A public information meeting on a proposal to rezone a property to allow the creation of two residential lots while retaining the balance of the land for future road access to allow a future development at the rear of the property created as many questions as answers on March 5.
Proponents came before council at a public meeting in hopes of rezoning a portion of the land located at 9491 Sideroad 17.
Erin planner Sally Stull described the property as a strip of land along Sideroad 17.
The property is designated as residential and zoned as future development within the greenfield boundary of the village of Erin.
Stull said the proposed rezoning would rezone some of the land to permit two residential lots to be created.
They would be on the most westerly portion of the property.
“The intent is that the remaining land would be merged with an adjacent property.
She noted the original severance application was for five lots.
Shortly before the land division hearing, the application was amended down to only two lots, with the other lot in limbo until such time as a development proposal came in for the rest of the lands.
Stull added that while the severance application was approved conditionally by Wellington County land division, it still required zoning approval needing to be changed at the municipal level.
Proponents said the number of lots was reduced to hopefully address town concerns – and eliminate the need for an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing.
The result would be that part of the land would be merged with an adjacent property owned by the same individual – Gary Langdon.
Ultimately, that property would be divided in such a way that the existing home would remain on one of two lots.
Although town policies state that major developments would be put on hold unless proper services were in place, proponents contended this was not major.
Claims were made that these lots would fit in with existing lots in the area.
In terms of proposed changes, proponents hoped this would avoid OMB costs, and allow the creation of a larger lot which could be developed at a later time.
Councillor John Brennan asked Stull how this proposal would deal with council’s original concerns with the proposal.
Stull said the question which has been left unasked in this discussion is what happens to the remaining parcel of land?
She said some of the concern involved providing access.
The potential road access for the one parcel is located within a wellhead protection area.
She said there are issues beyond the scope of what was being dealt with that night, “which is why we denied this in the first place.”
Stull said a holistic plan is needed to deal with the area.
She pointed out part of the land is a filled-in pond under the Credit Valley Conservation authority and it is uncertain a road access could even be built there.
Brennan said even if council agreed, “there are still a whole lot of questions which would need to be answered before anything could be done … with the larger balance of the property.”
She added the development of a property should be done in a comprehensive manner.
Stull said if this was only dealing with two lots, the decision would be fairly simple. However, this needs to consider future development as well, she added. While she still felt this was premature, “it is a better option than presented in the past.”
Mayor Lou Maieron agreed it was a better application.
“How far away is the nearest municipal water connection?”
Stull estimated it was 200 to 300 yards.
Maieron wondered if it would be an appropriate time for the municipality to extend water mains to the property.
He agreed the town is nowhere near addressing the sewage question.
Stull said at this point the proposal is appealed to the OMB. She added that it would be up to council to decide whether to extend the water line.
Maieron said if council agreed to the proposal, it would not need to go to the OMB.
Stull said a staff report would need to go to council before it made a decision which is not slated to be before council until April.
