Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Woof. Reading the minutes from the July 16thmeeting are enough to keep you busy for a half hour. It takes less time than watching the video linked in my last post. I won’t wade into the two Open Meeting topics with an opinion but two thoughts:

  1. The proposed development on Salt Dock Road would mean about $200,000 to $250,000 in additional annual revenue for the Town when you consider municipal taxes and water services.
  2. NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard), literally, not figuratively.

Read on. My thanks to the Clerk for the summary of the Open Meeting presentations. It’s a time saver and not something we would have received in the past.

Closed Meeting Items
Council move to a meeting closed to the public in order to address matters pertaining to:
e) litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board (storm water easements on private property) Carried

Public Meeting

2.1 – Official Plan Amendment No. 2 and Zoning By-law Amendment – Z/19/4 (Morgan Planning and Developments Inc. on behalf of Greystone Project Management Inc. for Salt Dock Road, the Lighthouse) to re-designate the lands from public open space to residential high density.
Discussion Summary:
Subsequent to an explanation of how the public was notified of application Z/19/4 (Morgan Planning and Developments Inc. on behalf of Greystone Project Management Inc. for Salt Dock Road, the Lighthouse), Manager of Building & Planning Services Taylor Elgie gave an explanation of the purpose of the proposed concurrent Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA), being to re-designate the lands from public open space to residential high density. Mayor McGarvey invited those in favour of the proposed OPA and ZBA to address Council.
Speaking in Favour:
1. Lisa Lund spoke in favour, noting that she is aware through her membership on the Community Business & Development Corporation (CB&DC) Board, of a lack of housing. She noted that while the price point of the proposed units may not suit everyone, the development will free up a number of affordable properties for people moving to Town for work. The lack of housing is a barrier for growth and economic development as was identified at the recent area Housing Summit.
Ms. Lund reported that it was her understanding that the Town put out an RFP to place housing in this area to accommodate up to 42 units and that this developer has taken that up. Ms. Lund noted that while she understood the objections related to view that residents of Beaconview might have, she hoped that the developer has addressed these concerns.
2. Pat Dube, development applicant and Josh Morgan, land use planning consultant addressed Council from a prepared power point presentation with an overview of the proposed development.
Mr. Dube reported that The Lighthouse development design respects the boundary and neighbourhood and has been modified from the first submission in terms of location and building size to address concerns from Beaconview residents. Mr. Dube noted that they will be using materials that are dark in colour and a profile that blends with the surroundings and the rock of the site, and the building is proposed to be below the sightlines of Beaconview. The design works well with the topography minimizing the amount of rock to be blasted. The grades work well, with five floors at the façade for a three-storey building, a parking garage on the second level and a terrace on the lowest level near the walking trail. Mr. Dube pointed out a proposed extension of the walking trail up the side of Salt Dock Road giving some direction regarding continuation of the trail, and a crosswalk proposed across Salt Dock Road to tie in with the parking built for the other end of the trail while building Granite Harbour.
Mr. Dube noted that the plan maintains the old rail spur line, which is a change from the previous plan; the grade of the railroad spur doesn’t change, nor does the bank to Beaconview. This respects the landscaping work that Beaconview has done. All of the new development work will happen in front of the rail spur line which effectively uses the rock drop off for various entry levels.
From a cross section view of the property, Mr. Dube pointed out the height of the bottom floor of Beaconview at 203.95 metres with the normal height of a person standing at 205.45 metres and roof level of the Lighthouse at 203.4 metres, a meter below eye level of an average person standing on the first floor of Beaconview. Mr. Dube said that a 3 ft elevator projection on a 5 foot-wide box will protrude; however there will be no airconditioning units on the roof. A green membrane will be used on the roof, so that people on the Beaconview terrace aren’t blinded by reflection of a white roof. Mr. Dube noted that currently there are lots of trees in front of Beaconview, and therefore this development will improve the view of the Bay.
Mr. Dube briefly referred to the floor plans available and the functional servicing report which identifies how to get sewer and water to the site and how to deal with drainage off the site.
Josh Morgan, land use planning consultant who has worked on behalf of Greystone before, noted that the entirety of the subject property is designated as Public Open Space in the OP and that the proposal is to re-designate it to Residential High Density (RHD). Mr. Morgan noted that the Beaconview property immediately to the east, is also designated as RHD. While RHD permits density of 75 units per hectare, the proposed development has a density of 47.6 units per hectare.
Under the Town’s Zoning By-law, the property has two parts, with the west side (Bay side) zoned Transportation and Utilities and the east side zoned Open Space 1. In order to accommodate the 40-unit development proposal, the proponents have applied to rezone both parts as R3, which is same zone as the Beaconview Condominimums.
Site specific zoning by-law provisions requested include: permitting a height of 14.2 metres; interior side yard set back to the west (the Bay side) of 3.47 metres; utilization of the front yard for a combination of parking, snow storage and landscaped open space; permitting parking spaces in the front yard, (i.e. north side of property between the building and Salt Dock Road); and reducing the standard parking stall widths of the inside parking spaces of which there are 33, from 3 metres to 2.7 metres, being a reasonable parking stall width used even in the north where larger vehicles are common.
Referring to a zone matrix, Mr. Morgan noted that the total area of the property is 2 acres, the frontage is 44 m, lot coverage by the building is 22.8% which is quite a low number, and the number of parking spaces provided is 59, while the zoning requires a minimum of 50 spaces at 1.25 parking spaces per unit.
Mr. Morgan noted that it is not only important to have regard for what policies say, but to consider how a proposed development relates to adjacent properties. Mr. Morgan stated that in considering the built form on the north side of Salt Dock Road, which are the three phases of the Granite Harbour Development, and the built form immediately east, which is Beaconview – a multi-unit multi-story residential condominium building, in his opinion, the 40-unit condominium development proposed is compatible.
Mr. Morgan noted that the property is bound to the south by a recreational trail and sanitary pump station, to the west by the same recreational trail, and to the southwest by a water treatment facility, all adjacent uses in his opinion compatible with a 40-unit residential development.
Mr. Morgan reported that a traffic impact study was undertaken. Its purpose was to look at how Salt Dock Road functions currently and how it would be impacted by 40 new residential units. The result of the engineer’s study was that there would be no negative impacts on the road fabric to accommodate this development.
Mr. Morgan noted that there was much discussion between himself and Mr. Dube on the height of the building, and the conclusion was that it should be no more than 14.2 metres, so that the top of the building is no higher than the bottom of the first floor of Beaconview, making the views of the Beaconview condominium residents top of mind.
Lastly, Mr. Morgan referred to planning documents consulted to prepare his planning justification report, namely the Provincial Policy Statement, (PPS); the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario; and the Town of Parry Sound’s Official Plan. With respect to the PPS, which is the highest-ranking provincial planning policy document, Mr. Morgan noted that section 1.1.3.1 directs that growth and development are to be focused in settlement areas, and the Town of Parry Sound is a settlement area as defined by the PPS. The PPS focuses growth through a mix of densities and land uses to encourage more efficient use of land and resources. Mr. Morgan reported that in his opinion the development conformed to the direction provided by the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario, as the subject lands are vacant, underutilized, and provide an opportunity for residential intensification within the built boundary of a fully serviced settlement area, optimizing existing municipal infrastructure. The applicant has a proven track record of developing high quality residential buildings within the Town. Future residents will be able to enjoy dramatics view of Georgian Bay and make use of the adjacent residential trail network, and the development will accommodate a growing demographic of “empty nesters” who are seeking smaller homes.
With respect to the Town’s Official Plan, Mr. Morgan pointed out that section 8.3.4 enables the Town to pass by-laws authorizing increased height and density. Mr. Morgan concluded noting that it was his understanding that the Town advertised the subject property for sale with the intention that it be developed with medium to high residential development and that therefore the existing OP designation of Open Space does not reflect the desired land use of the property.

Mayor McGarvey invited those in opposition to the proposed OPA and ZBA to address Council.

Speaking in Opposition
1. Sue Ferguson of Salt Dock Road reported that she is not in favour of this fourth phase of the development unless the Town and developer work together to improve what is already there. Ms. Ferguson noted that there is not an address number at the entrance to the building, and there are no sidewalks, nor streetlights, and that she almost hit a person coming around a turn in the road.
2. Elizabeth Weeks, an owner at Beaconview Condominiums, read from a prepared statement citing concerns that as an adjacent land owner, she would not necessarily receive formal notice because the development is a condominium, and that she and other residents have received unclear and confusing information from the developer and his agent regarding the status of land ownership. Ms. Weeks outlined the following objections and concerns with the proposed development:
– loss of open green space as a loss to the serenity of the area to the community at large;
– underestimation of the effect of a 14.2 metre height building, with respect to devaluation of Beaconview and surrounding properties, and devastating effect on the privacy, air quality, noise level and habitat in the area;
– addition to the roof height of the 5′ x 8′ x 3-4′ high elevator shaft and 18″ high sewer pipes at 4″ diameter;
Ms. Weeks concluded her list of objections and concerns with an assessment that the proponents had not proven the project worthy of a shift in policy from open space to high density residential, and that they had done a weak job of determining or assessing impacts. Ms. Weeks then read from a prepared statement, providing more detailed information on her opposition to the zoning by-law amendment and proposed condominium development with reference to the Town’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law per the following:
– the value of the existing open space, or green space reserve, and the mental and physical health benefits of parks and green spaces;
– the value of green space to offset the effects of air pollution by improving air quality as well as reducing noise and excessive heat;
– the requirement to maintain the special features and characteristics of the Parry Sound shoreline, including public access and vistas as part of the identified waterfront area;
– the requirement for regard to planning principles of the OP relevant to scale of development – being low profile, with structures blending in to their surroundings, and building height regulated through the zoning by-law to represent the existing character of the Town and of the specific area in which the development is proposed;
– concerns that the Traffic Impact Study undertaken has failed to assess general traffic concerns related to bulk salt and the recreational trail and salt dock users;
– concerns that the area is overwhelmed with surface water and springs that cause frequent washout impacts at the entrance to the trail;
– concerns that the impact on the environment has not been adequately assessed;
– notwithstanding the general belief that a development which does not preserve the public open space is inappropriate, concern that affordable housing has not been considered as part of the proposal, nor was it considered part of previous phases.
– recommendation that the site have an assessment to determine if there is soil contamination due to hazardous waste, to ensure that the Town does not become responsible for cost sharing of clean-up as was the case for the development of Granite Harbour.
Ms. Weeks said that certain studies should be undertaken including: planning justification; market/need; landscape; archaeological; heritage impact; environmental; tree preservation; flood plain; site remediation-brown field; noise/vibration; storm water; traffic impact; hydrogeological; financial impact.
Ms. Weeks suggested that in order to protect the Town’s control, the subject lands should be zoned with “H” symbol, putting a hold on the project until certain tasks are completed including: all studies at developer’s expense; preparation of site condition, clean-up or removal of soil at developer’s expense; storm water management study; no relief from R3 zone maximum height of 10.5 metres; no relief from parking space requirement; roof design plan be filed with the Town to allow neighbouring owners to visualize the new views; land be surveyed, staked including elevation shown by an Ontario Land Surveyor; slope of hill along the eastern boundary of Beaconview be retained and not blasted to eliminate need for fencing or barrier; no balconies facing Beaconview; tree in front of 100 Beaconview not be removed or damaged.
2. Mackenzie Taylor, owner at the 200 Beaconview condos, and representing the Board, addressed Council, noting that the Board had originally submitted a letter saying that it was not opposed to the development and rezoning, except for the height going past the 10.5 metre maximum to 14.2 metres. Ms. Taylor reported that with additional information received in the last couple of weeks, and very different building plans seen today, the Board rescinds that letter and has submitted a new one opposing the rezoning altogether. Ms. Taylor reported that although a resident had a meeting with the developer, the Board has not been able to obtain a meeting, and that getting information was like prying.
Ms. Taylor rejected the developer’s assertion that the view of the Bay would be improved by the development, saying that she has a view of the parking lot and one of the worst views of the Bay, but that in summer she can still enjoy that view from her deck, and will be sad to lose it.
Ms. Taylor noted that the Board is encouraging all tenants to speak out today in opposing this rezoning, a change from the Board’s earlier advocacy of supporting the rezoning except for the 14.2 metre building height. Ms. Taylor noted that the 14.2 metre height will block Beaconview residents’ view and reduce the value of their units. Ms. Taylor also noted that the development will destroy the topography of the area, have an impact on the Fitness Trail, and reduce the green space which residents believe is important to maintain.
Ms. Taylor noted that from a meeting one of the Beaconview residents set up with the planner, she understands that the planner believes the traffic, the environmental and the storm water studies have either not been done or are inadequate and that the planner believes that the development contradicts the Town’s Official Plan.
If Council does approve the zoning by-law amendment, Ms. Taylor urged Council to maintain the 10.5 metre maximum building height and revisit the different studies that need to be conducted to ensure they’re done correctly and independently. Ms. Taylor said that although she agrees that housing is needed, there are other locations where a bigger size could be accommodated and have less impact.
3. Gary Bradley, condo owner at 200 Beaconview questioned the building height reported at 14.2 metres, saying that from what has been presented, he understands the height to be 16.4 metres. Mr. Bradley indicated that how the height is arrived at is an outstanding question for him, and that his main objection is that the building is too high.
4. Nancy Cunningham of the Beaconview apartments, indicated that she would address Council from the point of view of the Official Plan. Ms. Cunningham reported that it took months and perhaps years to get the OP passed with a lot of public input, which ultimately put most high-rise intense residential development on the southeast side of Seguin River. North of the Seguin River and north of marinas would be mostly natural and it was important to keep it that way, so it was designed open space. The proposed development is a part of what is designated as the waterfront area. The waterfront area is preserved to enhance the natural aesthetics of the area, to encourage tourism, to preserve the natural setting. Ms. Cunningham said that she can’t see how the proposed development does any of that.
The OP says the shoreline helps to define the inherent character of the Town and coast, and appearance of the Town from water is important. This development will change the view from the water as it will remove huge swaths of trees, and blast bedrock. Ms. Cunningham said that it was hard to believe that within the 25′ between the fitness trail and the edge of this property, trees won’t be knocked down during the course of construction. Ms. Cunningham also anticipated that new owners on the ground level will want to have trees cleared so they can see water.
Ms. Cunningham said that studies have proven that residential development doesn’t pay for itself. Municipalities have adopted development charges which are not popular, and Council has removed them. The reason for development charges is that each new household requires more services such as library, emergency services, ambulance, police streetlights, sidewalks. New residents don’t pay for that on their own; the rest of the taxpayers do, so residential development actually costs the taxpayer.
Ms. Cunningham noted that there will be various structures on the roof which will be unsightly particularly for Beaconview residents as well as unsightly snow storage next to the road. Ms. Cunningham said that she expected this development would not cater to the average Parry Sound income and that those relocating here from a community where they had more services would likely expect additional services; and that Council has a duty to protect the interests of existing citizens of Town.
5. Karen Walker from Waubeek Street addressed Council, noting that with the proposed development on some of the last bit of available property in the area, she was concerned with traffic on Waubeek Street. Ms. Walker said that people from the condos drive down Waubeek Street to avoid the train on Church Street, the two stoplights and the high school children. There is a large daycare centre on Waubeek Street and she is concerned for them and concerned for the snowmobilers who use the trail all winter and cross at the Salt Dock. Ms. Walker concluded with saying that she hopes that there are no deaths, because more houses are wanted.
6. Lynne Atkinson of Salt Dock Road reported that she had nothing new to add to comments already made, and that she had submitted a letter already and brought a letter from Waubeek Street resident Anne Hoelscher, who also feels the Official Plan should be honoured. Ms. Atkinson noted that she was previously on the CBDC Board, so knows that housing is an issue for the town, but believes that the Town has other property, such as the approximately 50 acres by Canadore College that could be developed instead of the last green space by the Salt Docks.
7. Mary Thompson, owner of an apartment at 200 Beaconview, reported that she lives on the ground floor, and at her height of 4’7″, she will have to stand on a chair on her tiptoes to see beyond the proposed development. Ms. Thompson said that currently she does not see the Fitness Trail, nor the shore, but she does see beautiful rocks and trees, and it is her bit of paradise. Ms. Thompson concluded with saying that she thinks this is the worst plan she has ever heard of for that piece of property.
8. Jody Brunatti addressed Council noting that she and her husband live at 11C Salt Dock Road, and that her concerns about traffic safety are with the Town. Ms. Brunatti said that she didn’t think the traffic study would see that people park at the top of the hill a lot of times, and that trying to get by with salt trucks on the road is difficult. Kids swim at this time of year at midnight at the Salt Dock. People in walkers, with strollers, with dogs, the elderly, and young kids walk the road with no sidewalk and cross to the salt dock trail. The running club from the high school comes down Isabella, to Wood, to Salt Dock Road and then on to the trail. Additionally, Ms. Brunatti noted that most condo owners have two vehicles which doubles the number of people driving and increases the possibility of an accident waiting to happen.
9. Kim Marshall, one of the owners at 200 Beaconview Hts commented that she appreciates everything the builder has done to address concerns; however, her concern still remains regarding the height of the building. Ms. Marshall said that she believed the height should be 2 meters below the ground floor level of Beaconview to accommodate the elevator and pipes that come up.
10. Leanne Coniam of 100 Beaconview addressed Council noting that she has many of the same concerns that have already been brought forward this evening, particularly with respect to traffic. Ms. Coniam noted that the road is narrow and winds, and she questioned how additional units could be accommodated. Ms. Coniam noted that she believed the development would pose a great loss to the natural area and shoreline. Ms. Coniam suggested that the developer acknowledges that the roof will be unsightly, so is making it a different colour, but that this won’t add; it will only detract.
Ms. Coniam said that the development is not affordable housing and is only for people who can afford a waterfront view. Ms. Coniam also said that at the very least the height must be reduced; however, that would not address all the other issues with respect to traffic, and the absence of lighting. Ms. Coniam concluded with her concern that there are too many people in one small area with one small utility road feeding it.
11. Terry McNabb of Georgina Street, adjacent to the development behind Beaconview, noted that a lot of the concerns that he has have been addressed by others. Mr. McNabb noted that he has environmental concerns that the property will be clear cut, concerns with traffic and the aesthetics of the area after the trees are gone. Mr. McNabb questioned the Town’s commitment to the Biosphere Reserve and to the fitness trail which is used by many people. Mr. McNabb said that he is opposed to the proposed development for the sake of the trees and for the sake of the aesthetics.
12. Lorrie Kerr of 11C Salt Dock Road, addressed Council noting that she owns a Beaconview unit and lived for 19 years at 200 Beaconview. She said that for many years Beaconview tried to buy the green space proposed for development, to keep it as green space and were denied. Ms. Kerr said that she sees lots of animals in the area including bears and deer and is concerned that the habitat will be lost for those animals.

Manager of Building and Planning Services Taylor Elgie reported that 13 letters of opposition have been received, in addition to a 36-page redacted form letter; and 1 letter in favour has been received requesting sidewalks going up Salt Dock Road. With respect to the reasons for opposition, Mr. Elgie reported that they were similar to what had been heard this evening, including loss of green space; impact on the Fitness Trail; building height; negative property values; traffic study; environmental concerns with species and habitat loss.

2.2 – Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment – Z/19/08 – 1 College Drive (Canadore College Board of Governors) to permit Conseil Scolaire Public du Nord-Est de L’Ontario to locate a French Public School at the campus for two years.

Subsequent to an explanation of how the public was notified of application Z/19/08 – 1 College Drive (Canadore College Board of Governors), Manager of Building & Planning Services Taylor Elgie gave an explanation of the purpose of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA), to permit Conseil Scolaire Public du Nord-Est de L’Ontario to locate a French Public School at the campus for two years.
Mayor McGarvey invited those in favour of the proposed ZBA to address Council.

Speaking in Favour:
1. Simon Fecteau, Director of Education, Conseil Scolaire Public du Nord-Est/French Public Board said that he would attempt to provide facts about the French school coming to Parry Sound in order to help Council make a decision:
Fact 1 – the request for the French public school did not come from the Board, but rather from parents. The Canadian Charter of Rights guarantees French education wherever the numbers are sufficient and the numbers in Parry Sound are sufficient, so there is a legal responsibility to offer the program in Parry Sound;
Fact 2 – thirty students have registered already; parents have written a letter and indicate that they are comfortable with having the school located in the College;
Fact 3 – the Board’s Director of Capital Assets visited more than ten possible locations and none were suitable for a school. Bayside Family Church was considered, but is not available and the Board therefore feels that Canadore is suitable for a temporary location;
Fact 4 – this is a temporary solution for two years; during those 2 years the Board will review with the Ministry of Education to look for a more permanent solution;
Fact 5 – the business of the Board is to provide quality education while ensuring that the learning environment is safe and positive for all students. In Hearst for example there are 130 students JK to Grade 6, housed in La Place des Arts, which is a French community centre where weddings and funerals go on. There are protocols in place to make sure there are no issues, therefore the Board is confident that being at Canadore College also won’t be a problem;
Fact 6 – as of September, the intention is to have eight employees from principal to secretary, with a belief that this number will grow in the future and the school will become an important part of the economic and cultural development of the community;
Fact 7 – the Board has been assured that the French school presence at Canadore will not result in programs being cut, and in fact, in hearing concerns from members of the public regarding the shop, plans have been changed, and the French school will not be using the shop as a classroom.
Mr. Fecteau concluded by requesting that the Town approve the rezoning in a timely manner so that everything necessary could be done to set up the school for opening in September, 2019.

[Mayor McGarvey excused himself from the public meeting during Mr. Fecteau’s submission in order to deal with an urgent personal matter.]

2. George Burton, President and CEO of Canadore College noted that the proposal is to provide a temporary location to the French Board, until a more permanent location can be established. The campus is designed for 176 students; the largest enrollment to date, has been 81. Given the academic plan for the next two years, Mr. Burton said that there is more than enough physical space to accommodate both operations; the leasing of space will not affect programming for 2019 to 2021. Canadore will retain the shop, since seeing an increased demand for pre-apprentice and apprenticeship programs in the area.
Mr. Burton said that the College does rent space out to various education operations ranging from Contact Nord-Contact North, to children camps, and research companies throughout the year on an ongoing basis. Mr. Burton noted that the prime concern of Canadore is to provide quality education in a quality setting; that will continue; student safety is pre-eminent in all decisions.
Mr. Burton noted that he is charged with ensuring the operation of the College runs smoothly and is meeting the needs of the job market. Part of that mandate is ensuring its sustainability as a college; renting space is a key component of that sustainability. Mr. Burton concluded asking for support of the change in rezoning to allow Canadore to accommodate the School Board for two years, while more permanent plans can be put in place.
3. Sally Labath of Waubuno Road addressed Council regarding the safety of students at the French school. She said that all parents enrolled their children knowing the proposed location and that all parents were fully capable of identifying an acceptable safety threshold for their most precious family members.
4. Forrest Pengra addressed Council noting the process has had some stress, with parents of children enrolled in the French School being personally attacked. Mr. Pengra said that he and the families want what’s best for their children and for the community. With respect to developing the community, Mr. Pengra said that the French school is a piece to the puzzle, and something to build upon to attract professionals and appeal to young families.
5. Elizabeth Weeks addressed Council saying that there has been a lot of confusion and negative information spread. She has found the question as to whether she would want her grandchild using the same bathroom as a PSW offensive; personal support workers are the backbone to the health community; and transgendered washrooms are now part of many public schools. Ms. Weeks expressed that she personally wants to learn French and is excited that French is being offered in the community.
Deputy Mayor Backman invited those in opposition to the proposed ZBA to address Council.

Speaking in Opposition
1. Jocelyn Shipman addressed Council noting that she is from Sudbury, attended a French school and welcomes a French school as do the more than 500 people who signed a petition welcoming the school, but asking that it be built in a different spot than the College which was built for the community. Ms. Shipman said that Canadore College received $6.2 million as a result of volunteers who lobbied both governments for construction of a community college campus. In good faith, the Town of Parry Sound built infrastructure, roads, and sidewalks to accommodate the campus, assisted with land acquisition and provided interest free mortgage. Ms. Shipman said that as a result, people have graduated; some of whom might have been on EI assistance are no longer on that and this produces relief to many taxpayers. Ms. Shipman said that these efforts at improving the local economy and wellbeing are at risk if an elementary school is permitted to occupy the college campus location, as it is not in line with the planned use of the building or location.
Ms. Shipman noted that the French Public School Board is looking to rent for two years. In 2019-2020 there are 30 students registered, and in 2020-2021 more students will enter. If potential college student applicants, paying $4000 – $6000 tuition were to visit the campus and learn that it is shared with an elementary school with no quiet study space, they will not register for future programming, thus beginning the decline of registration. Ms. Shipman noted that in an April radio interview, the President’s office stated that it did not plan to alter the delivery plan of college programs unless there is a shortage of applicants. Ms. Shipman questioned how the local campus can maintain or even increase programs when there is a tenant such as an elementary school taking up more than a 1/3 of classroom space.
Ms. Shipman said that the decision for the proposed French school to be in the existing College was made in North Bay by Canadore College and the French School Board with no consultation with stakeholders, i.e. municipalities, planners and users of the facility, which shows a blatant disrespect to the community.
Ms. Shipman referred to an Ontario Government discussion paper issued in 2017 called Supporting Students in Community, the purpose of which is to strengthen education in Ontario’s rural and remote communities. The paper highlights community planning and partnership guidelines adopted in 2015 which require school boards to hold at least one public meeting a year to discuss potential planning and partnership opportunities with public and community organizations. School boards are expected to notify municipal government, community partners, and the general public about the annual meeting.
This is a directive for school boards, including Conseil Scolaire Public du Nord-Est de L’Ontario, yet no meeting was held. Ms. Shipman said that the directive should be followed by Canadore College as well, because it encourages and supports sustainable use of educational facilities in rural communities such as ours.
Ms. Shipman said that construction of the West Parry Sound Campus helps provide for the economic well being for people in the area. The College and the French Public School Board announced its deal in February without consultation with local stakeholders. Response from the community began in March, yet they have continued to set in motion the plan for elementary school occupancy in September. Ms. Shipman concluded by expressing the hope that Town council would listen to community concerns, and base its zoning decision on sound planning and economic benefits for the entire West Parry Sound Area.
2. Jim Beatty noted that he has been involved in discussions about the potential for change in usage of the College. He understands that this is a difficult decision and that it seems the College sees need for flexibility around its decisions in order to make it economically viable.
Mr. Beatty noted the importance of a college to the community, originally Georgian and then Canadore in providing post-secondary educational opportunities for students who might not otherwise be able to obtain them, as they simply couldn’t afford to attend outside of the Parry Sound Area.
Mr. Beatty, referred to his work as a school trustee on the Near North District School Board encouraging students to take advantage of programs such as internship and apprenticeship programs – the types of programs that Canadore can offer, not all of which had resulted in 100% occupancy, but have meant a lot to the community and those who participated.
Mr. Beatty noted that he encouraged the Near North District School Board to go beyond the extended French program, and to offer French immersion. Mr. Beatty said that when the grade 7 and 8 French immersion program moved from William Beatty to the High School, there was a separate area for it, and it worked relatively well. He suggested there might be room at the high school, although it may not yet be suitable for JR kindergarten to be together with students who are in grade 12. Mr. Beatty said that there were other opportunities for the French immersion program to operate in Town. Mr. Beatty concluded by suggesting that the College is encouraging the French immersion program at Canadore because of a lack of 100% occupancy in college programs, however Council will need to consider the college program opportunities that will not be available should it be used for the French immersion program.
Mr. McGarvey resumed the chair during Mr. Beatty’s submission.

Manager of Building and Planning Services Taylor Elgie reported that 34 letters have been received to date, with one letter including 15 signatures of support, and one petition of approximately 500 signatures in opposition. There are 29 letters of opposition including one with 12 signatures on it
Mr. Elgie reported that a letter of support signed by parents includes the follow reasons: this is a short term solution; they trust the school board with the safety of their children; they were aware of the school accommodation scenario and conducted their own due diligence in assessing that, the school brings good paying jobs; it offers new choices to parents; and promotes diversity and inclusion.

Mr. Elgie reported that the letters received in opposition include the following reasons: Canadore received funding from multiple layers of government to be a college; the Town built infrastructure to support the College; fears that this enables Canadore to exit the Town and transition into an elementary school; not appropriate to share space as it requires sacrifice for both users; bathroom facilities are not appropriate; it will negatively impact the economy; the process to select the site did not have public consultation; it is against the Ministry of Education’s community planning and partnership guidelines; and even a two-year temporary use will harm long-term success of the College.

Mayor McGarvey concluded the public meeting with notice that the public should contact staff or check the Town’s website to see when these amendments will come back for a decision. Council, at its discretion, may approve either of the proposed zoning by-law amendments or Official Plan Amendment. If so, it must either circulate notices of passing of the by-laws or give notice in the local press.
Objections to the passing of either of the amendments will be received by the Clerk within 20 days from the date such notice is given; such objections will be forwarded to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. If an appeal is submitted and the appellant has not provided Council with an oral or written submission before the passing of the by-law, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal may choose to dismiss the appeal.

That we do now declare the public meeting closed. Carried

Correspondence

4.1 – Jane Hinchcliffe. Concerns with communication regarding Waubeek Street reconstruction project; and specific property concerns affected by the reconstruction. Letter referred to Director of Public Works for response.
4.2 – Brandy Harris-Green, Treasurer, Rotary Club of Parry Sound. Delivery of cheque for $2,500 towards a Splash Pad with caveat to retain right to reallocate funds if the splash pad is not built. Letter and cheque referred to Manager of Parks & Recreation; and to Director of Finance for funds management. A letter of appreciation has been sent to the Rotary Club on behalf of Council for their fundraising efforts.
4.3 – Bill Liggins. Request for the installation of audible traffic signals at the Church/Isabella Street intersection Letter has been referred to Director of Public Works for response.
4.4 – David Pearce, Supply Chain Officer, Stewardship Ontario. Industry Funding for Municipal Blue Box Recycling for the first quarter of the 2019 Program Year, with enclosed cheque in the amount of $14,729.12. Letter filed, and cheque forwarded to the Finance Department.
4.5 – Joe Beleskey. Concerns with effects of blocked culvert on his property Letter referred to Director of Public Works for follow-up.
4.6 – Stephen Covey, Chief of Police, Corporate Services, CN. Rail Safety Week, September 23-29, 2019. Referred to Consent Agenda with a resolution prepared.
4.7 – Chris Pettinger, Trestle Brewing Company. Explanation of parking relief request in support of zoning by-law amendment application and measures being taken to ensure maintenance of sufficient parking. Referred to Manager of Building and Planning Services for consideration of the zoning by-law amendment request, the subject of By-law 2019-6944 on the agenda.

Mayor McGarvey moved forward agenda item 10.4.1 regarding a rezoning application for 9 Great North Road. Subsequent to dealing with that matter, Mayor McGarvey turned the Chair over to Councillor Backman and left the meeting.

Resolutions and Direction to Staff

9.1.1 – 2019 AMO Delegation Requests to the Province. Direction. That the staff report on delegations with Provincial Ministers that the Town has requested during the 2019 AMO Conference be received for information purposes. Carried

9.3.1 – Pedestrian Crossing – Isabella Street and William Street. Direction for Staff Follow-up. That Council direct staff to instruct the Engineer to install an appropriate pedestrian crossover at the intersection of Isabella Street and William Street using Option A of staff report, being a crosswalk located at the north end of the radius to Isabella Street, including a hard-wired corresponding flashing light at the top of the hill on William Street. Carried

9.3.2 – Bottled Water Report. Direction. That Council receive the Bottled Water Report for information only. Carried

9.3.3 – 2019 Suez Ultrafiltration Users’ Group Conference. Resolution. That Council authorizes the Manager of Water Systems to attend the 2019 Suez Ultrafiltration Users’ Group Conference to be held in Rapid City, South Dakota, September 29 to October 1, 2019, pursuant to Schedule C, Section 5e of By-law 2019-6902, which requires prior Council approval for attendance at seminars, conferences and conventions outside the Province of Ontario. Carried

By-laws

10.4.1 – Rezoning Application – Z/19/07 – 9 Great North Road (1929330 Ontario Inc.). By-law 2019 – 6944. Being a By-law to amend By-law No. 2004-4653 (The Zoning By-law), as amended, for 9 Great North Road (1929330 Ontario Inc.). Passed, Signed and Sealed.

The following motion was made: That in the near future, we re-evaluate our cash-in-lieu of parking by-law. Carried