Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 21, 1998 STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES A Statutory Public Information Meeting was held on Thursday, May 21, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. PRESENT: Councillor M. Brenner Councillor D. Dickerson- Chair Councillor Holland Councillor D. Ryan ALSO PRESENT: B. Taylor - Town Clerk C. Rose - Manager, Policy Division L. Taylor - Manager, Current Operations Division J. Cole - Planner 2 A. Smith - Planner 2 G. McKnight - Planner 1 J. Alderdice -Economic Development 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 18/97 (REVISED)) ROYAL HOLDINGS CANADA LTD. PART OF LOT 33,RANGE 3 B.F.C. (NORTHWEST CORNER OF KINGSTON ROAD AND ALTONA ROAD) 1. Lynda Taylor, Manager, Current Operations Division, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report#17/98. 2. Rose Marie Humphries, representing the applicant, stated that she has met with the residents and staff since the last Statutory Public Information Meeting held in September of 1997 pertaining to this property. The plan has been revised by using the town-owned lands for the development of a single detached dwelling to act as a buffer. The visitor parking has been moved to the interior of the site so that it will not be accessible to the commercial block but will remain accessible to the residential component. The setback from the top of the bank from Kingston Road has been increased and the configuration of the townhouses has been altered. The total unit count has decreased from 40 to 38 units. The concerns of the residents that were expressed last September were reviewed and the plan was revised to accommodate these concerns. The apartment block has been removed and now there are only three and three and one-half storey townhouses. The density has been changed from 88 units to 38 units and the pedestrian access to Fawndale Road is being proposed to be a single detached dwelling. More parking has been provided for the commercial block and an architect has been retained to ensure that the development will be aesthetically pleasing. - -2 - - 3. Ann White, representing the Rouge Valley Community Association, noted that the shape and scope of this application has changed over the year after many meetings with staff and the developer. This latest proposal complies with the residents' requests and the development is fitting as Pickering's gateway. She hoped that this plan would be approved and constructed quickly before any further changes were made and asked that her Association have input into the site plan. 4. Paul Crawford, representing his parents at 1002 Riverview Crescent and the residents of 1004 Riverview Crescent, stated that the proposed playground on the subject lands be moved southward so that it will not be disruptive to abutting residents. 5. Rose Marie Humphries, representing the applicant, stated that she prefers to leave the playground where it is presently located because it is central to all the units but she will study this matter further. She noted that the playground will be passive in nature and a single detached dwelling located in that area would not be in character with the townhouse development. 6. Chris Wood, 1014 Riverview Crescent, asked if a single detached dwelling would be constructed on the town-owned lands and who would build it. He further inquired into the side yard setbacks of the townhouses and about the size of the proposed lot for the single detached dwelling. (II) DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 18T-89117(REVISED) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 59/89(REVISED) ESTATE OF L. KNOWLES, ET AL PART OF LOT 33, RANGE 3 B.F.C. (WEST SIDE OF ALTONA ROAD, OPPOSITE ROUGEMOUNT DRIVE) 1. Jeff Cole, Planner 2, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report#18/98. 2. Kevin Tunney, representing the applicant, noted that the matter of the road pattern in this plan is currently before the Ontario Municipal Board. This development was first submitted for a draft plan of subdivision in 1989 and he is trying to comply with the concerns of the residents in this plan through the location of the roads. This draft plan keeps the lots in character with the existing neighbourhood and the density is only about half that allowed in the Official Plan. The lot yield may need to be higher if the road pattern is changed. • 3. Craig Marshall, the applicant, stated that he is willing to meet with the area residents and gave his telephone number where he can be reached. 4. Debbie Booth, 1235 Fawndale Road, stated that she is opposed to the road on the plan not going through to Altona Road. Valley Gate is the only access from Altona Road into this community and traffic near her house is tremendous. She is gathering a petition from residents in the area of Fawndale Road and Valley Gate who want a second access onto Altona Road. - - 3 - - 5. Peter Klym, 1484 Altona Road, stated that Fawndale Road should connect with Richardson Street so that future development to the north of Richardson Street would have alternative exits. He noted that the Town provided for a block at the end of Richardson Street to provide for this connection. 6. Sandra Spencer, 1233 Fawndale Road,asked how the matter of the road pattern could be before the Ontario Municipal Board with no one in the neighbourhood knowing about it and only one person appealing it. 7. Eileen Sokol, 1460 Altona Road, stated that her lands form part of the subject property. She has watched this community develop over the years and supports this development. 8. Karen Tremblay, 1239 Fawndale Road, stated that she has three small children and is concerned about traffic. A road connection from Littleford Lane to Altona Road would cut down on traffic at the south end of the community and she asked that a traffic study be undertaken as part of the subdivision process. 9. Lorraine Watkins, 259 Richardson Street, stated that she does not oppose this application but she wants assurances that the trees on the subject lands will be preserved. She noted that Richardson Street is already used by many children and if Fawndale Road is connected to Richardson Street, it will cause a safety problem. 10. Doug Turney, 1227 Fawndale Road, stated that the traffic on Fawndale Road is not acceptable but he and his neighbours have lived with it on the expectation that there would be another access from the community onto Altona Road. 11. Chris Ignadiou, 238 Hoover Drive, asked how the original plan was changed without the residents knowing about it. 12. Lorne Hewie, 1469 Altona Road, asked if it would be possible for Richardson Street instead of Littlefords Lane to be extended to Altona Road. 13. John Ross, 269 Stover Crescent, stated that he supports the original plan that provides for an•access to Altona Road from an extension of Littlefords Lane. 14. Kevin Tunney, representing the applicant, stated that one compromise is to extend Fawndale Road out through to Altona Road and this would appease the residents of Littlefords Lane and Richardson Street. 15. Jeff Cole, Planner 2, noted that Block 80 was acquired by the Town at the time Richardson Street was built to accommodate the extension of Fawndale Road. He explained how an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board is made and noted that the Department of Parks and Facilities requires a tree preservation plan. (III) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 13/98 GWILLIMBURY INVESTMENTS LIMITED PART OF LOT 25, CONCESSION 1 (1050 DUNBARTON ROAD, OPPOSITE DUNCHURCH STREET) 1. Geoff McKnight, Planner 1, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report#20/98. - - 4 - - 2. Bill Outred, representing the applicant, showed how the existing and proposed houses would be sited on the divided lands and showed proposed elevations. All the proposed houses will be historic reproductions in order to be in character with the existing neighbourhood. The Official Plan allows a higher density for development but he hopes this plan will be acceptable to the neighbours because it is in character with the existing neighbourhood. 3. Tom Mohr, representing the Pickering Historical Society, stated that he was invited to tour the Dunbar house and is pleased to see that the developer will be preserving it. • 4. Jeff Quinton, 1043 Dunbarton Road, stated that he objects to the carriage house being demolished. 5. Flo Skinner, 962 Rambleberry Avenue, asked what guarantees can be made to ensure that the trees at the north end of the subject lands will be preserved. 6. Anna Cunningham, 960 Rambleberry Avenue, stated that she wants all the trees on the subject lands preserved and that the height of the proposed houses do not exceed that of the Dunbar house. 7. Bill Lennox, 1055 Dunbarton Road, stated that the proposed houses are very large and are not in character with the existing neighbourhood. He noted that there is a lot of development in the area and that the entire property that the Dunbar house is located on should be preserved. 8. John Copland, 1727 Dunchurch Street, stated that the Dunbar .house will loose its character if the proposed new houses are built close to it. There is already a lot of traffic on Dunbarton Road and five more houses will only add to the traffic problem. For the past five years, there has been much construction in the area and this development will only prolong it. 9. Helen Copland, 1727 Dunchurch Street, stated that the development of the proposed plan is haphazard because the side porch of the Dunbar house must be removed and a garage in the front of a property is very poor. The development of this plan will remove the character of the village. 10. Boyd Penny, 1062 Dunbarton Road, stated that he would like to see the status quo kept but this plan is a reasonable compromise. He asked that the trees along his property line be preserved and noted that other trees on the subject lands may be damaged due to development. He asked that the developer put in a clause that he be given the first right of refusal for the most easterly property. 11. Lorne Moore, 1014 Dunbarton Road, stated that he is concerned about a public walkway through the wooded area due to break-ins, little and public safety. He noted that there has been much construction in the area. 12. John Sabean, representing Heritage Pickering, stated that he wished that the Town could have bought the Dunbar house but noted that all the members of Heritage Pickering have seen the house and are happy to see how the developer is preserving it. He noted that the carriage house could not realistically be preserved. - - 5 - - 13. Brian Webb, 1047 Dunbarton Road, noted that the Pickering Official Plan designates Dunbarton as an historic village. The proposed houses would not be in character with an historic village. 14. Sylvia Spencer, 771 Sheppard Avenue, stated that only one additional house should be built on the subject lands. 15. Rick Thom, 1723 Dunchurch Street, asked who was consulted in the neighbourhood with respect to this plan. The Dunbar house will loose its character by other houses built so close to it and therefore only one or two additional lots should be permitted. 16. Glen Shaw, 938 Dunbarton Road, stated that in terms of lot widths, 40 foot lots are not acceptable and therefore only two or three severances should be allowed. 17. Bill Outred, representing the applicant, stated that the proposed houses will be two and one-half stories in height which is the same height as the Dunbar house. A 3,300 square foot house is not large in comparison to the Dunbar house which is much larger. Although he realizes that the area residents want less lots created, he noted that other developers may have developed townhouses which is currently allowed. There will be little traffic impact from this development in comparison to a larger townhouse development and he noted that he is able to preserve the trees on the subject lands. 18. Geoff McKnight, Planner 1, stated that with respect to density, the Official Plan allows up to 30 units per hectare but the decision rests with Council on what density will be finally allowed. The proposed walkway will be at the top of the bank and therefore will not disturb the valley lands or create a public safety problem. (IV) DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 18T-98005 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 10/98 BRODER DEVCO INC. PART OF LOTS 127 AND 182, PLAN 350 (NORTH SIDE OF TOYNEVALE ROAD) 1. Jeff Cole, Planner 2, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report#16/98. 2. A representative of the applicant stated by acquiring the property to the east, he is able to provide a more comprehensive plan that will provide for no vacant lots. This plan should be in character with the existing neighbourhood and the road from the plan onto Toynevale Road will not abut any existing houses. This plan steps away from the open space area at the northeast end of the plan and he will be submitting a plan to preserve existing trees. 3. Dan Coughlan, 433 Toynevale Road, stated that his house is located in line with the proposed road in the plan and is concerned that vehicles leaving the subdivision will shine their lights into his house. It will be difficult to back his car out of the driveway with this road facing his driveway. Although he does not object to this application, he does not want to be inconvenienced by it. - - 6 - - 4. Steve Walker, 412 Toynevale Road, asked when concerns such as noise will be addressed and if a noise study will be undertaken. Toynevale Road is about eighteen inches higher than the subject lands and therefore drainage will have to be addressed because there fore no storm sewers. He asked if the proposed houses will be the same size as the existing houses and if parkland will be provided in the area. He asked how he could apply for traffic calming measures on Toynevale Road. 5. Mina Walker, 412 Toynevale Road, asked what will happen at the west end of Street`B"; will there be landscaping or other features to discourage people from driving or walking beyond it. She asked if the developer will be putting up privacy fences and if the trees will be preserved in order to buffer noise from Highway #401. She asked when construction will start, when it will end and what controls will be implemented during construction in order to control noise, dust, etc. She further asked if the development of this plan will affect her assessment. 6. Heather Little, 410 Toynevale Road, stated that she is concerned that this plan is too dense and is much denser than the previous plan for this property which provided for only nine lots. She inquired into tree preservation and fences and asked why there are different proposals for this property from time to time. 7. Les Salowski, 661 Rougemount Drive, stated that he does not object to this development but noted that there is a tree line that follows a drainage ditch at the north end of his lot and goes into the subject property and asked how this will impact on him. He asked how Street`B"will end because he does not want people to enter onto his property. 8. Michael Bridge, 659 Rougemount Drive, stated that the increase in lot coverage from 33% to 38% will create less land for children to play on and force them onto the road. The developer is not providing any parkland and no consideration is being given to where children will play. The increased lot coverage should not be allowed. (V) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 9/98 PUBLIC WORKS CANADA PART OF LOT 20, CONCESSION 8 (SOUTHEAST CORNER OF REGIONAL ROAD 5 AND SIDELINE 20) 1. Adrian Smith, Planner 2, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report#15/98. 2. Don Bennett,representing the applicant, stated that he wants to expedite a land exchange. (VI) OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION 98-002/P TOWN INITIATED PROPERTY MAINTENANCE AND OCCUPANCY CONTROL POLICIES 1. No persons interested in this application were present. - - 7 - - (VII) ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Dated 17,4 Y 4 9 g Clerk •