Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/08/09 - lijl . I I T{I.~..-~".".. .... .~I~r ... ., --- _~JlIl~~ ( :( STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES A Statutory Public Information Meeting was held on Thursday, August 9, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. PRESENT: Councillor Brenner, Chair ALSO PRESENT: L. Taylor - Manager, Current Operations C. Rose - Manager, Policy Division R. Pym - Principal Planner A. Greentree - Supervisor, Legislative Services The Manager, Policy Division, provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration there at. (I) - 1. 2. (II) - 2. ZONING BY - LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 08/01 E. WILLIAMSON SOUTH PART OF LOT 32, CONCESSION 1 EAST SIDE OF AL TONA ROAD NORTH OF SHEPPARD AVE. Linda Taylor, Manager, Current Operations, on behalf of Tyler Barnett, Planner 1, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #23- 01. Kevin Tunney, representing the applicant, advised that they had inadvertently failed to recognize the existing house. Mr. Tunney also stated that the slope has been determined through working with the Conservation Authority and the plan has been modified as required. The rear set back has been adjusted to approximately 14m in depth. Lot frontages will be 53' except for the existing house, which is 100'. Driveways will be designed to enable a turnaround. DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION SP-2001-02 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 09/01 ROSEBANK GARDEN HOMES INC. ON BEHALF OF IRIS ELEANOR HOLMES PART OF LOT 31, CONCESSION 2 2030 ROSEBANK ROAD (WEST SIDE OF ROSEBANK ROAD, NORTH OF FINCH AVENUE) 1. R. Pym, Principal Planner, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #21-01. Amit Gupta, representing the applicant, stated that several studies have been conducted respecting this application and that he believes the plan conforms to the City's current and future plans. Mr. Gupta also advised that D. Fraser, Gartner Lee Limited, was also present to provide information if required. -- - - --2-- 3. Jocelyn Barber, 450 Finch Avenue, advised that she had submitted a letter, dated July 29, 2001, detailing her concerns. As the letter had not been included in the Agenda, Ms. Barber read her letter aloud and provided additional comments. Ms. Barber requested staff to include, in our notice to residents, the date on which the reports / agenda will be printed. Ms. Barber stated that this development would severely limit her ability to sell her property and that this property has had a tragic planning history. Ms. Barber commented on the following issues: . Lotting pattern and servicing pattern as proposed - were based on an arbitrary land assembly . Timing - advised that she may have submitted an application also, but that Staffhad assured her that no development would be done for 10 years. . Road running through her house - advised she had a road running through her house from 1980 to 1998, had the road removed, and now this development would put another road through her house. . Servicing - should be done only from Rosebank. . Fill - fill has been dumped on this property since 1993 with the last load being dumped in 1999. Does anyone know where it came fÌ'om? If fill has to be removed for this development where will it go? She does not want to be associated with a "filled property". . Y ork/Durham sewer vent - believes that the vent is temporarily closed and questioned if there was a policy at the Region to allow this. Also questioned when it will be re-opened. . Open space - is actually a water stream in the spring, which flows down Rosebank Road and is heavy and fast for about a week. Dumping the fill has not changed the flow as they had planned. This application shows 13 lots on the stream's course and the plans do not show any watercourse. . Well and cistern - the development will interfere with her well and she requested that the Developers pay for hookup to Municipal water and for disconnecting her well. She advised that she would provide two cost estimates. . Fence - will be damaged with development and requested that they preserve it. . Trees - requested that they be preserved and if any are damaged they should be removed. . Elevation - questioned the elevation of the property now and what it will end up being. Requested a new elevation map be prepared. . Dust - requested daily watering . Suggested Staff include servicing information in the report, as it is important to residents. . Requested the Developer to respond to the following: i. The area of the draft plan doesn't add up to what is proposed in the report. ii. When did you approach Pickering Planning Department regarding this development? iii. Is Rosebank Garden Homes Inc. an established company? IV. The contour lines on the plan are old. Are they relevant to the development? What is the present elevation? v. Will servicing routes come fÌ'om Finch? vi. Details regarding roads A and B vii. North Finch properties need better road alignment for the smaller properties viii. Did Ontario Hydro get a copy of the map? Why was there no mention of an intermittent watercourse? Ms. Barber commented that these meetings should not be held during the summer when people are on vacation. 4. Jackie Sharp, 323 Finch Ave., stated that she concurs with Ms. Barber's comments and concerns and thanked Ms. Barber for her presentation. 5. 6. - - -- --3-- Colin O'Handley, 2640 Altona Road, advised that he is involved in the agricultural preserve of this area and questioned if the development will impinge on the wildlife corridor. He also sought clarification on how strict the Official Plan is regarding the corridor policy. Michael Bartley, 425 3rd Concession Road, enquired if there were any plans to upgrade Rosebank Road given the anticipated increase in traffic (eg. Road, stop signs, lights, etc.) 7. Councillor Brenner requested that further discussions regarding this item take place between Staff, the applicant, and area residents immediately following this meeting. ( III) OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT OPA 01-003/P AND ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 10/01 NORTH AMERICAN ACQUISITION CORPORATION 816 KINGSTON ROAD PART OF LOTS 27 & 28, RANGE 3, B.F.c. (NORTH SIDE OF KINGSTON ROAD. EAS~LEV ARD) 1. C. Rose, Manager, Policy, on behalf of S. Gaunt, Planner II, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #22-01. 2. Ronald Richards, representing the applicant, stated that the proposed site is approximately 3 acres which will include about 20,000 - 25,000 square feet of common space. He emphasized that this is a very preliminary plan and that no formal application has been filed at this time. This proposal does not include vehicle access ITom Sheppard but may include pedestrian access. Mr. Richards stated that no loading or garbage would be located at the back of the building, which will allow the building and a fence to act as a buffer. Mr. Richards expressed that they wish to work most closely with the residents on the east and west of the site to ensure success. Mr. Richards stated that this proposal conforms to future use of the area and ensures good planning. 3. Florence Alexander, 760 Sheppard Ave., stated that many people use Sheppard Ave. rather than Kingston Road because of the congestion on Kingston Road and she is concerned that this proposal will add to this existing problem. Ms. Alexander commentated on the problems with garbage ITom existing commercial properties. She stated that there is no need for gas stations or banks within the area. She believes that this proposal will reduce the value of the homes, increase noise, which is already a problem with the CN Railway, increase pollution ITom garbage and cars, and increase the number of youth "hanging out" in the area. 4. John Ibbetson, 787 Sheppard Ave, advised that he lives two properties away from the proposed site and believes that this proposal does not take existing residents into consideration, and it will reduce the value of their homes. He is concerned that the car wash would be extremely noisy. Mr. Ibbetson stated that the road identified in Attachment 2 runs right by his house. He has spent several thousands of dollars in upgrades to his house and based on this and other proposals, he is concerned that he should not be making such an investment. He advised that if the developers are willing to develop, then they should be developing the entire area. He, and probably other residents, would be interested in negotiating. Mr. Ibbetson questioned the status of A-22-00. 5. - - - --4-- Tim Costar, 827 Sheppard Ave., stated that the development would be 80' ITom his backyard. He believes that the design of this property should have residential properties facing Sheppard Ave. Mr. Costar questioned what would happen with the remainder of the special study area C if this plan goes through. The site plan should incorporate access ITom special study area C. Mr. Costar suggested that if the commercial development is permitted then perhaps all properties should be re- zoned commercial. He commented that this proposal does not provide any buffer for area residents and that it will cause an increase in air, noise and light pollution that will decrease the value of their homes. 6. Patricia Parks, 864 Kingston Road, stated that the east side of her property is a tributary of Petticoat Creek. She stated that she had previously requested the City to allow development at the back of her property but received a lot of negative feedback ITom her neighbours. She suggested access be only as proposed. Ms. Parks stated that the proposal should include all properties and that she would be willing to provide her property to the City or Developer for reasonable compensation. Ms. Parks indicated that traffic issues do exist and this proposal will add to these problems. 7. John Kikkotas, 898 Kingston Road, advised that he owns the gas station at Fairport Road. Mr. Kikkotas expressed his concerns with existing traffic issues and stated that an additional gas station is not required. 8. Irene Moult, 838 Sheppard Ave., stated that she has lived at this address for 14 years and considers this an "island community" which the residents are trying to keep together. Ms. Moult is concerned with an increase in garbage that will generate an increase in odors and wildlife. She believes this proposal does not honour the character of the area. This property is often the first point of contact for many visitors of Pickering (coming off Highway 401) and the City would be better served to permit a residence for seniors, educational building. or a park on the site. Ms. Moult stated her concern that she had not received notice about this application, but that she did receive notice about the Spruce Hill development. Ms. Moult requested that a creative approach be taken to develop this site. 9. Bonnie Bayes, 823 Sheppard Ave., stated that she and her husband Jack live adjacent to the proposed development. Ms. Bayes agreed that garbage is a concern, but more importantly this development will increase noise and decrease the value of their house. Ms. Bayes does not want the car wash next to her house and feels the exhaust fumes would be unbearable. She suggested that this development should be all or nothing. 10. Sylvia Spencer, 771 Sheppard Ave., advised that she has lived in this neighbourhood since 1974 and stated that this proposed plan would clip the back of her property. She questioned the historical significance of the Dunbarton School building, where the boundary for "adult video" stores would be, how many houses could fit on this property, and how much land would be expropriated ITom the proposed site or will the residents have the opportunity to buy back that land which was previously expropriated. Ms. Spencer spoke in opposition to the proposal as residents are already experiencing difficulties with restaurants on Kingston Road and congestion at the Olco gas station. With regards to the pedestrian access fÌ'om Sheppard Ave., Ms. Spencer pointed out the difficulties that she envisions fÌ'om motorists stopping on Sheppard Ave. and accessing the development through the pedestrian access. Ms. Spencer advised that she would be submitting further comments to staff in writing. 11. Bob Lawrie, 852 Kingston Road, questioned why the City is hosting this meeting so early in the process simply to satisfy the applicant's conditional sales agreement; especially since so many speakers have expressed concerns that there has been no progress on previous proposals for other sites. 13. - (IV) 2. ~ 3. 4. 5. 6. - 7. --5-- 12. C. Rose, Manager, Policy, advised that she would follow up on comments fÌ'om residents who expressed concerns that they were not notified of this application. As well, she further explained the public consultation process to support why this proposal was being dealt with at this time. Ronald Richards, representing the applicant, stated that the developer wishes to make himself available to work with the community and that his past development projects support this claim. 14. Councillor Brenner requested that further discussions regarding this item take place between Staff, the applicant, and area residents immediately following this meeting. DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION S- P-2001-05 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 14/01 MARSHALL HOMES (ALTONA) LTD. ON BEHALF OF M. J. MITCHELL AND M. L. PYPER LOT 6 AND PART LOT 3, 4, AND 5, PLAN 506 314-350 FINCH AVENUE (NORTH SIDE OF FINCH A VENUE, EAST OF ALTONA ROAD) 1. R. Pym, Principal Planner, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #20-01. Ian McCormick, representing the applicant, stated that he and Craig Marshall were available to discuss this application. Mary Stienland, 331 Finch Ave., stated that she and her family have lived on Finch Ave. for several years and she does not support this application. Ms. Stienland thanked Ms. Barber for her hard work, knowledge and presentation, and confirmed that Ontario Realty Corporation owns the small strip of land. Jackie Sharp, 323 Finch Ave., questioned the City's guidelines on pollution, noise, sewage, and services. Ms. Sharp expressed that she wants to work closely with the Developer to ensure fencing and privacy will be afforded to the residents and she would appreciate significant lead-time in order to prepare for future meetings. Ms. Sharp indicated that she would like to see the density brought down, as it is not fitting to the area. She questioned what the three studies are which R. pym referenced in his introduction. Phillip Stoddard, 2005 Altona Road, expressed that he would like to have his concerns regarding wells addressed before the development is started as he does not have the option to hook up to Municipal water services. Mr. Stoddard questioned what measures would be taken to prohibit students from cutting through properties to attend the new school. His house was built in 1947 and Mr. Stoddard questioned what precautions could be taken to prevent damage to his (partial block) foundation. Eleanor Nash, 2645 Altona Road, stated that the area north of Rossland Road does not seem to have any allowance for the wildlife corridor. In response to J. Sharp's enquiry, R. Pym advised that the three studies are: . Noise Impact Feasibility Study . Phase I Environmental Site Assessment . Geotechnical Investigation Report 8. 9. - 10. (V) Dated - - --6-- In response to E. Nash's statement, C. Rose advised that the regionally approved Official Plan which required 10m for the wildlife corridor was appealed by the Province and as such, there is no specific limit, but the developer must submit an environmental report. This report remains outstanding at this time. Ian McCormick, representing the applicant, stated that the Environmental Report is coming shortly and will address the wildlife corridor issue. He also stated that the detail designs would address fencing concerns. In response to J. Sharp's request, Mr. McCormick agreed to approach the residents for input. Councillor Brenner requested that further discussions regarding this item take place between Staff, the applicant, and area residents immediately following this meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p,m. ¡4/Cj Æo/c/ / {/ / / dL?Z"/ ~. , " Acting City Clerk //;' " V¿.'