09 11 1985 Council Minutes
.
.
.
Pg. 181
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - SEPTEMBER 11, 1985
Special Meeting of Council
Public r1eeting
A Public Meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, September 11, 1985 pursuant to Sections 17 and 34
of the Planning Act, to present a proposed Amendment to the Township of Oro Official Plan and
Zoning By-law Amendment applicable to Part of the East half of lot 10, Concession 10, to permit
a development of a proposed eleven (11) lot "Country Residential" Subdivision as proposed by
Eric Scott of Scott Silo Construction Limited.
The meeting was opened by the Reeve at 7:00 p.m.
Present were: Reeve
Deputy Reeve
Councillors:
Stephen Davie
Joanna McEwen
Robert E. Drury
Thelma Halfacre
Allan Johnson
On behalf of the Developer:
Eric Scott
George Scott
Paul Bascombe
Paul Kitchen,
Scott Silo Construction Ltd.
of Robert Lehman Planning Consultants Ltd.
O. L. S.
Staff Present:
Henry Neufeld - Clerk
Robert Small Administrator/Treas.
George Roberts - Planning ~ Zoning Administrator
Public present:
William Shaw - part lot 10, conc. 10
Leslie Jermey part lot 10, cone. 10
Reeve Davie opened the meeting by outlining the procedure and purpose of the meeting and
advised that:
- All persons present will be afforded the opportunity of making representation In respect
to the proposed amendments.
- In addition, anyone wishing to do so, may make their representation in writing to Council,
which is to be received by the Clerk in his office not later than Friday, September 27, 1985.
- The earliest that Council may consider adoption of these amendments will be October 2, 1985.
The Reeve then called upon Paul Bascombe of Robert Lehman Planning consultants to explain the
purpose and effect of the proposed amendments after which he invited questions as had been
indicated by the Reeve that questions would be entertained by the Consultant and Council.
Questions were asked by members of Council:
Councillor Halfacre - requested clarification of the present designation of the subject lands.
Reeve Davie - inquired about a daylight triangle off Suburban Road No. 11.
.
.
.
Pg. 182
Special Meeting of Council
September 11, 1985
Responded to by Paul Bascombe and Paul Kitchen
Reeve then asked if there were any further questions from members of Council and persons present.
There being none the Reeve again reminded that anyone requesting further notice to leave their
names and addresses with the Clerk.
Clerk advised that a telephone call had been received earlier during the day from Mr. Tony
Fiorini of Maple Ridge Farms Ltd. advising that he would be unable to attend and verbally
requested copy of minutes of the meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m.
.
.
.
Pg. 183
SHANTY BAY COMMUNITY SCHOOL CENTRE
SEPTEMBER 11, 1985
of Council - Public Meeti
A Public meeting was scheduled this evening, pursuant to Sections 17 ~ 34 of the Planning Act,
to present a proposed amendment to the Township of Oro Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment
applicable to Part of Lot 2, Range 2, to permit a development of a proposed 24-lot residential
subdivision.
The Reeve opened the meeting at 8;00 p.m.
Present: All members of Council
S.C.G. Davie
J. McEwen
R. Drury
T. Halfacre
A. Johnson
Reeve
Deputy Reeve
Councillors
Clerk - Henry Neufeld
Administrator - Robert Small
Planning ~ Zoning Administrator -
George Roberts
Skelton Brumwell ~ Associates Ltd.
nts
- Harry S. Cooper arrived later
in the meeting.
- Douglas Skelton
- Garry Bell
The Reeve then proceeded to outline the purpose of the meeting In compliance with the Planning
Act stating that:
The meeting was being held to present a proposed amendment to the Oro Township Official Plan
and Zoning By-law, applicable to part to lot 2, range 2, to permit development of a proposed,
24-lot residential subdivision.
Further, that:
- All persons present would be afforded the opportunity of making representation In respect of
the proposed amendments;
That anyone wishing to do so, could make their representation in writing to Council, which
should be received by the Clerk in his office not later than Friday, September 27, 1985.
- And that the earliest that Council might consider adoption of these amendments would be
October 2, 1985.
The Developers Consulting Firm, Skelton, Brumwell ~ Associates Ltd., represented by Mr. Doug
Skelton and Mr. Gary Bell were present to explain the purpose and effect of the proposed
amendments, following which the Reeve advised that Council would entertain any representation
on this matter that those present may wish to make. Anyone wishing to receive written notice
of the passage of either or both of the amendments, should leave their name and address with
the Clerk, failing which they may not be entitled to receive any further notice in respect of
this matter.
.
.
.
Pg. 184
Special Meeting of Council - Public Meeting
September 11, 1985
The Reeve then called upon Mr. Douglas Skelton and Mr. Gary Bell of Skelton Brumwell and Associates
Ltd.
Members of public present for the meeting:
Name
Lot Con.
27 3
Range 2 pt Part2
27 3
Maili
Address
Grace Young
Linda Caldwell Lord
Ronald Young
Mary Lockie
Isabel Crooks
Ellis Crooks
Wendy MacGregor
Mary VanNiekerk
Jack VanNiekerk
M. E. Brooks
Suzanne Robillard
Karen Sanderson
2
2
2
4
42
Range 2
Range 2
Range 2
Plan 1682
Plan 648
(Raikes Rd)
Shanty Bay
R.R.#l Oro Station
Shanty Bay
Shanty Bay
Shanty Bay
Shanty Bay
Oro Station
R.R.#2 Shanty Bay
R.R.#2 Shanty Bay
246 Wellington St. E. Barrie, Onto L4M 2E3
General Delivery, Shanty Bay
Shanty Bay, Onto
Mr. ~ Mrs. Tom Bigelow
Mr. David Burton
Shanty Bay, Onto
R.R.#l Oro Station
Mr. Douglas Skelton proceeded to introduce the firm of Skelton, Brumwell and Associates Ltd.
and advised that as Planning Consultants they represented their client Mr. H.S. Cooper of Audubon
Developments. He then reviewed the proposal by way of drawing and proposed plan as displayed,
gIvIng history of the property and representation to the various agencies before formal presentation
to the municipality. Making the following points:
_ Drainage Study and Analysis will be required and explained the process and intent
_ Railway requirements - berm re: noise factor
_ Provision for proposed walkway - alternatives as shown on the Plan
Road pattern and existing easement as shown on the Plan to Railway
Mr. Gary Bell then explained the notices as forwarded with respect to the Amendment to the Official
Plan and Zoning By-law. Present designation of the lands in Official Plan - new designation re-
quired. Present Official requires piped water system - amendment to permit private wells and private
sewage system. Present zoning and required amendment to permit and control I development including
lot size lot frontage, walkway provisions.
Before Calling for questions Mr. Douglas Skelton summarized the proposal and concluded that the
Draft Plan would be presented to Council for approval late this fall.
The meeting was then opened for questions.
Question: Mrs. E. Brooks inquired as to proposed walkway and effect of the development to her
property.
Responded to by Reeve Davie and explained in greater detail by Mr. Skelton.
Mrs. Wendy MacGregor - Will proposed walkway be to edge of Plan
barricade or fence?
will there be a
Responded by Douglas Skelton and Reeve Davie who advised that Council had recognized
need for a walkway provision and for that reason had requested same be provided for
on the lands of the proposed development.
.
.
.
Pg. 185
of Council
11 1985
Public Meeti
Mrs. E. Brooks indicated she realized the need for provision of walkway and reasons
for same but also that she had to protect her rights of her property and use of same.
Responded to by Reeve Davie and Mr. Skelton.
Mr. Van Niekerk enquired about the easement of 20 feet to the railway as shown on
the Plan, which would not appear to be wide enough for some farm equipment.
Response by Douglas Skelton - The existing easement on the lands exists as shown on
the Plan and will be retained as such.
Mr. Van Niekerk - Question on the proposed berm and perculation tests of the soil
as well as water presently comIng out of the lands along the railroad.
Responded to by Douglas Skelton Drainage report will need to include all existing
flows which will have to be calculated and adequate flow kept. The drainage flow
must be reviewed by the Railway and municipality and other agencies.
Councillor Drury - will there be a prOVISIon regarding use of easement by farmer
to use the 20 foot easement to property operated by the farmer across the rail-
road so as to protect the farmer from complaints of property owners of the proposed
Plan.
Responded to by Douglas Skelton.
Mrs. Ellis Crooks will access be provided the
the internal road system as shown on the Plan.
Road would be considered as back of lot.
lots from the Ridge Road or only from
In this case land abutting Ridge
Responded to by Douglas Skelton - frontage of lot would be lands abutting interior
road.
Mrs. Linda Lord
her property.
Question of drainage Increase due to development which could affect
Responded to by Douglas Skelton - proposal for drainage will be by retention.
Mrs. Suzanne Robillard - concern about drainage problem - will the development Increase
the flooding on her property on the south side of the Ridge Road?
Mr. Skelton responded - a development does increase a flow but retention method of
drainage flow should not increase present problem.
And ground water levels - will wells on proposed plan affect present wells in the
area? Any knowledge as to depth of wells on the development. Douglas Skelton re-
sponded that water well records had been looked into and hydrology test will be a
requirement.
Mrs. Robillard - requested information of the hydrology test.
Mr. Ellis Crooks - what assurance is there that development will not continue westerly
from this development.
.
.
.
Pg. 186
Special Meeting of Council
Public Meeting - September 11, 1985
Reeve Davie responded that studies undertaken have established development which
indicate little or no development beyond approved areas, future development to
be in north part of Township.
Reeve then asked the Planning Administrator to expand in more detail in this regard.
George Roberts responded that the 1975 Study indicated no further development be
considered for south part of the Township and Amendment 12 in 1979 indicates no
further development in the south part of the Township.
Mr. Skelton responded by suggesting that this development IS by re-zonlng of
established designation not further development.
Mrs. Isobel Crooks - What affect will this development have on School at Shanty Bay?
Deputy Reeve McEwen responded by advising that registrations for schools were down
at the present time.
Reeve asked the Planning Administrator to advise of the Simcoe County Board of
Education response to the proposed development.
Planning Administrator produced letter from Simcoe County Board of Education which
stated that the Board had no objection to the proposed development.
Questions were asked as to type of houses prepared and floor areas for same.
Mr. H.S. Cooper. Proponent of the development responded by stating that he did not
propose to build homes but would be looking for builder to construct homes and that he
had been speaking with a reputable builder in the area who would construct afford-
able but good homes.
A number of questions were fielded with respect to type and SIzes of houses and
responded to by Mr. Cooper.
Mrs. Robillard
By-laws will not
building minimum
suggested that lots not esthetics, no trees, etc. Present Zoning
control sizes of buildings. Nothing to prevent purchaser from
houses.
Mr. T. Bigelow - Could Township control SIze of houses for the development?
Reeve Davie responded that such controls could be implemented but economy IS also a
consideration.
Mrs. Ellis Crooks - It would appear size of houses may not necessarily be the object
but design and surrounding should be consideration.
Mrs. Karen Sanderson
Could each Subdivision not have their own building requirements?
Reeve Davie responded by indicating that by endeavouring to increase lot sizes on a
pre-designated area would appear to be giving reasonable consideration to good
development.
.
.
.
Pg. 187
Special Meeting of Council - Public Meeting
September 11, 1985
Mrs. T. Bigelow - Will this development hasten the widening of the Ridge Road?
Responded to by Reeve Davie and Douglas Skelton referring that widening of Ridge
Road would not be in accordance with the Township's Official Plan.
Mrs. Wendy MacGregor - Are efforts being made to have a School Bus stop at this
development?
Responded to by Reeve and Mr. Skelton.
Reeve Davie then asked if anyone had further comments regarding the proposed
development.
There being no further questions or comments, the Reeve advised that if anyone had
any particular concerns the Consultants, Developer and Council would be available
to answer any questions.
Then expressed appreciation of a good turn out and again reminded all present of the
date by which comments or concerns In writing must be received by the Clerk.
Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
S .C.G. Dave, Reeve