Councillors here are being asked to reserve judgement on a rezoning application for Harriston until Maitland Valley Conservation Authority concerns have been addressed.
On April 1, council held a public meeting to consider an application to amend the zoning of 155 Arthur Street West, currently occupied by an autobody repair and automotive sales business to allow a portion of the existing building to be used as a residential unit.
“The applicants are proposing to convert 4,600 square feet of the existing building into a residence.” The building is nearly 9,000 square feet.
In her report to council, planner Linda Redmond stated that the official plan permits residential use in the highway commercial area, providing it is accessory to the main use.
“This proposal is keeping with those policies,” she wrote. “The property is located within the flood fringe area of the Maitland River. Within that area of the floodplain, land may be developed subject to specific building requirements, including proper flood proofing as outlined in the Town of Minto zoning bylaw.”
Redmond recommended comments from Community Emergency Planning Coordinator Linda Dickson and the Maitland Conservation Authority be taken into consideration.
Otherwise, Redmond wrote, “We are satisfied that the proposal is in general conformity with the County of Wellington official plan. This property has flooding potential as observed in the recent flood event in December 2008.
“We have no concerns with this proposal at this time provided any issues as they relate to flooding potential can be adequately addressed.”
Some of the criteria for that development include:
– the main floor of all buildings used for residential purposed must be above the regulatory flood elevation;
– openings to living space shall not be permitted below the regulatory flood elevation;
– foundations, walls, and floors below those elevations must be designed to withstand the hydrostatic pressures associated with a flood. Construction materials shall be of a type not subject to deterioration by water or by alternate wetting and drying and shall be certified by a professional engineer with expertise in floodproofing;
– construction of full basements in areas subject to more than one metre of flooding will not be permitted unless the site can be raised by fill so that the structure would be subject to less than one metre of flooding; and,
– all mechanical and electrical services shall be located above or protected to the regulatory flood levels.
The north side of the building (where the change is proposed) has been used for commercial storage.
Dickson noted that during the flood of December 2008, a portion of the property was affected.
She said residential development should only be allowed if it can be proven there would be safe access into and out of the residential part of the building during a similar or more severe flood.
Further, Dickson’s letter noted the flood of 2008 fell within the anticipated 1 in 5 to 1 in 10 year forecast.
Redmond said the main issue is whether the building actually lies above the regulatory floodline.
She noted that in December, part of the building was surrounded by water, but not the front. Therefore she believe there would be access.
However, she added that since this is a rezoning, she was uncertain if the proponent should have to have the floodproofing in place prior to that happening. If the building is not above the floodline, then they would not be able to proceed.
Applicant David Bishop said had talked to MVCA representatives. “We are exactly four feet from the bottom of the property to the floor.”
He noted that standing outside and looking directly over towards Harriston Packers, another building has been constructed. “I think if the water actually came into my building, over half of Harriston will be flooded [at the same time],” Bishop said.
Council deferred the issue until there is further comment from the MVCA.
