Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 15, 1998 • STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES A Statutory Public Information Meeting was held on Thursday, January 15, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. • PRESENT: Councillor D. Dickerson- Chair Councillor M. Holland ALSO PRESENT: B. Taylor - Town Clerk L. Taylor - Manager, Current Operations Division 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 29/97 DIXIE WOODS ESTATES LIMITED LOTS 46 TO 54, PLAN 40M-1811 1. Lynda Taylor, Manager, Current Operations Division, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report#1/98. 2. Ralph Sutton, representing the Marshall Farms Community Association, stated that he circulated details of this application to all residents on Meadowlane Crescent and Timber Court. The concerns of the residents are that smaller lots will increase the population of the area and put pressure on area schools and add traffic to Dixie Road. He asked if improvements will be made to Dixie Road, north of maple Gate Road, and if the applicant will be back to apply for further density increases. 3. Don Mitchell, 1124 Timber Court, stated that he does not object to the application for four additional lots but is concerned that the developer may ask for higher density elsewhere in this subdivision. He noted that children will try to cut through the yards of houses on Timber Court and that traffic already heavy in the Maple Ridge area and this development will only add to that traffic problem. He asked for assurance that higher density will not be allowed in Lots 31 to 45 of Plan 40M-1811. 4. Mr. Dominic Conforti, representing the applicant, stated that he has already planted a large number of trees both on and off site to hide the Cherrywood Transformer Station from view. The developer will not be seeking higher density elsewhere in the subdivision because they have already sold many of the lots. The applicant builds a quality product and noted that he has other developments in Pickering. He noted that the four additional lots will allow the lots on Pine Glen Drive to line up with those lots on Gossamer Drive. • 2 5. Patricia Stephens, 1114 Timber Court, stated that changes have been made to this development in the past and asked if more changes will take place in the future. Some consideration should be given to requiring the developer to install privacy fences. (II) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 24/97 FINEWAY PROPERTIES LIMITED PART OF BLOCK B,PLAN M-11 (SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BAYLY ST. AND SANDY BEACH ROAD) 1. Lynda Taylor, Manager, Current Operations Division, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report#2/98. 2. Gary Fine, representing the applicant, stated that he wants to add more uses to the plaza because the current zoning provisions are too restrictive. The small restaurant being requested will not be a fast food outlet. (III) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 27/97 840119 ONTARIO LIMITED LOTS 28,29 AND 30, PLAN 492 (EAST SIDE OF GLENDALE DRIVE,NORTH OF BURGER KING) 1. Lynda Taylor, Manager, Current Operations Division, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report#3/98. 2. Fred Newman, 1820 Glendale Drive, asked why there is an application for 23 townhouse units when there was a similar application that was refused in the past. He was not aware that the lots on Glendale Drive provided for high density. This proposed development will create a lot of traffic on Glendale Drive and fire protection may be a problem. On- street parking may be a problem because there is not adequate visitor parking. 3. Ann DeSilva, 1832 Glendale Drive, stated that cars leaving this development will shine their lights in her bedroom and she felt that there was not adequate visitor parking. 4. Peter Panayotou, 1853-1855 Glendale Drive, stated that the subject lands have been vacant for years and it is now time for them to be developed. He asked for more information on what will be required along the north lot line and stated that a wall or decorative landscaping should be required along the north lot line to add privacy to his property and to enhance the streetscape. 5. Paul Morgan, 1877 Glendale Drive, stated that the subject lands should remain zoned to permit only single detached dwellings and the Town should not allow the demolition of houses that are still structurally good. Townhouses are a poor investment and the Town should not encourage their development. He asked why the previous application did not go forward. The proposed sloped driveways are not practical and there is not sufficient visitor parking. There will be a problem with snow removal because the interior roads are not wide enough. This development will add significantly to the traffic on Glendale Drive. There are management problems with condominiums and the owners will be transient which is not healthy for the neighbourhood. There is always a fire hazard when there is a common roof and there will be noise problems between the units. 3 6. Jim Baird, representing the applicant, stated that when the subject lands were purchased by Maple Lane Homes, there was a house on the property that was condemned and it was zoned to permit semis. Maple Lane Homes is an excellent builder and have other developments in the area. A one-way system is being proposed for the interior roads that will allow people to enter at the north and exit at the south. This development will be a buffer between the singles across the road and the commercial development to the east and south. He noted that this development is in conformity with the existing neighbourhood because there are townhouses to the east and south of the subject lands. There will be adequate landscaping to enclose the development and soften the height of the buildings. The traffic on Glendale Drive is caused mostly by other motorists looking for shortcuts. The density he is requesting is in conformity with the Official Plan. • (IV) ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Dated fiN v AV!' Z21 /�1 l t Clerk