Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 18, 1997 STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES A Statutory Public Information Meeting was held on Thursday, September 18, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. PRESENT: Councillor M. Brenner- Chair Councillor E. Pistritto Councillor D. Ryan Councillor S. Senis ALSO PRESENT: B. Taylor - Town Clerk L. Taylor - Manager, Current Operations Division V. Rodrigues - Senior Planner The Manager, Current Operations Division,provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration thereat. (I) OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION 97-005/P ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 18/97 ROYAL HOLDINGS CANADA LIMITED PART OF LOT 33, RANGE 3,B.F.C. (NORTHWEST CORNER OF KINGSTON ROAD AND ALTONA ROAD) 1. Valerie Rodrigues, Senior Planner,provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report#25/97. 2. Murray Stroud, representing the applicant, stated that there is a professional team. involved in this proposal and they will ensure that the appearance of any buildings will be good. The issues raised and identified at this meeting will be heard and his team is willing to meet with the residents. 3. Rosemary Humphries, representing the applicant, identified the surrounding land uses and noted that the property is not as large as it seems. A tiered apartment building is proposed that is focused on Kingston Road and will start at three stories where it faces the existing residential development and step up to six stories. The existing building on the property will be used either for office, commercial or possibly a restaurant use. At the north end of the property,ten, two story townhouses are planned. In total, there will be about 80 apartment units and ten townhouses. She noted that the property is relatively flat except at the southeast corner where it drops off towards Kingston Road. • 2 4. Tony Crawford, representing his parents who reside at 1004 Riverview Crescent, stated that his parents bought their house in 1986 and were concerned about the subject lands at that time but understood that the Official Plan in force at that time allowed 10 to 27 units per hectare. They understand that charges will take place but feel that the density increase proposed is too great. He noted that there was a previous application that proposed a fine dining restaurant but that application went nowhere. He noted that the property was once owned by Lloyd's Laboratories and that there was a large pond on the property that contained chemicals. He noted that the development on the northeast corner of Altona Road and Kingston Road is very dense and this application, along with that development, will add to the traffic problems in the area. His parents are opposed to the application and stated that there must be some integrity to the Official Plan by not approving any rezoning before the new Official Plan is approved. 5. Tom Hart, 1011 Riverview Crescent, stated that he is concerned that the proposal is inconsistent with the Official Plan and the existing neighbourhood. There are parking problems associated with high rise developments and he asked how this will be addressed. He is opposed to this application. 6. Gerry Stuart, 1020 Riverview Crescent, stated that Riverview Crescent is a desirable place to live because of its proximity to the Rouge Valley and Highway 401 and the neighbourhood has grown accustomed to executive homes. The six story apartment building will affect the quality of life in the existing neighbourhood and felt that the height of the building is tied to the density and is not in character with the existing neighbourhood. Traffic in the area is already congested and it is difficult to access Altona Road southbound in the morning. This development will make this traffic situation worse in that there could be an additional 200-300 cars trying to access Altona Road. Altona Road is currently only two lanes in width and this is unacceptable. He noted that parking is an issue and asked this has been addressed. The access from the subject lands to Fawndale Road could mean that people will park in the existing neighbourhood. The image of the development at the northeast corner of Altona Road and Kingston Road is poor and the residents have no comfort level that the subject lands will be developed in a pleasing way. There must be assurance that what the residents are shown will indeed be built. 7. George Milnes, 1213 Fawndale Road,thanked Councillor Brenner for listening to the people and allowing them to voice their concerns. He noted that there is no development along Kingston Road that would enhance the Town's tax base. He is concerned that parking will be a problem on Fawndale Road if the walkway is allowed and thought that a multiple parking garage would help the on-site parking situation. 8. Chris Wood, 1014 Riverview Crescent, stated that there is no reason to sell the road allowance to the developer because most residents are opposed to this application. The density of the project and the height of the apartment building is too high and will affect the privacy of residents in the existing neighbourhood. The Rouge Valley must be protected. Kingston Road is a major corridor and single detached dwellings may not be appropriate for these lands but any multiple housing should face out to Kingston Road. 9. Jill Foster, 1049 Dalewood Drive, stated that she has lived in her house since 1984 and the neighbourhood grew around her. The density of this development is out of character with the existing neighbourhood and traffic congestion in the area is a problem and solutions must be sought. She asked if a development of this nature was allowed, would it be possible to provide an access onto the westbound lanes of Kingston Road to take the pressure off of Altona Road and Kingston Road. Although the developer intends for the apartment to be an adult only building, children will live there and there is not enough space in the surrounding schools for them. She noted that sidewalks, recreation centres and other amenities are needed in the area. She stated that she is not opposed to the application but the Town and the residents must work with the developer to make the development work. 3 10. Sylvia Spencer, 771 Sheppard Avenue, stated that her property is zoned for apartments, townhouses and other high density development and felt that if this property was development properly, she could force better development in her area. She stated that the density is too high and noted that a restaurant of fine dining was proposed. She asked how much of the development is reserved for affordable housing and felt that the apartment building should be removed from the application. She asked if this development is on a bus route. She noted that a shadow study is required only if the development exceeds 100 units and asked how this development will distort the effect of winds. 11. Gerd Kurz, 1211 Fawndale Road, stated that the existing neighbourhood was not considered when the density was determined. Development on the subject lands cannot be avoided but not at the expense of the existing neighbourhood. The road allowance should be taken out of the plan. He stated that traffic turning into this development from Altona Road will cause traffic chaos. 12. Ann White,representing the Rouge Valley Community Association, thanked the applicant for their proactive approach to this development. She is concerned about the configuration of the land and noted that although she would like to see just residential development on the land, the proposed density in this application is too high. She asked what the chances of having commercial development on this land would be if this application is turned down. All building must use a quality finish and if the density was within the presently allowed limited, the stepping down of the apartment building could be.better. Sufficient parking must be provided on the site in order that there is no on- street parking. The walkway onto Fawndale Road should be removed because it will create a parking problem. The Rouge valley must be protected and the Region must be persuaded to allow an access onto the westbound lanes of Kingston Road. The traffic problems in the area must be solved and any development proposal must be looked at with aesthetic appeal. This property is at the gateway to Pickering and the buildings must be appealing. 13. Rosemary Humphries, representing the applicant, stated the issues as she understood them as follows: - soil testing on the land will be carried out a traffic report has been requested the applicant is using the Town's standards for on-site parking the pedestrian walkway to Fawndale Road would integrate the two neighbourhoods, however, she will look at this issue the applicant is willing to look at the height of the apartment building and how is it being stepped down the design of the building will be studied to accommodate the residents' concerns about quality of life issues the applicant will build a product that the residents can be proud of. notifications of meetings is the responsibility of the Town under the Planning Act the disposition of Town property is subject to negotiations with the Town the MTRCA requires a 10 metre setback from the Rouge Valley she is not sure how the school boards calculate how many children will be generated from a development a noise study is a requirement of the Region the project will be the subject of site plan approval and is guaranteed by letters of credit. 14. Councillor Maurice Brenner asked if a working group comprised of the applicant, staff and the residents could be formed. He noted that the road allowance and other Town lands that are the subject of this application have not yet been declared surplus and asked staff to note that the new Official Plan should be the measurement of density. 4 15. Lynda Taylor, Manager, Current Operations Division, stated that a working group could be formed and the issue of the road allowance will be considered as the plan proceeds. With respect to density, the Report shows the new Official Plan density as the norm. 16. Chris Morgan, 1012 Rouge Valley Drive, stated that the Rouge Valley is an important part of the neighbourhood and has been protected so far. More residential development is not needed in the area which would encroach on the Rouge Valley. A ten metre setback from the Rouge Valley is not enough and the building will need to be shored up will give it a very unattractive appearance. (II) DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 18T-97007 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 13/97 NUGGET CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED BLOCK 81, PLAN 40M-1629 (SOUTH SIDE OF WESTCREEK DRIVE,EAST OF OAKBURN STREET) 1. Valerie Rodrigues, Senior Planner, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report#24/97. 2. Lloyd Cherniak, representing the applicant, stated that the school site is not the issue in this application. In 1989, his company bought the subject land and held it at no cost and was willing to sell it at less than cost to the School Board. The agreement with the School Board stated that within two years of the subdivision being built out, they could exercise their option to purchase the subject lands but the School Board let the option drop. This agreement with the School Board was noted in the Subdivision Agreement with the Town. The School Board must now decide to build its school on less expensive land in the area or either expropriate or purchase the subject lands at current prices. He is willing to provide a walkway to connect the subject lands to Senator Street and noted that storm water runoff is not a problem. 3. Heather Guscott, representing the Altona West Community Association, noted the boundaries that her Association serves and stated that many builders in the area have shown plans with a school on the subject lands. Residents bought homes in the area because a school would be close and their children could walk home. The residents were recently informed that the School Board did not pick up the option on the subject lands and are looking at a site on Rosebank Road. The residents have expressed their concerns about this to the School Board and other agencies. The subject land is the only designated school site west of Altona Road and everyone must consider the cost and safety of bussing children to other sites. Facilities such as gyms that could be used by local groups will be lost if this school is not built. This community has been inundated with development and amenities such as schools be addressed. They oppose any development of the subject lands except for an elementary school and they do appreciate that Lebovic is negotiating with the School-Board. g g 4. Mary Grzesik, 270 Senator Street, stated that she and her sister bought a house in this area based on the fact that a school was designated on the subject lands. She noted that there is poor water runoff in the area that must be addressed. 5 5. Gwen Agobt, 1773 Westcreek Drive, stated that she was told by employees of Nugget Construction that the school site was in place and new buyers are still be told this. Expropriation of the subject lands for a school site will be based on the present land designation. Area children spend an hour being bussed to schools that are far away and overcrowded. The School Boards do not seem to care about overcrowding and the developers are proposing smaller houses which will create more children. She has 15 letters of objection to this application and she previously sent a petition to the Town and the School Board opposing this application. The education of area children is suffering and buses carrying the children are overcrowded and unsafe. This application will increase traffic in the area and safety will be compromised with the increased density. This application will use up much needed greenspace and she noted that hydro and telephone service in the area is poor due to overloading of those systems. The area park will be stressed and protected greenspaces and forests will be impacted. The appearance of the neighbourhood will be affected by smaller lots. Once a plan is approved,the developer tries to increase the density through the Ontario Municipal Board. A school will alleviate the stress on the infrastructure and she noted that some residents are afraid to raise concerns because Lebovic holds their mortgages. 6. Jean Hueglin, 237 Mossbrook Square, stated that she is disheartened to put her young children on a school bus in which three children share a seat. The School Board is not meeting the needs of children because of overcrowding and the population of the area is such that a school in now needed. 7. Patricia de Pompa, 268 Senator Street, stated that she backs on to the subject lands and noted that the area is filled with young children that need the school. She moved to the area because she thought a school would be built on the subject lands but now her children are bussed to other schools that are overcrowded. She noted that Lebovic is still advertising that a school is within walking distance of its developments. Altona Road is difficult to access, particularly with the closing of Twyn Rivers Drive and there are problems with services such as hydro. She stated that she opposes the application. 8. Susan Habbershaw, 1619 Sandhurst Crescent, stated that she was asked to pick up her child at lunch because there is not sufficient staff to supervise all the children. The bussing of children is not a safe practice. 9. A resident of 1559 Oakburn Street stated that he was not circulated notice of this meeting and that he cannot oppose the application because of restrictive clauses in his deed. He noted that there is a provision in the Official Plan for this school site and stated that he was looking at buying a house in Maple that had four school sites in the area but nothing was clearly stated in their Official Plan. There is no other school site west of Altona Road and to have his children travel to E.B. Phin School would be unsafe. He received confirmation from the Planning Department that these lands were designated for a school site. He is glad to see that the School Board is opposing this application and is negotiating with the applicant to purchase it. He understands that the developer must do something with the property but a residential development is unacceptable. Parking could be a problem if the application is approved because of the narrow street in the plan. 10. Councillor Enrico Pistritto noted that by the letter of the law, Lebovic does not need to negotiate with or sell the land to the School Board, however, in the spirit of good faith, they should carry out such negotiations. He asked the applicant to work with the community to getting a school on this site. 6 11. Lee McKay, 1840 Westcreek Drive, stated that she must take her children to a school at Dixie Road and Finch Avenue because they can't take a bus and a school must be built on the subject lands to alleviate the stress of children who must travel so far to school. She noted that she got no notification of this meeting or any petition. • 12. Gwen Agobt, 1773 Westcreek Drive, stated that she is organizing a class action suit • against the applicant for misrepresentation. 13. Scott Thomas, 282 Tranquil Court, stated that a school on the subject lands is an attraction that Nugget can give to new homeowners. 14. Frank Elliston, 239 Mossbrook Square, stated that he was told that a school would be opening on the subject lands in 1995. He would not have bought in the area if he knew a school wouldn't be built and is willing to contribute to a lawsuit. He noted that Lebovic does not need the bad publicity that a lawsuit would generate. 15. Susan Kular, representing the Durham Board of Education, stated that the Town must start with responsible development that provides for an adequate education. The residents are deserving of the school site because of the taxes they are paying. 16. Doug Bryson, 242 Senator Street, asked what alternative sites there are for a school. 17. Barbara Manning, 1860 Woodview Avenue, stated that the lots on the cul-de-sac in the draft plan are narrow and will create a poor parking situation. The density is a maximum under the old Official Plan and the new Official Plan provides more density. 18. Dawn Soulis, 136 Thicket Crescent, stated that she opposes this application and asked what will happen if the School Board does not acquire the subject lands. 19. Ralph Sutton, 1104 Timber Court, stated that he sits on the Pickering Hydro Election Commission and will investigate the matter of poor hydro service. 20. Lynda Taylor, Manager, Current Operations Division, stated that staff is aware of the concerns about the School Board acquiring the subject lands. The Board is still pursuing the purchase of the subject lands and is awaiting approval of funding. 21. Councillor Maurice Brenner asked the applicant if he was prepared to hold off going to the Ontario Municipal Board pending notification of funding to the School Board. 22. Lloyd Cherniak, representing the applicant, stated that a letter has been forwarded to the Region to delete the school site from the new Official Plan. The lots in this draft plan are in character with the existing neighbourhood and they line up with existing lots on Senator Street. He noted that a subdivision of this size does not create as much noise or traffic as would a school. The applicant allowed the School Board about ten years to make a decision on acquiring the land. He noted that the School Board has received Development Charges from his developments plus he noted that they could have bought the subject lands at 75% of the value. 23. Susan Kular, representing the Durham Board of Education, stated that she never attended a meeting at the School Board where Mr. Cherniak was asked to leave and she noted that the School Board has always shown concern about losing these lands. • 7 24. Councillor Sherry Senis asked the applicant if he is willing to get back with the School Board one more time to negotiate the sale of the subject property to the Board. 25. Lloyd Cherniak, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant has gone past dealing with the School Board and indicated that the Board can acquire other sites. He further noted that the School Board can offer to purchase the subject lands at any time. This plan has been referred to the Ontario Municipal Board and therefore there is no point of any further meetings to talk about the purchase of the lands. (III) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 20/97 N. & R. NALBANDIAN PART OF LOT 21, CONCESSION 1 (NORTH SIDE OF BAYLY STREET, WEST OF SANDY BEACH ROAD) 1. Valerie Rodrigues, Senior Planner, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report#22/97. 2. Allen Herschfield, representing the applicant, stated that the proposed building is similar to others in the area and is close to the GO Station. An inspection of the houses on the site show that they are in poor condition, however; they could be moved if they are deemed to be historically significant. 3. Sylvia Spencer, 771 Sheppard Avenue, asked why a two story building isn't being considered and what type of restaurant is being proposed. She is concerned about the final disposition of the historical buildings and asked why the handicapped parking spaces are split. 4. Ralph Sutton, 1104 Timber Court, asked about the facade of the building. (IV) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 17/97 R. & A. BOYD PART OF LOT 26, PLAN 1051 (EAST SIDE OF APPLEVIEW ROAD,MIDWAY BETWEEN BONITA AVENUE AND DUNBARTON ROAD - 1801 APPLEVIEW ROAD) 1. Valerie Rodrigues, Senior Planner,provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report#23/97. 2. Robert Boyd, 1801 Appleview Road, stated that he is the applicant and noted that this application will maintain the character of the Dunbarton community. 3. Waldemar Grawert, 1799 Appleview Road, stated that he lives to the south of the subject lands and noted that there are already houses in the area on 50 foot lots and that this • application will be in character with the existing neighbourhood. The proposed lots are deep and noted that other neighbours are in agreement with this application. • 8 (V) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 22/97 THE MONTESSORI LEANING CENTRE OF PICKERING PART OF LOTS 17 AND 18, PLAN 230 (SOUTH SIDE OF KINGSTON RD, EACH OF ROUGEMOUNT DR) 1. Valerie Rodrigues, Senior Planner, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #26/97. • 2. John McDermott, representing the applicant, stated that this application fulfills the goals stated in various planning documents. The application provides for shared parking, pedestrian links, attractive to freeway commuters and promotes an attractive civic site on Kingston Road. This is an interim use and conforms to the Regional Official Plan and all existing Pickering documents. His client wants as much flexibility as possible in order to have the same uses as other properties in the area. He asked that this application be processed as quickly as possible and that a by-law with a Holding Zone be brought forward to move this application along but protect the Town. He noted that there is no opposition to this application. • (V) ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Dated O CT O /9 97 Clerk • •