Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 16, 1998 STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES A Statutory Public Information Meeting was held on Thursday, April 16, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. PRESENT: Councillor M. Brenner- Chair Councillor D. Dickerson Councillor D. Pickles Councillor D. Ryan ALSO PRESENT: B. Taylor - Town Clerk L. Taylor - Manager, Current Operations Division V. Rodrigues - Senior Planner 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 8/98 SHRONE VIEW HOLDINGS INC. BLOCKS 16 TO 19, PLAN 40M-1887 (EAST SIDE OF CLEARSIDE COURT,WEST OF BROCK ROAD) 1. Lynda Taylor, Manager, Current Operations Division, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report#11/98. 2. Tanya Roman, representing the applicant, stated that she was present to answer any questions. 3. Lynda Taylor, Manager, Current Operations Division, stated that this application will be returned to Council as soon as possible in order for construction to be completed so that area residents will not be inconvenienced. (II) DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 18T-98002 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 7/98 VALLEYTRAIL DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED PART OF LOT 21, CONCESSION 2 (NORTHWEST CORNER OF FINCH AVE. AND VALLEY FARM ROAD 1. Valerie Rodrigues, Senior Planner, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report#14/98. 2. Ted Cieciura, representing the applicant, stated that he was present to answer any questions. • - - 2 - - 3. Larraine Clarke, 1470 Finch Avenue, stated that she abuts the subject lands to the west and has objected to development proposals for these lands in the past. She noted that there will be ten houses backing against her property and that her lands are lower than the subject land by about three feet. She does not want 368 feet of wood fencing along her property line and noted that there will be no sunlight at the front and side of her property. She is concerned about tree preservation and drainage. Her property will be devalued because there is nothing positive about this development that would add or maintain value to her property. She expressed a concern about the quality of the houses to be built on the subject lands. 4. Cameron Linton, 1525 Fieldlight Boulevard, stated that there are no sidewalks on the west side of Valley Farm Road, fencing along the west wise of Valley Farm Road will create a wall and Finch Avenue should be widened. 5. Lynn Brown, 2027 Valley Farm Road, stated that she agrees with all the comments made by Larraine Clarke. She is concerned that this development will affect her well. There is already a traffic problem in this area and this development will only add to that problem. Lights from cars leaving this development will shine in her house and the proposed houses will not be in character with the existing neighbourhood. 6. M.A. Miller, 1966 Valley Farm Road, stated that the odour coming from the York/Durham sewage system is foul and will create a nuisance for the proposed residents. He noted that the proposed lots are not laid out well. 7. Dave Hamilton, 1964 Valley Farm Road, stated that he is concerned about the amount of traffic being created by this development. 8. Ted Cieciura, representing the applicant, noted that there is already an approved plan that would permit 28 townhouses. Many of the concerns noted have been addressed by either the Region or the Town's Department of Public Works. There is land for the widening of Finch Avenue and sidewalk are planned. The issue of drainage will be addressed and this • development will be more in character with the existing neighbourhood than a townhouse development. 9. Lynda Taylor, Manager, Current Operations Division, summarized the concerns noted by the residents. 10. Larraine Clarke, 1470 Finch Avenue, stated that she would like to see a working committee established comprised of representatives from the Town, developer and residents and asked for a guarantee that her land will be devalued by this development. 11. Mike Cornthwaite, 2011 Valley Farm Road, read a letter that was written in 1991 from the Mayor stating that the number of units on the subject land would not increase from 28. He has submitted a letter to the Planning Department indicating that trees should be preserved, a sidewalk and fences be installed, and a right-turn lane constructed for southbound vehicles on Valley Farm Road at Finch Avenue. He wants to participate in any working group that is established. - - 3 - - (III) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 4/98 ROSE STROUD, ET AL & CO., BOSS CATTLE CO. LTD. NORTH PART OF LOT 29, RANGE 3, B.F.C. (NORTHWEST CORNER OF KINGSTON ROAD AND STEEPLE HILL) 1. Valerie Rodrigues, Senior Planner, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report#13/98. 2. Ronald Richards, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the Centrefund Corporation and their background in the shopping centre market. This application conforms to the Official Plan and will only be a neighbourhood grocery store and not a large regional shopping centre. The plaza will be architecturally pleasing and the site plan will be developed in such a manner to minimize the impact of the development. He will be funding the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Kingston Road and Steeple Hill. 3. Ron Gergley, representing the Steeple Hill Ratepayers Association, stated that this developer and the developer of land adjacent to Payless have not been cooperative with the residents. He is concerned about the proposed Building "D" which is a drive-through both in terms of traffic and the use of the building. Traffic is already bad on Steeple Hill by Payless and this development will only make matters worse. The driveway for this development is lined up with the driveway from Payless and this will cause traffic problems. His group wants to work with the developer and have input into any development on this property. 4. Sylvia Spencer, 771 Sheppard Avenue, noted that 50% housing and 50% retail uses was approved for the Northeast Quadrant and asked if the same was approved for these lands. The entrances and exits next to the school is poor. Building "D", being the drive-through, will attract rats and could cause noise if it is used as a bar or other similar use. Parking of cars next to Kingston Road is not aesthetically pleasing and the buildings should be brought forward. 5. John Bukalo, 558 Rainy Day Drive, stated that this development will increase the traffic on Steeple Hill which will create hazards for children. He noted that two schools back onto this development and children will be encouraged to loiter at this plaza. He asked what type of stores will be going into this plaza and noted that the driveway leading in from Kingston Road is poor. • 6. A resident of 570 Steeple Hill stated that he cannot see how a traffic signal at Kingston Road and Steeple Hill will help traffic movement. He noted that more plazas will create more traffic. He asked how much of an impact the residents will have if a working group is created. He noted that this plaza will not be aesthetically pleasing. 7. Dave Kraehlina, 534 Lightfoot Place, stated that this development will cause problems to the 275 homes in the adjacent neighbourhood. He is concerned about the driveway in this development lining up with the driveway from Payless. There is already construction underway next to Payless and that added to the construction of this plaza will create a mess. There will be a loitering problem with children from the adjacent schools. There is a major traffic problem on Fridays and Saturdays on Kingston Road as a result of the National Sports store and noted that a traffic signal at Kingston Road and Steeple Hill is imperative. He stated that there are already enough plazas in the area. • - - 4 - - 8. Dieter Smythe, 584 Rainy Day Drive, stated that his house will overlook the parking lot of this development. This proposal does not improve the Highway #2 corridor and the concerns of the community with respect to traffic and safety have not been addressed. Building "D" that has a drive-through is not appropriate in the location shown. There is already an abundance of vacant retail space along Kingston Road. The Kingston Road corridor is not aesthetically pleasing because of the number of parking lots, donut shops and gas stations. He noted that there will be a loitering problem because of the proximity of the schools. The condition of the Payless property and this property is deplorable and the development of this plaza will have an impact on the value of the houses in the area. The subject lands are currently zoned for residential development and that zoning should remain. 9. Sonia Pon, 567 Rainy Day Drive, stated that this development will have a negative impact on the neighbourhood and there are already enough strip plazas in the area. 10. Robin Ayers-Mooney, 547 Lightfoot Place, stated that traffic Kingston Road is already very heavy and traffic on Edmund Drive is heavy and they tend to speed. She was concerned that the two exits from this proposed development are on a curve and will line up with the driveway from Payless. This development will devalue the area houses and the residents must have an opportunity to work with the developer. She stated that there should be a traffic signal at Kingston Road and Steeple Hill. 11. Tom Rapos, 580 Rainy Day Drive, noted that his house will overlook the parking lot of this development. The trucks entering this development to service the grocery store will be noisy as will the drive-through building. 12. Greg Fernandes, 582 Rainy Day Drive, stated that he wants an appropriate plan to establish housing on the subject lands that will be in character with the existing neighbourhood. The two entrances from Steeple Hill makes no sense and will cause chaotic traffic conditions. His house will overlook the parking lot of this development and he hopes that if this is approved that there will be trees planted at the west end of the subject property. He also hopes that there will be fencing that is high enough to keep children out of his property. He noted that he opposes this application. 13. Alicia Johnson, 586 Rainy Day Drive, stated that she opposes this application. 14. Mr. Glazier stated that traffic in the area will double as a result of this development. 15. Bill Broad, 572 Rainy Day Drive, stated that he is concerned about the safety of children who will have to walk through this development to get to school. This development will not be in character with the existing neighbourhood and trucks servicing the stores will be noisy. 16. Christa Tel, 568 Cattail Court, stated that she was concerned about loitering at this development and how this may create break-ins throughout the area. 17. Ron Gergley, representing the Steeple Hill Ratepayers Association, stated that he wants to form a working committee with the developer, Town and residents but stressed that the formation of this committee is not an endorsement of this application. - - 5 - - 18. Debbie Austin, Sundown Crescent, stated that she is concerned about garbage that will be created from this development and noted that there is much loose garbage generated from Payless. 19. Debbie Booth stated that this plaza will cause a problem with loitering. 20. Sandra Loder, 564 Rainy Day Drive, stated that she opposes this application and felt that the subject lands should be developed for residential uses only. There is already enough retail and fast food stores in the area. 21. Sylvia Spencer, 771 Sheppard Avenue, asked if the proposed grocery store will be open 24 hours each day. 22. Ronald Richards, representing the applicant, stated that the site plan has not yet been finalized and he will include the residents in a working group. His company has a good track record on property management and he noted that they manage the plaza at the southeast corner of Whites Road and Kingston Road. 23. Councillor Brenner stated that he is concerned about commercial development along Kingston Road. The subject lands are a high profile area and therefore a special site plan must be developed. He asked if the access the present Quonset hut will be an additional access and he asked staff to contact the Principals of Woodlands Elementary School and Dunbarton Secondary School for their comments. 24. Greg Fernandes, 582 Rainy Day Drive, asked who the tenant will be in Building"D". (IV) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 6/98 LAFONTAINE LODGE LIMITED PART OF LOT 20, CONCESSION 1 (VILLAGE RETIREMENT CENTRE - 1955 VALLEY FARM ROAD) 1. Lynda Taylor, Manager, Current Operations Division, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report#12/98. 2. Martin Rendl, representing the applicant, stated that this application is for a 200 unit retirement home where none of the units will have complete kitchens. He displayed detailed drawings of the proposed development and noted that no additional vehicles are expected to service this site. 3. Vern Mason, 1939 Glenview Road, stated that the existing building is in character with the neighbourhood but a six storey building would not be in character. He further stated that parking on the subject property is not sufficient. 4. Lisa Anagnostakos, 1492 Fieldlight Boulevard, stated that the proposed six storey building is not in character with the existing neighbourhood and she is concerned about increased traffic and its impact on children. 5. Mrs. Ruberry, 1970 Valley Farm Road, stated that traffic from the proposed development will create a safety problem. She noted that the existing retirement home has not resolved some of their problems. • - - 6 - - 6. Dave Hamilton, 1964 Valley Farm Road, stated that he is concerned about increased traffic and its impact on the safety of children and the environment. He is concerned that this proposal will have a large impact on the street and may devalue the existing houses. He would support the development of single detached houses on the subject lands. 7. Paul Brewer, 1535 Fieldlight Boulevard, stated that he resents the conceptual drawings that were displayed by Martin Rendl because they are misleading. The proposed 250 people who will live in this development, along with visitors, will create too much traffic on the weekends. The 37 parking spaces are not sufficient and people will park on the street. A six storey building is not in character with the existing neighbourhood and no Y g g g new structure should be any higher than the current retirement home. He asked how 20 staff persons could serve 250 residents in the event of an emergency. The coverage on the property should meet the current zoning provisions and there must be a tree preservation plan. 8. Cameron Linton, 1525 Fieldlight Boulevard, stated that he is a Block Captain for the Neighbourhood Watch and is grateful for the cooperation of the applicant. He does not oppose a second retirement home in principle but he wants the applicant to be a good neighbour. A six storey building is not in character with the existing neighbourhood and a two or three storey building would be more appropriate. The proposed plan does not take advantage of the drop of land at the east end of the property and it does not conform to the Official Plan. The building size could be reduced if the room rents were increased. The existing retirement home is not well kept and there is a lot of loose garbage generated from it. He noted that a retirement home could be part of the Neighbourhood Watch. He further noted that there have been a lot of contradictions about tree preservation and he asked if a wrought iron fence will be installed as promised. The Open House held by the developer was good but they should have involved the residents at an earlier stage. There may not be enough parking spaces and traffic will be generating from programs held at the retirement home. He wants to be involved in any working group that is formed. 9. Colin Adams, 1976 Valley Farm Road, stated that he lives opposite the entrance into the existing retirement home. He stated that the conceptual drawings of the proposed development are misleading and he is concerned about increased traffic and noise created by that traffic. He also belongs to the Neighbourhood Watch and in talking to the neighbours, they feel that the proposed building is not in character. 10. Sylvia Spencer, 771 Sheppard Avenue, asked if this application is subject to shadow studies since it proposes to provide in excess of 100 units. 11. Colin Adams, 1976 Valley Farm Road, stated that he was told that there are 400 people residing at the existing retirement home and is opposed to this application as presented. 12. Glad Sang, 1923 Valley Farm Road, stated that the proposed building should be in character with the existing neighbourhood. He asked if a parking lot will be established on the greenbelt at the south end of the property and where the garbage bin will be located. A two storey building would be appropriate and the trees along Valley Farm Road must be preserved. He asked what actions will be taken to curtail construction noise and dust. A six storey building would devalue his property. - - 7 - - 13. Marjorie Sang, 1923 Valley Farm Road, asked if the greenbelt at the south end of the property will be preserved if this application is approved. She further asked if any activities will take place in the greenbelt and what kind of security will be provided during and after construction. 14. Montagne Miller, 1966 Valley Farm Road, stated that he is concerned about increased traffic and noted that the parking lot at the existing retirement home is always full. He noted that 200 units can be occupied by 400 people and that this development will set a precedent for other development along the street. He would not object to a bungalow type of development. 15. Colin Adams, 1976 Valley Farm Road, noted that there are only 19 parking spaces to serve up to 400 people. 16. Martin Rendl, representing the applicant, stated that this application does conform to the Official Plan. The parking for the existing and proposed development is in conformity with the Town's standards and will exceed it with some underground parking. Nursing homes are highly regulated to deal with emergencies. The site plan agreement will ensure that the greenbelt at the south end of the property will be protected. He noted that this is a Seniors residence and not low income housing and that what is approved cannot be added to. Traffic generated from this development will be less that that generated from a family building and no new driveway entrance will be added. The intention is to preserve trees, however, this will be addressed in the site plan. 17. Lynda Taylor, Manager, Current Operations Division, stated that it is noted in the Information Report that the Official Plan allows community uses to be considered and that is what is being done through this application. 18. Paul Brewer, 1535 Fieldlight Boulevard, asked if the entire property, including the existing retirement home, is being rezoned and if so, can the existing building be six storeys. (V) ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Dated I° , 19 rS' Clerk •