NORTH DUNDAS—A request for an amendment to the Official Plan of SDG and Zoning Bylaw 04-95 was brought to a public hearing prior to North Dundas Council’s regularly scheduled meeting on June 13, but comments made during the public meeting encouraged the applicant to rethink what they wanted to do.

Calvin Pol, the director of planning, building and bylaw services introduced the request for the benefit of those present.

“We’re looking at two amendments, one to the Official Plan for the United Counties of Stormont Dundas, and Glengarry. It’s official plan number 18. It’s a draft,” said Pol. “And we’re also looking at a zoning amendment. It’s just the public meeting for the amendment: [it] is not before council, because first the Official Plan amendment gets considered by county council before the local municipality adopts a zoning amendment in conformity with the Official Plan.”

The purpose of the Official Plan amendment was to permit residential units along with commercial units on the ground floor of the subject property, which is 20 King St. in Chesterville and to amend section 510 of the general commercial zone in the former village of Chesterville Zoning Bylaw Bill 495, to permit residential dwellings on the ground floor of a commercial building within the village core.

The consultation process requires that a publication of notice of a public hearing be made, and notice is sent out to the neighbours within 120 metres, and a sign is posted on the property. All public bodies and ministries required under the Planning Act are also notified. At least one public meeting is held for the purpose of giving the public an opportunity to make representations in respect of the proposed bylaw and the Official Plan Amendment.

These actions were all taken, according to Pol, and as a result three members of the public attended and were given an opportunity to voice their opinion, which was in opposition to the request. Members of council as well had the opportunity to voice their individual opinions, each of which did not support a change that would reduce the amount of commercial property available in Chesterville’s downtown commercial core.

After hearing comments from the public, the applicant, Victoria Freeborn and her representative Tracy Zander, a professional planner had the opportunity to speak.

“I just wanted to comment that I do hear what everybody’s saying,” said Freeborn. “I really do. And I would also like to have found a commercial tenant. And we had been seeking commercial tenants for quite some time, worked with local realtors, contacted the neighbour across the road, while the realtor of the neighbour across the road has been on the market for nearly two years, and it just seems very, very difficult. So that’s why we were looking for the residential or commercial use because we’re not saying that there shouldn’t be commercial there, we understand it’s in the main part of the town.”

Zander, who had heard the public comments suggested that it might be necessary to step back from the request and revise it. “I’m a professional planner, representing the applicants this evening. We just received the staff report this afternoon. So haven’t fully had time to digest it. May we respectfully ask that you defer making a decision because we respect the township staff comments and there are some suggestions in those zoning wording options that Mr. Pol has presented that we may want to make some revisions to the proposal, so I may just ask you to defer your decision while we regroup a bit?”

“I’ll just conclude by saying we would prefer that you defer and give us an opportunity to revisit with your staff if you’re open to that. [We’ll] consider coming back with a revised proposal with understanding no guarantee.”

Through discussion it was determined that if only the back portion of the property was converted to residential, while the street facing portion remained commercial, then an amendment might not be required to the Official Plan. There would however be remedial work required to the building to confirm and ascertain that in its current use, it would meet standards. Mayor Tony Fraser posed that question to Pol.

“Mr. Pol, my thought on that is [the building] being not legalized, then the whole thing would have to undergo a permit process, a building permit, a building inspection, then for the if it was to be a residential on the minority of the ground floor, then inspections would be done?

“Yes, that’s correct,” said Pol. “We require a building permit change of use of permit, and then the alterations would be inspected to make sure they conform with the building code.”

Zander stated that it was understood that there were no guarantees being made, but she and her client would revise their ask before returning.