HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 18, 1999 STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES
A Statutory Public Information Meeting was held on Thursday,November 18, 1999 at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
PRESENT:
L. Taylor - Manager, Current Operations Division
V. Rodrigues - Senior Planner
D. Kearns - Committee Coordinator
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) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 27/99
SENA HOMES INC.
LOT 9,PLAN 40M-1920
(345 GRANBY COURT)
1. Valerie Rodrigues, Senior Planner, provided an explanation of the application, as
outlined in Information Report#25-99.
2. Christine Cook, 325 Granby Crt., questioned the minor variance that was
previously denied and wondered how a building permit was acquired when the
house was already lived in. If this application is approved, what will stop other
applicants from applying for the same, does not want this to set a precedent.
3. Mr. Sena, applicant, advised that the second unit was clearly shown on the
original application, it was eventually picked up by staff and the house was built
as promised to the purchasers. They are following the proper process.
4. Lynda Taylor, Manager, Current Operations Division, advised that if the zoning
application is not approved there is a process to be followed. Town may take
legal steps to ensure compliance of zoning by-law.
(II) DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 18T-99011
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 11/99
"PINE RIDGE LAND ASSEMBLY"
LOT 18 & PART OF LOTS 29 & 30, PLAN 350
(SOUTH-EAST CORNER OF TOYNEVALE, WINETTE
& PINE RIDGE RDS.)
. 1. Valerie Rodrigues, Senior Planner, provided an explanation of the application, as
outlined in Information Report#26-99.
2. Robert Foxall, 551 Pine Ridge Rd., stated his opposition to the application. He
outlined his concerns to include traffic; impact on services—sanitary, septic; trees;
vegetation; noise and dust. No need to change from a 60' frontage to 50' frontage
and if this application is approved it could set a precedent.
•
- 2—
3. Joanne Chicoine, 1012 Linton Crt., requested a copy of the Rosebank
Neighbourhood Guidelines. She questioned the timeline of the development and
advised that she would be forwarding a written submission. She further stated
that the application requires the demolition of eight properties which is not what
was expected for the area.
4. Bob Fler, 320 Toynevale Road, advised that tree preservation is a major concern
along with noise. He questioned if the study is up-to-date considering the M.P.P.s
office has advised that their area is a candidate for a noise barrier. He also
questioned if one developer would be building or would this area be infill.
5. Chris Howes, 556 Pine Ridge Road, stated his concern with sufficient schooling.
6. Alex Artuchov, applicant, stated that the proposed buildings will be nicer than
some of those being demolished. He also advised that not all present homes are to
be demolished. Services must be available or the application would not be
approved by either the Region of Durham or the Ministry of Environment. The
Environmental Assessment is completed and has been submitted to the Region of
Durham. Tree preservation is also important to them and every attempt will be
made to preserve as many trees as possible. Fencing will be undertaken along any
mutual property line. It is hoped that there will be a single developer not infilling.
(III) DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 18T-99016
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 28/99
W. & G. NICHOLSON
PART OF LOTS 168 TO 171 INCLUSIVE, PLAN 816
(EAST OF ROUGEMOUNT DRIVE; NORTH OF KINGSTON ROAD
1. Valerie Rodrigues, Senior Planner, provided an explanation of the application, as
outlined in Information Report#28-99.
2. George Jewell, 359 Rouge Hill Crt., advised that he is not opposed to R3 housing
but is opposed to a decrease in lot frontage from 60' to 50'. He purchased his
home because of the unique area and size of lot. He questioned if the two homes
next to his property will have the same setback as his or will they be closer to the
street. Will the sidewalk be extended in front of his home? He advised that he
does not want a transformer box placed on his property and he questioned the
elevation of the home next door.
3. Mr. Demerino, property owner in the area, stated his concern with the dry bed
between his property and the proposed development. He stated his preference that
this land go into public ownership. He requested the Town address the issue of
safety and access from this property.
4. Bruno Palu, 354 Rouge Hill Crt., stated his opposition to the 50' lots and is dislike
for the street configuration.
5. Rosemary Cananzi, 353 Rouge Hill Crt., stated her strong opposition and concern
with the narrowness and depth of the front yards and also stated that there is no
valid reason to change the lot size from 60' to 50' frontages.
6. . Lynn Sharma, 356 Rouge Hill Crt., stated her concern with the increased traffic
and the safety of the children.
7. Owner of 1399 Rougemount Drive, advised that he is not opposed to the
development but is in opposition to changing the frontage from 60' to 50'.
- 3 -
8. Danny Ladouceur, 357 Rouge Hill Crt., stated his concern with the zoning
amendment and smaller lot size. He purchased his home in this area because of
the uniqueness of the area and when he purchased he was assured that the lot sizes
would remain at 60'. There is a nice size boulevard in front of his home and trees
on the boulevard in front of each home, will this continue.
9. Russ Dewar, 1387 Rougemount Drive, stated his objection to the 50' lot
frontages. In the proposed development, his home will have the side of the
proposed house facing his and only four feet away from his property line. He also
stated his concern with the elevation on Lot 10.
10. Phyllis Cheung, 351 Rouge Hill Crt., stated her concern for the safety of the
children,the lot frontages and the depreciation in the value of her home.
11. Gaspare Latona, 352 Rouge Hill Crt., requested that the width of the lot be kept at
60' and the depth be kept the same as present owners have. Questioned when
more details would be available for residents to comment on and also when will
the decision be made on the sidewalk extension.
12. Mrs. Holder, 1395 Rougemount Dr., advised that residents on Rougemount Drive
have fought development in the area. She further advised that she was present to
support the residents from Rouge Hill Crt. The unique area must be maintained
and 60' lots must be kept.
13. Mrs. Jewell, 359 Rouge Hill Crt., stated that the setbacks must be maintained.
She stated her concern over the traffic flow.
14. A representative of the applicant advised that there is a trend towards 50' lots and
that the proposed homes would be compatible to the area. Six out of the ten lots
are pie shaped and, therefore, would widen out the back. Detailed grading plans
do not usually get done until closer to the recommendation report. This proposal
conforms to the Official Plan.
15. Craig Marshall, applicant advised that he would be happy to meet with anyone to
discuss this proposal.
(IV) DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 18T-99015
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 29/99
J. KISIELOWSKI & M. TROCHANOWSKA
PART OF LOTS 29 TO 29A,PLAN 1051
(EAST SIDE OF APPLEVIEW ROAD, NORTH OF DUNBARTON ROAD
1. Valerie Rodrigues, Senior Planner, provided an explanation of the application, as
outlined in Information Report#27-99.
2. Mr. Tim Politis, applicant, advised that the plans comply with the local
neighbourhood plan and the Town Official Plan in every respect.
3. Joe Murray, 1751 Appleview Road, spoke in opposition to this application. This
is a unique area which needs to be maintained. If this application is approved you
will open the door to dissecting of more properties along Appleview Road. This
development will create a hidden intersection onto Appleview Road and may have
a detrimental affect on Frenchman's Bay. Safety in the area must be considered.
•
- 4-
4. Mark Dawson, 1796 Appleview Road, stated that Appleview Road is a unique
area and the current zoning R3, 18 metre frontages are characteristic of the area.
The new development must maintain the character of the area. It is premature to
approve this development, concerns such as grading, drainage and servicing must
be considered as a whole and not peace meal. It is disconcerting to the residents
that 12 meter lots are being considered.
5. Bill Fodden, 1808 Appleview Road, stated that at no time was the property in
question discussed for development. This is an extremely unique area and a great
opportunity for Planning to preserve the area. Traditional style ditches, no sewers
and 60' frontages have always been maintained. Consideration should be given to
placement of temporary road, development of lots to the north, design of road and
handling of storm water. This proposal does not comply with the Dunbarton
Neighbourhood Development Guidelines.
6. Karen Banham, 1791 Appleview Road, advised that she purchased her home for
the area. She stated her concern with the reduction in frontage, temporary road
and environmental issues. She questioned if the mature trees would survive the
construction of a temporary road.
7. Mr. Atkinson, 1742 Appleview Road, stated that the environment will suffer and
the neighbourhood will suffer. He stated his concern with the lot size.
8. Chris Knight, 1800 Appleview Road, stated opposition to the application and to
the reduction in lot size. This development will have an adverse affect on the
value and look of the homes and street.
9. Scott Currie, 1738 Appleview Road, commented on the unique area and street
character. He stated his objection to the reduction in frontages and stated the
importance to maintain the integrity of the area.
10. Ernie Nemeth, 968 Rambleberry Ave., stated this is an ill-conceived, premature
plan. The concept plan does not consider the street, the temporary road is
preposterous and the engineering proposal premature.
11. Angelo Giordano, 976 Rambleberry Road, advised that a petition was submitted
in opposition to the application. He advised of the points of contention to include
environmental/habitat concern/parkland use; encroachment of acquired
enjoyment; rushed development; and present zoning is adequate. The best use of
this land would be for parkland and the closest park to the area is at Dixie Road
and Glenanna Road.
12. Katherine Macnaught, representing the Liverpool West Community Association,
stated that they believe this subdivision is premature, the property is too small for
the development and the cul-de-sac ends at the back yards of the present owners.
13. John Howes, Solicitor, representing Mr. Grawert, owner of 1797 Appleview
Road, stated that they share the concerns voiced by the previous speakers. The
severance of his lots was done in consultation with the Planning Department. He
advised that he would be in agreement to having the road continue down through
his property and does not plan to development the remainder of his land. Mr.
Howes stated that Mr. Grawert is concerned that the Town does not allow the
temporary road when he has made every concession to sell his land for the
permanent road.
14. Cathy Hykaway, Lot 122, questioned what will happen to the value of their
properties. ,
- 5 -
15. Mike Atkinson, stated that any comments made on behalf of Mr. Grawert should
be discounted.
16. Anna Keller, 984 Rambleberry Road, stated her concern that the wildlife is
preserved and also safety of children be considered.
17. Leah Carson, 990 Rambleberry Road, stated that the Town of Dunbarton is
beautiful and must be maintained as a country setting. Trees and 60' frontages
must be preserved.
18. Lorraine Clarke, 974 Rambleberry Road, voiced the same concerns as previously
stated and questioned when the preservation plan would be available.
19. Paul Jones, 944 Vistula Drive, questioned if fences will be required on properties
backing onto the ravine.
20. Mr. Politis, applicant, advised that the frontage will either be going to the TRCA
or the Town of Pickering. The plan must go through a traffic study and the road
access must meet Town standards. Garthwood Homes has made an offer for the
Grawert property for the roadway. Lot grading, environmental issues, and tree
preservation will all have to go through the proper process.
(V) ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
//
Dated ti d�• z � t `� Clerk