HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 20, 1997 •
STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES
A Statutory Public Information Meeting was held on Thursday, November 20, 1997 at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
PRESENT:
Councillor R. Johnson- Chair
Councillor D. Dickerson
ALSO PRESENT:
D. Pickles - Councillor-Elect
B. Taylor - Town Clerk
L. Taylor -Manager, Current Operations Division
G. McKnight -Planner I
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) DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 18t-97016
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 23/97
MARIANNA GARDENS LIMITED
PART OF LOT 18, CONCESSION 2
(EAST OF BROCK ROAD, SOUTH OF SOUTHCOTT ROAD)
1. Geoff McKnight, Planner I, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined
in Information Report #27/97.
2. Bob McCully, representing the applicant, stated that he was present to answer any
concerns of the area residents.
3. Lees Strongman, 2293 Abbott Crescent, stated that he wants to maintain the
integrity of the community and asked that the area residents be given the same
consideration as those on Banting Court. He stated that the safety of the children
will be compromised because there is only one entrance to this community and
therefore construction traffic and additional traffic from the new houses will have
to pass the school and park.
4. Cecil Gerrard, 2295 Abbott Crescent, stated that a traffic study should be
undertaken to determine the problems that will be generated by building 60 new
houses in this community. There should be an alternate access for construction
traffic so that Southcott Road does not have to be used for this. A service impact
study should be undertaken to ensure that area services will be not impacted by
this development. He noted that animals such as deer will be affected by this
development and trees will have to be destroyed. He noted that the existing
subdivision is now complete but noise from construction traffic will start again if
this development is approved. He noted that the lot sizes are a concern.
2
5. Dan Burger, 2330 Canterbury Lane, stated that the subject lands have natural
grasses and other vegetation that will be destroyed by construction.
6. Al Urbas, 1710 Maple Hill Court, noted that there is only one access to the
existing subdivision and asked if an alternate access for construction traffic will be
considered.
7. Jim O'Neil,2297 Abbott Crescent, stated that the lots in the proposed
development should be in character with the existing lots. He noted that added
traffic is a concern.
8. Josie Caporusso, 2329 Southcott Road, stated that she is concerned about the
safety of children as a result of traffic passing by the school. A separate access
must be considered for construction traffic and there should be less lots in the
proposed development.
9. Mark Reffle, 2334 Canterbury Crescent, stated that the proposed lots should be
the same size as the existing lots. The existing subdivision has been under
construction for three years but this is now over, however, if this development is
approved, the construction noise will start up again. Access for construction
traffic should be from Brock Road.
10. Everton Milton, 2300 Abbott Crescent, stated that Buckingham Gate is a
neighbourhood and the integrity of the neighbourhood must be.maintained and the
proposed development must be in character with the existing neighbourhood.
11. Pat Tamburri, 1711 Maple Hill Court, asked why an access from Brock Road
cannot be built because the owner of the subject lands also owns property at Brock
Road. She was not notified about the townhouse development on the west side of
Brock Road and asked that the character of the existing development be
maintained.
12. John Corallo, 2331 Canterbury Crescent, asked why the application for land
severance was tabled by the Regional Works Committee.
•
13. Graham Fowlds, 1727 Hadrian Court, stated that he has lived in Pickering for 10
years and two years in Buckingham Gate. He thanked Councillor Johnson for his
work in closing the Brock West Landfill Site and noted that property values will be
compromised if higher density is allowed on the subject lands.
14. William Chiu, 2304 Abbott Crescent, stated that the hill on Concession 3 Road is
steep and asked how non-area traffic could be controlled if an alternate road was
constructed. He felt that an access road should be construction only on a
temporary basis to serve construction traffic.
15. A resident of 2355 Southcott Road stated that there is already a lot of traffic in the
area of the school and further construction traffic will cause a safety problem for
the children.
16. Cecil Gerrard, 2295 Abbott Crescent, asked if there will be more park area in the
subject lands. He noted that there is an emergency gate at the school to allow
vehicles onto Brock Road but the Police did not have the keys for this gate. He
stated that an alternate access is necessary but it must be temporary.
1
•
3
17. Ray King, 2330 Southcott Road, asked why less houses are not planned in order
to reduce future traffic and noted that construction traffic will cause vibrations as it
passes his house.
18. Alan Hughes, 2398 Southcott Road, noted that the existing development has lot
frontages ranging from 45 to 65 feet but the proposed development has much
smaller lots. •
19. Marne Chiu, 2304 Abbott Crescent, stated that the issue of density in the subject
lands is based on profit. Smaller lots will devalue the existing lots and people in
this development may not care for their lands as well as people in the existing
neighbourhood.
20. Bill Chambers, 2293 Abbott Crescent, stated that he wants to maintain the
integrity of the existing neighbourhood and that the subject lands should be access
only from Brock Road.
21. Frank Storto, 2336 Southcott Road, noted that people in the existing development
bought their property because of the large lots and they take care of their land. He
stated that construction traffic does cause a safety concern.
22. Chris Ballard, 2333 Southcott Road, stated that more traffic will be generated
from the proposed development and the aesthetics of the neighbourhood will be
compromised.
23. •Wayne Taggart, 2307 Abbott Crescent, stated that he used to live in the west end
of Pickering where a medium density development was allowed and noted that
traffic and parking became a problem.
24. Robert Scott, 2306 Abbott Crescent, stated that he would not have bought in this
neighbourhood if he knew that higher density was allowed.
25. Bob McCully, representing the applicant, stated that with respect to the
environmental concerns, the subject lands have been designated for low density
development and a vegetation study is required. There are constraints that make
an access from Brock Road difficult but this will be reviewed. With respect to lot
sizes, the plan is within what the Town allows but he will review the lot sizes.
With respect to the timing of construction, he agreed that the timing was bad but
that there are different owners who have different development agendas. He noted
that Rossland Road will be reconstructed in the future and this should lower the
steepness of the hill. He stated that he will not have a streetscape that has
prominent garages.
26. Lynda Taylor,,Manager, Current Operations Division, listed the concerns that
were stated by the area residents and noted that these concerns will be addressed
by the Planning staff.
(II) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 21/97
L. FIRMAN AND M. TESCHNER
SOUTH PART OF LOT 22, CONCESSION 2
(EAST SIDE OF LIVERPOOL ROAD, NORTH OF LINWOOD STREET)
1. Lynda Taylor, Manager, Current Operations Division, provided an explanation of
the application, as outlined in Information Report #28/97.
4
2. Mike Teschner, the applicant, stated that the lot sizes in the proposed application
are in character with the surrounding neighbourhood and will have no impact on
existing houses.
3. John Anagnostou, 1367 Bridle Path Circle, stated that he opposes this application
because there is no way to develop the lands to the rear. He asked how the
applicant will gain access to his house if his property is landlocked.
4. Elaine Cash, 2082 Liverpool Road, stated that she was a member of a Task Force
to deal with traffic on Liverpool Road and she is concerned about traffic on
Liverpool Road which is already clogged. She stated that the proposed lots should
have frontages of 45 to 55 feet in order to be in character with the lots across the
street. She noted that if all of the applicants lands were development, the subject
lands could be configured differently.
5. Mike Teschner, the applicant, stated that the lots in this application are in character
with the existing neighbourhood and could not be configured to back onto
Liverpool Road.
6. Lee Alice Firman, the applicant, stated that she will be trying to gain access to her
property through Cottonwood Circle and noted that the balance of her property
will be developed through a plan of subdivision.
(III) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 3/94 (REVISED)
F. CAMPITELLI, TRUSTEE
PART OF LOT 20, CONCESSION 1
(NORTHEAST CORNER OF VALLEY FARM RD & PICKERING PKWY)
1. Lynda Taylor, Manager, Current Operations Division, provided an explanation of
the application, as outlined in Information Report #29/97.
2. Michael Reiss, representing the applicant, stated that he was present to answer any
questions or concerns.
3. David Wylie, 1525 Diefenbaker Court, asked if the proposed apartment building
could be located at the south end of the property. He further asked if there is
sufficient parking for visitors and for garbage removal.
4. Mrs. Panko, 1525 Diefenbaker Court, was concerned that the north end of the
subject developments is owned by someone other than the applicant but is shown
as part of the plan.
5. Michael Reiss, representing the applicant, stated that there is no time frame on the
construction of the apartment building. Parking has been accommodated,
however, visitor parking will be given further study. The north end of the property
is owned by Citibank and he is negotiating to acquire these lands.
(IV) ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Dated 4)0UErnia Fi /s9 7 Clerk
•