Mayor Charbonneau declared the public meeting open and indicated the purpose of the public meeting.
Mayor Charbonneau asked if any members of the public would like to address Council on this matter.
Coreena Smith, Bruce County Planner presented a Planning Report, and Stuart Doyle, Applicant, provided a brief overview of the proposed development.
Members of the Public had the following comments/questions:
- Joe McTaggart, a member of the public, expressed concerns about the proposed development’s size, density, and lack of green space, stressing the need for housing that is attractive, desirable, and fits the character of the Town. While the development meets minimum setbacks, there is a concern with how big the development is. Traffic congestion is a major issue as Ivings Drive is the only access point, and adding 600 units would significantly increase traffic and strain infrastructure. There is a need for a better east-west connectivity between Highway 21 and Bruce Street to support future growth. Affordability remains a challenge, with many unable to afford current apartment prices, highlighting the need for more affordable housing options. It was suggested that the proposed apartments do not meet affordability requirements for low-income workers and urged Council to prioritize housing that is both accessible and integrated into a safe, well-planned transportation network. While development is supported, alternative options should be considered, such as townhouses or a nursing home and urge larger setbacks, parks, and landscaping to maintain community appeal.
- Steve Reisler, a member of the public, raised concerns about the impact on their quality of life, such as loss of sunlight, increased noise from balconies, displacement, and prolonged construction lasting three and a half years. The proposed development will be approximately 30 feet from the lot line, which will affect the amount of sunlight that the property will receive, and there will be a large amount of noise caused by the balconies on the unit. They argued the application violates the Town’s Zoning By-law and Official Plan, he noted the property is zoned R2, however, the correct Zone is R4-2. The Official Plan sections addressing compatibility with surrounding areas, intensification, and development criteria, such as 1.2.2.1 (Housing Goal), 3.4.2.3.1, 3.2.5, and 3.3.5.2. These sections are largely ignored. The proposed buffer fence of six feet is impractical on a 17 1/2 meters high, and Block 258 should remain medium density rather than being treated as high density. He indicated that the focus should remain on existing zoning and the Official Plan, not on altering designations for developer benefit at the expense of the neighborhood. Development is not being opposed, but having a high-density development in a medium density block is causing issues.
- Karen McLean, a member of the public, raised concerns that when her home was built there were assurances of low-rise, single-family housing in the location of the proposed development The proposed five storey apartment building would eliminate sunlight, privacy, and the ability to enjoy the backyards with no flowers, no vegetables, no outdoor living. She indicated that the project threatens neighborhood character, green space, and the small-town charm. She indicated that increased density would also create beach access issues.
- Frank Kruiderink, a member of the public, raised health concerns about the proposed five storey building, which would sit roughly 40 feet from their property and block all direct sunlight from afternoon to evening. It was suggested that Council and planners consider how this development will affect the well-being of residents throughout the neighborhood.
- Ralph Earn, a member of the public, questioned how the planning department could approve a five-storey rental building just 40 feet from their 20-foot backyard. It was suggested that the project does not meet urban planning guidelines and is out of place in a small town like Port Elgin, where families need homes, not more rentals. With ample space available for single-family housing, this is not an infill or greenbelt situation and urged council to consider whether this development aligns with the Town’s vision and to pursue a solution that benefits the entire community.
- Sabrina Sutcliffe, a member of the public, suggested that data supporting this scale of development, including vacancy rates, affordability versus market-rate units, and who monitors ongoing housing needs to ensure alignment with community growth should be clarified.
-
- A question was raised regarding the balcony projections reducing the proposed building 32-foot setback and asked whether this impact had been considered. The County planner responded that the zoning bylaw includes provisions for encroachments, such as balconies, patios, and air conditioning units, into the required setbacks, which staff reference when reviewing compliance.
-
- A question was raised regarding whether a formal fire safety assessment has been completed for the proposed development, including fire department capacity, necessary infrastructure upgrades, and who would bear those costs. It was requested that this information be shared publicly. The Town advised that the application has been circulated to the fire services department, fire routes are shown on the plans, and building code regulations will apply at the permit stage. It was advised that the Town will circulate the questions to the Fire Chief for their response.
-
- A question was raised regarding the traffic study process, its timeline, and whether residents will have an opportunity to review and provide feedback before any decisions are made. The County planner confirmed that once the traffic study is submitted by Barry’s Construction, it will be posted on the Bruce County website, and the public will be notified.
-
- A question was raised regarding the evidence supporting the need for this type of rental housing. The Developer responded that demand is based on experience from leasing existing buildings and expressed confidence in their understanding of the market and the need for additional rental housing.
- Johan Van Der Reijden, a member of the public, raised concerns regarding parking and infrastructure. He stated that the proposed ratio of 1.1 parking spaces per unit is inadequate for Port Elgin. Although growth and development is supported, it must be reasonable and parking deficiencies need to be addressed.
- Guillaume Lauger, a member of the public, spoke on behalf of his family and expressed strong opposition to the proposed development, focusing on the impact on daylight. It was emphasized that such loss of natural light could have effects on mental health. It was asked that the developer clarify their shading analysis.
- Mary Jane Steele, a member of the public, raised concerns about the proposed development, regarding increased traffic on surrounding streets, safety issues due to proximity and lack of barriers, noise and light intrusion, sun-shadow impacts, and significant loss of privacy and outdoor enjoyment. She indicated that the property is zoned R4-2, but the plan for three five-storey apartment buildings totaling 259 units is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood of single-family homes and freehold row houses. It was suggested that townhouses or low-rise apartments would be a more compatible fit. She stated that similar apartment complexes in Port Elgin are located near main roads and commercial areas, not directly adjacent to single-family homes. The proposed 1.83 m fence and minimal landscaping will not mitigate these issues. The requested zoning relief for building height (a 46% increase) and reduced lot area (24.5% decrease). It was suggested that the character of the existing neighborhood should be preserved.
- Laural McMillian, a member of the public, requested clarification on the traffic study and if it is currently underway. It was suggested that a study be conducted in summer, when Ridge Street is open, as it may provide substantially different data. The Developer responded that while he was not aware if the counters had been deployed, traffic studies typically account for peak periods from different times of the year to ensure accurate results and seasonal variations will be considered in the finalized study.
- Brent Freiburger, a member of the public, raised concerns regarding transportation infrastructure and safety in relation to the proposed development. While supportive of growth and infrastructure, it must align with the Town’s ability to upgrade infrastructure. Concerns expressed regarding the Ivings Drive and Highway 21 intersection, which was forecasted to fail in terms of traffic flow by 2031 even without this development. It was encouraged that Council, staff and the developer ensure infrastructure improvements keep pace with growth and stated that safety and traffic issues need to be addressed.
- Keith Robertson, a member of the public, stated that zoning by-laws exist to protect the land, the environment, and the community and questioned who will compensate the homeowners for the depreciation of property value.
- Norma Barber, a member of the public, raised concerns regarding the loss of backyard privacy and a potential decrease in her home’s resale value.
There were no additional written submissions.
Council members had the following clarifying questions:
- A question was raised to confirm if the public has had the opportunity to comment on the traffic study once it is completed. The County Planner advised that public comments can be received up until the point a decision is rendered.
- A question was raised regarding the balcony encroachment into the setback and if it is permitted. It was confirmed that this is permitted and the distance is measured from the main building to the lot line, not from the extent of the encroachment.
- A question was raised regarding the percentage of available apartments in Saugeen Shores. It was advised that the current vacancy rate is 4.2% as of 2024, based on Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation data. An inquiry has been sent to the housing concierge office for more up-to-date, localized statistics.
- A question was raised regarding the report on page seven regarding the building height. The current zoning by-law permits 12 meters, which typically allows three or four stories. It was explained that the general rule is about three meters per storey, therefore 12 meters could accommodate four stories, though the first floor often has a higher ceiling. The Developer confirmed that with adjustments to construction practices, a four-story building could fit within 40 feet. The report also notes an increase to 17.5 meters, described as five stories with a tilde punctuation mark in front of that which means approximately. When asked if this could allow six stories, staff indicated that five stories is typical and it could be just over a precent of that. A follow-up question about whether three 12-meter buildings would meet medium density thresholds could not be answered without further calculations based on final design and unit count.
- A question was raised regarding the timeline for the Transportation Master Plan and opportunities for public input. The Director of Development Services stated the plan is expected to be finalized in the first quarter of 2026, with one more round of public engagement on a draft that has not yet been released.
- A question was raised regarding the timeline for Bruce Street to be built out to CAW Road. The Director of Development Services responded that it is uncertain because the Town has applied for a grant. The project will be added to the ten-year plan as the grant provides for, but no specific year has not been confirmed.
- A question was raised regarding concerns about insufficient parking spaces in new developments and whether the reduced parking requirements were mandated by the province or another jurisdiction. The County Planner clarified that the change was a housekeeping amendment to the Town’s zoning by-law in 2024, based on a review of comparable municipalities, reducing the standard from one space per unit, plus one space for every four units for visitors to one space per unit, plus one space for every eight units for visitor parking. There is a concern regarding the number of parking spaces that are being created.
- A question was raised regarding whether the proposed development would be subject to site plan control and how concerns about privacy and exterior lighting would be addressed, specifically to buildings higher than two storeys. Staff confirmed that site plan control applies and development guidelines include lighting standards. It was noted that there are opportunities through the subdivision agreement and the conditions of draft approval for the subdivision agreement that could address concerns. There are requirements such as dark-sky compliant lighting for the sites and a photometric plan can be imposed through the site plan process to minimize impacts on adjacent residential areas.
- Questions were raised regarding whether Barry’s Construction could make the development viable by building only townhomes instead of apartments. The Developer explained that current plans already include townhouse lots elsewhere, but market demand is shifting toward diverse housing types and tenures. While rental townhomes are possible, they are generally cost prohibitive for both builders and renters. When asked if building heights could be reduced from five stories to four or even three, the Developer stated that reducing to three stories would not work financially. Similarly, reducing the number of buildings from three to two would require reconfiguration, but the Developer emphasized willingness to review options with Council and staff while balancing viability and funding requirements.
- A question was raised regarding consideration given development on lands west of Bruce Street, similar to the Waterloo Street approach, before proposing three five-storey buildings behind existing homes. Residents’ concerns were acknowledged, and they were thanked for their submissions. The community’s need for more rental and affordable housing was noted and that many homeowners were unaware that zoning allowed for apartment buildings when they purchased their properties, which has led to frustration. Questions about the size of the land, its purchase date, and how much remains undeveloped were asked to the developer. The Developer confirmed the land was bought in 2016, is approximately 64 acres and is estimated the rezoning parcel at approximately 2 hectares but could not confirm how much land is left to be developed. Concerns were expressed about neighborhood character and density, comparing this proposal to the Waterloo Street development where apartments were built first, making expectations clear for buyers. The Developer advised that it is standard practice to go from what's built and developed out. New types of housing will not be easy moving forward as there are only so many pieces of land in town that are undeveloped and without any neighbours, and those lands are not ready yet. It was requested by Council to put apartments in and increase density; this is a legacy subdivision that included R4 land. Money has been invested and at some point, the land needs to be developed. The current zoning allows for a four-storey apartment building.
- A question was raised regarding the 9-meter setback mentioned by the developer. The speaker asked if this referred to the Mary Rose subdivision proposal for 350 units. The Developer clarified that the reference was to the Zoning By-law and the Mary Rose subdivision, which included similar language. It was commented that the Mary Rose design, has a larger property which allowed for more buffering, green space, pathways, and gardens, features that created an inviting environment. Concern was expressed regarding the type of neighborhoods being built in Saugeen Shores, emphasizing the importance of landscaping and green space to make communities welcoming. They contrasted this with the current proposal for five storey buildings, which they believe reduces greenery and negatively impacts neighborhood character.
- A question was raised regarding several aspects of the proposed development including why a severance was requested to create three separate lots instead of keeping all apartment buildings on one parcel. The Developer explained this was strictly for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) financing to ensure clean titles, not for tax benefits or future sales by the developer. Clarification was sought on balcony placement for the north building, which will have balconies on both the north and south sides. Concerns were also expressed about the shadow study, which was based on the September equinox. It was suggested that the shadow impacts be reviewed during the winter solstice when the sun is lower. A full copy of the sun study is located on the County website. Finally, the possibility of redesigning the site layout was raised, specifically moving parking to the north side and shifting the building back 10–15 meters to create a wider buffer and reduce shadow impact. The Developer noted the current layout is a functional layout that works well but agreed to consider alternative options.
- A question was raised regarding accessibility requirements and development charge exemptions. The speaker asked if barrier-free units are the same as those built to universal design standards. Staff clarified that under the current development charges by-law, exemptions apply when at least 20% of units meet universal design standards, as defined by the building code, which involves certain construction practices but are not very extensive. Based on the proposed unit breakdown, the first phase could potentially qualify for these exemptions, though final decisions occur later in the process. Questions were raised regarding CMHC financing, where the Developer explained that preferential financing under the MLI Select program is based on a point system considering affordability, accessibility, and energy efficiency, with different levels of financing fees that apply. The Developer confirmed the goal is to secure financing to build apartments and acknowledged that Saugeen Shores’ policies, including development charge exemptions, provide benefits that support affordability and make the community attractive for investment.
- A question was raised regarding the potential use of modular construction for the proposed development. Interest was expressed after noting the report mentioned a Bruce County company would be involved and asked if this firm had prior experience locally or if this would be their first project in the community. The Developer confirmed it is the same company that built the Northport Meadows Apartments, with fabrication done in Chepstow, and noted they have completed projects in Saugeen Shores, Paisley, and are currently working in Owen Sound. While the company is based in Kitchener, its manufacturing plant is in Bruce County, making it a strong local partner.
- A question was raised regarding two pieces of information for comparison and clarification. The square footage or square meters of the Waterloo Street parcel, which already has three units built, compared to the current parcel proposed for three five storey buildings was requested. They asked for this data to be emailed to Council before the next meeting. Additionally, they sought confirmation on when the R4-2 zoning was applied to the property. The County Planner responded that, based on archival review, the zoning dates back to around 2006–2007, and clarified that while the draft plan of subdivision was approved in 2016, based on review of older by-laws, the R4-2 zoning was already in effect prior to that.
- A question was raised regarding the amenity space calculation for the proposed development, if the stated increase of 27 square meters per unit compared to 17 in a previous project, includes parking spaces. The Developer clarified that amenity space does not include asphalt or parking areas. It will only consist of walkways and grassed areas.
- A question was raised regarding the Town’s concerns about lot area and amenity space, as noted in its submission. The Mary Rose development included extensive outdoor amenities, two gardens, sports courts, dog run, playgrounds and asked if similar features could be incorporated into the current proposal. It was emphasized that the lack of amenity space is a significant issue identified by staff and questioned whether the developer has plans to address it. The Developer responded that when comparing the developments that were completed on the north and south of town, it is very different. While the current proposal offers more open space than past projects, they are willing to review options. There is lots of empty space at the Mary Rose subdivision, as there is a corn field that is not being developed at this time. It was also suggested considering a design approach similar to Mary Rose, where taller buildings were placed farther from existing homes and lower buildings closer to them, creating a better transition. The Developer agreed to explore this idea, noting that Mary Rose used a five- storey building adjacent to single-family homes and a six-storey building farther away.
In the absence of any further questions, Mayor Charbonneau declared the public meeting closed.
Council had the following comments:
- Comments emphasized key planning principles, including the role of collector roads and density in protecting farmland and natural areas. It was noted that Bruce Street is deemed to be a collector road in planning documents and considered appropriate for higher-density development, while the Official Plan designates Highway 21 as the primary corridor for such growth, changes to this approach could undermine public trust. An additional comment was that there would not be any objection to a 12-meter building under the current zoning, because that is what it is zoned for. Residents were encouraged to understand permitted uses, as R2 zoning allows heights up to 10 meters and even fourplexes. Additionally, the importance of respecting zoning bylaws was stressed, acknowledging that provincial updates have expanded permitted uses in zones like R2 and R3, a reality the Town must now work within.
- Comments were made regarding green space requirements, suggesting that council should remain committed to the 30% standard and will uphold it without compromise. Another comment addressed the quality of living for existing homeowners that they are entitled to. There is a concern that quality of living will be overcome by the proposed five-storey building, as it will significantly impact privacy and alter neighborhood character. It was suggested that residents anticipated low to medium density development when purchasing their properties but did not expect a five-storey building. There is a need for additional living spaces within Saugeen Shores, but it should not be at the expense of the existing homeowners. It was expressed that although Barry's Construction is supported, this proposed development needs to be revisited.
- A comment was made regarding fairness and consistency in applying the Zoning By-law, questioning why exceptions are frequently granted. It was suggested that both buyers and developers assume risk based on existing zoning and that Council has to be reasonable when concessions are being made regarding a sizeable variance, such as the one that is being requested.
- A comment was made to clarify that Council is not making a decision at this stage but is receiving the report for information, hearing public input, and allowing the developer and planners to respond before a future decision. Another comment highlighted the importance of public engagement and the developer’s willingness to listen and adapt, expressing optimism that the final outcome will reflect community concerns.
- A comment highlighted the need for more rental housing to address affordability challenges, house prices are not feasible for a lot of people and there needs to be rental options available. It was suggested that increased supply is beginning to ease rental prices and provide options for those unable to purchase homes. Another comment stressed the importance of balancing growth with neighborhood character and privacy, acknowledging that while higher density is necessary, design adjustments may be required to respect existing homeowners.
- Comments were made that thanked the public for their engagement and emphasized that a lot of the public concerns are valid. It was suggested that concerns will need to be addressed for the proposal to gain Council support, while reaffirming the Town’s commitment to increasing housing supply, accommodating higher density developments while also accommodating the neighbouring residents.