Agent for the applicant, Amritpal Bansal, address: 106 Fruitvale Circle, Brampton, provided an overview of the application.
Public Participation
Sheila Isnor, address: 11289 Guelph Line Campbellville, the neighbour directly beside asked the committee why the existing house is not going to be taken down (it is a heritage house, but it is not designated). She claimed this house already has a well and a weeping bed, which she can understand the weeping bed is not big enough to accommodate the new house. She is concerned about having two dwellings on the property. As of right now, there is a natural water waste that goes there, that abuts to her property, and the properties between herself and the park entrance, so when the subject properties' culvert is blocked with construction, the culvert is not going to have a happy life, as there is already flooding as it is, and will continue to be flooding. The drawings show the new weeping bed is going to be at the back half the house and up a hill, which is the highest point between the school and the park, thus the weeping bed will be up pretty high. The drawing shows they are going to be putting in another well which in turn could affect the neighbouring properties, as there is already a well on the property that works for the house. The drawings also show the existing septic and the existing septic beds and tanks are going to stay, if the existing house is no longer going to be used as a house, and rather storage then why does the owner need weeping beds. Overall, the member has concerns about the water table that's going to get affected by there being a second well.
Bob Violet, address: 11453 Guelph Line representing his mother who lives at 11261 Guelph Line. His mother is concerned on why the owner is keeping the existing house, and there being constant flooding. He claimed it took the town 3 years to clear a culvert near his own property, and thus his mother is concerned that she is going to get flooded out. She is also concerned someone is going to get hurt in the existing dwelling.
Nawar Danou, address: 11277 Guelph Line addressed the flooding situation. He echoed the same concerns around the septic and well, and the second well being put in. But in addition to that, he is concerned about the water and flooding issue and the fact the grading of the house may have not been taken into consideration. Member Ellahi asked the member of the public if he could show the committee how the flooding is happening. The member of the public projected the drawing and illustrated to the committee where the flooding is coming from.
Julia Doma, address: 11269 Guelph Line reiterated how the subject property owner's culvert travels through all of the properties, which is her main concern of the flooding. She also believes having a second water well, would tap into all of the veins of the neighbouring properties water wells, and they should just keep the existing well that is there. She stated the house is a single resident property, by keeping the existing house on the property, would potentially allow the property to be a two-family dwelling.
Kevin Isnor address: 11289 Guelph Line believes by allowing the owners to keep the original property as means for storage, will ultimately put a house in his front yard and back yard. He stated he has no objections to the owners building a new home, but the old home on the property needs to be torn down and the new house needs to be built without all of these variances.
Comments from agent Amritpal Bansal
Firstly, the agent does recognize the property land is high at the back and low at the front, thus there is an unnatural drainage pattern that occurs. The construction of the new house will help the water drainage problem that is already there. The owner does have a grading plan that is prepared and the on the property line the water drains to the front rather than the sides of the property. All the water is contained as much as possible without disrupting the natural flow within the owner's property.
In regard to the existing septic and well, the existing dwelling is going to be converted into an accessory structure, thus there is a condition it is going to be de-commissioned.
The new water well is being made as it needs to be closer to the proposed dwelling. The older water well is a dogged out well, whereas the new standards a drilled well is much for more efficient for a new home, which is what the new well will be.
In terms of the existing dwelling and converting into an accessory dwelling, the owner actually does not want to convert it. Rather they were advised by Town Staff that the existing dwelling is a property of interest, thus they had to get a heritage impact assessment report done, and thus town staff claimed it could possibly become a designated heritage home.
Member Ellahi inquired if the new dwelling would be the primary dwelling for the resident. The agent claimed once the dwelling is completed, and the original dwelling is converted to an accessory unit, the tenants currently living there would have to leave, and the owner of the property would move into the new dwelling unit.
Chair Kluge asked, until the new house is built the tenants will continue living in the existing house, which is why they still need the well and septic. But once the new home is completed and the owner moves in, the well and septic connected to the existing dwelling would be de-commissioned. The agent claimed that is correct.
Questions to Planner Taylor Wellings
Member Trombino asked Planner Wellings to clarify if the new dwelling that is being proposed would be allowed without a minor variance, subject to the existing home being demolished. Planner stated the proposed dwelling, meets all zoning provisions for that zone, except for the building height. The size of the dwelling is permitted, and the lot coverage is 10% and the property is allowed up to 20% in the zone.
Member Ellahi inquired about the existing barn, that would be demolished to make room for the proposed house, and whether or not that was taken into consideration with the heritage assessment. Planner Wellings stated the heritage planner reviewed the file in its entirety and it was noted the existing barn does not have heritage value, which is why it can be demolished. Member Ellahi also inquired about the culvert is proposed in the middle of the lot, is for the purpose of drainage from the barn and from the property within. Planner Wellings stated the engineering department did review the application and the homeowner will be required to provide a stormwater brief as part of the building permit process and a grading plan, thus any issues would be sorted out at the building permit stage. Engineering staff need to be satisfied that any runoff or stormwater issues will be dealt with on site, and thus they don't have any concerns.
Member Jayaveer inquired if the region would do ay assessments of the well prior to the building permit stage. Planner Wellings stated the regional staff will require a hydro archaeology study, which will be completed prior to the building permit process, which is tied back to stormwater management and ensuring any issues are dealt with prior to building permit approval. Member Jayaveer also asked Planner Wellings to speak about the heritage value of the existing dwelling. Planner Wellings stated this home was identified and is a listed property through their heritage registrar. It is not designated, rather it is a volunteer process to be designated. The town has made the homeowner aware and has the information available should they choose to designate the property. Overall, the town believes there is value is keeping the home, in particular the style of home and the window features are significant.
Chair Kluge asked who owns the culvert. The audience claimed it is a private culvert and not owned by the town. Planner Wellings stated, she is happy to bring any issues with the culvert back to engineering staff and they can set up a meeting if needed.Chair Kluge also inquired as stated in the report the house is being taken off the heritage list, and this he asked if it does or doesn't have heritage value. Planner Wellings claimed there has been changed made to Bill-23, as of right now the property is listed and it can be designated, and the town's goal is to see the property designated. However, because of these recent changes, if the property is not designated by January 2025, it can be demolished at any time. Thus, the town's goal is to see the property designated before 2025 because of these provincial changes. Chair Kluge also inquired if conditions 6. C and 6.D and whether or not those are they would not be able to be cleared since the owner does not plan to demolition the existing building. Planner Wellings stated those conditions will actually be able to be cleared as the kitchenette and bathrooms in the existing dwelling will need to be removed and thus, she would like to keep those conditions.
Member Trombino asked for clarification on condition #5, and if it means the servicing including on the existing well would be removed at time of de-commissioning and the same time the washrooms and kitchenette would be removed from the existing dwelling. Planner Wellings stated that is correct, and thus the wells and sceptics will be de-commissioned and there will only be one on the property.