Loading...
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