thecounty planning public council may 17, 2017...18, plan 47r-8661, lots 1-31 and blocks 34 &...

Planning Public Council May 17, 2017

Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision (Modification) File No. 13T-16-504 “Frank Street”

and Zoning Bylaw Amendment File No. Z61-16 Applicant: Cleave Management and Investment Services Ltd.,

and Elyse Ann Cleave Registered Plan 114 and Part Lot A, Concession 1 & 38 Talbot Street

Ward 1 (Picton)

Executive Summary: The purpose of the staff report is to make recommendations to Council following the statutory meeting held by Council at its session April 19, 2017 regarding a Plan of Subdivision (County File No. 13T-16-504) and Zoning By-law Amendment (County File No. Z61-16). Draft approval to the Plan of Subdivision No. 13T-16-504 and approval to Zoning By-law Amendment No. Z61-16 is recommended to be given in accordance with the recommended conditions as outlined in the staff report. Recommendations: THAT the report of the Engineering, Development and Works Commission dated May 17, 2017 regarding File No. 13T-16-504 Plan of Subdivision and Zoning Bylaw Amendment File No. Z61-16, Cleave Management and Investment Services Ltd., and Elyse Ann Cleave, be received; THAT the Draft Plan of Subdivision File No. 13T-16-504 proposal of Cleave Management and Investment Services Ltd., and Elyse Ann Cleave, for the development located at Parts 1-6, 17 & 18, Plan 47R-8661, Lots 1-31 and Blocks 34 & 36-39 Registered Plan 114, Parts 1 & 2, Plan 47R-8660, Part of Lot 653, Registered Plan 24 & 38 Talbot Street, Ward 1 (Picton) be given draft approval as shown on Attachment #1 and subject to conditions of draft approval presented in Attachment #2; and, THAT Zoning Bylaw Amendment File No. Z61-16 for Plan of Subdivision File No. 13T-16-504 located at Parts 1-6, 17 & 18, Plan 47R-8661, Lots 1-31 and Blocks 34 & 36-39 Registered Plan 114, Parts 1 & 2, Plan 47R-8660, Part of Lot 653, Registered Plan 24 & 38 Talbot Street, Ward 1 (Picton) be approved as per Attachment #3. Purpose: The purpose of this report is to advise Council regarding applications for Plan of Subdivision File No. 13T-16-504 and Zoning Bylaw Amendment File No. Z61-16 and make recommendations regarding same to Council for its session of May 17, 2017.

TheCountyPRINCE EDWARD COUNTY * ONTARIO

II

Background: The lands subject to the proposed plan of subdivision are located between Downes Avenue and Talbot Street in the mid-easterly section of the urban area of Picton. For an orientation of the subject lands and the adjacent area please see Attachment #4 “Land Use Assessment Map” (Figure 1 as supplied from the applicant’s consultant). The proposal is to develop the subject lands for twenty-eight (28) single detached residential lots and thirty (30) townhouse dwellings through a new Plan of Subdivision on lands described as Registered Plan 114 together with the lot addressed as 38 Talbot Street. The subject lands consist of four (4) technically separate parcels over PINs 0190, 0191, 0192 and 0193. The parcels that abut will need to be merged into one parcel in preparation for the registration of one finally approved subdivision plan and one subdivision agreement (see condition #2). Street alignments of the registered plan are also being improved. A block of land is being set aside for a future road extension to the north-west. The final location of the future internal street may vary from where it is currently presented in order to make for the most efficient approach to the adjoining lands. Staff will to continue working with the Applicant to consider any adjustments that might be beneficial. Consequently, red-line (minor revisions) may be made to the plan prior to Council’s final approval (see condition #3). Frank Street was created through Registered Plan 114 and deeded to the County at the time that the plan was registered in 1995. Please see Attachment #5 for a copy of Plan 114. However, Frank Street is currently an unopened and unbuilt municipal road allowance. The proposed replotting of the subdivision plan involves increasing the development density of the subdivision (more dwelling units per area). To accommodate the changes in increased density and the improved street connections, the registered Plan 114 needs to be “undone” through a deeming by-law before the new plan is registered. A deeming by-law is recommended as a condition to draft approval (see condition #4). Also, the previous subdivision and servicing agreement should be repealed by Council and discharged from registration at the Land Titles Office (condition #5). The intersection of Frank Street to Talbot Street is re-aligned in order to form a safer cross-intersection opposite to the southerly intersection of Argyle Crescent/Talbot Street. With the change in street alignment, some of the former right-of-way lands for Frank Street will need to be closed and conveyed from the County to the developer (see condition #6) in exchange for the new road alignment. Frank Street is to be renamed to Curtis Street in order to be consistent with an established segment of Curtis Street north of Downes Avenue. The homes along the established segment of Curtis Street have previously been given civic addresses allowing for a renaming of Frank Street to Curtis Street with a complementary sequence of civic addresses. The revised street name is recommended to be a condition of draft approval (see condition #7). The new street name of Curtis Street will take effect upon registration of the subdivision. All units will front onto Frank Street except Lot 1 gaining access from an existing driveway onto Talbot Street. The house located at #38 Talbot Street will find new access from Curtis Street. The development also has frontage on an unopened extension of Downes Avenue. Please see Attachment #6 for the Development Plan of the subdivision. Please see Table 2 below from the RFA Planning Consultant report for a development summary of the proposed plan:

III

The following studies have also been prepared in support of the project:

Storm Water Management Report, Ainley Group, November, 2016

Servicing Report, Ainley Group, November, 2016 Analysis/Comment: LAND USE Attachment #4 demonstrates adjacent land uses of the area. As described in the RFA Planning Report November, 2016, as revised March 29, 2017: North – Existing low-density residential (Welbank Meadows subdivision); existing medium-density residential (Harmony House Apartments). South – Existing low-density residential (Argyle Crescent). East – Existing low-density residential (Ackerman Avenue); medium-density residential (Downes Avenue – “R3-39” Zone for a three-storey 19- unit rental apartment and a townhouse development). West – Future medium-density residential (46/48 Talbot Street – “R3-23-H” Zone for 40-unit, senior’s-townhouse condominium development), now subject to a Plan of Subdivision (pending). A single-detached dwelling currently exists on the parcel known as 38 Talbot Street, serviced by individual septic system and well. This home will need to be serviced by public sewer and water. The water well and septic system will need to be appropriately decommissioned (see condition #8). The remainder of the Frank Street subdivision project area is vacant. Planning Act The Application for Plan of Subdivision appears to be complete. The proposed application satisfies the required criteria of Section 51(24) of the Planning Act. The Application for Zoning By-Law Amendment appears to be complete. The proposed application satisfies criteria of Section 34 of the Planning Act. PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT, 2014 (PPS) The PPS directs growth to settlement areas where full public services of sanitary sewer, water and stormwater are available (Section 1.1.3.1) and calls for densities and a mix of uses that make for efficient use of infrastructure (Section 1.1.3.2). The subdivision is located in a logical path of the extension of infrastructure and achieves the development density targets as directed by the Picton Urban Community Secondary Plan.

Table 2: Land Use SummaryLand Use Area Percent of

Site AreaNumber of

Units15.2 m Single-Detached Lots 12,353.7 m2 47.4 % 1913.4 m Single-Detached Lots 4,510.6 m2 17.3 % 97.3 m Townhouse Blocks 8,607.5 m2 33.0 % 30Road Allowance to be Deeded toMunicipality 593.3 m2 2.3 %

Site Total 26,065.1 m2 100.0 % 58Overall Subdivision Density (net) - 23 units per hectare

IV

Policies direct developments to include intensification while avoiding or mitigating risks to public health and safety (Section 1.1.3.4). The former Frank Street right-of-way is proposed for a re-alignment that provides a safer intersection and an additional infill lot from the existing house at #38 Talbot Street. The PPS requires growth to occur in phases for the timely provision of public infrastructure that avoids premature public costs (Section 1.1.3.7). The subject lands are designated as a Service Area 1, a first stage service area. Extending services to this area is considered efficient. Section 1.4 of the PPS requires the provision of affordable housing. The development offers a mix of housing form (detached and townhouse) and tenures (rental and ownership). The RFA Planning Report indicates that the rental rates (at approximately $1,600.00/month) and purchase prices (starting at $289,000.00) are within the affordability targets at the 60th percentile of Prince Edward County households, as reported by the Official Plan Review Issues Paper 7 – Housing. Regarding affordable housing, the proposed plan is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the Official Plan. For additional background information regarding affordable housing, please see Attachment #7. The background information is an excerpt from the Official Plan Review Issues Paper No. 7 – Housing. The PPS establishes policies (Healthy Communities - Section 1.5.1) with respect to the adequate provision of recreational, parks and trails facilities. The plan proposes to provide a sidewalk along the easterly side of the street and to connect it to the Talbot Street sidewalk. To the north, a sidewalk connection is made to the Downes Avenue sidewalk. Regarding parks, none are proposed in the subdivision. The closest park is found approximately 280 metres from the mid-point of the subdivision. Preferably, a small park would be available more conveniently somewhere in the area; however, the plan is a previously registered plan being revived and a park was not contemplated at that time. Staff have no objections to the lack of a park, but recommend payment in-lieu of parkland so that a more strategic location for a park in the area may be furnished at another time through a separate development (see conditions #9). ). Looking forward, the County would benefit from establishing a parks system plan in order to best locate a variety of open space areas. This would importantly assist in addressing such questions for developers, neighbours and the public alike. The proposed Plan of Subdivision and Zoning Bylaw Amendment are consistent with the PPS. OFFICIAL PLAN Lands Use Plan The subject lands are situated within the Urban Centre designation (Picton-Hallowell) of the Official Plan. Through Official Plan Amendment No. 63 approved in 2015, the Official Plan gives standing to the Picton Urban Secondary Plan that implements specific policies for the settlement. The subject lands of the proposed plan of subdivision are designated as a Town Residential Area

(section 2.4.2) as an extension to an existing neighbourhood. The policy guides extensions of existing

neighbourhoods to be developed as a logical extension to the existing town fabric and to blend with the

existing built form. The location of the proposed plan is encouraged by Section 2.4.2 (2) of the

Secondary Plan.

Further, section 2.4.2 (3) requires a minimum density of 17.3 units/net hectare (7.0 units/net acre) and specifies a target residential density of 25 units per net hectare (10 units per net acre). The proposed plan as modified offers a total of 56 dwelling units over 2.54 hectares, or 22 dwelling units per net hectare. Therefore, the subdivision plan achieves a density within the range between the minimum and targeted levels. The plan conforms to density policies.

V

Transportation and Servicing With the introduction of a revised design of a segment of Frank Street to form a cross-intersection with

Talbot Street, the Applicant’s Engineer is to report if turning lanes and signalization are warranted in

order to establish safe and convenient vehicle movements (see condition #10).

A number of proposed draft conditions are applicable to the appropriate provision of streets and

services (see conditions #11 - #14). Council policy EV800 applies to this development respecting

sanitary and sewer water capacity being not allocated to the development until such time that the

subdivision agreement is executed by Council (see condition #11 b.). To implement the appropriate

design and standard of construction of streets and services, a subdivision agreement is required

(condition #15).

Section 2.4.2 (6) encourages new subdivisions to establish connections with existing subdivisions,

including routes for active transportation. The subdivision plan provides direct connections to Talbot

and Downes Avenue and a pedestrian route located approximately in the middle of the plan opposite

Washburn Avenue. Furthermore, a sidewalk is proposed along the easterly side of Frank Street along

its whole length. The construction of sidewalks and connecting pedestrian links is a recommended

condition (see condition #15 d. and e.).

Section 2.4.2 (7) directs that new neighbourhoods be consistent with town design, and green

infrastructure policies. In terms of town design, the subdivision plan echoes a previous plan, but with

improvements regarding density and safety (intersection improvements). RFA Planning Consultant has

presented plot plans for a mix of homes that in staff’s opinion constitutes good design. Green design

policies are recommended to be adhered to through a tree planting plan within the boulevard and the

incorporation of energy-saving lighting standards in street lighting (see condition #15 k.). The

subdivision plan generally achieves green design through good proximity to main street and other

walkable destinations.

Service Area policies 3.2.1 identify a preferred order in which sanitary sewer and water are to be rolled

out. The subdivision lands are located in Service Area 1, a priority service area.

Section 3.2.12 requires the use of stormwater management practices and facilities in order to control

flooding, soil erosion and to protect water quality. A stormwater management report has been

submitted prepared by Ainley Graham Group. The majority of the site’s stormwater is proposed to be

conveyed via lawn sheet drainage. Therefore, as a condition to draft approval, a site grading and

drainage plan will be required (see condition #15 g.). Conveyed stormwater is intended to be captured

through a system of curb and gutter, catchbasins and a storm sewer. All flows are intended to be

directed to Downes Avenue where they will be conveyed through a storm sewer to the Hospital Creek

Stormwater Management pond. However, a storm sewer is preferred over an open swale. Final

designs are to be reviewed and accepted by the County and Quinte Conservation Authority.

Section 2.1 of the report indicates that an expansion of the existing Hospital Creek storm water

management (SWM) facility is proposed to provide both quality and quantity control for the proposed

Frank Street development. Details of the stormwater management (SWM) facility is described in the

Welbank Meadows Stormwater Management Report (October 2013) prepared by Ainley Group. The

VI

SWM facility is located at the termination of Jasper Crescent, immediately North West of the

subdivision plan. The SWM facility has been conveyed to the County, but not yet assumed until

completion of a 2-year maintenance period. As a condition to draft approval (see condition #15 h.), a

stormwater management plan and design will need to demonstrate:

Appropriate conveyance methods of collected stormwater from the subdivision lands to the

SWM facility;

Improvements to the capacity and function of the existing SWM facility; and,

A co-ordinated arrangement with the County that provides for a shared area-wide stormwater

management facility.

Natural Hazards Section 4.8 of the Secondary Plan addresses natural hazards. The subject lands are located in an area

identified in the Secondary Plan as the “Picton Gas Pool”. An identified gas well is in the vicinity as

shown on Secondary Plan mapping. Related policies direct that abandoned gas wells are to be

investigated and where found removed to ensure no risk to public health. If a risk is present, policies

direct that a detection and ventilation system be designed by an engineer and installed. A condition is

recommended to reflect this policy (see condition #18).

Section 1.9.2 of the Official Plan encourages archaeological assessment before considering

developments on lands where archaeological potential exist. The Provincial archaeological potential

criterion suggests lands within 300 metres of significant waterways have potential and should be

assessed. The subject lands are located further than 300 metres from Marsh Creek, and so, a Stage I

assessment has not been made a condition to draft approval. Hospital Creek is a minor waterway and

as such not subject to associated requirements for assessment.

COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW The subject lands are currently zoned the Urban Residential Type One (R1) Zone, the Urban Residential Type One – Holding (R1-H) Zone and the Future Development (FD) Zone. As a condition to draft approval (see condition #19), three general zone classes are recommended for the subdivision that reflects the lot densities and uses of the residential lots:

A Special Urban Residential Type One - 45 (R1-45) Zone for single detached residential lots

with a minimum of 15.0 metre frontage with reduced exterior side yard and increased lot

coverage. Lots 2 and 28 on the plan require small exterior side yards of 3.0 and 4.0,

respectively. The other lots having exterior side yards will have the standard 7.5 metres.

Lot 28 is adjacent the ‘future street’ leading to the west. The lot involves a proposed narrow

exterior side yard of 4.0 metres compared to the required standard of 7.5 metres. A 7.5 metres

exterior side yard can be excessive. The proposed 4.0 metre side yard is in keeping with

modern New Urbanism design standards as evidenced by the Town of Markham and Town of

Aurora zoning by-law standards of 3.0 metres and 2.4 metres, respectively. However, to

mitigate the potential nuisance of traffic volumes, a privacy fence shielding the rear yard is

recommended to be installed along the exterior side lot line (see condition #20).

A Special Urban Residential Type Two – 12 (R2-12) Zone for single detached residential lots

with special provisions for an increase in lot coverage from 35.0 % to 45.0%.

VII

The garages for homes on the lots in the R2 Zone have been revised to show in the Development Plan to be generally flush with the front of the homes. The revision is preferred as it establishes an inviting housing orientation without the dominance of garages. A special provision is presented in the amending by-law for the R2-12 Zone that provides for preferred locations of garages.

A Special Urban Residential Type Three - 46 (R3-46) Zone for townhouse residential lots with

special provisions for:

o a reduction to the minimum lot area from 250.0 m2 to 226.3 m2

o a reduced exterior side yard from 7.5 metres to 4.5 metres

o an increase in maximum lot coverage from 35.0% to 55%.

A reduced exterior side yard is also proposed for the R3-46 Zone. Similar to the recommended standards for Lot 28, a privacy fence is recommended to be installed for all exterior side yards in the R3-46 Zone. Staff support the varying standards. By reducing the minimum lot area and increasing the rates of lot coverage the development is able to achieve the development density targets as established in the Picton Urban Community Secondary Plan.

Please refer to Attachment #3 for a copy of the recommended zoning by-law amendment.

A solar panel is located on the subject lands. The Owner has advised that the solar panel is intended to be re-located to #38 Talbot Street. Solar panels connected to the grid are regulated under the Green Energy Act and administered at the Provincial level not through County by-laws. As such its use is exempt from approvals under the Planning Act. If the solar panel is not connected to the grid, it should be relocated to a permitted site (please see condition #21).

Summary

The proposed plan of subdivision and draft zoning by-law amendment are consistent with the Provincial

Policy Statement, in conformity with the Official Plan and represent good planning. Therefore, the

applications are recommended for approval subject to the conditions noted herein.

Notice/Consultation: Statutory Notice: The required Notice of Application and Public meeting was completed in accordance with the Planning Act in preparation for the public meeting held on April 19, 2017.

Consultation/Circulation Comments: Planning staff, internal and external agencies were consulted in the circulation of draft materials and the preparation of this report.

Engineering, Development and Works – In house comments from Municipal Engineers have been reflected in the draft conditions as recommended.

Source Protection Plan – The lands are generally No comments regarding source water protection have ben received.

VIII

Quinte Conservation – Quinte Conservation provided detailed comments with respect to the stormwater management report and related designs. Conditions #15 h. and #15 g. have been drafted to reflect the comments.

General Public – A number of persons attended the public meeting of April 19, 2017. Two written set of comments were received by e-mail. Please see Attachment #8 for a copy of the correspondence. Comments expressed at the public meeting involved the following persons:

o Patricia Stenning who resides at 15 Ackerman Street expressed concerned about privacy and the need for proper tree planting along her back lot line. To ameliorate the concern, for Lots 1 through 12, a privacy fence or planting vegetative buffer is recommended to be installed along the easterly lot line with shared lots associated with the Ackerman Avenue (see condition #20).

o Jack Charles (spoke at the public meeting) who resides at 9 Ackerman Street advises that while not appealing against the proposal does cite concerns regarding, loss of rural views, reduction in value of his home, and noise/dust during construction. He requests noise/dust abatement during the construction phase, trees to be planted along the developer’s property line, and a park space allotted to this sub-division. Staff recommendation as suggested above regarding planting a vegetative buffer appears sufficient to address Mr. Charles’ concern reading ‘rural views’. Please note that the development lands are designated as Urban and earmarked for development. Therefore, the general concerns associated with the loss of open space are not germane in the context of established long-range plans for the community. The question of the need for added park space is addressed elsewhere in the report. As for concerns related to construction noise/dust, the issue is partly addressed by the County’s Noise By-law. However, the subdivision agreement is recommended to include a provision that requires dust controls (see condition 15. m.).

o Mr. Peter Dunning who resides at 36 Curtis Street expressed concern that the density of townhouses were not in keeping with the adjacent Welbanks subdivision. Please see Attachment #4 where the demonstrated land uses of the adjacent area appear to be compatible with the townhouse lots. Abutting developments to the south are at a higher density (apartments) and the lower density residential development to the north and northwest are demarcated from the subject lands by Downes Ave. Mr. Dunning also expressed concerns regarding water pressure at his house. Staff recommend that the Applicant undertake water pressure study to the satisfaction of the County – see condition #23.

o Mr. Rhys Brigham of 1-3 Ackerman Street commented that the lots appear to be too narrow and that intensification may be appropriate for larger centres but not needed for small towns. Mr. Brigham also commented that the nature of the houses should be built with some variation and not look the same.

The housing form and density of the subdivision has been directed by established policies of the Picton Urban Secondary Plan and is viewed by staff to be appropriate, particularly in support of more affordable homes. In addition, the variation of the homes is generally good with a mix of frontages, depths and forms.

o A letter of concern was received from Cathy Tassone, President of Talbot Ridge Development Corporation that relate to potential implications on its development to the immediate west; issues of concern include coordination of servicing, stormwater management collaborations including shared costs, draft conditions to address

IX

servicing/stormwater management arrangements, and capacity constraints on the Downes Avenue sanitary main. In general, comments emphasize an interest in overall co-ordination of these issues for the Frank Street and Talbot Ridge developments.

Staff generally concur with the comments regarding a need for co-ordination of servicing issues. Talbot Ridge has submitted a plan of subdivision application but has also submitted an Official Plan Amendment application to support a re-designation from Service Area 2 (phase 2) to Service Area 1 (phase 1). Staff are completing studies for sanitary services modeling and an area-wide stormwater management facility that is anticipated to benefit the development. Frank Street is located in Service Area 1 of the Picton Urban Secondary Plan. Staff continue to work with representatives of the Talbot Ridge development in forming a complete application. A statutory public meeting is anticipated to be advertised in the near future.

Corporate Strategic Plan/Priority Implications: The recommendations of this report contribute to the following Objectives of the Strategic Plan:

“A Community with Stable Employment and Affordable Housing”

“Business-Friendly Environment” - o 3. Encourage growth within our settlement areas o 6. Place an emphasis on increasing new housing starts and range of housing

Financial Implications: All development works will be completed at the costs of the developer (see condition 15. a.). Connections Charges and Development Charges are applicable at the time of issuance of a building permit (see condition #15 b.). Security Deposit will be submitted to the County through the subdivision agreement (see condition 15. n.). The owner also has provided the County with the required processing deposits and fees and will provide the County with securities to ensure the payment of any peer review costs (see condition #24). The proponent is also required to pay any outstanding taxes, local improvement or development review charges for the subject subdivision lands (see condition #25). Policy Implications: Policy EV800 applies to this project. Other Options: None identified for the recommendations of this report. Attachments:

1. Plan of Subdivision drawing 2. Conditions to Draft Approval for Plan of Subdivision 3. Zoning By-law Amendment and Schedule ‘1’ 4. Land Use Assessment Map 5. Plan 114 6. Development Plan of the Subdivision 7. Affordable Housing Information 8. Letters of Concern from resident Mr. Jack Charles at 9 Ackerman Street and secondly from

Cathy Tassone, President of Talbot Ridge Development Corporation.

X

Prepared by: Paul Walsh May 5, 2017 Manager of Planning Reviewed by: Peter Moyer, P.Eng. May 8, 2017 Director, Development Services

Commissioner Approval: R. McAuley, P.Eng., C.B.C.O. May 11, 2017 Commissioner of Engineering, Development & Works

CAO Approval: James Hepburn May 11, 2017 Chief Administrative Officer

*L

Draft Approved Plan 13T-16-504

T U R ER E S/D EN

X* X DOWNES AVENUE

Wifyni »»0— -LsJJ*. xH

fEGISltRCU PLAN 24)me

LOT 23430,1 m 2 -

LOT 9836.0m2

N63*2I 30 w 26,00 7;v,

-*LOT 22

433,lm2 -LOT 8827.2m2

K.7ipo,o

BLPetC 31^ 1261.1m

LOT 2145l.4m 25 :

BLOCK 32 L .1689,0m 254.7 LOT 7

787.6m2 £-j5 LOT 20488.4m2

38,2

r- <i » > -<2 * x-* &52.1 UJCj, A \\

co ^ LOT 6713.0m2Uj .

LOT 19545,4m2

^ <»Jl.i ' 4 5.2

LOT 5620.6m2

i 3PART Id Uj LOT 18619.5m 2

A_V BLOCK 30* 1580:2m5 5

-'?i; 5 37.84Hi.

5- BLOCK 331133.5m 2 V2-f LOT 4

554.4m2LOT 17682.5m2PART 1 f'“•a

? rlaUj «.5«3*04 20 W 28.76

Xx.v — LOT 35l7.5m2

CO A

LOT I6 a567.3m2

5 SisBLOCK 29

%LOT 23 623.Im 2 S

LOT I529.Im 2BLOCf 37BLOCK 36

LOT I57l0.9m 2

BLOCK 341582.0-o.n

r.- 7. 7.9- 24,«

IPART 17BLOCK •i :i.hPART 2 i«3*0130n659{9m2

o 54.407.31

N62*39'3Q'W9.44

N63*Ql'30*WV£3' GO 40 V1 OOW 31.00

-f- EXISTING CENTERLINE (TALBOT STREETl

177,5 XPART 3iLOT 14

519.5m2i %PART 4 /

LOT 21579.8m

v

I ' (A- I*I2 i*s.os s

7V,:: i.

3 7 CURTIS STREET ( FRANK STREET) REALIGNMENT - PROPOSED LAND TRANSFER

BLOCK 36 EXISTING MUNICIPAL PROPERTY TO BE CONVEYED TO CLEAVE MANAGEMENT 1689,3m*LOT 13522.5m2LOT 27 -

*486.2mf ygI PA&T5\

I-UJ N63*ir5tfW- 22.66 -IUj

5 R. f ,7 NEW ALIGNMENT OF CURTIS STREET (FRANK STREET ) TO BE CONVEYED TO MUNICIPALITY BYa-iAJv o / n_EAVE MANAGEMENT UPON REGISTRATION OF THE PLAN OF SUBDIVISION - I75l.5m 2£*

J)

LOT 12841.3m 2

LOT 26486.1m 2 * Q2

Ura. '7.1A?.QHM LOT II

830.5m2LOT 25

430.1m 2:

UJUj

§£/ J)

LOT 24430.1m 2

32.0

LOT 10833.3m2

«0

Ur

LOT 23430.1m 2

'o- h* LOT 9836.0m2*v.:;

a:54.9.r- Or 22

433.1m 2 -X

LOT 8827.2m2n 3?.7

C/>LOT 2145l.4m 2 UJ9 DRAFT PLAN OF SUBD V S ONr. / 9 LAND USE SCHEDULE

XPARTS 1-6, 17 & 18, PLAN 47R-8661.( LOTS 1-31 AND BLOCKS 34 & 36-39REGISTERED PLAN 114)PARTS 1 & 2, PLAN 47R-8660,( PART OF LOT 653, REGISTERED PLAN 24 )

_AND UU AREA mO AR£A% UNITS

S34.7 LOT 7787.6m2

LOTS H6 8 26-28 12385.9- l5.2m (486.1m'I MN. SINGLE-C TACH D LOTS9

7T

7.5LOTS 17-25-13.45m (430.0m') MIN. SIN3LE-C TAO D LOTS45 0.6

LOT 20488.4m2

38^

BLOCKS 29-34FREEHOLD TOWNHOUSE BLOCKS-7.3m 1226.3m') MIN, PER UNIT

3508.7 32.6 7' -49.CO c

r-; TOWNSHIP OF HALLOWELL.THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE

j X BLOCK 35-ROAD ALLOWANCE BLOCKS TO BE DEEDED

TO THE MUNICIPALITY

•X.J L.tLOy 6713.0m2 UJ COUNTY OF PR NCE EDWARDLOT 19

545.4m2

43.?

26065.1m 100.0%BITE TOTAL

SCALE 1:500 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATEI CERTIFY THAT ThC BOUNDARIES OF ThC LAND TO BESUBDIVIDED ARE CORRECTLY SHOWN.Q W 1 ? --_0T 5

620.6m2 KEYMLOT miQSoifDATE /

61 III , KERRY BOEHME.ONTARIO LAND SURVEYOR.-

idUj IVAN B. WALLACE

ONTARIO LAND SURVEYOR LTD.5503 HIGHWAY 62 SOUTH. BELLEVILLE. ONTARIO

(613) 966-9898

LOT 4554.4m2

UJLOT 17682.5m2 5

,«3*04 20 W 28.76 ur MbI K NO 1 b:$ DISTANCES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE IN METRES AND CAN BE

CONVERTED TO BY DIVIDING BY 0.3048.S _c 3aS SUBJECT SITEI CONTOURS NOTE:

EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PREPARED BY AltLEY GROLf.CRAWN AT INTERVALS OF 0.3m

.5m2

LOT 16567.3m2

a :CNTOURS

n PLAN COPYRIGHTTHB01 5iHtE ALL ORIGINS. DRAWINGS Af*) RELATED DOCLAENTS ARE THE

COPYRIGHT PROPERTY OF RFA PLANNING CONSULTANT IMG.REPRODUCTION IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS FCRBIDCCN WITHOUTThE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF RFA PLANNING CONSULTANT INC.

< THESE DRAWINGS AND DOCLMENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANYPURPOSES OTHER THAN FCR THE PROJECT FCR WHICH THEY AREPREPARED. TEE PLAN IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THIRD PARTY WITHOUTTIC WRITTEN CONSENT OF RFA PLANNING CONSULTANT INC.

'K UJLOT /LOT 2 U)t529.1m 2o 623.1m2 S!LOT HEVISt BLCCK * TO ifOm, LOT a BUX.S ** S,‘O?

WT FLANI3MD rW MMQ9KM *•* 11 / in .’710. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED

UNDER SECTION 51 ( 17 ) OF THEPLANNING ACT.

:‘-l - * 'XtD FW SEOTC SBMI55IDS '0 P.E.C. IB. 17. 2017 RFA.DRAFT HAX ISS*D FCS 9-BMiiSOS TO R.6.C. M. 8. 206 RFA.:~M AS UMIII- AI -AMUV..IN UAY 12 2018 A.X

DRAWN BY: LB CHECKED BY: R.F.A. DATE: 05/12/15y (0) SEE SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE,b) AS SHOWN ON DRAFT PLAN.(c) AS SHOWN ON ORAFT PLAN.(d) SEE LAND USE SUMAARY(e) SEE DRAFT PLAN(0 AS SHOWN ON ORAFT PLAN.(g) AS SHOWN ON DRAFT PLAN.(h) MUNICIPAL WATER AND SANITARY SEWER(1) LOAM AND SANDY LOAM OVER LIMESTONE BEDROCKC|) AS SHOWN ON DRAFT PLAN.tk> GARBAGE COLLECTION. FIRE PROTECTION, ROAD MAINTENANCE,

SCHOOL BUSES. ETC.(I) AS SHOWN ON DRAFT PLAN.

A 5

«3*QI '30‘W 54.409.44«3*0130n

c«c

" '-MTALBOT vy STREET

SEE REALIGNMENT - ENLARGEMENT

"•v-'.V7

211 Dundns Street Enut. Stiile 202.Belleville, Ontario, K8N IE2413 -Draft Plan

Plan of Subdivision: 13T-16-504 “Frank Street” Cleave Management and Investment Services Ltd

Last Day of Appeal: May __, 2017 Expiry of Draft Approval (if not appealed): May 17, 2020

NOTICE OF DECISION – DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION FILE NO. 13T-16-504

Plan of Subdivision County File No. : 13T-16-504 Owner: “Cleave Management and Investment Services Ltd., and Elyse Ann Cleave ”

Location: Part Lot 653 of Plan 24 being Parts 1 and 2 of 47R8660; Blocks 36, 37, 38, and Lots 21, 22 on Plan 114 being Part 6 of 47R8661; Lots 12-20 on Plan 114 being Parts 17 and 18 of 47R8661; and, Block 34, 39 on Plan 114, Lots 1-11, 23-31, Plan 114 being Parts 1-5 of 47R-8661, and parcel having civic address #38 Talbot Street, former Township of Hallowell, Ward 1 (Picton) The County gives DRAFT APPROVAL to Subdivision County File No. 13T-16-504 (“Cleave Management and Investment Services Ltd.”) subject to conditions to final plan approval for registration that shall apply as follows: 1. That the County approval dated May 17th, 2017 shall apply to the draft plan of subdivision

prepared by RFA Planning Consultant and boundary certification by Ivan B. Wallace Surveying Ltd. dated May 6, 2015 REVISION NO. 4 dated March 27, 2017, as shown on Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto and forming part of this decision, consisting of twenty-eight (28) single detached residential lots and thirty (30) townhouse dwellings for a total of 58 dwelling units, as follows:

Lots 1-28 for single detached dwelling units

Blocks 29-34 for townhouse units

Block 35 as a future street to be deeded to the County

Blocks 36 and 37 for the re-alignment of Frank Street (Curtis Street)

Other conveyances to public authorities as may be required in order to establish daylighting triangles, easements and reserves

2. The separate parcels over PINs 0190, 0191, 0192 and 0193 shall be merged into one.

3. Red-line revisions (minor) are authorized to be made to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Engineering, Development and Works without further notice or service prior to Council’s authorization of execution of a subdivision agreement.

4. A deeming by-law shall be passed by Council of the Corporation of the County for those parts of Registered Plan 114 that are occupied by the draft approved plan of subdivision, to the satisfaction of the County Solicitor.

5. Previously registered subdivision agreement with the Town of Picton and the servicing

agreement with the Picton Public Utilities Commission for servicing shall be repealed and discharged from the Land Titles Office.



6. The right-of-way lands of Frank Street where not occupied by the revised location of the new street shall be closed by by-law by the County and conveyed by the County to the developer to be merged with the plan of subdivision.

7. Prior to final approval of the plan, all proposed streets shall be named to the satisfaction of

the County and shall be shown on the finally approved plan. Specifically, the street named as Frank Street shall be renamed to Curtis Street. The future street Block 35 shall be named at the time of its registration. Civic addresses for each dwelling unit shall be established and installed on each home.

8. The existing home located at #38 Talbot Street shall be connected to municipal services and

the existing well(s) and septic system shall be decommissioned. The home shall establish new access onto Frank/Curtis Street.

9. The owners provide the County with a cheque in the amount of $1500 per dwelling unit (58

dwelling units X $1500 for a total of $87,000.00) as total cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication contribution of the new lots created through Plan of Subdivision 13-T-16-504 as required by By-law No. 3903-16.

10. The Owner’s Transportation Engineer shall report to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Engineering, Development and Works regarding the design of the Talbot Street/Curtis Street/Argyle Crescent intersection, including whether turning lanes and traffic signals are warranted.

11. a. The Owner shall demonstrate that municipal water distribution and sanitary sewer

systems can accommodate the proposed development, to the satisfaction of the County. b. Residual sewer and water capacity shall only be allocated by the County in accordance with County Policy EV800.

12. The County may not have clear title to the roads that abuts the subject property included in this proposal. The applicant will be required to confirm title of the road allowance and provide that information to the Engineering, Development and Works Commission. If it is confirmed that the applicant has title to any portion of the road allowance, that applicant will be responsible for all costs to provide clear title of the subject road allowance to the County, including any additional width needed to accommodate the existing travelled road, shoulders and drainage works, all to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Engineering, Development and Works.

13. The conveyance of road widening, including daylight triangles, or confirmation thereof shall

be established for each of the following to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Engineering, Development and Works, and free from all encumbrances:

a. Along the frontage of Downes Ave. a minimum right-of-way width of 10 m (33 feet)

from the centre of the traveled roadway; and,



b. Along the frontage of Talbot Street a minimum right-of-way width of 13.1 m (43 feet) from the centre of the traveled roadway.

c. Frank Street to be deeded to the County at the right-of-way width of a minimum of 20 metres, or as accepted by the Commissioner of Engineering, Development and Works.

d. Block 35 as a future street to be deeded to the County at the right-of-way width of a minimum of 20 metres, or as accepted by the Commissioner of Engineering, Development and Works.

14. All lots shall gain direct access from Curtis Street, except for the existing driveway

associated with #38 Talbot Street that will serve Lot 1.

15. Prior to final approval of the plan, the Owner and all encumbrancers (mortgagees) shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the County, to address, as a minimum, the following: a. At the developer’s costs, services and facilities (inclusive of curbs, storm drains,

sidewalks and paved roads, tree-planting, street lights sanitary sewer and water) shall be designed and installed in accordance with the standards or specifications of the County, generally in keeping with Ontario Provincial Standards.

b. To remit Development Charges and Connection Charges; c. To satisfy all the requirements, financial and otherwise, of the County concerning the

construction and standards for the installation of services and drainage. d. The Owner shall agree to construct a 1.5 metre wide concrete sidewalk along the east

side of Curtis Street extending from Talbot Street and Downes Street and connecting thereto, respectively, along Downes Street to the existing municipal sidewalk and west of Curtis Street along Talbot Street to the westerly limits of the subdivision lands.

e. The proponents shall construct an interconnecting walkway to Washburn Street to a standard satisfactory to the County.

f. Provisions to ensure incorporation of conclusions and recommendations of the Servicing Report, prepared by Ainley Group, dated November 18, 2016;

g. The Owner shall provide a grading and drainage plan for each lot and residential Block to the satisfaction of the County in consultation with Quinte Conservation.

h. Consistent with the Ainley Group Stormwater Management Study November 2016, a detailed stormwater management plan, as accepted in accordance with County peer review comments from G.D. Jewell Engineering Inc. and the Quinte Conservation Authority, shall be incorporated into all finally approved designs, working drawings and shall be prepared by a certified and qualified engineer to the satisfaction of the County, which outlines:

i. The means whereby stormwater quantity and quality will be addressed, so that ‘post-to-pre’ water quantity control is provided for runoff generated from the subject lands and at a minimum Enhanced Protection water quality controls (as per the Ministry of the Environment’s Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual);

ii. A final stormwater management plan and design demonstrating:

Appropriate conveyance methods of collected stormwater from the subdivision lands to the adjacent facility;



Required improvements to the capacity and function of the existing stormwater facility that serves as a central area-wide stormwater management facility;

Any third-party cost-sharing arrangement. iii. A planting strip sufficient to function as a visual buffer shall be constructed around

the stormwater management facility; and, iv. A sediment and erosion control plan, be completed and approved to the

satisfaction of the County. i. The Owner shall provide to the County evidence that satisfactory arrangements,

financial and otherwise, have been made with Canada Post Corporation for the installation of Community Mail Boxes (CMB) as required by Canada Post Corporation. The final location and design shall be at the discretion of the County. It shall be constructed with safe parking and lay-by accessibility. In addition, the Owner further covenants and agrees to provide notice to prospective purchasers of the locations of CMBs and that home/business mail delivery will be provided via CMB, provided the Owner has paid for the activation and equipment installation of the CMBs.

j. The installation of street signs, as specified by the County. k. LED street lights shall be installed in accordance with Ontario Provincial Standards and

that achieve an aesthetic appearance, good energy efficiency and low operating costs as required by the County.

l. The subdivision agreement shall provide for installation of services for the effective delivery of telecommunication services for 911 Emergency Services (clearances required from Bell Canada) and the effective delivery of Broadband Internet services (clearances required from Eastlink or other broadband provider).

m. The provision of dust management controls during construction activities. n. The security deposit to be deposited with the County to ensure completion of the

services and facilities. o. Proof of insurance p. No building permits will be applied for or issued except for model homes in accordance

with a subdivision agreement until the County is satisfied that adequate road access, municipal water supply, hydro service, sanitary sewers, and storm drainage facilities are available to service the proposed development.

q. The Owner shall agree that the County is authorized to register the agreement against the lands to which it applies.

r. The Owner shall agree to place Land Titles Act Section 118 or Section 119 restrictions on the title as may be advised by the County Solicitor.

s. Convey to the County any easements or Blocks on the plan, to the satisfaction of the County.

t. Stormwater management facilities and related fencing (if any), sewage pumping stations, electrical sub-stations and other facilities and mechanical structures associated with servicing the draft approved plan shall be located and constructed to a high standard of visual aesthetics and enhanced by a landscape plan as specified by the County.

u. The Owner is responsible to provide all services, including road maintenance and waste management, unless and until assumed in writing by the County.



16. Prior to final approval of the plan, the Owner shall provide an underground electrical power

servicing plan to the satisfaction of Hydro One Networks, including: a. A copy of the lot grading and drainage plan, showing existing and final grades for

review and final approval, if required. b. Any development in conjunction with the lease approval must not block vehicular

access to any Hydro One facilities located on the right-of-way. During construction, there will be no storage of materials or mounding of earth or other debris on the right-of-way. No buildings or permanent structures of any kind may be located within the existing easement.

c. The costs of any locations or revisions to Hydro One Networks facilities that are necessary to accommodate this subdivision will be borne by the developer.

d. The easements of Hydro One Networks and its legal predecessors are to be protected and maintained.

17. Prior to the final approval of the plan, Canada Post, Hydro One Networks, Bell Canada,

Union Gas, Broadband Internet provider and the Cable provider shall confirm that satisfactory arrangements, including any financial requirements and showing any required easements on the Plan, have been made for any community mail boxes, telecommunications and utility facilities servicing this plan of subdivision.

18. Prior to final approval of the plan, the presence of bedrock/ground-borne gases or abandoned gas wells shall be investigated by the proponent’s Engineer and where identified as a potential risk shall be removed or mitigated through an appropriately designed detection and ventilation system to ensure no risk to homeowner or public health.

19. Prior to final approval of the Plan, the appropriate rezoning of the entirety of the subject

lands shall be in place.

20. For Lot 28 and for lots/Blocks in the Special Urban Residential Type Three - 46 (R3-46) Zone, Lot 14, a privacy fence shall be installed along the exterior side yard for the length of the rear lot depth. For Lot 14 and for Block 34, a privacy fence shall be installed along the side yard abutting the pedestrian corridor with a minimum length of the rear lot depth

21. The solar panel located on the subject lands shall be demonstrated to be in compliance with

Provincial regulations under the Green Energy Act, or if not connected to the grid, it shall be relocated to a permitted site in compliance with Provincial regulations and County bylaws or removed.

22. For Lots 1 through 14 and Blocks 32-34, a privacy fence or planting vegetative buffer be

installed along the easterly lot line with shared lots associated with the Ackerman Avenue and with Blocks 32 and 35 of Plan 114.

23. Prior to the final approval of the proponents shall be required to engage a qualified

engineering firm to undertake a engineering study of the municipal water system, to the



satisfaction of the County to review and assess water pressure and flow requirements for the proposed development. The proponents will be responsible for the full cost of all ancillary works that may be required to provide satisfactory water pressure and flow for the proposed development to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Engineering, Development and Works.

24. Prior to final plan approval by the County, the County peer review costs shall be paid in full.

25. Prior to final approval of the plan by the County, the Owner shall pay in full any outstanding

taxes, local improvement or development review charges for the subject subdivision lands.

26. Prior to final approval of the plan by the County, the County shall be advised by the Natural Gas provider how Condition No. 17 has been met.

27. Prior to final plan approval by the County, the County shall be advised by Bell Canada how Condition No. 17 has been met.

28. Prior to final plan approval by the County, the County shall be advised by Hydro One how

Condition Nos. 16 and 17 have been met.

29. A digital copy of the survey of the plan and all reference plans shall be submitted in a format satisfactory to the GIS Co-ordinator of the County.

30. The final plan approved by the County must be registered within 30 days or the County may

withdraw approval under subsection 51(21) of The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990. Notes to Draft Approval: 1. This Draft Plan approval will lapse on May 17, 2020, unless extension is given by the

County.

2. The Owner is responsible to fulfill the conditions of draft approval and to ensure that the required clearance letters are forwarded by the appropriate agencies to the County prior to the final lapsing date, quoting the County File Number 13T-16-504. The conditions of draft approval may be reviewed periodically and may be amended by the County at any time prior to final approval.

3. If final approval is not given to this plan prior to its lapsing date, and no extension has been granted, draft approval shall lapse. If the Owner wishes to request an extension to draft approval, a written explanation, together with a resolution from the County, must be received by the County 60-days prior to the lapsing date. Please note that an updated review of the plan, and revisions to the conditions of approval, may be necessary if an extension is to be granted. If the Owner is undertaking expeditious advancement of the draft approval to the plan, a request for an extension will not be unreasonably withheld.



4. The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, provides that draft approval may be withdrawn at any time prior to final approval.

5. Clearances are required from the following agencies:

a. Quinte Conservation R.R. #2 P.O. Box 328 Belleville, Ontario K8N 4Z2 Tel: (613) 968- 3434

b. Ms. Janice Young, Manager

Bell Canada, Right of Way Division Floor 5, 100 Borough Drive Scarborough, Ontario M1P 4W2 Tel: (416) 296-6291

c. Ms. Diana Adamowicz,

Delivery Services Officer, Delivery Planning Canada Post 41 Temperance St, suite 207 Bowmanville ON L1C 3A0 1-613-203-3096

d. Laura Qiunta

Hydro One Networks Inc. 185 Clegg Road Markham, ON L6G 1B7 1-905-946-6235

e. Broadband Provider, such as Bell Canada or Eastlink

6. All measurements in subdivision final plans must be presented in metric units.

7. A copy of the conditions of draft approval and notes thereto should be submitted to the local Land Titles Registry office to ensure priority review of the related approval. For additional information on this process, please contact the Land Registrar at:

Land Titles Office No. 47- Service Ontario Prince Edward County 1 Pitt St Picton, ON K0K 2T0 613-476-3219

Cleave Management and Investment Services Ltd. and Elyse Ann Cleave

Z61-16

THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF PRINCE EDWARD

By-Law No. ________________

A By-law to Amend County Comprehensive Zoning By-law

No. 1816-2006, as amended

WHEREAS By-law No. 1816-2006, as amended, is the Comprehensive Zoning By-law governing the lands located within the Corporation of the County of Prince Edward in the Ward of Picton; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the County of Prince Edward, having received and reviewed an application to amend By-law No. 1816-2006 and is in agreement with the proposed changes for the lands described as described as: Part Lot 653 of Plan 24 being Parts 1 and 2 of 47R8660; Blocks 36, 37, 38, and Lots 21, 22 on Plan 114 being Part 6 of 47R8661; Lots 12-20 on Plan 114 being Parts 17 and 18 of 47R8661; and, Block 34, 39 on Plan 114, Lots 1-11, 23-31, Plan 114 being Parts 1-5 of 47R-8661 & parcel addressed as 38 Talbot Street, Ward 1 (Picton); AND WHEREAS authority is granted under Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the County of Prince Edward enacts as follows: 1. THAT By-law No. 1816-2006, as amended, is hereby amended by the addition of the following

subsection 10.5.45 to Section 10.5 entitled “SPECIAL URBAN RESIDENTIAL TYPE ONE (R1) ZONES” immediately after item 10.5.44 thereof:

“10.5.45 R1- 45 (Curtis - Frank Street Subdivision 13T-16-504)

Notwithstanding any provisions of By-law No. 1816-2006 to the contrary, within the R1-45 Zone, the following special provisions shall apply:

i. Minimum Exterior Side Yard for Lot 2 of 13T-16-504: 3.0 metres ii. Minimum Exterior Side Yard for Lot 28 of 13T-16-504: 4.0 metres iii. Minimum Exterior Side Yard for all other lots of 13T-16-504: 7.5 metres iv. Maximum Lot Coverage: 40.0 % v. Attached garages will not project closer to the front lot line than the front yard setback of

the dwelling unit of porch. Attached garages will not be greater than 50% of the width of the dwelling unit.

vi. No development on lands zoned R1-45-H shall occur until after the “Holding” (-H) symbol has been removed by amendment to this By-law in accordance with the provisions of Section 36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990.

vii. A by-law to remove the “Holding” (-H) symbol shall be considered by Council only in accordance with the provisions of the executed subdivision agreement between the County and the Owner addressing, among other things, stormwater management (on-site and off-site) site services, parkland dedication, lot grading and drainage and financial requirements of the Municipality and the final plan has been approved by the County and registered on title to the lands.


Z61-16

All other provisions of the R1 Zone and By-law No. 1816-2006, as amended, shall apply to the lands zoned R1-45 Zone.”

2. THAT By-law No. 1816-2006, as amended, is hereby amended by the addition of the following

subsection 11.5.12 to Section 11.5. entitled “SPECIAL URBAN RESIDENTIAL TYPE TWO (R2) ZONES” immediately after item 11.5.11 thereof:


Notwithstanding any provisions of By-law No. 1816-2006 to the contrary, within the R2-12 Zone, the following special provision shall apply:

i. Maximum Lot Coverage: 45.0 % ii. No development on lands zoned R2-12-H shall occur until after the “Holding” (-H)

symbol has been removed by amendment to this By-law in accordance with the provisions of Section 36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990.

iii. Attached garages will not project closer to the front lot line than the front yard setback of the dwelling unit of porch. Attached garages will not be greater than 50% of the width of the dwelling unit.

iv. A by-law to remove the “Holding” (-H) symbol shall be considered by Council only in accordance with the provisions of the executed subdivision agreement between the County and the Owner addressing, among other things, stormwater management (on-site and off-site) site services, parkland dedication, lot grading and drainage and financial requirements of the Municipality and the final plan has been approved by the County and registered on title to the lands.


3. THAT By-law No. 1816-2006, as amended, is hereby amended by the addition of the following

subsection 12.5.46 to Section 12.5. entitled “SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL 3 (R3) ZONES” immediately after item 12.5.45 thereof:


Notwithstanding any provisions of By-law No. 1816-2006 to the contrary, within the R3-46 Zone, the following special provision shall apply:

i. Minimum Lot Area: 226.3 square metres ii. Minimum Exterior Side Yard: 4.3 metres iii. Maximum Lot Coverage: 55.0 % iv. Attached garages will not project closer to the front lot line than the front yard

setback of the dwelling unit of porch. Attached garages will not be greater than 50% of the width of the dwelling unit.

v. No development on lands zoned R3-46-H shall occur until after the “Holding” (-H) symbol has been removed by amendment to this By-law in accordance with the provisions of Section 36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990.

vi. A by-law to remove the “Holding” (-H) symbol shall be considered by Council only in accordance with the provisions of the executed subdivision agreement between the County and the Owner addressing, among other


Z61-16

things, stormwater management (on-site and off-site) site services, parkland dedication, lot grading and drainage and financial requirements of the Municipality and the final plan has been approved by the County and registered on title to the lands.


4. THAT Schedule ‘A1’ to By-law 1816-2006 for the Picton Ward, as amended, is hereby amended by

changing the zone category thereon, in accordance with Schedule ‘1’ attached hereto.

5. THAT Schedule ‘1’ attached hereto forms part of this by-law.

6. THAT this by-law shall come into force and take effect pursuant to the provisions and regulations made under the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.P.13, as amended.

Read a first, second and third time and finally passed this ___ day of _______, 2017.

________________________ ______________________ Kim White, Clerk Robert L. Quaiff, Mayor

TALBOT STREET

CURT

ISST

REET

WASHBURN STREET

DOWNES AVENUE

COUNTY ROAD 4

ARGY

LE CR

ESCE

NT

SIMEO

N STR

EET

ACKERMAN STREET

CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF PRINCE EDWARDWARD OF PICTON

SCHEDULE '1'BY-LAW NO. ___________________

THIS IS SCHEDULE '1' TO BY-LAW NO. ____________ AMENDINGCOMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW NO.1816-2006, AS AMENDED, FOR

THE COUNTY OF PRINCE EDWARD

PASSED THIS __________ DAY OF __________ 2017

_________________________Kim White, Clerk

_________________________Robert L. Quaiff, Mayor

38 Talbot Street, Lots 1 to 39 of Block 34, and Lots 36 to 39 of Plan 24, Ward of Picton

Cleave - Z61-16 & 13-T-16-504Prepared by Prince Edward County Development Services280 Main Street (2nd Floor), Picton, Ontario

0 80 16040 MetersScale:

Lands to be rezoned from the UrbanResidential Type 1 (R1-H) Holding Zoneto the Special Urban Residential Type 346 (R3-46-H) Holding Zone

Lands to be rezoned from the UrbanResidential Type One (R1-H) HoldingZone to the Special Urban Residential Type 2 - 12 (R2-12-H) Holding Zone

Lands to be rezoned from the UrbanResidential Type One (R1-H) HoldingZone to the Special Urban Residential Type 1 - 45 (R1-45-H) Holding Zone

Lands to be rezoned from the FutureDevelopment (FD) Zone to the SpecialUrban Residential Type 1 - 45 (R1-45-H)Holding Zone

Lands to be zoned the SpecialUrban Residential Type 1 - 45 (R1-45-H)Holding Zone

Lands to be rezoned from the UrbanResidential Type One (R1) Zoneto the Special Urban Residential Type 1 - 45 (R1-45-H) Holding Zone

****>rE * ** ***** ** * *** **** ***** ** *****

[*>> ************c '- -

/

T

Land Use Assessment

38 Talbot Street

<N>

>/

r*& <0«5? .<5to

$a- *4*1/0 4«£>°H,

*b. 5?»*JQ;19,%*6$V?*

-o'

A<0kj£Jo., =5? <£A 0<fj'**3.>o. 5555 ££*o. v-

T*.r <0CQ YO'to. 3.9"$ *fe% A'V 3Sa- 6i>5 5V0 61

A5/<5b

o?.oao/- s.s- S-$a?> a=k/ LAND USE ASSESSMENT MAP¥CJV PARTS 1-6, 17 & 18, PLAN 47R-8661

( LOTS 1-31 AND BLOCKS 34 & 36-39REGISTERED PLAN 114)PARTS 1 & 2, PLAN 47R-8660( PART OF LOT 653, REGISTERED PLAN 24)TOWNSHIP OF HALLOWELL,THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE

Is$w0

tok;firoG>7.S COUNTY OF PRINCE EDWARDSCALE 1:4000

ego LAND USE SUMMARY

I |R1 ZONE - LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

I |R2 ZONE - LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

R3 ZONE - MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

3?

FD ZONE - FUTURE RESIDENTIAL1 1 DEVELOPMENTX

El OS ZONE - OPEN SPACESiy.CURTIS ( FRANK) STREET SUBDIVISIONWITH PROPOSED LOT FABRIC AND ZONING

&S' 1 i$

0HP' REVISED: MARCH 29, 2017

DATE: NOVEMBER, 2016

Registered Plan 114

i

I I I'1 2

4REBECCA•V^T J,-Wr - •.

II : £

•Vi?.w

•VA'4

."H *!5

STREET470.479.3

H1J7747M 47fiJ

DOWNES AVENUE

* i=

— TC Cs 7 • ««X — • •tv*

i it

i 10

, =

C O Mi 1 )T

, i ; l 7 5* *- ««««» ». » »"»

9 2

B ;

65

i’ * _

t

: > :=ll -

: ! TJ1» } «

il- 'M. — * .W- «4 t*

*

i

4

_!i' t~ VM •

. BLOCK 34 .2 H

3 I !

-I5

3 5

Jr * U — ^27

C O M ? I.

i ’ S

-r ••

23 ?

5 24 f

25

26 1

*— ?

28

29 J

30

.... 3

!2

5 *13 ::

I n >:

/ s •t.

fJWCP / La A .=

VT,3L0CK !2 ;•

2 16:

v:->-<17 » i *

•->—

19 5:•:

A20 : '--•• -- : •« »* - r- - :

' r ‘l•s'.»H'

| ..- rr— -3.*.M t' « •

•“ BLOCK 33 *. •* *•:* t

'

?! 52!' ,3 i? \M:•BLOCK 33

? : i22

- — M*%iram MI; ; • -..YJr-2

i § •••.: v*.v wKW? J,

IV/.\ • -•••* ».5 A~~ ;.vi : 553g LOT! — .

r tn35o>m

N i ?w C l i p i l *5 ! - i!

k 8

5

\

Jj=.~

31

1*1'.J

cp

p S I

1

>

* :5515 t

*i

5

i

t

i r> v

PLAN /,,/" /7-*/ - *

-J./L. /9*1- -• — —

i / L>-— - a/ Akz?

\

Pl.A« !>• SAVOPART OF LOT ACONCESSION I, NORTH WEST OFCARRYING PLACETOWNSHIP OF HALLOWELLNOW IN THE TOWN OF PICTONCOUNTY OF PRINCE EDWARDs:̂y.C 1 to? 8 W-lh PiO'ARO 01 . I-/94

WASHBURN STREET

>W«Jrear (VAN A SA

— » ^ »4 in’!' IH»

«tT*< «0T»1.1» MM * Wi *M Ml.*.'« >

aMiins »o m' « ».<*.. e KM

*0?l

.vi'.ni

%

I auoo

'•«

•4* 4...• «# > •

1 ! ^-•

*

:

5 * 1.1 <L.Toi

CJ

8wCD

A

TALBOT

M4»VtT0»'S Cl»TI»i{ *U't.iii 'MI

•Ml 1-..I•! — •-« «..«• «1 MM

* **9- »— •

n — —STREET l.i-.X-rtO *T*

B. ROGER PICKARD SURVEY 1NG LTD.N* •••it t

. . . ...

PAGE 4

Development PlanI

AVENUEDOWNES

*>

r L

20 0 7,3 16 73 —— 83- 6 7.3

E >:13 R E S I D E N , I A L£$7 I 'I1

O V_L'"BLOCK 31 BLOCK 32

5^1Xx X

DEVELOPMENT SITE PLANG5? 0 ?B t PARTS 1-6, 17 & 18,PLAN 47R-8661,( LOTS 1-31 AND BLOCKS 34 & 36-39REGISTERED PLAN 114)PARTS 1 & 2, PLAN 47R-8660.( PART OF LOT 653, REGISTERED PLAN 24 )

f B2 8 1V, I

’X[ <

310 « f TOWNSHIP OF HALLOWELL,THE MUNICIPALITY OF THEI t

COUNTY OF PRINCE EDWARDSCALE 1:500

r 7-5 20 0 1« 73—— 83 15 7.3 J7 ><j

BLOCK 33— 8.5

BLOCK 30 Q r KEYMIX I—UJ

Lu•I3? O 2.8 f 6iJi O23

I TJE ? I

P iH\~ SUBJECT SITE|

XrBLOCK 29

»7

BLOCK 34X II X rn.*ar

XI

2 Y\773 CX 1LEGENDX J

FUTURE>BOAD SALLOWANCE

I POTENTIAL m ittc SPCLE OCTAOED BULDPC roomwruvu« atom FIOOR Uft • 2388 mJ

" 31.0 POTENTIAL TO m SPCLE CETAOED BULDPC FOOTPHWTCHMIMX cacuo (XOOfi AREA • 1843 A nO

fG'ua PEDE3tQ_«AS«uWls VASHBURK

S7REETSERYC

CDRROOR ISTR-ANSTREET I POTENTIN. R3 ZOC TOWWCUSE BULDPC FOOTPRNT

I MMIAJM OtOMS FLOOR AREA - *XT T00.7 M. mJ7-° 2.7” * POTENTIAL OUTDOOR LIVIMG SPACE

(tnirrc ororrft DATIOCIIMUJOCS POROO AND PATCS1

PROPOSED LOT5 /YGGLOT 28 X" * M.O

ROAD AU.0W4WS TO BE DEEDED TO MACPALITT

OPTS STREET CTUMC STREET) - PPCPOSQ TRAVELED ROAO

POTENTIAL ASPHALT DRIVEWAY LOCATION

PROPOSED 13m CONCRETE SOEWAUC

PROPOSED STREET TREES

r

/170

A— 7.3 I7.C 73 — 1 17.0 73 —7— 73 20 083— LOT 13

i n GLOTc UJ o510 /UJ FXISTWG TREIS TO nr PS.TAKD *> *£ POSSJ0LL52.0

£• 3g

LOT 12LOT 26 ZONING BY-LAW 1816-2006

XXa OWELLPC TYPE SHCLEOETAQEO DWELLDCa

53 8»0 ZOKE PROVISION - 5ECTKN 10 Ri ion PROPOSEDOJ 460.0m* Si93m *a 103.6 - MNikLAI LOT CSA - LOT 14c a

LOT 25 KLL2i - MNMJU LOT FRONTAGE 13.0m 0.0mCC LOT 1033 - k*N»4JU FRONT YARD 73m 73mO \ •7 I 103.4 - UINMJU FXTfBiCU Stt YARD 7.5m 3.0m370

54 O KL3.3 - MNJAJM INTERDR SCE YAKD L?m L2m

I -LOT 24 L >0 .̂$ - MlMMLW REAR YARD. S \ I G IOJ.7I - MAXBAJM LOT COVERACE - LOT 14 40,OXLOT 10t -/17.0 —— 73 1033 - UINM34 UOOSCAPfD OPOi SPAff 35-OX JO.OX7.5 73 0 3 23.3A320 — 8.5 KJJ.9 - MAXIMA! MlCKT CT •0 0m D.Om

M ?LXZLOT 23 17 ”

KL3.I0 - MAX(Mill No. Cf DWm INGS PER LOT

©0.0«*I0AII - MlNIWUM FLOOR AREA - LOT 14 TS.Om

G OWOJ.PC TYPE SlHX£KTACJO OWtLLlNCLOT 99G rat PROVISION - SFCTICN II R? rat PBOPOSO

430.0m* 430.0m*3 II_5.li MINIMUM LOT AREA - LOT 2554 3

? • * IL5i- UINMJU LOT FRCNTACE 15.0m l5Jm

>X II - MINMJM FRONT YARD r.SmGa LOT 837.7 113̂ - klNMJU EXTOtOd Sl££ YARD 73m 3.0m

113-5 UiKMJU KTfPOB SCt Y 4fi0 1.2m

7- X II3£ - MMVLM REAP TARO 73m 7321 r 573LOT 3 113.71 - UAX16LM LOT COVERAGE - LOT 23 35.C7X onF?o1 X IIJJ - UNMJU LA^CSCAPrn OPEN SPACE 53.0X34.7V- 0-9 - MAXIMA! HFlQiT Cf 0Ulf)lM3S C.Om C.Qm1 1a JLOT 7J OJO - MAXIMA! No. OF DWELLINGS PER LOT\• -

5 liaam*LOT 20 OJ! - UINMA4 FLOOR AREA - LOT 25\ A*).!i \ /

K 0WEU.PC TYPE PltEMXDrowt*CUSE DWELLPC*3 s NIR .2

a LOT 6 zoe PROVISION - statu z RJ IO£ PROPOSEDXV; 250.0m* 2263m*I23J» - UINMJU LOT AREA PO* LWITXLOT 19 3 19 4 232n - UNI4AI LOT FHWTAGE PER LNT 7,Cm 73m7.5St I 54 9 C7.33. - UHILM FRONT TARO 73m 73m

X I2J.4* - MMIMA4 EXTERiCR SCE TARO 43mramJ - 1/2 M1NMA4 WTEROR SCC YARD OV? m̂ 0m/2̂ m

XTl n03.6. - UINMJU REAR TARO 73m 73mOT503.7 - MAXMAi LOT COVERAGE 35.OX 53.01

378 /4«X 03.9 - MMVLM LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE 33.OX 37.6X

LOT 4 ) //- 03.10 - MAXHUM KlCNT CF BOUDIFCS 0.0m 15.0msQ3JI - MNMM FLOCVI AREA - BLOCK 32 63JDm

LO 17 PROPOSED SITE - SPECIFIC PROVISIONS

1 METRIC NOTE:OISTANCES SHOWN ON TMS PLAN ARE IN METRES AM] CAN 8ECONVERTED TO BY DIVOOC BY 03048.

\573343

N CONTOURS NOTE:EXISTING TOPOCRAPHY PREPARED BY &IM£Y OKU>DRAWN AT NTERYALS OF 03m

LOT 3 CONTOLRS173m*G r— 73 — PLAN COPYRIGHT

ALL CRlCNAL CRAWSCS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ARE TVCCOPYRIGHT PROPERTY OF RFA PLAINPC CONSULTANT INC.REPRODUCTION IN WKXX CR H PART IS rORBIOOEN WITH3UTTFC PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF RFA PLAMRNG CONSULTANT INC.

LOT 16330X / Xo 1 TWSE DRAW1FCS AM) DOCLACNTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY

PURPOSES OTTER THAN FOR TFE PROJECT FOR WMCH TFEY AREPREPARED. HE PLAN IS M3 T AVAILABLE TO TURD PARTY WITXUTTIE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RFA PLAAMPC CONSULTANT DC.G 5

s.c «1* I l

'LOT 2'*> l I «« I | SI I

HO* » IO wi U»In» n-» . .I _*r* if 'mlU" Gsr, u LOT cxvr r3XfD r CH 10 * t_C_

n mu i »UN najD rot rvm TO PLC " f Af <C /U ) R"

cwr IV/CTD »O«:/IL UMSVM «T ii /on “UA

i < DRAWN BY: LB OEOCFD BY: RTJ3. DATE: 05/12/15

J73

L A II r

:urx

I I X. \N .TALBOT 7 STREET.PLVVYING CiiNSirLTAVT INC.

11 Dur:»lj« S(rm Ea»i. SUI!P 202,DrHoTikr.OnUno,KiN l£2413-DSP

Attachment #5 - Housing Affordability Analysis

Housing Affordability Analysis FromTechnical Paper No.7 - Official Plan Review

County of Prince EdwardOfficial Plan Review

Issues Paper 7 HousingJune 2012

APPENDIX B

Affordability Analysis

As a measure for households facing affordability challenges, insight can be gained bylooking at the proportion of an area's population spending more than 30% of theirhousehold income on housing costs. Although consistently lower than the provincialaverage, Prince Edward County residents spending over 30% of their householdincome on housing costs has risen by 3% over the past three census periods toroughly 2,275 households as of 2005129. This means that as of 2005 22% of all thehouseholds in Prince Edward County were spending more than 30% of their incomeon housing costs.In terms of tenure, households spending over 30% on housing costs arepredominantly rental households130. In 2005, 41.4% of rental households spent morethan 30% of their income on shelter costs131. The proportion of rental householdsspending more than 30% of their household income on shelter, suggests that rentalhouseholds are facing barriers in finding affordable housing132.Home Ownership Affordability

According to census data, the average dwelling value in Prince Edward County hasincreased by nearly 70% from 1995 to 2005133. While on average the dwelling valuesfor Prince Edward County were lower than the province as a whole, Prince EdwardCounty saw an increase in housing price of 66.5% from 2001 to 2006, whichexceeded the provincial rate by almost 18%134. As illustrated in Figure 12, data fromthe local real estate board shows that the average sale price for residential dwellingson MLS rose from $131, 274 in 2000 to $286,489 in 2010 (representing a growthrate of 118%)135. While still below the Provincial average of $297,479 in 2006, thecurrent average house price in the County of $286,489, is significantly higher thanneighboring municipalities such as Belleville ($226,374), and Quinte West at($216,983)136.

51



$350,000

Figure 15 - Average Sale Price of Residential Dwelling inPrince Edward County, 2000 to 2010

$250,000

c

1I0

81

$200/0

$150/000

$100/000

$50/000

$02000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

Source-.Quinte & District Real Estate Board Inc. (2011)

An affordability matrix was developed through the Strategic Action Plan to determinethe local result of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) definition of affordableownership housing. This affordability matrix was updated with current data for thepurpose of this report (See Table 7).Affordable home ownership is defined in the PPS as the least expensive of either:

1. Housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodationcosts which does not exceed 30 percent of gross annual household incomefor low and moderate income households (households in the lowest 60%of the income distribution); or

2. Housing for which the purchase price is at least 10 percent below theaverage purchase price of a resale unit in the regional market area.137

52



Table 7 A Comparison of Affordable Ownership Cost by Income Range inPrince Edward County to Determine PPS Affordable Housing Definition

(2012)Current average sale price of a residential dwelling in Prince Edward County

(December 2011)$285,834*

HouseholdIncome

Ranges**% of All

Households***

Low andModerateIncome

Households

Affordable Ownership(Unit Cost)****

Affordable Housing basedon PPS definition

Under $10,000 2.1% a;E

Under $37,161 l= *Affordable Housing

$10,000-19,999 6.7%£ $37,162-74,319 CZ=|> Affordable Housing

$20,000-29,999 8.3% o#s

cK|

$74,320-111,481 c=z£> Affordable Housing

$30,000-39,999 9.0% $111,482 -148,642 c— 0 Affordable Housing

$40,000-49,999 11.1% £ =- £

$148,643 - 185,804̂ ==£> Affordable Housing

$50,000-59,999 9.7% a» (/> $185,805-222,965 C Affordable Housing

$60,000-69,999 8.6% .E"Oo§V)

$222,966-$257,250-260,126

Maximum affordablehousing price is

affordable at a householdincome of $69,225.

$70,000-79,999 9.7%ID01 $260,127 - 297,288 Above affordable housing

definition$80,000-89,999 6.4% $297,289 - 334,449 Above affordable housing

definition$90,000-99,999 6.7% $334,450 - 371,611 Above affordable housing

definition$100,000 andover

21.5% $371,612 and over Above affordable housingdefinition

100%Maximum Affordable Housing Price based on PPS definition

Sources: * Based on Quinte and Real Estate Stats. **Based on income ranges established by StatisticsCanada. *** Based on projected household income distribution completed by SHS and Refact Consultingthrough the Strategic Action Plan for Affordable Housing. ****Based on SHS consulting formula outlinedin Strategic Action Plan for Affordable Housing using an interest rate of 1% below the 5 year average ofthe 5 year posted conventional mortgage rate, a down payment of 10%, debt services of 30% of incomeand an amortization period of 25 years***.

As illustrated in Table 7, in Prince Edward County it is definition 2 of the PPS whichresults in the lower cost. This represents a maximum affordable house price of$257,250, which is affordable at a minimum household income of $69,225. Basedupon the PPS definition of affordable housing approximately 55% of householdscould not afford the maximum affordable housing price of $257,250 andapproximately 65% couldn't afford the current average sale price of $285,834.Affordable home ownership has been provided in the County outside of the privatemarket through the work of Habitat for Humanity. To date three affordable housingprojects in the County have been completed by Habitat for Humanity with a fourthproject underway138. The families who participate in Habitat for Humanity projectsreceive interest free mortgages, and participate in skill building to teach the familieshow to manage their shelter costs139. Organizations such as Habitat for Humanityand Options for Homes play an important role in allowing low and moderate incomehouseholds access to the home ownership market140

53



Rental Housing Affordability

Figure 16 - Trends in Average Rent by Type in Prince Edward County, 2005 to 2010

900

868

800

* 779

C

az 700 :

c600

48^_3527500

400

2005 2006 2007 2008

Year2009 2010

-Bachelor Apartment HB— 1Bedroom Apartment — 1 Bedroom Rowhouse — »— 2 Bedroom Apartment 2 Bedroom Rowhouse |

Source: CMHC Rental Market Report.Ontario Hiqhliqhts.2006 - 2010

From Fall 2005 to Fall 2010 the average rents for bachelor, 1bedroom and 2bedroom units in the County have risen by 16%, 13% and 26% respectively (statexcludes one bedroom rowhouses which were not recorded until 2008).An affordability matrix was developed through the Strategic Action Plan to determinethe local result of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) definition of affordable rentalhousing. This affordability matrix was updated with current data for the purpose ofthis report (See below table).

Affordable rental housing is defined as the least expensive of:

1. A unit for which the rent does not exceed 30 percent of gross annual incomefor low and moderate income households (households in the lowest 60% ofthe income distribution for rental households) ; or

2. A unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent of a unit inthe regional market area141.

54



Table 8 - /t Comparison of Average Rents to Affordable Rents by IncomeRange in Prince Edward County (Spring 2011)

**HouseholdIncome Ranges

***% ofhouseholds

****AffordableMonthly Rent

Current Average Market Rents$725*

Under $10,000 2.1% Under $250 Affordable Housing

$10,000-19,999 6.7% $251-$500 Affordable Housing

$20,000-29,999 8.3% $501-$725-$750

Maximum Affordable Rent is affordable at ahousehold income of $29,000.

$30,000-39,999 9.0% $751-$1000 Above affordable housinq definition$40,000-49,999 11.1% $1001-$1250 Above affordable housing definition

$50,000-59,999 9.7% $1251-$1500 Above affordable housing definition

$60,000-69,999 8.6% $1501-$1750 Above affordable housinq definition$70,000-79,000 9.7% $1751-$2000 Above affordable housinq definition$80,000-89,000 6.4% $2001-$2250 Above affordable housinq definition$90,000-99,000 6.7% $2251-$2500 Above affordable housinq definition$100,000 andover

21.% $2501 and over Above affordable housing definition

Notes: *CMHC Current Average Market Rent - Prince Edward County - Spring 2011. **Based on incomeranges established by Statistics Canada. *** Based on projected household income distribution completedby SHS and Refact Consulting through the Strategic Action Plan for Affordable Housing. ****Based on30% of household income going toward annual rental payments.

In Prince Edward County it is assumed based on available data that definition 2results in the lower rent. This represents a maximum monthly rent of $725, which isaffordable at minimum household income of $29,000. This means that based onhousehold income, approximately 16% of the households in the County could notafford the current average market rent.The Strategic Action Plan for Affordable Housing has suggested that based on 55% ofhouseholds not being able to afford the maximum affordable price of a house in theCounty and 16% of households not being able to afford average rents, that rentalunits account for the vast majority of affordable housing accommodations142.An important component of affordable rental housing are rooming houses. MPACidentifies three rooming houses in Prince Edward County143. Generally,rooming/boarding houses provide rental accommodation, primarily for low-incomesingle persons with few other housing options. Most operate with no governmentfunding or subsidies, adding further to their value as a sustainable solution for thoseof lower income144. Stakeholder interviews conducted in conjunction with a the SAPfor AH suggest that the supply of rooming houses and more affordable housingoptions in Prince Edward County has been shrinking145. Currently one of the threerooming houses is listed for sale with the potential for redevelopment to a variety ofuses.

55

Paul Walsh

From:Sent:To:Subject:

Jack Charles <[email protected]>Wednesday, April 19, 2017 11:41AMPaul WalshRe: Rezoning File Nos.:13T-16-504, Z61-16— D.CIeave

To: Paul B. Walsh,mcip,rpp

Manager of Planning, Edward Building, 280 Main Street,Picton,Ont.,KOK 2T0

Dear Sir, 19/4/2017

Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning File Nos.: 13T-16-504, 261-16-D. Cleave

Regarding the above files and the meeting on the 19th at 7.00p.m. at Shire Hall,

we the undersigned wish it known that while not appealing against the proposed

development yet do require mitigation,compensation and amelioration to preserve

our rights to the legal enjoyment of our existing properties situated immediately

to the south of the Subject Lands proposed development line to requite the financial and physical impacts.

Financial Impacts

1.The loss of rural view removes approximately $15000 of property value from each

property adjoining the Proposed Development. Loss of water frontage or water view

are both of compensatable value greater than the above loss but Realtors have let me

know what number they think is appropriate.

2. Such a lowering necessitates a collective appeal to MPAC to have these adjoining

l

properties re-evaluated lower by that amount resulting in a lower property tax

assessment for each of the properties. Council will of course accrue far more tax

from the new development than it will lose from the adjoining houses'

reassessment but nonetheless the financial impact will force us to get a lower

reassessment.

Physical Impacts

1.The loss of rural view necessitates a tree line separating the two property blocks.

That means decent sizable trees with small proximities tree to tree just inside

developer's block line paid for by the Developer.

2.Noise abatement during the whole construction phase consisting of NO

construction on weekends. This ruling has often been adjudicated in Toronto

which is not half such a quiet place as here.

3.Dust of natural, construction and the cement variety sources should necessitate

the periodic pressure washing of the backs of the afflicted houses.

4.There is also a question we should like answered concerning the size of this

development.Should there not be some Park Space allotted to this sub¬

division and if so could it go along the southern block line ?

The names of those below are are owners requiring such mitigations outlined above

some of whom will attend the meeting to make sure they are on the agenda and

are heard,but all wish to have their Rights of Appeal assured.

Respectfully,

Jack Charles

2

Trevor and Patricia Stenning,11Ackerman Street.

Judy Hineman, 7 Ackerman Street.

"Reese" [full name to be provided] , 3 Ackerman Street.Mr.Storm,1Ackerman Street.

Jack and Dana Charles,9 Ackerman Street.

3

.Apiil 23rd, 2017

REQU/RECEN!2 f -04- 2017

Mr Paul Walsh,Manager of Planning,The Corporation of the County of Prince Edward,332 Main Street,Picton, ONKOK 2T0

Subject: Notice of Objection to Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision 13T-16504 “ Frank Street”and Zoning Bylaw amendment Z61-16

Dear Mr. Walsh,Further to my presentation at PEC Planning Committee meeting on Wed April 19th, 20171 amwriting to formally register my objection to the two above mentioned matters.For your information I am directly impacted as I reside at 53 Curtis Street which is locatedimmediately adjacent to the proposed plan revisions.

My current objections are as follows:1. There was no prior consultation or information provided by the proponents to me or myneighbours to discuss any proposed revisions to the current plan of subdivision.2. The proposed revisions to the current subdivision plan will increase the development densitythat has already been approved for this location. There is no rationale or impact assessmentprovided for this increase.3. The location of the highest density housing is adjacent to the low density housing located inthe Wellbanks subdivision and should be moved closer to the major thoroughfare (TalbotStreet).4. It is not clear how the proposed plan will create affordable housing for purchase or rent.Clarification is required about the detailed plans and pricing for the housing and ownership mixand how the objective of providing affordable housing will be achieved.5. There is no provision for parks within this plan and rather it is proposed to accept payment inlieu. This approach is short sighted in view of the fact further high density development isplanned in this area, necessitating forward planning for open space/parks.

I would be pleased to meet with Planning Department staff and the proponents to discuss theseconcerns, prior to this plan being be presented for approval on May 9th.

This letter of objection is provided “ without prejudice” and may be amended or updated asrequired.

Thank you for your attention to my concerns. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliestconvenience.

Sincerely,

Peter [email protected]

TALBOT FUDGE DEVELOPMENT COUP.75 VALLEYVILW DRIVE ANCASTER,ONTARIO L9C 2A6

April 18, 2017

Mr. Paul Walsh, RPPManager of PlanningEngineering, Development and Works CommissionCorporation of the County of Prince Edward280 Main Street, 2nd FloorPicton, Ontario KOK 2T0

Dear Mr. Walsh,

Re: Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning Application 13T-16504/Z61-16- CleaveManagement Services Ltd and Elyse Cleave, Picton

I am writing to you concerning the above-noted applications and Public Meeting of thePlanning Public Council on April 19, 2017

While we support this development, we would like to express our concerns with regardto the proposed servicing for the subject lands as it will have direct implications for ourproposed development adjoining the Frank Street (Cleave) subdivision. Therefore, wewish to stress that it is imperative that the municipality ensures that there is unifiedcoordination and cooperation in efforts to develop both proposed subdivisions for thisarea of Picton.

As you know, our company filed applications for draft plan approval of a subdivision onNovember 24, 2016 and to date, there has been no public meeting. We are hopeful thatthis will occur in June.

Talbot Ridge Development Corp. respectfully requests that the municipality considerand address the following:

1. Has the current servicing issues / constraints related to stormwater, sanitary sewerand watermain been addressed?

2. Has the final stormwater management been established? If so, how will costs bedistributed? Is the development subject to expansion of the existing pond?

3. Are draft plan conditions in place that address these issues?

4. Has the municipality considered cost-sharing conditions?

5. We understand there are capacity constraints on the Downes sanitary system. Hasthe municipality finalized their study and is there sufficient capacity for both Plans ofSubdivision for Frank Street and Talbot Ridge developments? We raise this issuebecause we are aware that the Welbanks site does not allow for externalconnections.

To date, our engineers have not been able to receive servicing information from PECthat has been requested. It would be appreciated if we could be provided with furthernotice of the applications, including a copy of the draft plan conditions.In closing, we wish to coordinate the stormwater, sanitary sewer and water supplyservices between the two subdivisions. It is important that the development in the TalbotStreet area be coordinated amongst the developers.

Yours truly,Talbot Ridge Development Corp.

/1/

Cathy TassonePresident416-457-8270

thecounty planning public council may 17, 2017...18, plan 47r-8661, lots 1-31 and blocks 34 &...

Documents