Rezoning application deferred to create new lots within the village of Clifford

The proposed amendment affects Park Lot 8 on the West side of Minto Street in the village of Clifford.

The amendment rezoned various parts of the property.

The owner, Rick Murray, applied to the Wellington County Land Division Committee to sever lots fronting on Minto Street and leaving one retained parcel in behind.

Three of the detached lots would permit single residential homes while the original proposal would have had two lots which would allow a four-plex building.

In total, five severances were being created.

Planner Mark Van Patter recommended council defer a decision until

Some concern was raised that not all nearby landowners were contacted in time for the meeting.

A sign was posted on the property, but apparently one nearby neighbour

In correspondence to council, Van Patter wrote that it was his understanding that the lots created on Minto Street would have full access to municipal services.

Services however, would not be accessible to the retained property.

Van Patter’s preference would be to place that land in a future development holding zone.

The Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority also had concern that no storm water management work has been done and ask that a holding designation be placed on the residential lots.

As a result Van Patter recommended that council defer a decision until the land division committee has dealt with the severance aspects.

Van Patter said the property is an original block mapped out within Clifford.

Now that servicing exists on Minto Street, the lots are coming on stream, he said.

He said the owner is planning to develop the frontage on Minto Street and create five lots.

Murray would retain the lot at the back.

The issue is still before an upcoming land division committee meeting, therefore “it might be premature to make a final zoning decision tonight.”“

Essentially what is being proposed are three larger lots for single residential detached homes, and two lots which could each have a four plex residential unit.

However, he added the lots could also be used for single homes as well – “it’s a fairly flexible zone.”

While it is bigger than the typical division of lots by severance, he saw nothing to be gain by having it done as a plan of subdivision.

He pointed out that when the application proceeds by severance as compared to plans of subdivision all the same authority is there under the Planning Act for the provision of the development agreements.

“There’s a fair amount of clout and flexibility.”

He noted the applicant indicated there might be an issue getting a four-plex on a corner lot could be more challenging because of setback requirements.

As for the retained land, Van Patter said Murray had no intent of developing it immediately, “so there shouldn’t be a problem.”

In addition, one of the issues if he was to develop that land is that there would need to be controls on where building took place.

He felt without knowing that information, there is the potential of compromising future development of the area.

He noted the main concern of the conservation authority was the lack of storm water management work.

As a result, they asked the severed lots be placed in a holding area until that is dealt with.

He said the draft did not hinder development of the retained land. It simply puts it in a holding pattern until there is a concept plan as to how it would be developed.

Proponent Rick Murray explained that there were concerns about putting two four-plexes on the site, that was never the intent.

Murray’s idea was to have a four-plex spread over two lots, to have a little extra land instead of a little less.

He said there were no plans to develop the back part at this time.The only concerns raised came from nearby resident Tony Dyksterhuis who lives on Nelson Street.

His main concern was if there were two four-plex units.

“If there were two going in, then there are a lot of people opposed to it.”

Dyksterhuis had brought a list of names of those in opposition.

“They wouldn’t be too opposed to one [four-plex], but if we don;t say anything tonight, we can’t say anything in the future.”

“If it changed, we likely wouldn’t have any opposition.”

Mayor David Anderson said no decision was being made at that night’s council meeting,  and the severance still has to be approved by the county land division committee.

 

Comments