HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/01/2006
C¿ú¡ o~
Minutes I Meeting Summary
Statutory Public Information Meeting
Council Chambers
Thursday, June 1, 2006
7:05 pm.
PRESENT:
Councillor Ashe - Chair
Councillor McLean
Councillor Dickerson
Councillor Pickles
Councillor Brenner (8:30 pm)
STAFF:
Ross Pym
Neil Carroll
Birgit Wilson -
- Principal Planner, Development Review
- Director, Planning & Development
- Recording Secretary
GUEST:
- Stephen I. F agyas
- Lead Consultantfor S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd.
Councillor Ashe provided a brief explanation of the purpose of the meeting and introduced staff.
Ross Pym, Principal Planner, Development Review, provided an overview of the requirements of
the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under
consideration there at.
1. Planner Comments
Ross Pym, Principal Planner, Development Review, provided an overview of the
property location, applicant's proposal and City's Official Plan policies pertaining to
this site, as outlined in Information Report No. 07-06. He confirmed that the subject
application did not include the lands associated with the smaller plaza at 1259 Bayly
Street.
Page 1
CORP0228-2/02
Stephen I. Fagyas, Lead Consultant for S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. provided an
overview of the proposed development using a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Fagyas
stated that this presentation will be made available to the public on their website.
He further stated that this proposal has a high level of sustainability and they had
conducted a comprehensive planning analysis, considered all the possible impacts
and concluded the application complies with all relevant policies. He concluded his
presentation by introducing the architect and landscape personnel who worked on the
design of this proposal.
3. Comments from Members of the Public
Robert & Marlene Gardner
1890 Vallev Farm Rd..
Mr. & Mrs. Gardner purchased a unit on Radom Street for their physically challenged
son 3 weeks ago. Mrs. Gardner stated that the prime reason for purchasing in the
area was that their son could have safe access to essential services, i.e. grocery
store, pharmacy, dry cleaners. She asked the Chair why potential homeowners were
not informed of this proposal. Mr. & Mrs. Gardner also stated that this proposal
lacked consideration for all seniors living in this area as their essential services would
be taken away and that the increased density of the area would cause major traffic
problems, making this a very unsafe area for pedestrians.
Jim Dobney
Radom Street.
Mr. Dobney expressed concern about the boutique style stores that are proposed for
the area, should the re-zoning be accepted. He stated these stores would not reflect
the fact that senior citizens are on a fixed income and need to have access to stores,
and services that reflect price points for their limited income.
Ed Fulton
705-1210 Radom Street.
Mr. Fulton objected to statements made that the Price Chopper store was in financial
difficulty. He noted that this statement was made by a 17 year old employee of the
store and that no one in management would have discussed serious financial matters
with this employee. He disagreed with the statements made.
Letitia Wise
31-1230 Radom Sf.
Ms. Wise expressed concerns with the parking spaces in the proposal. She noted
that the proposal allowed for 532 spaces, however, there would be 582 units.. She
also had concerns that essential services, i.e. grocery store, pharmacy, dry cleaners,
would no longer be available to seniors and that the proposed "little shops" would be
too expensive for people on a fixed income. Also, that the proposed towers are too
Page 2
CORP0228-2/02
high for this neighbourhood. She stated her objection to the fact that no additional
traffic lights being proposed.
Doris Hopper
204-1210 Radom Street
Ms. Hopper stated that the community did not agree with any of the proposed plans
and that the plaza should not be torn down as it is a fully sustainable plaza. She
further expressed concern that the proposed 16-18 storey condominium/apartment
complex as this conflicts with the city's own zoning guidelines. She stated that these
lands are the gateway to the beautiful waterfront of Pickering, and it should be
developed to attract tourism. She asked the City Planners, Councillors and the Mayor
to have a vision that promotes development of cultural components for this area,
looking at the example of the GT A. She proposed that instead of another townhouse,
condominium complex the city partners with private, corporate sponsorship to build a
Concert Hall, Museum or Theatre. She concluded that any plans which displaces
current storeowners should include fair compensation, which to date has not been
addressed.
Paul Crawford
867 Antonio St.
Mr. Crawford noted the Official Plan is Mixed Corridor, therefore there needs to be a
mix of uses and the need for jobs. Does not support the application as the area is a
stable neighbourhood. His opinion the application does not comply with the Region or
City Official Plan.
Carmen Montgomery
239 Lupin Drive
She is also concerned with losing the essential services the plaza now provides and
that no fair compensation has been offered to the business owners to vacate their
current leases if the plaza is torn down. She spoke of the environmental issues with
this proposal. She stated that the proposed high-rise building contravenes the current
height restrictions of the area. The high density will require more ambulances, police,
etc., and this cost will not be incurred by S.R.& R. Bay Ridges Ltd., rather the
taxpayers. She stated that the traffic study, which Mr. Fagyas reported on, was not
correct and that if traffic patterns are observed at 5:00 pm instead of 6:30 pm the
conclusion will be a lot different. Lastly, she reiterated that the residents of this area
are vehemently opposed to this proposal and the city should listen and look for a
more sustainable plan for the residents/taxpayers of the Bay Ridges area.
Tim Dobson
1310 Broadview Street
Mr. Dobson is the President of the Pickering East Short Community Association
(PESCA). He represented the membership at the meeting and voiced the following
concerns for this proposal:
· PESCA should have been properly informed i.e.: a formal presentation. Only a
Page 3
CORP0228-2/02
brief mention was made at a general meeting. The Councillor provided little or
no information.
· April 2006 members of PESCA voiced strong objections to proposal.
· Any re-zoning requires extensive public meetings, one meeting is not enough.
· Traffic concerns - more congestion to the surrounding area - unsafe for
children, seniors.
· Estimates 250% more traffic in the area.
· Object to proposed building heights-no taller than 5 storeys.
· Proposed parking spaces are not enough.
· Negative waterfront enjoyment.
· Environmental impact needs to be addressed.
· Health and safety issues.
· Demolition of phase 1 - how will this impact tenants/store owners who will
remain during this phase.
· New retail spaces are at risk.
· No Emergency Evacuation Plan has been put forward.
· PESCA is not opposed to the Bay Ridges area development, however, much
more discussion, alternative proposals, and consultation with all concerned
must take place.
Mr. & Mrs. Rozenfals
816 Helen Crescent
Mrs. & Mrs. Rozenfals questioned why the developer was only interested in building
residential units. They stated the need for the growth of local business development
and commercial space.
Pasquale Malandrino
Chioue Hairstvlinq, 1215-1235 Bavlv Sf. Unit 450
Mr. Malandrino explained the difficulties that are being encountered by the plaza
business people when trying to contact S.R & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. First a wrong
telephone number was printed on a flyer and then when the correct number was
obtained, messages are not returned. He stated there is a high level of frustration
among the business owners, as there seems to be no accountability by the developer
to tenants or the public for their safety or any financial restitution being offered to
vacate leases early. He concluded by stating that negotiations must take place and
that business owners must receive compensation for vacating their leases early.
Eillen Higdon
852 Fairview Ave..
Ms. Higdon is opposed to this development. She is concerned that not enough in-
depth studies have been done to sustain this development. In particular she is not
happy with the environmental impact, traffic impact. She concluded by stating that
tenants must be dealt with fairly if they are being asked to vacate their leases early.
She feels more clarification on the lease issue is required and that to date the
approach b the developer in this area has been "draconian".
Page 4
CORP0228-2/02
Dave Mathews
714 Annlands Street
He also opposes this development. He cited environmental issues as well as traffic
issues. When the existing tower on Radom Street was built it was recognized as a
mistake and should not be repeated. He further stated that the citizens of this area
would not let this project happen without a fight.
John Blue
4730 Thornton Road
Mr. Blue stated that they own and operate a Laundromat and Car Wash business.
Over the past 10 years they have been able to grow their businesses significantly and
wonder why S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. has not been able to sustain the plaza. Their
issue with this development is also the lack of negotiations and fair compensation for
vacating their lease.
Ken Devine
1210 Radom Street, Apt. 506
Mr. Devine stated that the Bay Ridges area does not need more residential units but
rather affordable shopping for seniors south of the 401. He noted that a Hasty Market
grocery store is not affordable for people on a fixed income.
Jacqueline Smart
829 Fairview Ave.
Ms. Smart made the following comments in stating his objections to this development:
· Price Choppers did not want to close; however their rent increased 85%.
· Traffic lights on St. Martins Drive are required.
· The entire traffic flow in this area needs to be studied further.
· What is the timeframe for Phase 1, 2, & 3; 5 years apart?
· Not enough parking spaces are allotted to each unit at present.
· Even though this plan is in accordance with the Durham Region Plan, it is not
acceptable to the residents of this area.
· The proposed high-rise units should be limited to 5 storeys.
· Will there be more medical services provided to sustain the increased
population, i.e.: doctors.
See concluded that all opposition to this project should be directed in writing to the
Ministry of the Environment, The Region of Durham and their elected officials.
Carolyn Huston
898 Antonio Street
She stated her objections to the fact that in both the Durham Regional and Pickering
Official Plan there was no projection of the population growth for this project.
Page 5
CORP0228-2/02
Bonnie Littley
1499 Sandhurst Crescent
She is with the Ontario Smart Growth Network. She stated that this proposal had
merit, the Site Plan looks good, but not for the Bay Ridges area. The Site Plan shows
no schools, sidewalks, only driveways, and the proposed playground/parkette is
extremely small. She concluded by stating that more than one meeting needs to take
place to find a more suitable solution to re-building the Bay Ridges area.
Bianca D'Souza
1117 Tanzer Court
She stated her opposition to this proposal, as she is concerned for the safety of the
children in this area. She fears that Radom Street will become a speedway if no
traffic lights are installed.
Pedro Gonzales
875 Chapleau Drive
Mr. Gonzales shares the concern of the previous resident and in addition questions
whether there is a budget for more schools, police and medical facilities to sustain the
increase in population. He also stated that if there is a nuclear accident, the limited
exit routes from this area would cause a bottleneck, thus prohibiting speedy
evacuation.
Tom Rock
961 Mount Castle Crescent
Mr. Rock is concerned that there are too many grey areas with this development. He
feels there is non-compliance with regard to the wetlands. He also noted his
disappointment with the public information process as he feels the public are not
given all the facts. He also stated that the applicant/developer is not listening to the
community and questions whether the development will actually be built as proposed
or will there be changes made along the way without notifying the public, once the
developer has all the approvals. Lastly, he stated that there should be height
restrictions on any highrise proposal for this area.
Mark Willis
1866 Fairport
Mr. Willis owns the dance studio in the plaza and is now the largest tenant. Initially
had many concerns with the application, however have had very professional
discussions with the new owners and feel he has been treated fairly.
Paul A vis
931 Livemool Rd.
Mr. Avis stated that to date the OMB has turned down all appeals of this nature. He
suggested that the best solution is for the City of Pickering to negotiate with
developers for the best, most suitable development that addresses all the concerns
by residents thus far. Lastly, he noted that written comments against this proposal
are the best wa to et action.
Page 6
CORP0228-2/02
Angelina Moore
1235 Random Street
She stated that if this development goes through, the schools in the area would be
overpopulated. The student/teacher ratio will result in teachers being over worked.
She also expressed concern with the increased traffic for the area and that the
parking on Radom Street will also become an issue.
Christopher Dean
1155 Tanzer Court
Mr. Dean questioned the accuracy of the Traffic Impact Study, as he believes that this
development will cause major traffic problems, increased street parking and generally
unsafe conditions for pedestrians.
Abdul Prenji
1011 Sherman Street
Mr. Prenji stated that he is the owner of the local
thanks to all the residents of the area for their support,
coming to this meeting. ,
By
4. Response from Applicant
Mr. Fagyas encouraged the public to visit their website in order to view the
PowerPoint presentation of this project. He stated that all technical documents are
available for review and that this application complies with all the required elements.
He also explained that the Plaza is financial difficulty and will be torn down. Lastly he
stated that the application is for a zoning change and this is the right of the owners.
5. Staff Response
Ross Pym, Principal Planner, Development Review, stated that there is some
misinformation in regard to this application and encouraged all interested parties to
come to the Planning & Development Department at the City Hall to look over all the
documentation that is available. An example of the misinformation is the parking
spaces being provided on the site and many people have been referring to the wrong
number of total spaces available.
6. Comments from the Chair
Councillor Ashe advised that the Planning and Development Staff would be available
for a short eriod of time after the meetin for an one who wished to s eak with them.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 pm
Page 7
CORP0228-2/02