HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/20/1996
STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES
'-"
A Statutory Public Information Meeting was held on Thursday, June 20, 1996 at 7:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers.
PRESENT:
L. Taylor
C. Rose
V. Rodrigues
A. Smith
G. McKnight
- Manager, Current Operations Division
- Manager, Policy Division
- Senior Planner
- Planner 2
- Planner 1
(I) ZONING BY - LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 2/96
JENNIFER DEGRAAUW
PART OF LOT 5, REGISTERED PLAN 469
(SOUTH SIDE OF KINGSTON ROAD. EAST OF SOUTHVIEW DRIVE)
~
1.
An explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #5/96, was
given by Valerie Rodrigues, Senior Planner.
2. Corky deGraauw, representing the applicant, stated that he had no comments to
add.
3. M. MacDonald, owner of Village Pool and Spa, Kingston Road, requested a
clarification of the property description; he felt the property description should
state "part of Lot 5" and not "Lot 4". The dimensions on the plan actually shows
more property than the applicant owns. At 23.1 metres from the lot line, the
property jogs in one metre. He wanted to ensure that the west property line is
reflected correctly.
(II) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 7/96
CRAIG WILLOUGHBY HOLDINGS LTD.
'W- PART OF LOT 33, RANGE 3, BROKEN FRONT CONCESSION
(NORTHWEST CORNER OF KINGSTON ROAD AND AL TONA ROAD)
1. An explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report # 13/96, was
given by Valerie Rodrigues, Senior Planner.
2.
Tony Crawford, representing his parents who reside at 1004 Riverview Crescent
and Mr. and Mrs. Parmar, 1002 Riverview Crescent, stated that the Regional
Official Plan was reviewed before his parents and their neighbours purchased their
properties and that Plan showed Fawndale Road to cul-de-sac to the south of the
subject site. The subject property and the surrounding residential area reflect
residential characteristics. The intersection of Kingston Road and Altona Road is
extremely difficult for pedestrians and motorists to navigate and access onto
Altona Road from Kingston Road is already difficult without the subject lands
being developed. He stated that he is concerned that the proposed restaurant will
be used for a somewhat different use where liquor is served and he is concerned
about a 2:00 a.m. closing in a residential area. This development will have an
impact not only on 1002 and 1004 Riverview Crescent but also on the entire
community. He noted that he is opposed to this application.
IifIW'
~.
"-"
--
--
'\
2
3.
Sylvia Spencer, 771 Sheppard Avenue, asked if there will be justification for Phase
2 of this development. She asked what the percentage of affordable housing and
housing for the handicapped will be provided and if this percentage will M
different if the lands are developed in two phases. She does not want a fast food
outlet on the site and noted that sound bounces back to the site, especially if there
is an outdoor patio.
Catherine Rose, Manager, Policy Division, responded that the application only
involves the restaurant proposal at this time and that the phasing of the
development does not prejudice a review of the application.
4. Ann White, representing the Rouge Valley Community Association, stated that on
paper the application appears to be acceptable. She is concerned about activity
from an outdoor patio attached to the restaurant, noise from traffic and garbage
concerns. The comer of Kingston Road and Altona Road is a traffic nightmare
and this development will only add to it. The old building on the property could be
lovely if it is restored properly. She asked if there is any historical significance to
the building. With respect to Phase 2 of the development she questioned the
viability of townhouses and if they would be in character with the surrounding
neighbourhood.
5.
Carolyn Johnson, 295 Starview Court, questioned the need for a quality restaurant
at this site. She was concerned about the viability of Phase 2 of the development
especially if it is commercial. If Phase 2 is a residential development, is would be
acceptable if it is compatible with the valley lands to the west and the abutting
residential development. Heritage Pickering should be asked to comment on the
historical significance of the building on the subject lands. The Town must ensure
that fire and other services are provided and she noted that there is no sidewalk on
Altona Road abutting the subject lands. There may be drainage concerns,
especially runoff to the street.
6. Ron Hong, 395 Brookridge Gate, representing the Dalebrook Drive/Brookridge
Gate Community Association, stated that there are many concerns about traffic on
Altona Road including volume, speeds, access/egress to the subject lands and
safety.
7.
Ken Rueter, representing the applicant, stated that the proposed restaurant will be
similar to other upscale restaurants such as Fentons or LaScala which are located
in downtown Toronto. A top quality restaurant does not have the same traffic
flow as a donut shop or lower scale restaurant. The clientele will be in the 40 plus
age group and be upper middle class. This restaurant will not be a club; he owns
the Black Dog Pub in Scarborough and is aware of concerns from an establishment
of this nature. He will be marketing for specific personnel to work at this
restaurant. With respect to noise, due to the nature of the restaurant, there will be
no loud music and any sound will be buffered by fencing, trees and roofing. An
upscale restaurant is needed in this area because there are none of a class that is
found in downtown Toronto. Phase 2 of the development is conceptual only and
he is considering locating a professional office at the southern portion of the
subject lands and luxury condominiums which will be aesthetically pleasing at the
north end.
8. Kim Thompson, representing Heritage Pickering, requested any information the
applicant may have on the site and further requested circulation of the application
from the Planning Department.
9. Tony Crawford, representing his parents who reside at 1004 Riverview Crescent
and Mr. and Mrs. Parmar, 1002 Riverview Crescent, stated that he was still
concerned with Phase 2 of this development and how it will fit with Phase 1.
3
Ken Rueter, representing the applicant, responded that Phase 2 will be primarily
residential and that there will be only evening trade for the restaurant. He noted
that the Arborist's Report shows a line a spruce trees and if these are not able to
remain, new trees will be planted.
~
10.
A resident ofRiverview Crescent stated that from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. there is a
great deal of traffic.
Ken Rueter, representing the applicant, responded that Highway 401 is currently
under construction and there should be improvements to traffic at the intersection
of Kingston Road and Altona Road when construction is completed.
The resident stated that he is not concerned with the development of a restaurant
but he is concerned with traffic at the intersection of Kingston Road and Altona
Road.
Ken Rueter, representing the applicant, stated that Phase 2 will be considered
approximately one to two years from now depending on the viability of the market.
.....
(III) DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 18T-9600S
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 8/96
MINISTER'S ZONING ORDER AMENDMENT APPLICATION
18Z0-0299601
PROPOSED CLAREMONT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
CLAREMONT ESTATES ONTARIO INC.
PART OF LOT 19, CONCESSION 8
(WEST OF "OLD" BROCK ROAD)
1.
An explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #12/96, was
given by Adrian Smith, Planner 2.
2.
Kevin Goranson, 4880 Old Brock Road, stated that he is concerned that there is
not enough information available for a proper review by the public and the
information does not appear to be sufficient. He does not know what is proposed
for Block 16 and therefore cannot comment in an informed manner.
~
Catherine Rose, Manager, Policy Division, responded that the purpose of this
meeting is to hear concerns and if he feels that there is not enough information, he
should state such. The Town is obliged to hold this public hearing early in the
process and Mr. Goranson's concerns will be acknowledged regardless of the
amount of information given. In response to a question from Mr. Goranson,
Catherine Rose responded that a further meeting may be held if needed.
Kevin Goranson asked what are the land requirements for a well and septic tank.
Adrian Smith, Planner 2, responded that it depends on the soil but typically a
minimum land area is 0.3 hectares. He noted that the Report indicates that the
whole property can support 16 lots.
Kevin Goranson asked by half of the property is supporting 16 lots and why isn't
the remainder of the property blocked off to prohibit further development.
.....
~
....
,..,..
~
4
3.
Richard Ward, P.O. Box 5142, Claremont, stated that he objects to this
development. He referred to the memo from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food
and believes that this proposal is outside the urban area of the Durham Region
Official Plan. An environmental assessment is needed for the entire Claremont
area to determine the effect of ground water and storm water management quality
and assessment. Properties within the Hamlet should be developed first instead of
allowing piecemeal planning. A contaminated area has been identified to the north
of the subject lands and this should be cleaned up. The Hamlet is scheduled for
minor infill, however, development has reached a saturation point through land
severances. He cannot support urban sprawl.
4.
Kim Thompson, 4810 Old Brock Road, stated that she is concerned because the
draft Official Plan provides for development only after a settlement capacity study
is completed. If this development proceeds now, the residents will lose the
opportunity to comment. The entire Hamlet should be advised of this application
because it is not minor infilling or expansion. This application provides for
sprawling estate development and there is no need for this type of house. She
noted that there is a lack of full time fire protection in the north area and there is
an 11 minute wait for a fire truck when a call is put in. Adequate fire protection is
needed before this development is approved. Only one future expansion area will
be left if this application is approved. She asked in this development is on the Oak
Ridges Moraine.
Adrian Smith, Planner 2, responded that the development is outside the area of the
Oak Ridges Moraine according to the Ministry of Natural Resources.
Catherine Rose, Manager, Policy Division, clarified the requirements of the
Planning Act with respect to circulating the area about the proposed development.
She noted that there is still an opportunity to comment.
5. Mike Senkiw, 4860 Old Brock Road, stated that he backs onto Block 16 in the
proposed developmem: and although he was originally neutral about this
development, he now has some misgivings. He will be preparing a letter setting
out his concerns and will send it to Adrian Smith, Planner 2 shortly. The proposal
is not for a draft plan for the entire block but only for the area of the 15 residential
lots. Blocks 16, 17 and 18 should not be given status or used for well
sustainability. Only the areas covering Lots 1 to 15 should be used for septic and
well calculations. He is not adverse to development in this area but the entire
block should be dealt with as one submission.
6.
A resident of 4904 Brock Road stated that he has been a resident of Claremont for
20 years and supports growth in the Hamlet and noted that he participated in a
survey conducted a few months ago.
7. Debra Drake, 5249 Old Brock Road, stated that she was also involved in the
survey and stated that she is not opposed to more development in the Hamlet. She
is concerned with problems relating to wells and septic systems but it is a known
concern and there is a need for further review.
8. Roger Wade, 1210 Radom Street, stated that he was hired by the Ministry of
Economic Development and Trade to conduct a survey in Claremont to develop a
Community Action Plan. He pointed out that there was an 80% participation in
the survey and that results showed that residents do want controlled development,
a hiking trail is desired and Seniors want housing. He further noted that 84% of
the residents surrounding the subject lands are in favour of controlled residential
development and that a small controlled development is preferred.
5
9. James Roe, 4865 Old Brock Road, stated that there are few properties to choose
from for a house and he supports this application.
10.
......'
Ray Winterstein, 664 Davis Drive, Uxbridge, stated that he supports this proposed
development and noted that he was the previous owner of the property. He noted
that the proposed development is inside the Hamlet boundary and that new
residents will be redoing the Hamlet Plan within 10 years. He further noted that
the subject lands were preplanned for development 10 years ago.
11. Rick Cowie, 4904 Old Brock Road, stated that he has no concerns with the
proposed development but does agree that there are fire and safety concerns.
"-"
'-'
,...,
12. Karsten Smith, the applicant, stated that the area Community Association was
circulated about this development and noted that the Association in turn notified
all residents. He submitted further letters of support for this development.
13.
Mofeed Michael, representing the applicant, stated that the owner of the land is
also the builder. The subject lands are not in the Oak Ridges Moraine and
controlled growth should be defined. The Province of Ontario places controls on
development and the Town has an opportunity to review these controls. He is
preparing the necessary reports to support this development and the number of
septic systems allow are determined by a mathematical calculation. Block 16 has
the potential for six more lots if feasible through government regulations, Block 17
is for a community benefit and Block 18 provides access to Block 17. These
Blocks are situated in such a way to take storm water runoff to the southwest and
not through the Hamlet.
(IV) TOWN INITIATED ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT
APPLICA TION A 9/96
OFF-STREET PARKING IN URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS
1. An explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report # 11/96, was
given by Geoff McKnight, Planner 1.
2.
Sylvia Spencer, 771 Sheppard Avenue, requested a clarification of where parking
will be allowed as set out in Appendix III of the Report. If there is no garage,
where does the occupant park an inoperative vehicle. Is the Town planning to
define in precise terms what a carport is. She noted that the grade of Sheppard
Avenue in the vicinity of St. Paul's Church affects parking. There are concerns
about parking in quattroplex units because they may not be able to accommodate
four vehicles each.
3. Ed Hoiko, 1101 Glenanna Road, stated that garage are not being used for what
they were intended for. He has seen five or six cars parked in a one-lane driveway
and across the sidewalk because garages are being used for purposes other than
parking. It is difficult to walk around areas that have cars parked over the
sidewalk. He asked why there are "No Parking" restrictions between 3 :00 a.m.
and 5:00 a.m. only on some roads?
Catherine Rose, Manager, Policy Division, responded that the Town's Parking By-
law provides for parking for a three hour maximum across the entire Town unless
otherwise posted. GeoffMcKnight, Planner 1, responded that a study of on-street
parking is currently being carried out separate to this study.
6
4.
Carolyn Johnson, 295 Starview Court, stated that she is pleased to see this study
because she is concerned with parking at this time. She noted that the parking of
school buses in a driveway is a concern because they have an impact on drivers.
With respect to the parking of school buses, she asked if the Boards of Education
have been circulated with this study and asked that this concern be studied further.
She asked if residents can be forced to use their garage for the parking of cars only
and stated that operative but unlicenced vehicles are another concern. The
definition of a driveway should be clarified and it should be stated how much of a
yard can be used for a driveway. The "General Provisions" set out in Appendix II
to the Report should be tightened to ensure that the intent is met. Consideration
should be given to requiring screening of the rear and side yards if vehicles are
parked in those areas. Time limits should be stated for temporary parking for
parties, family gatherings, etc.
"-'
(IT) ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at the hour of9: 15 p.m.
'-'
Dated ~ lJ V[
L-Co/CfG
,
Clerk
'"
.....