PAC Minutes – June 17, 2002

The regular meeting of the Grand Bay-Westfield Planning Advisory Committee was held Monday, June 17, 2002 in Room “A”, 609 River Valley Drive.   Chairman, Larry Chapman conducted the meeting and called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
1. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE
All Members were present, with the exception of Andrew Shaw.
2. PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF JUNE 3, 2002
“…moved by Ralph Stevens to accept as amended the June 3, 2002 Planning Advisory Committee Minutes….”
Motion seconded by  Mel Steffens.  Carried.
3. (a) REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2002
(b)  SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES OF JUNE 4, 2002
“…moved by Ralph Stevens to receive and file the Regular Council Minutes of May 27, 2002  and the Special Council Minutes of June 4, 2002….”
Motion seconded by Michael Hare.  Carried.
4. CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS
The Chairman advised that Doug Smith has made an appeal with the Provincial Assessment and Planning Appeal Board, regarding Tentative Subdivision Plan Approval, Company. No. 500607 N. B. Ltd. addressed by PAC on April 15th, 2002.
Upon review of PAC’s Rules of Procedure, the Chairman noted that procedures for dealing with like or similar proposals was not addressed.
The Development Officer recommended that this be done as an amendment to the Rules of Procedure.
The following motion was then made:
“…moved by Ralph Stevens that the Development Officer bring forward to the next meeting, proper wording with regard to PAC addressing like or similar proposals….”
Motion seconded by Michael Hare.  Carried.
5. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
No conflict declared.
6. FOR DISCUSSION  RE:  COST INCURRED TO PAC MEMBERS ATTENDING PLANNING APPEAL BOARD HEARINGS
A discussion was held with regard to costs incurred to PAC Members attending Planning Appeal Board Hearings and that for future Appeals,  policy needs to be put into place to cover these expenses.
The Development Officer advised that that the Town has an Expense Policy and that he will review same and do up similar wording for PAC.
The following motion was then made:
“…moved by Michael Hare that the Development Officer investigate the existing Town Policy with regard to expenses and bring same back to the Committee for review….”
Motion seconded by Ralph Stevens.  Carried.
7. FOR INFORMATION RE:  NEW NATIONAL BUILDING STANDARDS – STATUTORY ORDERS & REGULATIONS PART II UNDER THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ACT
The Development Officer gave a brief report on the above information, adding that this starts to address the discrepancies between Municipalities and the LSD areas.
The following motion was then made:
“… moved by Ralph Stevens to receive and file Information Re:  New National Building Standards – Statutory Orders & Regulations  Part II under the Community Planning Act….”
Motion seconded by Michael Hare.  Carried.
8.  DEVELOPMENT OFFICER’S REPORT DATED JUNE 12, 2002 RE:   APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE DUANE BENSON – 210 HIGHLAND ROAD
A discussion was held in Closed Session regarding an Application for Variance to construct an accessory building for a two car garage and workshop, requiring variances on the maximum area and maximum height.
It was noted that a previous, similar Application was denied by PAC on March 18th, 2002, which was subsequently brought before the Provincial Planning Assessment Board on May 12th, 2002, and was denied.
The Development Officer reported that the change represents a reduction of approximately 5% from the previous application, which proposed to exceed the maximum area limit by 35%.   He further advised that the Applicant felt that he did not get the opportunity to explain all of his needs in wanting to erect a building of this size. The Committee posted numerous photographs of all the items he needs to store for review.
Applicant, Duane Benson was present during the Open Session and advised the Committee of the following  plans which he has for his property for the summer of 2002:

  • build a garage;
  • pave his driveway;
  • build a deck;
  • put in an in ground swimming pool and needs additional storage space for  the pool materials.

There were no other presentations made in favor of or against this Proposal.
The following motion was then made:
“…moved by Michael Hare that the Planning Advisory Committee receive and file Application for Variance for the development of an accessory building, located at 210 Highland Road, PID No. 30115596, as no substantial changes have been presented to differ from an identical Application having already been dealt with on March 18th, 2002, no action is to be taken by the Committee in this matter….”
Motion seconded by Ralph Stevens.  Carried.
9. DEVELOPMENT OFFICER’S REPORT DATED MAY 27, 2002 RE:  APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE JAMES BANKS – 57 RIDGE WAY
A Closed Session discussion was held regarding an Application for Variance for the addition of a garage to the main building, requiring a variance to the side yard setback.
It was noted that a previous, similar Application was denied by PAC on May 6th, 2002.
One letter was received from adjacent property owner stating opposition to this Proposal.
The Development Officer reported that the Applicant has revised his original Application from a 7 ft. side yard setback to an 8 ft. side yard setback and noted that the applicant desired to present the proposal to the Committee as he was not able to be present at the May 6th meeting.
Applicant, James Banks was present during the Open Session and informed the Committee of the following:

  • he was not able to be attend the May 6th meeting to present his case;
  • he has subsequently discussed his Proposal with his adjacent neighbour.

Mr. Banks was made aware that his adjacent neighbour once again has written to PAC stating opposition to his proposal.  The letter was made available to him and after review of same, he further advised the following:

  • he feels he has adequately addressed all his neighbours concerns;
  • also feels he is being most reasonable in this matter;
  • he will place a window at the back of the garage and not on the side;
  • he plans on constructing a similar pitch on the garage to match the house but on a single storey rather than at the same height as the main house;
  • he addressed PAC’s concerns with regard to grading.

There were no other presentations made in favor of or against this Proposal.
The following motion was then made:
“…moved by Cllr. Little that the Planning Advisory Committee grant the following Request for Variance to the Town’s Zoning By-law, Town of Grand Bay-Westfield By-law No. 16, Division I, for the development of an attached single story garage, located at 57 Ridge Way, PID No. 3018365:
a)   under section 13(b), grant a variance of 1.06 m to reduce the side yard setback from 3.5 m to 2.44 m;
subject to:
i)         exterior finishes to match or compliment the existing home;
ii)        no windows to be located on the south side of the building….”
Motion seconded by James Evans.  Carried with two Nay Votes.
10. DEVELOPMENT OFFICER’S REPORT DATED JUNE 14, 2002 RE:   APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE SURVEY PLAN APPROVALS – ROGERS WIRELESS – OFF RIDGE WAY
A discussion was held in Closed Session regarding Application for Tentative Survey Plan Approvals for the development of a Utility/Communications Tower, requiring variances to the structure height and Building By-law for public street access; Similar and Compatible Use and Recommendation to Council for designation of land to be used for an essential utility service.
Two additional letters were received from concerned property owners, stating opposition to this Proposal.
Present during the Open Session was Cameron Starritt, representing Rogers Wireless Inc.  Mr. Starritt gave presentation by displaying coverage maps as follows:

  • Map 1 – depicting present coverage in the Grand Bay-Westfield area;
  • Map 2 – depicting coverage that could be achieved from the existing Aliant Tower on the Kingston Peninsula;
  • Map 3 – coverage from the proposed location
  • Map 4 – depicting projected combined coverage in the Grand Bay-Westfield area utilizing both the Aliant tower site and locating west of  Highway # 7;
  • Map 5 – depicting projected combined coverage in the Grand Bay-Westfield area utilizing both the Aliant tower site and from the proposed Tower off of Ridge Way;
  • this new tower off of Ridge Way would eliminate any additional towers needed in the Grand Bay-Westfield area;
  • the tower will be placed next to the power lines;
  • the Town would benefit from this additional tower as it could be used to upgrade existing communications for its ambulance, police and fire departments;
  • only trees cut necessary for access road and tower/guy wire anchors;
  • an 8 ft. fence will be constructed around the tower and service building;
  • there is to be a locked gate at the entrance to the access road;
  • public health issues are governed by Health Canada and Industry Canada, with levels well below the allowable limit;
  • the lights of the tower are shielded to deflect the light upward.

The Committee stated the following concerns to Mr. Starritt:

  • any anti-climbing devices on the tower?;
  • is fence equipped with an alarm?;
  • how many lights are on the tower?

Mr. Starritt advised that he did not know the answers to the above questions, but that he will find out and report back to the Development Officer for input to both Council and the Committee.
Present to speak in opposition to the Proposal was Richard Wasson, representing the concerned citizens of Ridge Way.  Mr. Wasson expressed concerns as stated in his letter dated June 17, 2002.
Present to speak in favor of the Proposal was Doug Smith of Grand Bay-Westfield, who advised the Committee of the following:

  • he approved of the last Application made by Aliant, which Council turned down;
  • he feels Town will benefit from the proposal.

The following motion was then made:
“…1.  moved by Michael Hare that the Planning Advisory Committee grant the following variance to the Town’s Zoning By-law, Town of Grand Bay-Westfield By-law No. 16, Division 1, for the development of a Utility/Communications Tower and accessory building as shown on Tentative Subdivision Plan, Rogers Wireless Inc. Subdivision Lot 02-1 and proposed Right-of-Way, prepared by Key Surveys Engineering dated April 23, 2002: i)  under Section 14, grant a variance of 97.68 m to increase the maximum height of a main structure from 9 m to 106.68 m; and
2
. move that the Planning Advisory Committee permit the development of the Utility/Communications Tower as being Similar and Compatible to Uses defined under section 4(3)(a) of the Town’s Zoning By-law, Town of Grand Bay-Westfield By-law No. 16, Division 1; and
3. move that the Planning Advisory Committee grant the following variance to the Town’s Building By-law, Town of Grand Bay-Westfield By-law No. 17:
i) under section 7(4), grant a variance from the requirement of having the utility lot having the ingress and egress to a public street being located within the frontage abutting a public street; and
4. move that the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council;
i) land being essential to the operation of the services concerned; and
ii) public view of the Tower will be adequately screened based on the size and location of the lot;
subject to:
Coouncil accepting the recommendation from the Planning Advisory Committee, to approve the development of a Utility/Communications Tower as an essential service;
Council’s satisfaction that the screening of the Tower from public view is adequately provided by the location and size of the proposed lot .…”
Motion seconded by Ralph Stevens.  Carried.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Ralph Stevens moved to adjourn at 9:11 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

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