a severance. Consultants advised PPS 2024 permits certain criteria and through policies within the Official Plan, in addition to official plan severance policies, there would be a requirement to meet the agricultural policies of the official plan for it to be permitted.
Councillor Latam suggested including 109 and the Townline corner to the identified areas in section 6.5.1 Gateway Economic Centre - Identification. Mr. Kluge advised gateway policies were not review as they are outside the urban boundary, staff would review this suggestion and report back.
Councillor Latam suggested section 6.74 Prohibited Uses Employment Lands include public works as a prohibited use.
Councillor Latam inquired as to the status of section 6.12.1 Site Specific Policy Area 1 – DEEP (OPA#1). Mr. Kluge advised the policy would need to be reviewed.
Council Latam sought clarification regarding 6.12.8 Site Specific Policy Area 37 – Barn Retention. Mr. Kluge advised further information on this policy would be provided.
Councillor Latam provided suggested wording changes for Section 8.1(h) Municipal Standards “require” traffic calming measures and “prefer” the use of roundabouts.
Councillor Latam inquired as to how the density figure of 44 was achieved. He inquired as to whether 44 was a reasonable figure. He stated his preference was to increase the density figure and preferred using less farmland to reach density targets and a higher density target could assist with meeting density targets. Consultants advised the density target of 44 took considered the lands needs assessment conducted by the County of 32 and to ensure the Town’s growth forecast was met and based on feedback received from the Dufferin Federation of Agriculture and public comments which requested more density in the designated greenfield areas and also addressing concerns to development in the existing built up areas, the decision was to not apply the County’s density number of 32 and increase density to match the existing Official Plan to 44.
Councillor Latam suggested increasing the density target to 55 so that the Town could meet its density target of 44. Mr. Kluge advised increasing the density target would be considered.
Councillor Latam inquired as how the combination of residential zoning could be used to increase density. Consultants advised the combination of two zones means that the previous multi-residential zone which allowed for apartments and four plexes now applies to the residential category, whereas the previous village residential permitted a lower density, with the combination of the zones it creates greater flexibility and increased density.
Mr. Kluge advised pre-zoning for density would be considered to achieve density targets.
Councillor Jonker expressed concerns that updates to the Official Plan will result in a loss of Grand Valley’s small village character. Consultants commented that given Grand Valley’s location it will be subject to a large amount of growth, the approach that was taken was to provide flexibility, understanding that growth is going to come, the Official Plan is a balance of meeting provincial and local interests when the growth comes. The plan ensures the Town is in a good position when growth comes and not ensuring there is a balance can be more costly to Grand Valley, as it can have impacts to transportation and the prime agricultural lands.
Councillor Jonker expressed concerns regarding the complexity of the growth mapping and questioned whether cannabis odor is addressed in the plan.
Councillor Jonker expressed concerns regarding the projected growth numbers. He compared projected population growth and jobs to current population, stating this would result in 1,000 current jobs in Grand Valley and questioned how the 25-plus percent job ratio was calculated. He raised concerns regarding affordability of ownership versus housing, stating there is large distinction between affordable housing versus affordable ownership of housing and this did not appear to be addressed in the draft Official Plan.
Councillor Jonker stated a master service plan would need to be addressed before growth can take place. Mr. Kluge advised staff haven engaged the Town’s engineers during the Official Plan development and they have advised staff on which documents and plans will require updating to meet growth. Mr. Kluge advised projected population figures differ from those projected by the Ministry of Finance, stating the Ministry of Finance figures are 10 percent higher than those currently projected and Grand Valley could see an increase in their projected population figures once the County of Dufferin’s OPA 5 has been approved.
Councillor Jonker stated he was in favor of affordable ownership, preferred home ownerships over rentals and stated, if homes were not affordable, they should not be built in the Town. Mr. Kluge stated rentals serve a purpose and the Town is not permitted to zone based on ownership. He stated if the Town received an application for rental housing, the Town could not refuse the application. Councillor Jonker stated he was in agreement that rentals have a purpose, but did not believe the were in keeping with the character of Grand Valley.
Councillor Jonker sought clarification as to whether the Town would develop criteria for intensification and infill proposals. Consultants advised the official plan has been updated to include the intensification and infill criteria. The new plan contains criteria when considering intensification and infill proposals. Councillor Jonker inquired as to whether there were evaluation criteria. The consultants clarified that the existing official plan did not contain evaluation criteria and the new plan included evaluation criteria.
Councillor Jonker sought clarification from Deputy Mayor Rentsch, an area farmer, as to his interpretation of “regenerative farm practices”. Deputy Mayor Rentsch advised his interpretation of the term was to bring livestock back into use.
Councillor Jonker commented on the official plan polices including work from home, on-demand transit and ride-share. Consultants advised these policies are references as the Town could support and not necessarily provide as a town service.
Councillor Jonker requested intersections identified in TMP-2017 transportation road map for upgrades (figure 6) be updated to traffic circles.
Mayor Soloman inquired as to whether other municipalities are being held to the same provincial standard of 24 per hectare. He made reference to a residential subdivision in Waldemar which had large lots with single detached homes. Consultant commented this could be historic or non-prime agricultural lands, with all municipalities being held to provincial density targets and achieving a balanced approach to designated greenfield areas.
Meghan Townsend, CAO/Clerk inquired, if an average of 44/hectare was achieved elsewhere in the Town, could large estate lot subdivisions with single detached homes, like the current Mount Haven subdivision, or subdivisions built around the gravel pit area be permitted in the Town. Mr. Kluge advised large lots like Mount Haven would not be permitted in the agricultural area and would require full municipal services within the urban area. He stated given there are no minimum lots size restrictions, subdivisions like Mount Haven would be permitted in the urban area, with the requirement of full municipal services. Consultants advised compatibility would need to be considered, having high density next to these types of subdivisions would need to be consider, but in theory they could be offered if density targets were achieved in other areas of the Town.
Councillor Jonker inquired as to whether the Town would plan for new aggregate operations in Grand Valley. Consultants advised an Official Plan amendment to add a new extractive mineral operation on the site would be required to meet the established criteria. The Town could not prevent the uses from occurring in accordance with the PPS 2024, but there is criteria that would be applied. Councillor Jonker sought further clarification as to whether they could be prohibited. Mr. Kluge advised they could not be prohibited, but applications for such land uses would be evaluated.
Councillor Jonker inquired as to heritage or conservation areas. Mr. Kluge advised the tornado removed many of the heritage buildings and there is not a lot of heritage stock. He advised heritage designations is a large body of work and sets limitations on property owners which could be perceived as negative. Councillor Jonker inquired as to whether consideration could be given to designating an area of the Town as a heritage area. Mr. Kluge advised heritage is a specialized area of work and assistance of a consultant would be required which is separate from the Official Plan review.
Councillor Latam inquired as to whether the OPA sets standards for cultural provisions to maintain the Town’s heritage. Consultants advised the intent of the cultural heritage section is to ensure provincial policy is met.
Councillor Jonker requested an official plan acronym glossary.
Deputy Mayor Rentsch requested adding a financial limit to affordable housing. He was opposed to requirements for electric car parking or bicycle parking. He was in favor of recommending it and developers including it but was opposed to its prescription.
Deputy Mayor Rentsch expressed support of the minimum lot area increases to 40, with a need to have room for natural severances. He requested a reduction in the agricultural 30 meter set back to 5 meters and that setback be either reduce or increase as current farming practices do not accommodate the 30 meters.
Deputy Mayor Rentsch sought confirmation that the County’s minimum density target was 32/hectare, and the Town could not go below this target. Staff confirmed this was correct.
Deputy Mayor Rentsch inquired as whether it was a new or existing requirement to consult indigenous groups within 60 meters of the Grand River. Mr. Kluge advised indigenous groups are circulated, consultants advised this was a specific request and is an extension to the set back within the area.
Councillor Latam inquired as to which OPA section spoke to communal and community spaces within developments. Consultants advised the OPA speaks to community lands needs, but it depends upon individual landowners and they would review the definition of community spaces to provide a response.
Mayor Soloman thanked Council for their comments and asked if there were any questions or comments from the public.
Aldo Marascio, a local landowner, stated he has a farm in the south end of the Town. He inquired as to whether he would be permitted to subdivide his land once the new OPA was approved. Mr. Kluge advised subdivision of land would not be permitted, but the new OPA would permit 2 additional residential units on his land with criteria. Mr. Marascio inquired as to whether his daughter would acquire the land if he built her a home on his land. Mr. Kluge advised she would not acquire the land. Mr. Marascio expressed concerns acquiring land was necessary to secure financing. Mr. Kluge advised provincial policy did not permit the subdivision of land. Mr. Marascio inquired as to whether this policy could be change. Mr. Kluge advised the Town could not change the policy and the property could not be subdivided unless through a surplus farm dwelling process.
Deputy Mayor Rentsch inquired as to what would be included in the definition of non-profit housing in consideration of park land dedication. Consultants advised they would review the definition and provide a response.
Mayor Soloman thanked Council, the public and the Town’s consultants for their questions and responses.