Zoning Updates
Engagement for this project is now closed. This zoning by-law amendment was approved on February 27, 2024 and the project is now complete. Thank you for your participation!
Section 34 of the Planning Act allows a municipality to create a Zoning By-Law, like the one in the County of Brant (By-Law 61-16). This by-law, established in 2017, helps put the goals of the Official Plan into action. The purpose of making technical and housekeeping changes to the Zoning By-Law is to improve its relevance, fix small issues, and ensure it aligns with the Official Plan and provincial policies. Regular updates maintain a responsive zoning framework that meets the County's evolving needs.
This project does not involve site-specific rezoning's for individual properties. It proposes general changes to County-wide zoning provisions that will make the By-Law easier to understand.
Staff are continually monitoring changes needed for the Zoning By-Law, considering them for future housekeeping projects. The County's brand new Comprehensive Zoning By-Law will be a separate project that will commence when the County's new Official Plan is approved by the Province.
The chart below contains a list of proposed changes for the next housekeeping project that will be presented to the Planning and Development Committee to be adopted by Council before the end of February 2024.
Summary of proposed changes
Key Items | Summary of proposed changes |
|---|---|
| Improving Parking Opportunities | The parking zoning study presented two housekeeping changes to improve parking opportunities in new subdivision as follows:
|
| Dwelling Units and Accessory Structures | Preparing for the new Zoning By-Law and expanding housing options, these preliminary minor changes will align provisions with the Building Code and clarify permissions for ARUs in certain situations. |
| Protecting and Prioritizing Agriculture | Further to the updates made during the 6th and 7th housekeeping, minor changes are proposed to provide additional direction and clarity that aligns with the OMAFRA Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas. |
| Home-Based Business Pilot Project |
|
| Improving Implementation and Addressing Errors |
|
Stay Informed
Scroll down to see the news feed of information as well as links to engage, a timeline of events, and more.
Subscribe for updates and be the first to learn more information about this project. Add your email to the Stay Informed box on this page and click ‘Subscribe'.
Share your feedback
Engagement for this project is now closed. This zoning by-law amendment was approved on February 27, 2024 and the project is now complete. Thank you for your participation!
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.
Documents
-
RPT-0112-24 - Zoning Housekeeping 8 (149 KB) (pdf)
-
RPT-0112-24- ATT 1 - Draft Amendments Chart (615 KB) (pdf)
-
RPT-0112-24 - Presentation Slides (208 KB) (pdf)
-
By-Law 016-24 - (County of Brant, County-Wide Housekeeping Amendment #8).pdf (2.88 MB) (pdf)
-
Notice of Passing - Housekeeping Bylaw Amendment - March 2024.pdf (259 KB) (pdf)
Who's Listening
-
Phone 519-44BRANT (519-442-7268) Email brandon.kortleve@brant.ca
Please consider reducing the minimum parking requirements for apartments. (Section 1.6 of the consultation document). Modern planning recognizes that we need to reduce car dependancy and it should not be presumed that all residents will have a car. This is the case for both health and environmental reasons. For example Toronto abandoned minimum parking standards in October 2022.
Please consider reducing the minimum parking requirements for apartments. (Section 1.6 of the consultation document). Modern planning recognizes that we need to reduce car dependancy and it should not be presumed that all residents will have a car. This is the case for both health and environmental reasons. For example see one reference on a recent decision to that effect in another Ontario municipality: https://www.oba.org/Sections/Municipal-Law/Articles/Articles-2022/March-2022/City-of-Toronto-Abandons-Minimum-Parking-Standards
I see many issues with changing requirements for green space in new build areas. More often than not new subdivisions require destruction of natural habitats and green space. If builders aren’t required to at least reintroduce some green space back into these areas we only further the problem. Yes parking is important but lots should be required to be larger to account for this issue not eliminating even more green space. We used to be an agricultural community and we keep eliminating those areas for housing and gravel pits. If we continue this route paris will no longer be the prettiest town it will be gravel and parking lots with houses. I think this issue needs to be revisited.
The proposal to remove landscaping in front of the house to create more parking is the most crazy idea to date. We will end up with parking lots in front yards instead of landscaping. You take away all or most greenspace and there will be less land to absorb rainfall.
How about removing all the no parking signs the County has installed in all the new subdivisions. We had NO parking problems in our subdivision before the County installed the signs.
This County have the most inconsistent treatment and regulation of Zoning we have ever dealt with. The County makes you sign legal documents upon closing in the new subdivisions that they later then don't adhere to themselves or claim they have no knowledge about.
There needs to be more pressure on developers to provide ample parking spaces in all new areas.
The streets everywhere are too congested, even to drive down.
More "No Parking". signs need to be used and supervised.
I do not agree with allowing the removal of front-yard landscaped open space requirement to allow for additional parking on private property. We need to preserve the natural beauty of Paris.
- E. Miller
I do not agree with allowing the removal of front-yard landscaped open space requirement to allow for additional parking on private property. We need to preserve the natural beauty of Paris.
So you want to eliminate the distance required in-between houses so they can get stacked together like every other new subdivision?
If I want to park on my front lawn I should be able to. This is a good idea.
The proposal for removing landscaping in front of the house to create more parking, it is shocking to me. First you are taking the farm land to build subdivisions/houses on top of each other on very small properties and now you want to get rid of front lawns for more parking. This means less trees, grass and flowers, instead you can build homes on bigger properties with driveways that can fit more than one car.
The removal of the requirement of having a minimum amount of sod/garden in the front of a residential property is a very bad idea. The houses in the new subdivisions are already on top of each other and claustrophobic to live in. The new subdivisions barely have any green space in the frontage and to reduce it even further makes our county less appealing and leads to less natural water absorption in the ground. It creates more run off and pooling of water leading to further strain on current infrastructure. Scrap this idea immediately.
I agree with increasing the spacing between homes but you also need wider streets to accommodate parking needs. Pairing driveways is not the answer. Imagine paying a million dollars for a home but having to share a driveway with someone else. I’m willing to bet that no one who proposed this change currently shares a driveway and would prefer not to if given the choice. Stop making decisions for others that you wouldn’t want to be applied for yourself.
My biggest concern is the protection of our farmland from development.