Town of Grand Bay-Westfield
(Incorporated 1st January, 1998)
Planning Advisory Committee
Monday, November 5, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Town of Grand Bay-Westfield Planning Advisory Committee met for a regular meeting on Monday, November 5, 2018 at 8:03 p.m. with Chair, Jim Burke presiding.
2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE
All Members were in attendance.
3. PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 2018
“…moved by Ron Daigle to accept as presented the Planning Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2018….”
Seconded by Brittany Merrifield. Carried.
4. REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9, 2018
“…moved by Brittany Merrifield to receive and file the Regular Council Minutes of October 9, 2018….”
Seconded by Theresa Gordon. Carried.
5. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
No conflict declared.
6. REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
Chair, Jim Burke, advised all in attendance that this Application is not a Variance Application but a Discretionary Use Application. He then read Section 5.2 of Zoning By-law 112 pertaining to Group Homes, outlining where they are permitted and conditions.
7. APPLICATION FOR SIMILAR & COMPATIBLE USE/ DISCRETIONARY USE – (3-BED LEVEL 2 SENIOR CARE) –
15 MAPLECREST DRIVE – AUGUST 24, 2018
(A) DEVELOPMENT OFFICER’S REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 1, 2018
(B) LETTER FROM HEATHER FORSTER & MARK KEMPSTER DATED OCTOBER 31, 2018
Applicant, Erin Riley was present and gave a Power Point Presentation regarding her Application to operate a Senior Care Home for 3 seniors in the top-level part of her home at 15 Maple Crest Drive, as follows:
Mission – to provide holistic care in a clean, comfortable home-like atmosphere.
Greenhouse Model – a newer concept in long term care to look and feel like a home with a family like atmosphere and not like an institution.
Who she is – she is a nurse and owns and operates Riley Home Health Services that has been in business for 25 years.
Vision – to expand health care and nursing services in other areas for clients that are not able to safely manage in their own residence.
Her sense of her Neighbours’ Concerns:
increase in traffic and ambulance noise;
A group home could include individuals with mental health problems or addictions
fears of depreciating the value of the neighbouring homes
why not open a home some place else instead?
she does not anticipate that the Special Care Home will have any impact on our neighbourhood; the structure of the home will not change; there will be no sign placed outside.
approximately 33% of our community’s residents are 55 and over;
seniors currently have to relocate as there are currently no Executive Style Special Care Homes in Grand Bay-Westfield;
this will give seniors an alternative;
seniors typically make good neighbours;
there is no evidence that this will depreciate property values;
this will be a quiet, low profile business.
Ms. Riley advised that her SINGLE-FAMILY HOME consists of 2 “apartments” (each 1600 sq. ft), in which the 3 seniors would occupy the upper portion, consisting of 3 bedrooms and 2 baths, and she and her husband and their 2 children will occupy the lower portion;
When asked why she was not present at the September 5, 2018 and September 24, 2018 meetings when her Application was addressed, she apologized stating that there was miss communication, as she was anticipating a phone call or e-mail and she did not receive the letters informing her of the dates in time.
There was no one present speaking in favor of this Application.
Letter dated October 31, 2018 from Heather Forster and Mark Kempster stating opposition to this Application, as they have consulted a Real Estate Agent and were advised that a Group Home in their neighbourhood would negatively impact their property values.
The following neighbours were present speaking against this Application:
Rachel Richardson – 18 Maplecrest Drive
She moved to this quiet neighbourhood with no businesses and limited traffic;
any business in a residential area would depreciate the value of their home;
the business would incorporate 50 % of the home;
how many staff will be employed;
if allowed, this would increase traffic in the neighbourhood;
concerns for on street parking;
intrusion from emergency vehicles day or night;
smoking off site close to other properties.
Phil Traverse – 14 Maplecrest Drive
In the By-law Discretionary Use for R1 and R2 does not list a Special Care Home as one of the uses, only B & B, Daycare and Home Occupation with Group Homes listed in R3 zones;
if allowed, this would set a precedence;
will there be background checks done?
appeal process for the Applicant but what about an appeal process for the neighbours;
if this were approved, how will it be policed going forward;
regarding the Restrictive Covenants registered against this property, why doesn’t the Town know what is in the Deeds with regard to subdivisions and what can be done in the future to rectify this?
Ms. Riley responded by stating the following:
she will be the sole caregiver with one relief staff filling in one day a week;
the property has room for 6 parking spaces;
no deliveries will be made to the home;
there will be background checks conducted;
she has consulted with Realtor, Dale Moore, and was advised that a Senior Care Home will not depreciate property values in the neighbourhood;
she will have to meet all requirements set out by the Department of Social Development;
when asked if she was aware of the Restrictive Covenants in her Deed, she replied “No”.
Cllr. Day then read a section of the Municipal Plan By-law, envisioning housing types that can care for seniors within the community.
Regarding Restrictive Covenants in the Deeds, the Committee advised that they are individual Agreements bound by Law by the Developer and that they are accepted by the property owner upon purchasing the property. The Town does not regulate private Restrictive Covenants. Regarding the Appeal process, both the Applicant and the neighbours have the option of making an appeal with the Provincial Assessment & Planning Appeal Board. The Applicant can come back to PAC with a substantially different Application, or the same Application after a one year waiting period.
The Committee stated to Ms. Riley that they agree that the concept of the Greenhouse model being proposed is a wonderful idea and the Town needs to have choices for senior care, however, this is a low density residential area, and the concerns raised by the neighbors regarding the Restrictive Covenants, along with the suggestion that the “business” would occupy 50% or more of the single family dwelling, makes it very difficult for the Committee to consider the proposal as being Similar and Compatible to other Discretionary Uses.
“…moved by Cllr. Bev Day that the Planning Advisory Committee Deny the Application for Similar & Compatible Use/Discretionary Use for a 3-bed Senior Care Group Home, 15 Maplecrest Drive PID No. 30264568….”
Seconded by Theresa Gordon with a tie vote of 3 in favour and 3 against. Chair, Jim Burke voted in favour of the motion, thereby denying the Application. Motion carried.
“…moved by Ron Daigle and seconded by Alex Calvin to adjourn….” at 9:10 p.m.