Loading...
07 14 1990 Public Minutes II" II . . THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING MONDAY, JULY 16,1990 @ 7:17 P.M. - COUNCIL CHAMBERS ONE HUNDREDTH AND SECOND MEETING 1988 - 1991 COUNCIL The following members of council were present: Reeve Robert E. Drury Deputy-Reeve David Caldwell Councillor David Burton Councillor Alastair Crawford Councillor Allan Johnson Also Present Were: Mr. Ron Watkin, Mr. Todd stocks, Mr. Jerry Jorden, Mr. Ian wilson, Mr. Ron Sommers, Mr. Brian Pratt, Mr. Ernest Bidwell, Mrs. Doris Bidwell, Ms. Jean Bidwell, Mr. Ken Bell, Mrs. Vivian Bell, Mr. P. Bravakis, Mr. Ken Hollins, Mr. Ralph Clarke, Mr. G. Fleming, Mrs. Shirley Woodrow, Mr. Rodney Raikes, Mrs. Gail Raikes, Mr. Len Edgerton, Mr. Jeff Ball, Mr. Garth Daniels, Mr. Ted Beaton, Mrs. Anita Beaton, Mr. Don Bidwell, Mr. Maurice Heisz, Mr. Floyd Sinton, Mrs. Pat Thompson, Mr. Rocke Robertson, Mr. Chuck Lowe, Mr. Steve Sperling, Mr. Peter Smith, Ms. Trudy Patterson, and one member of the press. ¡ Reeve Robert E. Drury chaired the meeting. Reeve Robert E. Drury opened the meeting by explaining to those present that this Public Meeting was to obtain public comments with respect to a proposed Official Plan Amendment pursuant to section 17 (2) of the Planning Act, 1983. The Township of Oro is intending to implement policies regarding Estate Residential development. To date, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro have not made a decision on this application other than proceeding to a Public Meeting. Only after comments are received from the Public, Township Staff and requested Agencies within an appropriate time period, will Council make a decision on this application. Notice of the Public Meeting was placed in both the Barrie Examiner and Orillia Packet and Times on June 23, 1990. The Reeve asked the Clerk if there had been any correspondence received on this matter. The Clerk responded by indicating that one piece of correspondence had been received and proceeded to read the correspondence from the Simcoe county Roman Catholic School Board who had no comments or concerns. The Reeve then stated that those persons present would be afforded the opportunity of asking questions with respect to the proposed Official Plan Amendment. The Reeve asked the Township's Planning Consultant, Ron Watkin to explain the purpose and affect of the proposed Official Plan Amendment. - 2 - Ron Watkin: The amendment to the Official Plan, that is before tonight, started off as a study entitled the "North Oro study" and specifically, in terms of its inception, resulted from Council being faced with a number of different estate residential type proposals located throughout the Township and also on some very specific proposals in one certain area, that being in the Northwestern portion of the Township. The concern that existed relative to the Country Residential designations was the necessity to gain some semblance of control over the types of development and the amount of development that takes place in the Township. That concerns the Township primarily because of the fact that once you proceed to the north, you run into a number of parcels of land which have the ability to meet some criteria with respect to developing large lot developments in areas of scenic terrain. The amendment itself assessed two things; first it assessed the Estate Residential policies as they were established in the document and secondly it looked at the Country Residential policies. The difference between the two is simply that Estate Fesidential is larger than 1 acre lots anG Country Residential appeared to be the one acre lot size. The official plan policy had some very strong outdated policies in it relative to development which made it virtually impossible to develop any estate residential development within the Township on the 2 acre or larger and what it was doing was forcing anyone wanting to develop large scale development to Country Residential. The amendment being proposed tonight is an adjustment to the text itself and basically takes the Country Residential designation and combines it with the Estate Residential designation. We would have one category called Estate Residential. The country Residential designations that exists right now in the Township are protected and they do not have to change. 1 II II II ¡! II II I' II II II The primary mechanism or approach in terms of establishing some type of control was to determine that firstly in terms of the housing market, 10% of Oro's total residential development should be in the form of an estate or large lot development. From that basis then we obtained the figures from the assessment office for the total number of residential units in the Township and then we subtracted from that the number of units that already were existing and we defined Estate Residential developments that have occurred. That left us with a number of Estate Residential units, that being 259. - 3 - Ron Watkin: Those units could or will be distributed to those developments that can come in and show to the municipality that they can meet the requirements of the Official Plan with respect to the Estate Residential policy. The basic premise of what we are working on is that 10% of the Residential housing market be allotted to Estate Residential development. In the first few years, you would have the ability to increase the Estate Residential in terms of an additional 259 units. Subsequent to that, the 10% factor is only going to be based on new development. As you can see the numbers will be high in the first year or so and then will drop down to a reasonable amount and will allow the municipality to assess and deal with any large lot development which is proposed within the Township. In addition to that and as I indicated, we had a number of a proposals in what we called a Woodland Heights area. These areas are being redesignated to Estate Residential Development. The owners and their consultants are here tonight and will be giving a brief presentation as to what they are proposing. Jerry Jorden: Briefly with regards to the property that I am representing which is this property (pointed to property on map) east of the existing subdivision in a total of about 136 and one half acres or 55 hectares and the proposal as it stands at the moment and I emphasize that this has not been through the process of the Township or any of the other agencies yet; it is for 73 Estate Residential Lots with a road pattern that would link in to this existing presently unopened Road Allowance in the Woodlands Heights Subdivision. The second access would go through Mr. smith's clients property to the south of our property. I I I I I ~ I ¡ I I I We are proposing a Park area within the Plan of Subdivision which is relatively central to the entire property and represents just slightly over 5% of the total site area. The lot sizes we are proposing from approximately one acre to three and three quarter acres, variety of lot sizes averaging one and one half acres. range in size approximately so there is a out to about We have had Mr. Wilson do a preliminary hydrogeology report on the development. We are proposing septic tanks and individual wells. Mr. Wilson's conclusions are that ground water conditions are favourable for individual well development in this area; he is recommending drilled wells and he feels cross contamination between wells and septic systems will not be a problem. His conclusion as well, at the preliminary level, is that there will not be an impact off site relative to existing domestic - 4 - Jerry Jorden: well supplies in the existing subdivision and also in the immediate area. His conclusion is that the soils on the site are suitable for septic system operations and the development as proposed would meet the Ministry of the Environment guidelines. In terms of drainage, we have had a preliminary drainage report done by Mr. smith's firm and it looked at the combined drainage situation of the two subdivisions north of the new road. There are three drainage outlets at the moment that go to the north and the northwest out of this area. The preliminary calculations indicate that there would not be a significant increase in flow as a result of the development, primarily because of the lot sizes. The final point I want to make is that I am sure that all of you know there are significant slopes on this property as there are throughout much of this area and the policy in the plan now and this is not being changed by the amendment, is to require no development on slopes over ten percent and set backs of fifty feet from slopes of ten percent of more. We have not yet done any detailed calculations with regards to slopes etc. That will take place if the development proceeds, but we will be requesting of the municipality that in some parts of this site that the slope constraint be fifteen percent rather that ten percent, which is the standard provincial requirement for hazard land and that the set back be twenty five feet rather than fifty feet. Those are matters that Council has not yet dealt with but I wanted to advise the public that those are matters that will be presented to Council for their consideration. At this point I will now turn the meeting over to Mr. smith to describe the property proposal to the south of the one I have just described. Peter smith: I represent the owner of this property here (pointing to the map) which is a seventy five acre parcel. A total of forty seven lots are proposed. There is the direct road link to the north coming down to the new Township Road. The lot size ranging from in excess of one acre up to two acres in size. There are two particular road patterns, there is a crescent developed off the new Township Road at the east end and a cul-de- sac swinging around at the west end incorporating this small parcel of about four acres as presently owned by the Township. Along that road we have included a small park. Again we have carried out the drainage study and have had Mr. Wilson's company do the hydrological study and in both of those cases there was the same results as the lands to the north. I ' 1 Peter smith: Trudy Patterson: - 5 - Finally, I would also reiterate that aspect of the slopes analysis which we will be looking at in a lot more detail in the weeks ahead and we might be seeking an amendment to the amendment to consider fifteen percent slopes with a setback of twenty five feet. I am with the firm of Skelton Brumwell and Associates and represent four local business men, John Copeland, Gary Inskeep, Rod Raikes and Floyd Sinton who are the owners of the proposed development as well as an addition of property that totals 150 hectares or 375 acres. The development that is proposed at this time contains 34 hectares or 84 acres of property. It differs a little from the other properties in that the topography of this site is flat to rolling. We have taken our own investigation on the site and find there are fine to medium sands to depth in excess of two metres which was the depth of our testing. There are no water courses visible on the property. Our plan contains forty six lots which range in size from one acre to nearly three acres in size. The average lot size is one and one half acres. We have maintained a two acre lot size more or less against the existing Estate Residential Development, in order that the developments would be compatible to each other in that area. We have tried in our plan to maximize the north/south orientation of the lots and provide for more lots that back on to the ravine which is the most interesting feature of the property. All of the lots will have access either to internal roads or to the old alignment of the Bass Lake Sideroad. The park lot is 1.9 hectares or approximately 4.8 acres and it has been provided to be central to this development and also to be accessible to the existing Woodland Heights Development. As with the other developments the servicing would be by private wells and sewage disposal systems and again, Mr. Wilson has done a preliminary hydrogeology report on the lot and concluded that there is adequate supply for forty six individual wells and that the development of these wells should not have any affect on existing supply to the area. As well, the sewage systems are feasible and nitrate concentration from this sewage disposal system will be well within the ontario drinking water standards. The main access to the site will be directly opposite the Woodland Crescent and all the roads will of course be constructed to Township standards. Trudy Patterson: Ralph Clarke: Ron Watkin: Brian Pratt: - 6 - Our preliminary drainage determined that the drainage will be handled by opening ditches with outlets along some of the property outlaying along Bass Lake Sideroad and some into the ravine. Again, detail design will look at the requirement for storm water retention etc. To implement and control this development we would propose that in the Zoning By-Law for this specific development that large rear yard setbacks be imposed on lots here (pointed to map) to provide screening of the lots from the road and from the adjacent development as well. Because the topography of this site is a little different we would suggest that the zoning for this property would include the 15 metre setbacks from the ten percent slopes. I am from the 1st Line of Oro and I am wondering about these three subdivisions as they stand there right now. I don't believe we have hydrants in this Township and I don't see any means of water supply with regard to fire. Now they are quite large subdivisions and I would feel that there should be several outlets there to come up with a supply of water on behalf of the fire department should they require it. I think that this is one of the things the Township would prefer to have but I don't see where either of these three developers have got it in there. We have met with the applicants and they are providing fire protection as the municipality requires in all other subdivisions within the Township now. It's there. My comments are mainly towards the subdivision on the top half of your map. We have a farm that runs the length of the subdivision that is there now and we'll be following what is shown on the map. Our farm goes right along the top of the map. I have lived there for 21 years. I've farmed full time for the last sixteen years. We've lived with an existing subdivision for 16 years. We've had calves chased until they drop dead. We have had fires set - one year we had 7 fires set in our bush. We have had barbed wire taken off our fences and strung across the bike paths of our older sons. We've had complaints from the existing subdivision about dust getting in their pools and as you see on those maps the lots are further away from our lot line than what the new proposed one is. I think that's part of our concerns. We've had glass thrown on to our laneway where the cattle were. We've had to clean up glass so the cattle wouldn't cut their feet or have tires cut, this sort of thing. We've had trouble with dogs. The existing subdivision has an average of one dog per person so you just multiply it; they have over 3 people per - 7 - Brian Pratt: residence so as you can see, this will multiply our problems. Now, I think the solution for this subdivision closest to us would be a setback of a minimum of 400 feet from our lot line because right now I have a hayfield (I've just taken my hay off), I want to plow it up and put wheat in it but I know if I do that, there's two people that live right next to us, they'll have to close up their swimming pools for the summer because they'll fill up with water and sand and they won't be able to swim in their pools. That's a problem I can see and you can say well, that's their problem - maybe it is their problem, but if they complain to me and I don't do something about it our kids have to go to school with those kids. And they'll say to our kids "we couldn't swim in our pool all summer cause your dad filled it full of dirt". It seems like it isn't our problem but it is because we have to live in the community and we're a minority; farmers are a minority. This is my livelihood, it isn't just a piece of land I'm going to make some money on; it's my livelihood. It's not the greatest land in the world but we're trying to scratch out a living at it. Like I said, the last sixteen years I've farmed full time here. The same with spreading manure. with the present subdivision so close to the front of our property, we've also tried in the summertime to take our cow, chicken and pig manure and spread it on our hay fields after we cut the hay. with the Ministry guidelines, we have to be 450 - 500 feet away unless we work this manure in. It's hayfields and quite rolling land. I don't want to have to plow up hayfields every year and we can't spread it on the front half because our place is only 40 rods wide. What we have to do is protect the back so we can keep farming. We have to protect our interests. I can see that there should be at least a 400 foot setback limit from the northern boundary of the proposed subdivision and there should be a chain link security fence along the boundaries because when the first subdivision was built there, before the houses were occupied, we had problems. They started building the houses and throwing cement bags. They didn't bother picking them up so I phoned up the Township office and I said "there are cement bags blowing around my hayfield". And they said, well you talk to the builder. I said "He isn't there now". So I ended up going out and picking up the bags and if you're busy, it's a nuisance. So these things should be put in place before the development starts. I don't have anything against development; I think it's a good idea and the more development you get, it's not hurting anything if it's done properly, but you have - 8 - Brian Pratt: to protect the people that are making a living. That's my basic concern: that a development doesn't impact on our way of life or our trying to make a living as great as this one has. The existing one is only 19 lots, I think. I think that you will just be multiplying the problems. Reeve Robert Drury: Excuse me for a minute. How far back does the workable land come to the proposed development? Does it run the full length? Brian Pratt: The workable land goes to about Lot 18 where the jog is but then the wind blows from the northwest so you can't just cut it off there. You would have to make a circle out so that the dust, the smell of manure and the flies and things like this wouldn't be a problem. I think you'll find that where those existing roads are, there's places that I don't think a deer could walk up those hills. That's how steep they are. I think that you'll have to have a real strong look at where you're going to put those roads, because you don't want something like Sugarbush where it's just about impossible to get a fire truck up to them. That's my comment about farming beside a subdivision. My other comment would be that I think with a development this large, you should have fire hydrants. I have been on the fire department for about as long as we've had a fire truck up at Edgar and we have tankers but it's just a glorified bucket brigade really when this area - North Oro - has got to be about the dryest spot in simcoe County. It's ideal for development because you are not interfering with any water or anything like this. It's just bone dry. When you go to put out a fire you need water and we have Horseshoe Valley which has a good hydrant system, super water systems and I'd hate to see a development go in like this without a central water system and people being burnt to death because there wasn't adequate water. I think that the people in the present development have said to me: "I wish we had central water. Our insurance would be low enough to pay for the extra costs". I think that if you polled them, the majority would want a central water system because their insurance rates go down enough that it pays for your hydrants. It cuts down the chances of pollution too. Thank you. I'll ask Jerry Jorden if he wishes to respond to Brian Pratt's comments. Reeve R. Drury: Jerry Jorden: I think that those are good points and we'll have to certainly consider them in the design of the subdivision. I think that there is, and I know this doesn't solve all the problems that Mr. Pratt has mentioned, one difference at least between our area and the existing development and that is that it is largely treed I think along those lots that back on to the farm so that perhaps a - 9 - Jerry Jorden: combination of the fencing and some tree protection requirements may help to alleviate some of that concern in that area. But beyond that I'd like to look at the details and perhaps when we get into the more detailed subdivision design, talk to Mr. Pratt about it. I think that's all my comments at the moment, Mr. Reeve. Chuck Lowe: I live on the first line of Oro and I also represent the Northwest Oro Ratepayers Association. Dear Council Members: Residents of Northwest Oro Ratepayers Association have concerns about proposed amendments which would lead to subdivision developments in Parts of Lots 35, 36, 37, Concession 1. Proposed developments of this size continue to plague our Township causing grave concerns and uncertainty. We wish to outline our major concerns. We strongly suggest a major revision in the Official Plan before any further amendments. This would promote orderly and economic growth in Oro and thereby eliminate uncertainty. Our concerns relate to the water supply in the development. I understand that the Ministry of Environment recommends that a subdivision of more than 6 houses on lots under 2 acres should have a communal water system. We support this view. A communal water system controls the water quality and provides water for fire protection. In addition an abundance of individual wells contributes to overuse of water supply. We request that Council adopt the policy for a pre- assessment study carried out by an independent forester. This study should identify trees for preservation. We all know that trees improve air quality, stop soil erosion, maintain our water table, inhibit flooding and increase land value. Our last comment relates to parkland. We believe that Oro Township should not take monies in lieu of 5% land dedication from land developers. Because, development of this density and its distance from Craighurst, it is imperative that children from this area have a parkland. N.O.R.A. was pleased to have the developers of Woodland Estates at one of our recent meetings. They expressed interest in maintaining a rural quality in their plans and we expect our Council to show leadership in this area. Thank you. Reeve Robert Drury: Do any of the proposed developers here wish to comment on any of the issues Mr. Lowe brought forward? Mr. smith: Briefly on a couple of the comments, Mr. Reeve and Council. Actually we are providing parkland in accordance with the Planning Act. There is no cash in lieu provisions. The other aspect of the pre-assessment study, as you know, the whole area is treed and our concept in the development here is to maintain that level of treed coverage to the Mr. smith: Mr. Jerry Jorden: Reeve Robert Drury: Mr. Ian Wilson: t I i - 10 - maximum. Obviously to build on it, driveways, etc. we will have to cut some trees. Basically we're looking for a minimum of disturbance. The drainage study also maintained the existing drainage pattern of the area. I think we are interested in keeping the trees to the maximum. The only other thing I would say is that with regard to major revisions of the Official Plan before this proceeds, I understand that we are talking in terms of an overall update and review of the Official Plan. I believe there is a meeting coming up on that issue. I think this is a major component of that update that they've already done and I don't think it is Township wide. It is comprehensive relative to Estate Residential and I think that meets the requirements relative to the Estate Residential component of the Official Plan and I don't personally think that this aspect of the plan needs to wait for the rest of the update. Mr. Wilson, do you wish to comment on Item No.2. I'll read it: "Our concern relates to the water supply in the development. We understand that the Ministry of Environment recommends that subdivisions with more than 6 houses on lots under 2 acres should have a communal water system. A communal water system controls the water quality and provides water for fire protection. In addition, the abundance of individual wells contributes to the overuse of the water supply". Perhaps Council would like to hear your views on that Mr. Wilson. I am really not aware of any strict Ministry policy that does say that over 6 lots need to be on a communal system. I know of numerous, numerous subdivisions that are on individual wells that are more than 6. There is a good possibility of a communal system. certainly the ground water conditions are excellent in this area. It could be, the only problem is that you have fairly large lots and your servicing costs will be high. I personally like individual wells. For one thing it spreads the load on the local ground water system. By spreading out the actual takings which are, relatively small per lot, over a very large area rather than having a couple of large wells which are pumping a lot of water in one particular spot. I would never recommend that wells be put in close to the Woodland Development because you could cause problems with their individual wells. As far as the water quality goes, yes, through a communal system you have to go through pumping tests, check water quality and these have to pass the Ministry of Environment. But it is very similar when you go in on individual wells. The Ministry requires us to put in a number Ian Wilson: - 11- of individual wells (low capacity wells) and to carry out very similar tests that you would have to do on larger wells. The only difference being that the tests are for shorter durations. But you have to carry out the same kind of water quality analysis as we would if we were putting in one big or a couple of big wells to serve the whole development. The same things are checked for, the same things are looked at, the Ministry of Environment looks at those just as carefully as they do the larger well system. I think that's all I have now unless there's somebody else that wants to ask something. Reeve Robert Drury: Are there any questions for Mr. Wilson? (None asked) Thank you Mr. Wilson. Are there any further comments or questions. Mr. Roy Mason: Mr. Ron Watkin: Mr. Roy Mason: Mr. Ron Watkin: Mr. Roy Mason: I I i 1 I I I I I Mr. Ron Watkin: Mr. Roy Mason: Mr. Ron Watkin: Mr. Roy Mason: Mr. Ron watkin: My name is Roy Mason. I am with KLM Planning Partners. My question is not directed specifically towards this proposed development but towards the general amendment. Perhaps, Mr. Watkin could answer my questions. I would first like to know if there is a staff report or some form of report that's available to the public determining or outlining the rationale behind the lOt restriction. There's a background section to the amendment which as a result of the public meeting today would be public information of which you could obtain a copy. And that gives the basis for ... Yes basically the amendments. Also I believe you said that 259 lots would be committed a year, somewhere in that neighbourhood. The lots that are being recommended for approval in this amendment, we would subtract that from the 259 for this year. That is correct. So we'd be down to something like 100 lots. Well, Mr. Mason there is no indication how many lots Council will approve. Could you briefly then tell me how you determined the 10% figure. We checked the various Ministries in terms of people relative to whether or not it was a figure that had been used, if it would be within the Provincial area itself. The 10% figure has been used throughout Simcoe County in many other municipal documents. It appears to be one that is reasonable, certainly for the Council to address and that's what we settled on, the 10 percent. Ron Watkin: Mr. ROy Mason: Mr. Ron Watkin: Mr. Roy Mason: Mr. Ron Watkin: Mr. Roy Mason: Mr. Ron Watkin: - 12 - It is a subjective figure. So it is more of a historical figure as opposed to... No it's been used in other areas and it was felt that at least for this presentation that the 10% was a reasonable factor to look at. Another general question. I guess I am a little puzzled why a site specific amendment like this would be lumped in with a general amendment to the Official Plan. As I indicated in my preliminary discussion, the policy that is in the document right now, the Official Plan document, allows for simply "Estate Residential development of 10 lots per year" and that's it. In other words, under the present documentation, allowing Estate Residential development to occur would be virtually impossible and unrealistic unless maybe the situation and in the progress of the planning approach that this municipality has taken over the 10 years in terms of upgrading and working on their document on the various O.P. amendments in key areas. At the same time and as I indicated, in simcoe county virtually every municipality has been inundated with development proposals, sufficient enough that there are stacks of them coming in on a weekly basis. Those issues and in looking at the Estate Residential development itself, we looked at firstly a method of control and secondly some of the proposals that were before us in terms of whether or not there was some planning rationale for having Estate Residential development in certain areas. This was one of the areas that specifically was looked at in view of the fact that the road system is located very close to Highway No. 93; there is an existing Estate Residential development in the area and the area looked, on the surface to be appropriate to proceed to public meeting stage. Maybe I should make myself a little clearer. First of all the amendment that's dealing with this particular plan of subdivision and the amendment dealing with the general policies, is that going to be covered under one Official Plan Amendment or .. The redesignation of the mapping portion of this addresses the 3 properties that you've seen. There are a number of sections in the document. The first few sections deal specifically with policy and looking at setting up the control mechanism, the overall policy and the very final section deals with the specific redesignation of those lots. - 13 - Reeve Robert Drury: Mr. Mason could you just clarify for us please. Do you think that proposal before us is too restrictive or too open? Mr. ROy Mason: The general policies.. it's difficult for me to say whether they are too restrictive or not at this point in time. My preliminary indication is that they are but I would like an opportunity to review the document and the background material so that I could give this proposal a better evaluation before I actually state an opinion. Reeve Robert Drury: Perhaps then you could purchase the document from the municipality and send us a letter with your comments enclosed. Mr. Roy Mason: Certainly. At what point in time, if you recommend this for approval, when will it go to Council. Reeve Robert Drury: It depends on what comes forward this evening. It could be anywhere from a month to a couple of months. Mr. Roy Mason: Coming out of this meeting, will you make a recommendation to Council. Reeve Robert Drury: Not likely at this meeting this evening. We'll discuss it further with our consultants amongst ourselves. Mr. Roy Mason: Rocke Robertson: Mr. Ron Watkin: Rocke Robertson: I take it then, what you'll do is receive the material tonight. Thank you. My name is Rocke Robertson and my wife and I live on a farm that is immediately to the north of Brian Pratt's; which is one property to the north of the property that Brian spoke about. Before I get into discussing that, I would just like to clarify statements which came out of previous questions. The proposed change to the Estate Residential designation would allow for a maximum of 10% of the total residentially assessed units to be Estate Residential. Is that correct? It would not allow for 10% of that number to be approved in each year. Ten percent total housing stock in Estate Residential. That was my impression and it was just confusing from previous comments. Basically my comments are in support of those of Mr. Pratt and Mr. Lowe. I would first of all like to comment on the hydrologist's opinion. I believe that the lady said the operative word that there should be enough water. I think that we've seen recently in Midhurst that there's a big surprise - there is not enough water. Hydrogeologists are scientists and like all scientists will do the best they can. They've got good methods and good data that sometimes can be wrong. Rocke Robertson: - 14 - I think that it would be prudent for Council to consider this fact and therefore consider putting in a central water system which not only would have the advantages mentioned previously but also would encourage conservation. Presumably this would be associated with a metering system for each house so people wouldn't feel that ..well it's there in the ground, we can use as much as we want. There may in fact be enough water here for these proposed subdivisions but I think that we all recognize the developer is not going to stop here, especially in the Northwest section of Oro and certainly there have been many areas that we've seen in Southern Ontario. Kitchener-Waterloo now has a real big problem with supplying enough water to its residents and I think that looking toward the future, we don't want to end up with that situation. It would be good if we had a central system, we could at least have some controls, if nothing else by virtue of water rates over how much water is used. Again reinforcing Mr. Pratt's concerns about farming, we've only been there for three years. We currently have a crop of wheat on the land. To the north of us is another farmer who is not here tonight and he's been farming there his entire life and his father and grandfather farmed there as well. I think that all of us have concerns about the impact of this number of people on an agricultural operation that close by. It's certainly my opinion that a security fence would not only prevent things like cement bags and so on from getting through there but also would help discourage people from utilizing those agricultural lands as recreational land. I think the parks are good. I think they are essential. I think even then total areas could be increased in size a little bit. I know that it's only natural for people to be sitting there on a one or two acre lot, being able to see all those woods and fields and think this is a great place to go and take a walk. Some of them are responsible and some of them aren't. I think that Mr. Pratt's comments are the experience of all of us. Some people are not responsible and it's impossible for us to police these lands. I would strongly encourage a security fence as well along the northern boundary of the proposed subdivisions. I think that's about it. I think the overall concept trying to increase Estate Residential development in the Township is a good one. I think that the proposal for the change in the designation in the Official Plan is a good one. In relation to what I was talking about before, I would like to bring your attention to the background study that went along with this, that the planners did say that protection for agricultural lands in the north should be concerned. I think the Planners have looked at it. This is - 15 - Rocke Robertson: just a summary of my comments. Reeve Robert Drury: Perhaps a few comments to reaffirm our position that Oro Township Council has a firm policy on parkland dedication. We do not accept cash in lieu of parkland and we have a very firm policy in that respect. Also, Council has not walked these properties yet. We will be walking the properties before we make the decision. Mr. Jorden, will the water there sustain 10,000 people maximum? Mr. Jorden: There was a hydrogeology report done as part of an interim study, I cannot remember the figures exactly but it was somewhere around lO,ooo to l2,000 people on the basis of the information that was available at that time. Reeve Robert Drury: On the basis of the report that was in the paper a short while ago, Mr. Jorden, saying there was a shortage of water; what was the problem, do you know? Mr. Jorden: I don't know in detail but I believe there is some problem with the existing well and in addition to that there is a real problem as there is in many other areas; we are running into the same problem up in the Bass Lake Woodlands area, and that is excessive lawn watering. The Ministry of Environment has certain standards with regards to water flows from development and these standards are used as the basis for designing water systems. What you will find is like in places like Midhurst where there is a lot of sandy soil and you get a lot of lawn areas and sod goes down on sand, people tend to water these lawns excessively. In fact, a year ago Vespra had restrictions on lawn watering and they may again have it this year, I am not sure. The system is designed to meet the Ministry standards but the Ministry standards do not work in all situations and I think that is what is largely happening in the Midhurst situation now. They are looking at another well. I think you are quite right, I do not think it is lack of water in Midhurst it is lack of wells, there is lots of water in Midhurst. I think the same thing applies here, I believe there is lots and lots of water in this area, there certainly is in Horseshoe Valley, they have wells a thousand gallons a minute, six hundred gallons a minute. Mr. wilson: Mr. Roberts: Could you comment on the situation in Kitchener, Waterloo. Mr. Wilson: Not really, except it is pretty well the same thing. Mr. Roberts: It is my understanding it is not a lack of wells there, it is a lack of water. . ' Mr. Wilson: Hr. Roberts: Mr. Wilson: Pat Thompson: Mr. Wilson: Pat Thompson: Mr. wilson: Pat Thompson: Mr. Wilson: Ron Watkin: - l6 - Yes it is, it is a combination of both. In fact the run off is such they just do not have enough to supply the demand. I am not saying this is going to happen here now but I think this is something that could happen in the future and something that we have to look at. Kitchener, Waterloo is too big for wells. If the Ministry of Environment recommends that it be a communal well I don't understand why we are standing here saying that maybe wells are a better thing if the Ministry says that communal water is a better thing. It is really from my point of view, not from the planning or anything else, it doesn't really matter to me whether it is individual wells or large wells, the water is there. If the Ministry states that they would much rather see communal wells because they can chlorinate it, cross contamination, fire protection, etc., is cost a factor, is this what causes this little bit of a ripple? The proposal will go in and the Ministry is going to be one of the Ministries that comments on it and they could come back and say that we could have a communal system. What would you recommend to your people? I am involved more to the point, is the water there, what kind of water is there, and I do not make any economic decisions; that is up to the planners, engineers, owners, etc. As far as the geology and the hydrogeology goes, I think you can put individual wells on each of those lots; they are large enough. I think you can also put in one or two municipal wells which would serve the development as well. That is really where I stop and from there it has to be evaluated by the planners, engineers, Township and everybody else. I would just like to say something here on this. We have run into a bit of a problem with the Ministry of Environment because they will not comment on draft proposals. They may say they have these standards but you cannot go to them with one subdivision and say can we do this by individual wells or can we do this by communal systems; they will not tell you now. The only way they will give us comments any more is when the document actually goes to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing then sends it back to Environment, then and only then will they give us any information. It makes it very difficult now to determine what they will and will not accept. (, - 17 - Councillor Crawford: You mentioned the fact that Kitchener, Waterloo was running out of water, but you must remember that Kitchener, Waterloo is an area where there is no recharge; all waste water is disposed of off site. In situations like this all waste water is disposed of on site, it is filtered and returned to the aquifer. In Kitchener, Waterloo it goes down the Grande River and is gone. It is the same as Barrie, there is no recharge, everything goes into Lake Simcoe and on down the sytem. It is different here in that all water from lawns or anything else is all recharged back into the aquifer because it does not leave the site. Brian Pratt: My comment is about one of the previous speakers saying maybe plant trees or that there is trees in this proposed subdivision, but one of the problems is most of the trees are deciduous trees, the limbs are up more than likely thirty feet so they really do not stop a lot of sand or odour. The only way you could do that would be to cut down the trees that people want and put up evergreens, coniferous trees. Another comment I have is the Bass Lake Side Road where it comes out onto Highway 93, it has been improved but it is still a dangerous intersection right there. When you are coming from the north and you pull into the Bass Lake Side Road and turn to the left you cannot see a car coming from the south and just about every weekend I hear car brakes squeal. Jeff Ball: I support Mr. Pratt and Mr. Roberts and what they have said about the farmers and their livelihoods and we would ask that Council consider the farmers in the Township when they are considering such plans. The second point relates to the policy component. We are not too keen on the timing of it especially because the formula that is used is applied to all residential developments in the Township and we feel that in a sense it might be bad planning to look at one little component. It may be a better idea to include this with the Official Plan information and then take it from there. One other question is concerning the ten percent amendment. Mr. Watkin, are there any other location control factors with the new amendment; there was in the past with the old amendment? l' - 18 - Don Bidwell: I believe the different ratepayers groups in the Township have been dealing with the Official Plan for sometime. The Estate Residential Policy which is basically remaining the same contains two and one half pages of very detailed policy and those policies are not changing and are staying as strong as they were before. I live on lot 36 south east corner and my concern is the same as Mr. Pratts and Mr. Robertson. I do not know whether those lots to the east are off the crescent or off the first line. I have concerns like that and how they will protect property as far as farming. Ron Watkin: Peter smith: This crescent at the east end; these lots will have direct access of the internal road. Reeve Drury: What you see before you is in no way, shape or form been approved by Council at this stage. If you have concerns give them to us in writing and if it is approved we will address them at that time. Mr. Beaton: I live on the 8th Line above the Old Barrie Road. I have two concerns when I listen to things tonight. First is with the Plan Amendment and I am not sure when I hear of it which is actually disappearing, the country Residential Lot or the Estate Residential Lot. I understand the Residential Lot is one acre and the Estate Lot is over one acre but when we see the plans as they unfold in the future, maybe an Estate Lot will be accepted as l.OOl acre and then we are going to have high density. Just looking at the three proposals here tonight and I see the one proposed by Ms. Patterson, I believe she said the average is 1.5, 46 lots, and Mr. Jorden said the proposal he gave was average 1.5 for 145 lots and if they are drawn to scale it looks to me that there is an awful lot of lots up in there. I believe Mr. Smith mentioned 47 lots on his proposal but he didn't give the average per lot. Do you know what that is? Mr. smith: The average per lot is 1.3 acres. Reeve Drury: Excuse me for a moment, but Mr. Jorden is not your proposal for 73 lots? Mr. Jorden: Yes. Mr. Beaton: I certainly agree with Mr. Pratt's concerns and I believe problems will arise with a high density development in a agricultural/rural setting. I believe generally that I am more concerned seeing Estate Lot average sizes shrinking down more to the l.OOl in the future. ,:. " . - 19 - Ron Watkin: As a general response, I do not believe that we ever consider a one acre lot as a high density development. More specifically, the combination of the two, Estate and Country Residential Developments together, as one category is not to say that we are going to get rid of Country Residential more on the converse to say we are getting rid of Estate Residential. What it was doing was we were finding, as indicated, with the restrictions on the Estate Residential policies that everyone was bringing in Country Residential developments on a one acre size with virtually no consideration for the environment or the topography that they were dealing with. The combination of the two designations together then gives Council the flexibility to assess a development so that where a one acre lot is appropriate that would be fine and where maybe a five acre lot maybe fine as well. In other words the flexibility is being provided in the policy so that the lots are designed in concert with the topography not the land being designed in concert with the one acre lot. Brian Pratt: My only comment about these large lots is that who will be able to afford them? I would like to be able to have lots and houses in Oro, sizes that my children can afford them. It is great to have huge lots and huge houses but I think it is great to have a diversity so that you don't have all huge houses that a lot of people can't afford. Reeve Drury: I would like to respond to that also. In the Horseshoe Valley area and the Sugarbush area they are all third acre lots, in that area, and I guess the developer would really be smiling here if you are talking higher density and I am sure that they would love to throw a water system in and come in with half acre lots throughout and I believe we have four or five hundred lots proposed before us if we are looking at that. In Oro Township affordable housing is something that we don't jump out and run after but I believe there is quite a bit of affordable housing in Oro Township, the lots are being sold rather quickly. So Council does not know if you people want high density, half acre lots throughout; we passed a policy earlier on in the Spring increasing our lots sizes from one third acre to a half acre. We have proposals before us in some of the Hamlet areas of half acre lots right now. Ron Watkin: We are having a bit of difficulty with the Ministry of the Environment reasonable use policy, in other words, even proposals for half acre lots in the Township have not met with the requirements and the hydrogeology work has been done to increase those to one acre in size, even in the Hamlets. The indication is that lots below one acre in size may never be found in Oro Township. I. . " " - - 20 - Ian Wilson: With the Ministry of Environment's reasonable use policy, what it really is is they do not allow you to have smaller lots when you are putting septic into the ground and in such quantity that you are going to cause a problem, cause contamination. It seems to be working out that the lots are about one acre in size. Mrs. Beaton: I would like somebody to explain to me why we are spending our time this evening talking in detail about an amendment to presumably an amendment to our current Official Plan when in ten days time we are having a meeting which is presumably directed towards a session about our New Official Plan? Ron Watkin: I hope you will be there the next couple of meetings to give us your ideas relative to what you see as the Official Plan. The Official Plan process in Oro Township and certainly in the rest of the Province is not a static thing. Many of these things take many, many years to go through and this process that you are seeing tonight did not start last week it started well over a year or more ago. In fact, the process in terms of this municipality and their record of updating and upgrading their Official Plan to the present extent, has gone on for the last ten years or more in quite detail in many areas. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs requires in the Act of 1983 that there be a five year review. That isn't to say we are throwing the whole issue out and starting from scratch because that is not realistic. There has been a lot of major policies that have gone through in the last ten years or so that still are applicable that still apply and are still functional today. The municipality's program has been to address issues as they come up, to with them as appropriately as they can. We do not stop in mid stream simply because we are looking at a review of the document. Deputy Reeve Caldwell: I have a question for Mr. Wilson. He stated his personal preference for individual wells and he did state his reasons, but I am wondering why he is suggesting individual wells rather than a communal system, how does a municipality control the use of water if it recognizes it is being abused? Secondly, how does the municipality provide a full fire protection when it has storage tanks which are operated on municipal wells? What mechanism would a municipality use to control abuse of water? Ian Wilson: There is no way on individual wells, there is no doubt about it. If people are using more than 10,000 gallons a day they have to get a permit from the Ministry of Environment. v - 2l - Ian Wilson: The only way a municipality could control the water used is by metering. Fire Protection you can't provide on a subdivision served by individual wells it cannot be done unless you have storage on that particular property. Councillor Crawford: Just one comment I would like to make about the Official Plan. I see the Official Plan as a living thing it moves and changes with the times, I do not see it as a static thing. It seems to me there are people in this room that feel the Official Plan is static and cast in stone. This is not the way an Official Plan works as I understand it, it is a living thing which changes with the times. This is the way I see it and I think that is the way it is meant to be used. Therefore, there is an update at regular periods just to make sure they are in line. The Reeve after enquiring and ascertaining that there were no further questions from those present, thanked those in attendance for their participation and advised that Council would consider all matters before reaching a decision. He then advised those present that if they wished to be notified of the passing of the proposed By-law, they should leave their name and address with the Clerk. MOTION NO. Moved by Caldwell, seconded by Crawford Be it Resolved that we do now adjourn this Special Public Meeting (Estate Residential Public Meeting - O.P.A.) @ 8:50 P.M. carried. ReR!:rt r.Dg~ ¿A::#ll Cler Robert W. Small