PAC Minutes – June 20, 2005

1. CALL TO ORDER
The Town of Grand Bay-Westfield Planning Advisory Committee met for a regular meeting on Monday, June 20, 2005 at 8:05 p.m. with Chairman, Larry Chapman presiding.
2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE
All Members were present with the exception of Ron Daigle.
“…moved by Jim Burke to excuse Ron Daigle, without cause….”
Seconded by Ralph Stevens.  Carried.
3. PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 2005
“…moved by Ralph Stevens to accept as amended the June 6, 2005 Planning Advisory Committee Minutes….”
Seconded by Mel Steffens.  Carried.
4. REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2005
“…moved by Ralph Stevens to receive and file the Regular Council Minutes of  May 24, 2005 ….”
Seconded by Jim Burke.  Carried.
5. CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS
The Chairman called for motions for the following Items be added to the Agenda:
“…moved by Ralph Stevens to add Item No. 7(b) – Re:  Letter received from Mike Boudreau dated June 20, 2005….”Seconded by Jim Burke.  Carried.
“…moved by James Evans to add Item No. 8(b) – Re:  Letter received from Mrs. Myrtle Carrick dated June 15, 2005….”Seconded by Jim Burke.  Carried.
“…moved by Mel Steffens to amend the Agenda by making  Adjournment Item No. 11, and adding Item No. 10  Re:  Memo from Development Officer dated June 15, 2005 – PAC Summer Meeting Schedule….”
Seconded by James Evans.  Carried.
6. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST  No conflict declared.
7. ITEM TABLED JUNE 6, 2005 RE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE RE: DEAN CONSTRUCTION LTD. – OFF EDGEWOOD DRIVE
(A) DEVELOPMENT OFFICER’S REPORT DATED JUNE 15, 2005
(B) MIKE BOUDREAU LETTER DATED JUNE 20, 2005
Applicant, Doug Smith and lawyer, Stephen Horgan were present  speaking in favor of this Application.
Mr. Horgan addressed the Committee and once again noted that a copy of the Development Officer’s Report dated June 15, 2005 should have been made available to his client prior to the meeting.  To illustrate this point, Mr. Horgan wished to point out an inaccuracy he sees on Page 3, Paragraph 2, of the  Development Officer’s Report dated June 1, 2005 under the Analysis section, stating that it could suggest that the interpretation of the Application is incorrect.  This is not a gravel pit application.
The Chairman once again stated to Mr. Horgan that it is a Policy of Council to provide such information only after the meeting and that he may take the matter up with Council.
Mr. Horgan further advised that there is no new information to present, noting that drawings submitted by Mr. DeSaulniers, and presented to the Committee on June 6, 2005, should be considered by the Committee as part of the application.  He noted that the Development Officer’s Report dated June 1. 2005 suggested vagueness in the original application and that the applicant suggests that the additional information provided on June 6, 2005 has cleared this up.
Applicant, Doug Smith addressed the Committee and advised of the following:
? he only wishes to excavate a 50 x 50 sq.ft. area and that his Application indicated a maximum depth of 3m which is in excess of the depth required; ? this Application is not for a gravel pit and feels he does not need a Permit to do the work he wants to do; ? he questioned if anyone else in the Town has paid $1,000.00 with regard to a similar Application, or is he the only one?
The Development Officer advised Mr. Smith that the Zoning By-law requires the $1000.00 fee for an Excavation Permit but the Town also sets out other fees for other types of applications.
The Chairman then asked Mr. Smith if he would be hauling away any more material from the site with the proposed additional excavation of the knoll?
Mr. Smith replied that he would only be moving the material to one side to take out the knoll, and that he could not answer the question with regard to whether or not he would be hauling away any of the material, until after this matter is settled, stating that he would require an Excavation Permit to do so and that at present, he does not have permission to haul material off site.
Councilor Little suggested that from Mr. Smith’s comments, his understanding was that no material would be taken off the site.
Mr. Smith once again advised the Committee that he could not answer the question.
Mr. Horgan advised that if an Excavation Permit is issued, material will be removed, but until that time, no material will be removed from the site.
A letter dated June 20, 2005 was received from Mike Boudreau stating his concerns with regard to this Application as follows:

  • possible contamination of area residents water supply;
  • higher levels of airborne pollutants from heavy equipment used;
  • increased noise levels;
  • increased commercial traffic;
  • devaluation of property.

The following residents were present speaking against this Application:
1) Murray MacLean
Mr. MacLean once again advised the Committee of his concerns as stated during the June 6, 2005 meeting, in that he feels that the Application was very vague and that in his opinion, the residents in the area do not have a problem with the knoll in question.
2) Peter & Janet Jackson
Mr. and Mrs. Jackson also reiterated their concerns expressed to the Committee during the June 6, 2005 meeting, stating that in their opinion it is not necessary to remove the knoll and that they are concerned with the width of the excavation that has already taken place, and of material already removed.
Mr. Jackson further stated that this is a Residential Zone and that Mr. Smith has been excavating and hauling material from this site; he is not allowed to do so and needs to be stopped.  Therefore, he is firmly against this Application.
In response to the two questions raised by the Jacksons, the Development Officer advised that removing excavated material from the site would need an Excavation Permit.  Also, that the road in question is not a public street but a private access located on two properties, presently owned by Mr. Smith.
The Chairman stated once again that the matter before the Committee is only the request to consider a reduced setback established by the Zoning By-law to excavate land within 15 m from adjacent property lines.
Mr. Horgan wished to clarify to the Committee that this Application involves excavating within 15 m along Mr. Hannigan’s property only, the application is restricted to a limited area and will not affect all of the other property lines.
“…moved by Jim Burke that the Planning Advisory Committee deny the Application for Variance to reduce the minimum set back from the property lines for excavations involving an Excavation Permit Application by Dean Construction Ltd. based on plans dated May 25, 2005 and sketches provided to the Committee June 6, 2005, both prepared by DeSaulniers Surveys Inc.…”
Seconded by Ralph Stevens.  Carried.

8. APPLICATION FOR A NON-CONFORMING USE RE: MYRTLE CARRICK – 184 RIVER VALLEY DRIVE
(A) DEVELOPMENT OFFICER’S REPORT DATED JUNE 15, 2005
(B) MYRTLE CARRICK LETTER DATED JUNE 15, 2005
There was no one present speaking in favor of or against this Application.
“…moved by Jim Burke that the Planning Advisory Committee grant an extension to the maximum time period for restoring a Non-conforming Use from 10 months to 3 years located at 184 River Valley Drive, PID No. 00219121….”
Seconded by Ralph Stevens.  Carried.
9. APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL RE: WILLIAM SILLIPHANT – SANDLEWOOD DRIVE
(A) DEVELOPMENT OFFICER’S REPORT DATED JUNE 15, 2005
There was no one present speaking in favor of or against this Application.
“…moved by Mel Steffens that the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council the acceptance of $221.33 as Money in Lieu of Land for Public Purposes for the creation of one new building lot as shown on the Tentative Subdivision Plan, William & Shirley Silliphant Subdivision, Lot 2005-8 as prepared by DeSaulniers Surveys Inc. dated June 14, 2005, subject to: a) payment of $221.33 money in lieu of Land for Public Purposes….”
Seconded by Jim Burke.  Carried.
10. DEVELOPMENT OFFICER’S MEMO DATED JUNE 17, 2005 RE: PAC SUMMER MEETING SCHEDULE
“…moved by Ralph Stevens that the Planning Advisory Committee adopt a summer meeting schedule in relation to the revised Council summer meeting schedule by canceling the regularly scheduled meetings of July 4, 2005 and August 15, 2005, noting that a special meeting may be called if required….”
Seconded by Jim Burke.  Carried.
11. ADJOURNMENT
“…moved by Jim Burke to adjourn at 8:47 p. m.…”
Seconded by Ralph Stevens.  Carried.Respectfully submitted,

 

Larry Chapman,
PAC Chairman
Laylia Nice,
PAC Secretary