HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/22/1994
STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES
A Statutory Public Information Meeting was held on Thursday, September 22, 1994 at
7:00 p.m in the Council Chambers.
'-"
PRESENT:
Councillor V an Kempen - Chairman
ALSO PRESENT:
B. Taylor
L. Taylor
A. Smith
J. Cole
C. Ramdial
- Town Clerk
- Manager, Current Operations Division
- Planner I
- Planner IT
- Planning Technician I
'-"
'-'
'-'
(I)
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 10/94
S.A. WIDEMAN
PART OF LOT 46, PLAN 12
(FRANKLIN STREET. CLAREMONT)
1. An explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report No 24/94,
was given by Adrian Smith, Planner I.
2. Don Bennett, representing the applicant, stated that engineering for street
improvements has been completed and work is ready to be undertaken. With the
construction of the new road, any flooding should be alleviated. He noted that this
application only provides for one additional lot and this will be in conformity with
the existing neighbourhood.
3.
Gary Yoshida, 1672 Joseph Street, stated that he is one of the few people to
respond to this application, however, many of the neighbours are concerned about
it. He has never received a response from the Town on correspondence he sent
setting out his concerns. The drainage problem is on the entire road and the Town
must look at the overall drainage problems in the area. This land severance may
create building lots that give the appearance of row housing. He asked if a culvert
is not proposed to go under Joseph Street, how the drainage will go away. He
wants some assurances that the culverts will be maintained and that the streetscape
will not give the appearance of row housing.
4. Dean Evans, Barclay Street, stated that he lives downstream from the subject lands
and he has had problems with flooding over the years. Flooding is not a problem
so long as the ditches are maintained but stated that no land above Joseph Street
should be developed until the drainage problem is cured.
5. Mitch Cronin, Franklin Street, stated that he is concerned about the aesthetics of
the development. He is also concerned about the safety of children with increased
traffic and wants sidewalks on Franklin Street and a stop sign at Joseph and
Franklin Streets.
6.
Peter Klammer, Franklin Street, asked if any measures will be put in place to
control drainage and if wells and septics will be affected by this development. He
asked that the new houses be spaced properly in order to avoid looking like row
housing. Claremont is growing and therefore, there must be some traffic controls
on Franklin Street.
.. . ./2
'-"
'-'
'-'
'-"
--2--
7.
Glenna Yoshida, 1672 Joseph Street, stated that her prime concern about this
development is drainage and this must be addressed before any further
development is allowed. She noted that the Town has much documentation about
drainage in the area. She stated that aesthetically, this development is contrary to
what the hamlet is trying to project. This severance may set a precedence for
development ofland to the north.
8. Rudy Gruber, Central Street, stated that he is experiencing drainage problems on
his lands at the present time and asked how drainage will be handled if lands to the
north of the subject lands are developed.
9. Karsten Smith, representing the applicant, stated that he will be the builder on this
project. There will be about twenty feet between the houses and the streetscape
will not look like row housing.
10.
Don Bennett, representing the applicant, noted that drainage is the main concern of
the area residents. He is only creating one additional building lot and noted that he
can get a building permit for the existing lot. There are about 35 acres that drain
through Joseph and Franklin Streets and the proposed new lot will do little to
affect this. He understands that the reconstruction of Central Street in 1995 will
alleviate some of the drainage problems. Any traffic problems on Franklin Street
will be addressed by the Public Works Department. There will be about twenty
feet between the proposed houses, however, he noted that the Zoning By-law only
provides for a sideyard setback of six feet.
(II) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 4/94
R. STROUD
PART OF LOT 20, PLAN 819, AND
PART OF LOT 62, PLAN 1041
(FAIRPORT ROAD AND STROUDS LAND)
1.
An explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report No. 27/94,
was given by Jeff Cole, Planner II.
2. George Ashe, representing the applicant, stated that the ownership of the lands has
been in the Stroud family for many years. This is not a new proposal, in 1989 a
similar proposal was submitted for these and other surrounding lands. The original
proposal provided for a local commercial area but this proposal has deleted this
use because it is not compatible with the neighbourhood. Council has made an
application through the Infrastructure Program to bring services up Fairport Road
and this will bring the neighbourhood up to full urban standards. The lots fronting
on Strouds Lane and Fairport Road in the proposed plan of subdivision are large
and are compatible with the existing neighbourhood. He would have no problem
with a site specific zoning to protect the subdividing of the land. He noted that
there are no substantial number of trees on the subject lands. Developers want to
protect trees because they make the lots more marketable, however, some trees die
from the development of the land and new trees must be planted.
3.
Richard Ward, Box 5142 Claremont, stated that he objects to this type of
piecemeal planning and noted that the application is not a plan of subdivision but
only a concept. The entire area should be planning at the same time. He objects to
George Ashe representing the applicant because he is a former Mayor of the
Town. He complained that previous Minutes of Statutory Public Information
Meetings do not accurately reflect his comments.
..../3
'-"
'-'
'-'"
'-'
--3--
4.
Mr. Baker, 1925 Bonita Avenue, stated that all trees have been removed from the
subject lands. All lots on Fairport Road and Strouds Lane are large and since the
proposed lots are not quite as large, the houses to be built on those lots may not be
compatible with the existing neighbourhood.
5. Craig Bamford, representing the Liverpool West Community Association, stated
that he was involved with the original application five years ago. The main
differences between this proposal and the former application are that the lot on the
comer of Fairport Road and Strouds Lane is smaller and the lots on the internal
road had 10.7 metres frontage. The original application was more compatible with
the existing neighbourhood and his Association would like to meet further to
discuss this proposal. The density proposed by this application is 21 units per
hectare which is the upper end of the Official Plan requirements and this must be
discussed for compatibility. Further consideration of this plan should be delayed
pending further meeting with the neighbourhood regarding the District Plan. He
noted that a tot lot will be needed if this density is approved.
6.
Steve Campbell, Appleview Road, stated that he was involved with the original
application submitted by the Paracon Group and they removed the commercial
block. The Paracon Group never divulged who the principals were of their
company. A Special Policy Area was designated for this area to provide for a
unique development of the area. The proposed application will provide for row-
type housing and this will destroy the Special Policy Area. The entire area should
be rezoned at the same time to stop piecemeal development of the area. He noted
that the owner of a townhouse development at the south end of Fairport Road
thinks that a development of that nature is compatible with 50 foot lots. He noted
that the proposed plan is a concept only and if the zoning is changed to Residential
Low Density 2, the subject lands could provide for up to 75 units. He asked if this
is a Special Policy Area then why is there such a wide range of density in the
Official Plan. He wants to be involved in the District Plan Review and noted that
this conceptual plan leaves too much leeway for change in the future.
7.
Rose Stroud, the applicant, stated that she moved to the subject lands in 1938 and
the trees on the property were seedlings from elms that have since been diseased.
An old willow tree was removed because is blocked a view and the remaining trees
are old maples that are all hollow.
8. Patrick Duffield, 1825 Fairport Road, stated that the trees on the subject lands
were in good health and they were cut down. He further stated that he only wants
50 foot lots approved.
9. John Tonna, 1917 Bonita Avenue, stated that he has a 70 foot lot and he wants
future development in the area to be compatible with that and the District Plan
Review should reflect these lot sizes.
10. Ludy Gibson, 1748 Fairport Road, stated that she objects to the magnitude of the
development when there is a District Plan Review underway. The development is
not compatible with the existing neighbourhood and it does not help to have large
lots on the exterior of the plan. Traffic is already bad in the area and there are no
parks in the area.
11.
Sylvia Spencer, 771 Sheppard Avenue, asked how many children will be generated
by this development, where the nearest park is located, what will be done with
cash-in lieu of parkland and if the proposed houses will be eligible for basement
apartments.
..../4
--4--
12.
Gary Griffen, 1942 Fairport Road, stated that existing lots on Fairport Road are
very deep and are subject to development. Fairport Road is very busy and there
will be more cars if more development is approved. If development in the area
proceeds, then services such as sidewalks and improved roads must be planned.
--
13. Lee Young, 1843 Spruce Hill Road, stated that there should be an overall plan for
the neighbourhood. Area schools are already overloaded and this development
will only add to the problem If nine metre frontages are allowed in this
development, it will set a precedent for the entire area. There is a lot of wildlife
that will disappear if trees are removed and she is concerned that drainage will be
adversely affected through this development.
14. An unidentified man noted that cars travel beyond the speed limit on Glenanna
Road. William Dunbar Public School already has many portables and
overcrowding of schools must be addressed.
15. Janice Frampton, 1810 Post Drive, stated that this application should be put on
hold until the District Plan is reviewed.
"-"
16. Gary Burnett, 1845 Fairport Road, stated that compatibility is an issue because this
development will set a precedent for the area. The subject lands should be zoned
to permit only 18 metre frontages.
'-'"
17. George Ashe, representing the applicant, stated that trees on the subject lands
were only recently planted and were subject to disease. The Paracon Group had
an application for all lands in the area but could not go forward because of the
economy. There will be an opportunity for flexibility for building on the exterior
lots. Fairport Road is not up to standard and is unsafe for walking and driving.
The reconstruction of this road to full urban standards will make it safer. The
provision of storm sewers should alleviate any drainage problems in the area. This
development will not set a precedent for future building standards but market
forces will. More development in the area will generate new schools. Developers
will give cash-in-lieu of parkland to provide for a park in the area and a tot lot will
not be a good substitute for a park. The Paracon Group did have an overall plan
for the area that did provide for a commercial block at the comer of Fairport Road
and Strouds Lane. The proposed lots at the west end of the plan are the same size
as those they back on to. The small internal lots in the proposed plan are practical
in this day and age. Fairport Road will be developed because it is in the middle of
a very urban area. Services will be installed on Strouds Lane but connection to
those services is not mandatory. Development is required in order to keep taxes
low.
(DI) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 10/93
GARTHWOOD HOMES LIMITED
PART OF LOT 54, PLAN 1041
(EAST SIDE OF SPRUCE HILL ROAD. SOUTH OF STROUDS LANE)
1. An explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report No. 26/94,
was given by Jeff Cole, Planner I.
2. Mike Lazaridis, representing the applicant, stated that he was present to note any
comments from the public.
'-"
3. Richard Okrasa, 1810 Spruce Hill Road, stated that this application will set a
precedent for the future development of smaller lots in the area. He noted that the
subject lands are heavily covered with mature trees.
..../5
--5--
'-"
4.
Greg Wallace, 1772 Spruce Hill Road, stated that Spruce Hill Road is fully
developed except for these lands. There are no existing lots less than 50 feet of
frontage and therefore the proposed lots would not be compatible with the existing
neighbourhood. There should only be five lots fronting onto Spruce Hill Road
instead of six lots and he does not want the zoning amended.
5. Terry Nusp~ Woodview Drive, stated that Special Policy Areas do not protect a
neighbourhood given how other such Areas have been developed. New schools
will not likely be built because the Province has put the burden on the local
taxpayers for the cost of new schools.
(IV) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 7/94
N. HATZIANTONIOU
PART OF LOT 12, PLAN 282
(1921 TO 1927 PINE GROVE AVENUE)
'-'"
1. An explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report No. 25/94,
was given by Colin Ramdia~ Planning Technician I.
2. Nick Hatziantoniou, the applicant, stated that he bought the subject lands six years
ago and at that time, the subdivision on Oakburn Street was underway and the
internal roadway was being negotiated. Large lots are no longer marketable but
agreed that a mix of 40 and 50 foot lots are not unreasonable. His proposed lots
are compatible with the existing neighbourhood.
3.
Barbara Manning, 1860 Woodview Avenue, stated that there does not seem to be
an overall plan for the development of the neighbourhood. She thought all lots
would be 50 feet but she noted that there are many 40 foot lots and a large mix of
housing in the area. High density development will bring more traffic to the area
and the streetscape will be poor. The trees have been removed from the property
and there is no tree preseIVation plan. There has been enough compromising with
developers and only 50 foot lots should be approved. She asked if the Kaitlin
Group conformed to the Tree PreseIVation Plan.
'-"
4. Carolyn Pasc~ Woodview Avenue, stated that she received no notification of this
meeting. She is concerned about tree preseIVation and the amount of traffic to be
generated by the proposed development. She does not want the area bulldozed
and stated that a quality house on a 50 foot lot can be afforded.
6. Ernst Uchilich, Woodview Avenue, stated that he concurs with the comments of
his neighbours and noted that the applicant could work more closely with the
Planning Department to ensure that trees are preseIVed.
7. Nick Hatziantoniou, the applicant, stated that he intends to build on the subject
property; ifhe didn't, he would have sold these lands six years ago. He is retaining
a 50 foot lot at the south end of the property and the houses he will be
constructing will be executive homes. A mix of housing is required and his houses
will be compatible with others in the area. Most of the existing trees on the subject
lands are at the north end of the property.
'-'
(IV) ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at the hour of7:55 p.m
..../6
'-"
.,-,
'-"
"-'
Dated
--6--
Jp1: /)8(9<1
Clerk