PAC Minutes – June 16, 2003

1.
.
.
CALL TO ORDER
The Town of Grand Bay-Westfield Planning Advisory Committee met for a regular meeting on Monday, June 16, 2003 at 8:04 p.m. with Chairman, Larry Chapman presiding.
2.
.
RECORD OF ATTENDANCE
All Members were present with the exception of James Evans, who was excused as per PAC motion of June 2, 2003.
3.
.
.
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF JUNE 2, 2003
“…moved by Mel Steffens to accept as amended the June 2, 2003 Planning Advisory Committee Minutes….”
Seconded by Andrew Shaw.  Carried.
4.
.
.
REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES OF MAY 26, 2003
“…moved by Ralph Stevens to receive and file the Regular Council Minutes of May 26, 2003….”
Seconded by Cllr. Little.  Carried.
5.
.
CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS
The Chairman apologized for the misspelling of a name Re: Item No. 7 (b) of tonight’s Agenda.
6.
.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
No conflict declared.
7. DEVELOPMENT OFFICER’S REPORT DATED JUNE 11, 2003 RE:  APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE WAYNE MACLEOD – RIDGEWAY
 (A)  LETTER FROM ANDREW BOOKER DATED JUNE 11, 2003
(B) LETTER FROM PAUL & HEATHER GOSSE DATED JUNE 11, 2003
Applicant, Wayne MacLeod was present.
There was no one present speaking in favor of or against this Application.
The following motion was then made:
“…moved by Ralph Stevens that the Planning Advisory Committee grant the following variance to the Town of Grand Bay-Westfield Zoning By-law, By-law No. 101, for the development of a single family dwelling to be located on PID No. 00220871: i) under section 8.2.2.3(b), grant a variance of 3 m to reduce the minimum lot frontage width from 23 m to 20 m;           subject to: a)   location of the proposed building to be located to sufficiently meet set back and minimum lot sizes for    future subdivision and extension of Ridge Way without further variances being required….”
Seconded by Jim Burke.  Carried.
8. DEVELOPMENT OFFICER’S REPORT DATED JUNE 12, 2003 RE:  APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE BOB DARLING – 5 ANDREW COURT
(A)  LETTER FROM PERCY & PATRICIA PERRIN/ROB & SANDRA MURPHY/KEVIN DUFF & TRUDY MCGRATH RECEIVED JUNE 6, 2003
(B) LETTER FROM RITA SAVOY DATED JUNE 11, 2003
Applicant, Bob Darling was present and advised the Committee of the following:

  • the lot is located at the ball of the cul-de-sac where the road is wide;
  • there is a garage proposed to be located on the lower storey of the house;
  • the proposed house design is a split entry with a deck at the back.

The following surrounding neighbours were present speaking in favor of this Application with the following conserns:

Percy & Patricia Perrin – 3 Andrew Court

  • they felt there was not sufficient room on the lot for a two car attached garage;
  • due to the embankment, they believe this lot will require a retaining wall similar to the one they constructed, which they were responsible for.

Robert Murphy – 6 Andrew Court

  • he also feels that a retaining wall should be put in place during construction.

Michael Savoy – 20 Ingleside Court

  • he advised that he resides behind this lot and to avoid eroding, a retaining wall needs to be built prior to construction.

The following motion was then made:
“…moved by Ralph Stevens that the Planning Advisory Committee grant the following Requests for Variance to the Town’s Zoning By-law, Town of Grand Bay-Westfield By-law No. 101, for the development of a single family dwelling at 5 Andrew Court, PID No. 30114136:
a) under section 8.2.2.3 (d), a variance of 1.4 m to reduce the front yard setback from 7.5 m to 6.1 m; b) under section 8.2.2.3 (e), a variance of 1.4 m to reduce the rear yard setback from 7.5 m to 6.1 m…”
Seconded by Cllr. Little. Carried.

9.
.
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER’S REPORT DATED JUNE 11, 2003 RE:  APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL – RICK TURNER, HUGHES SURVEYS & CONSULTANTS INC. – VALLEYVIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION, PHASE 9, STAGE 2
Owner, Wayne MacLeod was present, representing Applicant, Rick Turner
The Chairman brought to Mr. MacLeod’s attention the fact that according to a memo received from the Development Officer dated June 13, 2003, no variance has been requested for this proposed Subdivision, however the plan as shown represents Lot 6 with a depth less than the required minimum established under the by-law.
It was further stated to Mr. MacLeod that he had the two following options available to him:

  • he could alter the Application to provide for the minimum lot depth for Lot 6 or leave the proposal as submitted and request a minor variance from the Committee to reduce the minimum depth of the lot from 30.0 m to 29.75 m.

Mr. MacLeod then advised the Committee the following:

  • he is not intending to develop beyond the proposed 4 lots at this time;
  • therefore, he proposed to have the Plan amended prior to Final Approval to reflect the minimum lot depth as required under the Town’s Zoning By-law.

There was no one present speaking in favor of or against this Application. The following motion was then made:
1. “…moved by Andrew Shaw that the Planning Advisory Committee grant approval of the following proposed street name for tentative subdivision of lands identified by PID No. 00220871 as referenced on Tentative Subdivision Plan, Valley View Estates Phase 9, Stage 2 dated May 27, 2003 as prepared by Hughes Surveys & Consultants Inc as the continuation of Ridge Way,
subject to:
(a) condition that the Final Subdivision Plan reflect the minimum required depth for Lot 6 (30 m rather than 29.75 m as shown);
2. “…move that the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council the acceptance of 256.72 m² be applied to the ‘Land Bank’ (PID No. 30096747) held as Land for Public Purposes for Valley View Estates Subdivision.…”
3. “…move that the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council the acceptance of street design standards to be reviewed by Town Engineer:
subject to:
a) street design to be completed by professional Engineer, and reviewed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer prior to completion of Developer’s Subdivision Agreement and approval of Final Subdivision Plan, meeting development standards for concrete curb and gutter street design, storm sewer and sanitary sewer design to be assumed by the Town;
b) the maximum slope on any roadway embankment (right-of-way) beyond the 2.5 m level space behind the curb, shall be 2H:1V for stability, except when rock is encountered;
c) driveway accesses must maintain a 2.5 m area behind curb level with the road to allow for future sidewalks without having to re-shape driveways;
d) during any construction of roadways, sanitary and storm sewers, check-dams and other appropriate measures must be used to prevent and control erosion and debris from entering active infrastructure;
e) utility easements to be reviewed by NB Power and NB Tel and recorded on the Final Subdivision Plan;
f) pursuant to Water Quality Regulation #82-126 under the Clean Environment Act, the Department of the Environment and Local Government shall approve plans & profiles for installation of storm sewers, catch basins and manholes prior to Final Subdivision Approval;
g) subject to Section 49 (2)(g) of the Community Planning Act, a water supply source assessment for water quality and quantity shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Department of Environment & Local Government & Department of Health….”
Seconded by Mel Steffens.  Carried.

10. ADJOURNMENT
“…moved by Ralph Stevens to adjourn at 8:28 p.m.
Seconded by Jim Burke.   Carried.

Respectfully submitted,

Laylia Nice,
P.A.C. Secretary
Larry Chapman,
P.A.C. Chairman