Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/27/1992 STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES W' A Statutory Public Information Meeting pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act was held by the Pickering Town Council on Monday, January 27, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: M. Brenner, Acting Mayor COUNCILLORS: E. Hi gdon R. Johnson E. Pi stri tto K. Van Kempen D. Wellman ABSENT: Mayor Arthurs (on municipal business) ....... ALSO PRESENT: N.C. Marshall B. Taylor N. Carroll T. Melymuk C. Rose L. Taylor J. Schultz B. Avery - Town Manager - Town Clerk - Director of Planning - Deputy Director of Planning - Manager, Policy Division - Manager, Current Operations Division - Planner - Planner (I) OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION 89-106/D/P ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 42/89 836930 ONTARIO INC. EAST SIDE OF WHITES ROAD, NORTH OF FINCH AVENUE 1. An explanation of the application, as outlined in Informati on Report #3/92, was gi ven by Jeanette Schul tz, Planner. '-' 2. John Mueller, 694 Amaretto Avenue, stated that he was of the impression that the subject lands were made available to the Town for a bi rd sanctuary. He fe1 t that there was too much residential development and not enough industrial and commercial development. 3. Annie Burtney, 2003 Benedictine Court, representing the Whites Grove Community Association, stated that she has sent letters of comment and concern to the Town about this development but has not received any response. The development is too dense and too isolated for seniors. She stated that she was of the impressi on that there was a building freeze on developments adjacent to hydro rights-of-way until a report on the effects of electro-magnetic fields is returned. 4. Rick Gibson, 1981 Spruce Hill Road, stated that he is concerned about the amount of runoff from thi s development and if this runoff would pollute the stream at the rear of his property. He stated that the commercial block in draft plan of subdivision 18T-89094 will not be viable, the density of this development will cause surrounding properties to be devalued and there is no mention of environmental planning. ......, - - 2 - - 5. Gail LeBar, 630 Cognac Crescent, stated that the proposed deve 1 opment is too dense for the si ze of the property and is not well planned. ..... 6. Fred Beer, representing the Pickering Rural Association, stated that this property is beyond the traditional urban area and reminded Council that his Association is appealing the new Official Plan. 7. Loreen Morris, 1943A Parkside Drive, inquired into the density of the proposed development. She asked if there is a policy on development close to hydro rights-of-way and asked how far the subject lands were from the railway tracks. She stated that this proposal is a poor location for seniors. ~ 9. 8. Terry Chadwi ck, 670 Amaretto Avenue, stated that there is very little parkland or play area considering that the parkland in the proposed development will be used by res i dents in Whites Grove. No cons i derati on of resources such as schools has been given in this plan. Selwyn Rouse, 1903 Parkside Drive, stated that the proposed development is too close to the railway track for seniors. 10. Ted Cicuera, representing the applicant, stated that the subject lands are privately held and the proposed plan of development is only schematic. (II) DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 18T-89094 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 44/89 836930 ONTARIO INC. NORTHEAST CORNER OF WHITES ROAD AND FINCH AVENUE 1. An explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #1/92, was given by Jeanette Schultz, Planner. 2. Nancy Hancock, 680 Amaretto Avenue, stated that she is opposed to this development because it will mean that the Whites Grove subdivision will be flanked by townhouses. The proposed commercial block is unnecessary and more parkland and green space is needed in the area. She stated that the subject lands should be developed for housing but any high density should be constructed in the middle of the development. '-' 3. Bruce Foxton, 1997 Spruce Hill Road, stated that there are many accidents at the intersection of Finch Avenue and Spruce Hi 11 Road and additi ona 1 roads from the proposed development will provide for more accidents. The houses backing onto Finch Avenue in the proposed development shoul d be set back because spri ngs are generated in thi s area. The commercial block is not needed and will only cause trees to be unnecessarily destroyed. Because of the size of the development, he felt that all notices of meetings should be given a wider circulation. 4. Frances Pereira, 1982 Spruce Hill Road, stated that she was not informed about thi s meeti ng and has not been gi ven enough information about this development from staff. ~ - - 3 - - 5. .... Peter Burgess, 873 Darwin Drive, concerned about the access onto Finch Dri ve wi 11 become the mai n access to too much traffic will pass his house. 6. Jim MacIntosh, 776 Aspen Road, stated that he is opposed to this development because the density is too great, the school s are now overcro~/ded and chi 1 dren wi 11 have to be bussed to school. Neither Finch Avenue or Whites Road have been upgraded and the fire station at Dixie Road has not yet been built. He was concerned that this development wi 11 cause the property values of surroundi ng 1 ands to be devalued and was concerned that more people will be travelling over the level crossing on Whites Road which is dangerous. stated that he is Avenue because Darwin this development and 7. Sue Swan, 673 Amaretto Avenue, stated that she is opposed to the proposed development and noted that the access to this development from Whites Road will be opposite Amaretto Avenue which will cause traffic problems. 8. Loreen Morris, 1943A Parkside Drive, inquired into the present zoni ng of the subject 1 ands. She stated that if the park in the proposed development was closer to Whites Road and Finch Avenue, it could accommodate more people from the surrounding subdivisions. The walkway between thi s development and the proposed seni ors I development to the north is dangerous. She further i nqui red into the density of the proposed development and asked if the proposa 1 falls wi thi n the Provi nce I s gui de 1 i nes for affordable housing. She also asked if there are any waste reducing measures imposed on developers and builders. 'Wf 9. Nancy Hancock, 680 Amaretto Avenue, asked why the applicant wouldn't propose a realistically planned development instead of proposing a high density development that will be used for negotiating purposes. 10. Selwyn Rouse, 1903 Parkside Drive, stated that he wrote a letter of concern about this development and got a response from the Pl annina c;taff _ Thp 1 ;:lnric: nnY'th nf (:'; nt'h Ii\lanlla STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES A Statutory Public Information Meeting pursuant to Section 34 of the Pl anni ng Act was he1 d by the Pi ckeri ng Town Counci 1 on Monday, April 27, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Acting Mayor Maurice Brenner COUNCILLORS: E. Higdon R. Johnson E. Pi stritto K. Van Kempen D. Wellman ABSENT: M~vor Arthurs (ill) - - 4 - - Kenneth Gordon, 1899 Parkside Drive, stated that the developer is only interested in making a profit and that the existing residents will have to pay for the services required by this development. 15. Rick Strong, 871 Darwin Drive, stated that the density of the proposed development is too hi gh and wi 11 cause heavy volumes of traffic on Darwin Drive because there are only two accesses to this development. 14. w 16. The owner of 874 Darwi n Dri ve stated that he is concerned about traffic on Darwin Drive. He further stated that a school is needed within the development and that the proposed park is too small. 17. ~ Annie Burtney, representing the Whites Grove Community Association, stated that she is not getting any information from the Town about thi s development and therefore thi s meeti ng is not useful. The subject 1 ands shou1 d be designated as a special policy area under the Rouge/Duffins Corridor of the Ministry of Natural Resources. The density of the development is too high, a school site should be designated and she questioned where the entrances to the commercial block will be located. Her Association wants a mirror image of existing housing and stated that the townhouse block should be located in the middle of the development. She noted that all new development north of Strouds Lane has townhouses and fe1 t that peop1 e shou1 d know what is being developed in the future. She asked what type of housi ng wi 11 be bui 1 tin the proposed development and noted that there is an historical building on the subject lands that should be designated and considered for use as a community centre. The parks shou1 d be joi ned by a bicycle path. She inquired into the status of the storm basin at the northwest corner of Whites Road and Finch Avenue. 18. Rick Strong, 871 Darwin Drive, stated that this development is incompatible with existing housing in the area. 19. Diane Miller, 700 Amaretto Avenue, stated that she is opposed to thi s development and fe1 t most area resi dents are also opposed. ...... Selwyn Rouse, 1903 Parkside Drive, stated that Council should respond to the residents. comments so that they will know how Council feels about this development. 21. A resident of Amaretto Avenue asked who she could speak to to receive more information about this development. 20. 22. Terry Chadwick, 670 Amaretto Avenue, stated that the Town shou1 d consi der purchasi ng the subject 1 ands and provi de a park within the Whites Grove subdivision. 23. Jeanette Shultz, Planner, stated that many of the issues raised by the residents are contained in the Information Report and that they could meet with her or she could set a meeting up with the developer to provide the residents with more information. .... 24. W' ~ - - 5 - - Ted Ci cuera, Desi gn Pl an Servi ces, representi ng the applicant, stated that he will meet with the area residents to di scuss thi s proposeci development further. He further stated that the submitted plan is an attempt to comply with the Official Plan. If there is a school site within the proposed development, is would be about two hectares in size and noted that the Durham Board of Education originally stated that it did not want a school in this development. He hopes that in the long run a plan can be developed that will be satisfactory to the residents. The Department of Community Services and Facilities want a park in this development that is at least two hectares in size. He has attempted to match the density in the development to existing housing. He stated that 70% of the units in the proposed development are singles and 30% are affordable townhouses and noted that the Province has al ready indicated that this plan reflects their policies on affordable housing. All services within the subdivision are put in by the developer and the developer pays lot 1 evi es to pay for off-si te services and improvements. The existing house on the subject lands is located within the proposed park. The storm water runoff will be governed by the MTRCA, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Town and further studies are being undertaken on this matter. There are three accesses to this development and the Region of Durham is in control of where these accesses will be. When Finch Avenue and other surrounding roads are improved, the traffic will be much safer. (III) OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION 91-034/P ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 8/91 PICKERING HOLDINGS INC. SOUTH SIDE OF KINGSTON ROAD, EAST OF WHITES ROAD 1. 2. ...... An explanation of the Information Report #4/92, Planner. as outlined in by Brendon Avery, application, was given Rick Gay, representing the applicant, stated that he has worked closely with the Planning staff over the last couple of years on thi s app1 i cati on and stated that the Information Report is an accurate reflection of the issues. (IV) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 13/91 ANDY BANDURCHIN ESTATE EAST SIDE OF LIVERPOOL ROAD, NORTH OF GLENANNA ROAD 1. An explanation of Information Report Planner. as outlined in by Adrian Smith, the #2/92, application, was given 2. Ray Landry, 1945 Fay1ee Crescent, stated that this development should include a walkway that would lead to li verpoo1 Road because it wou1 d be conveni ent for school chi 1 dren and wi 11 allow Consumers Gas to bri ng a gas 1 i ne to the existing subdivision. There should only be five lots of 14 metres frontage instead of six lots with 12 metres frontage. All mature trees shoul d be preserved and there shoul d be no exemption from the subdi vi si on approval stage. Valerie Selby, 1926 Liverpool Road, stated that all mature trees must be saved. -- 3. - - 6 - - 4. Gordon Tomkins, 1942 Faylee Crescent, stated that a walkway should be provided in the proposed development for the convenience of pedestrians and to provide gas to the existing houses on Faylee Crescent. 5. David Bass, RDG Consulting Services, representing the applicant, stated that the proposed lots with a twelve metre frontage are 1 arger than the lots to the south and less that the lots to the north. On-street parking is a Town problem and the development of this property will add to existing property values. Storm water studies will be undertaken. This development is infill and to develop it by land severance will be adequate because he will still be required to enter into a development agreement. He is not aware if gas can be provided to the existing houses without the walkway but stated that a walkway does encourage vandalism and may encourage children to run out onto Liverpool Road. He further stated that all mature trees will be saved. ..... '-'. (III) ADJOURNMENT OF STATUTORY PUBLIC MEETING The meeting adjourned at the hour of 9:35 p.m. ~~ Mayor Dated February 3rd 1992 '-- -- --