Loading...
11 06 1989 Council Minutes , THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO MONDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1989 @ 7:00 P.M. - COUNCIL CHAMBERS , , SIXTY FIRST MEETING 1988-1991 COUNCIL Council met this evening pursuant to adjournment at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Reeve Robert E. Drury Deputy Reeve David Caldwell Councillor David Burton Councillor Alastair Crawford Councillor Allan Johnson Also present were: Mr. Fred Haughton, Mr. Henk Warnar, Mrs. Cindy Warnar, Mr. William Jackson, Mr. Alan Maquire, Mr. Walpurga Valles, Ms. Beth Fellows, Ms. Mary O'Connell, Ms. Sharon Irvine, Mr. Earl Robertson, Mr. Nelson Robertson, Ms. Lorraine McCallum, Ms. Phyllis Prophet, Ms. Mary Cavanagh, Mr. Wm. Robinson, Mr. William Maij, Mr. Robert Swerdon, Ms. Shirley Woodrow, Mr. Alan Wayne, Mr. Bob Blatchford, Mr. Alan Worobee, D. Winger, Mr. Peter Donner, Mr. Russ Baxter, Mr. David Black, Ms. Alberta Cook, Mr. Robert Cook, Mr. Marvin Elliott, Ilene and Howard Caldwell, R. T. Booth, Mr. Paul Paton, Mr. A. Stoer, Mr. Bill Eckerman, Mr. Adam Grinchuis, J. Grinchuis, Mr. Wayne McInnes, Mr. Crokam, W. Bowie, Mr. John, Henson, Mr. Dick Crawford, Mr. Charles Crawford, Mr. Robert Maarse, Mr. Vic Muschta, Mr. Peter Bodle, Mr. Gib Kerrigan, Ms. Eileen Kerrigan, Mr. Ian Robertson, M. Peterson, Mr. Peter Lotts, Ms. Barbara Trotter, Ms. Eleanor Laity, D. Walsh, Mr. Michael Oliver, Ms. Anne Harrison, N. J. Robinson, Norah Robinson, Ms. Sandra Angus, Ms. Elsie Hare, Mr. John Hare, Ms. Liz Edwards, Ms. ~ladys Arff, Mr. Chuck Lowe, Mr. Harold Shelswell, Mr. Ross Cotton, Mr. Jim Cowie, Mr. Allan Warbeck, Mr. Murray Angus, Three Members of the Press. Reeve Robert E. Drury chaired the meeting. Reeve Robert E. Drury opened the meeting with a prayer. 1. DISCLOSURE AND DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None declared. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: (a) Ministry of Municipal Affairs re: Receipt of OPA # 40; (b) Mr. & Mrs. W. Westermann re: Proposed 9th Line Boat Launching Facility; (c) Eleanor Laity re: Boat Ramp and Parking Lot - Oro Line 9 (d) Murray Angus re: Request for Deputation for November 6, 1989, Meeting re: Petitions against 9th Line Boat Launching Facility; (e) Weir & Foulds Confidential Correspondence dated October 24 and 25, 1989, re: Access Ramp, Road Construction and Parking Lot Construction on 9th Concession; (f) Ontario Energy Board re: Board Order with regards to a hearing to fix the rates and other charges for the sale and distribution and transmission of gas by the Consumers Gas Co. Ltd. f '.4 - 2 - 3. DEPUTATIONS: (a) 8:03 p.m. Mr. Murray Angus, representing the Oro Beach Rate Payers Association, addressed Council concerning two petitions that were formally received by Council at their Regular Meeting held on October 16, 1989. Mr. Angus remarks were as follows: Mr. Reeve, Councilmen, my name is Murray Angus and I represent a group of concerned citizens who own property in an area roughly bound by the 8th Line and the lOth Line in the proximity of the Lake Simcoe in the Township of Oro. The purpose of this presentation this evening is to discuss the objectives behind the two petitions presented to the Township authorities on or about October 3, 1989, and read into the minutes at a Council Meeting on or about October 16, 1989. The reason this attendance was necessary is due to a lack of response from the Council. We have not been given the courtesy of an acknowledgement of the Council's intentions relating to the petitions presented. We can only assume the desires of the Council are evident by their actions, since the date the petitions were presented. The petitions presented to Council read: We, the rate payers, request of the Council of The Township of Oro, that the Township lands at the bottom of the 9th Concession, be reserved for passive parkland, and, We, the rate payers, request of the Council of The Township of Oro, that no further action be taken concerning the parking lot and the boat ramp developments at the waterfront at the 9th Concession without a public hearing. Approximately sixty (60) concerned citizens signed each of these petitions. As mentioned earlier, these petitions were read into the minutes of Council on October l6, 1989, with, if memory serves me correctly, only one comment made at the time of the reading, a Councilman did not believe that the site was suitable for a passive park because there were too many rocks on the waterfront. In violation of a permit issued by the Minister of Natural Resources, the Township has removed all the rock from the subject site thus eliminating the one objection. In addition, our request was for a passive park, not a beach. It is our understanding that the Township has been ordered by the Ministry to replace the rocks causing additional expense due to their disrespect for the conditions of the permit. In our opinion, proper procedures have not been followed. The people and the neighbourhood most affected by this project have not been given the opportunity to comment or to express their opinions. Had it not been for the investigative work by some of our members the access would have been in and completed prior to any of the neighbouring residents being made aware of the project. We are concerned with the seemingly clandestine methods used by this Council in conducting that portion of its business that has a direct effect on the welfare of the residents of the Township. , . - 3 - Our concerns or objectives are not to limited access to the lake by the boaters, but to ensure that proper procedures are followed in the determination of the location for the access. We have been given one page of a report, this page twelve was not referenced to the report that it was taken from, but through conversations we are lead to believe that the report was the culmination of a comprehensive recreational and waterfront study, at some cost to the taxpayers. Since we have been given page twelve only, our opinions may have been taken out of context. The report outlined the recommendations of the authors and I quote, "It is recommended that two new boat launching facilities be developed, one on each lake. The Bass Lake facility is proposed to be developed using municipal property accessible from the 13th Line. The Government Dock at Hawkestone has the potential to incorporate a launch ramp to provide better access to Lake Simcoe in both summer and winter". When you think about it, this site does make a lot of sense. The site is sheltered and within a kilometre of the site there is a gasoline station, a general store, a fire hall and a public telephone. All of these amenities would enhance the safety factors as well as the utilitarian needs of the sports people. We are concerned that proper studies have not been conducted to ensure the environmental balance is maintained given the alternative use of land, the increased traffic in the neighbourhood and the effects on the residents in the area. The Ministry of Environment obviously shares our concern that proper studies have not been conducted and placed a stop work order on the project until environmental approval have been received. We are concerned that proper study of the traffic patterns in the neighbourhood have not been completed to determine the effect of placing a parking lot for recreational vehicles at the intersection of three roads. In addition, the Council is reminded that the Memorial Park and beach is located in the same neighbourhood and with the additional drawing card of the launch facili~y, increased traffic and resultant noise pollution will be evident. Residents have witnessed near and actual accidents at this corner verifying the unsafe nature of this corner. To add to this congestion would not be evidence of good planning. We are concerned for the safety of the people who use the lake access in the winter time. Primarily the snowmobilers who are unaware of the open water and thin ice conditions that will be ever present due to the continuous running stream through the proposed property and emptying into the lake. Notwithstanding the irresponsible attitudes of some of the Councilmen who believe that the moment the persons leave the shoreline they are out of the Township and therefore not our responsibility, we are of the opinion that lawsuits are possible due to the providing of a knowingly unsafe winter access to the lake. The rate payers are concerned with the cost of a lawsuit of this nature or the cost of insurance to adequately protect the Township in the event of a claim being placed on their purses. Is this a good use of public funds? We are concerned that the Township is planning to provide a shelterless launch facility without regard to the prevailing winds in the area. If the Township were to be held liable for damage to boats, our concern with the cost of insurance or liability claims, again is raised. - 4 - We are concerned that the Township has disposed of many of its property to help finance the construction of these facilities that we are in this evening. Then out of the alleged interest of saving money choose a site for the launching facilities that require the purchase of additional land and that are a detriment to the neighbourhood in which they lay. We are concerned that the increased garbage in the area will be a detraction to comfortable living conditions that one would expect in a neighbourhood such as this one. We are concerned that proper set backs have not been allowed for the turnaround in the plans for the launch facilities. The turnaround for the vehicles dropping the boats will be exactly the width of the road allowance with no buffer between this facility and the adjacent properties. We are concerned that the boat launch committee that was formed to determine the "best" site for the launch facility besides being redundant given the previously mentioned waterfront report, was not working with full disclosure of the facts. This committee was formed and met for the first time on or about May 6, 1989, and deliberated until the latter part of August, 1989, before making its presentation to the Recreational Board. On May 27, 1989, three weeks after the committee had its first meeting there was an offer to purchase signed by Councillor Crawford for the purchase of the lands for the proposed parking lot. What were the lands to be used for if this site had not been chosen? It would appear that the site was chosen prior to the recommendation had been received from the committee. Another breach in democracy? We are also concerned that the criteria used to choose the "best" site has never been disclosed and that a written report following the normal procedures of protocol has not been prepared. We are concerned that this project was not included in the expense budget for this fiscal year and that the contracts for the work to be completed were not offered in public tender. We implore the Council to act in the manner of a responsible, democratically operated body and give the residents of Oro their right to due process in this matter. We ask that a public meeting be called to allow citizens to make their opinions known. A meeting properly called with ample time for interested parties to prepare their presentations and schedule their time. A meeting to discuss the concerns raised this evening. I might add that the concerns raised this eveing are the most commonly expressed but there are more and the citizens should be given the opportunity to make them known. A meeting was promised by Deputy Reeve Caldwell in the Barrie Examiner of October 2, 1989, at which time he was quoted as saying that, "he expects Council will hold a meeting to inform the residents". With the haste that the Township attended to the construction of the project, subsequent to Council becoming aware of our concerns, we can only assume that this promise had no intention of being honoured. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to discuss this matter with you. I ask that these notes be received by Council and entered into the minutes of this meeting. Copies of these notes are also available to the press, if desired. Councillor Crawford: Reeve Drury: Fred Haughton: Reeve Drury: Fred Haughton: - 5 - I would like to make comments on a couple of things that were said. One thing that was said was that properties along the lake had been sold to provide money for this facility; that is not true. Also, as far as the haste is concerned, I worked on behalf of the committee with some of the contractors involved and haste may seem to be haste but it takes a~ong time to get contractors in place. We waited over three weeks to get a contractor to clean stumps, etc. in order to put the roadway in, which held us up, and it is important that the work be done while the water is low at this time of the year and before the frost sets in. I would like to ask our Public Services Administrator to comment on a couple of items that were brought up. The unsafe corner at the bottom of the 9th Line, Mr. Haughton, would you comment on that. On the 9th Line were Parks ide comes onto the intersection, the Lakeshore joines there, possibly a bit of change in the configuration of the road and the alignment of the intersection could be changed to make it a bit safter. I have not been made aware from the OPP of any accident situations. In comment to the removal of the stones, was that a misunderstanding or how did that come about? My interpretation was we could remove the stones but we had to leave a certain amount of stones along the lake on each side of the shoreline, on each side of the ramp, to allow for erosion. We removed what we could with the contractor, participating quite a bit of rock coming out of the lake bed, that would be placed on shore. The MNR indicated they wanted a certain amount of boulders left there for erosion. Since then we have replaced most of the stones and have to bring some more back. We anticipate alot of stones to come out from the lake bed that will be placed on the shore. Deputy Reeve Caldwell: Murray Angus: Deputy Reeve Caldwell: Murray Angus: Deputy Reeve Caldwell: Murray Angus: Deputy Reeve Caldwell: Murray Angus: Deputy Reeve Caldwell: Murray Angus: - 6 - I was quoted in the Barrie Examiner, and when the person called me for the interview, I was referring specifically to the parking area and at that point we had not received a report back from our solicitor and our Township Planning Consultant on what steps we should take to deal with that site for a parking lot and we have been given some options as to how we can handle this. At this point Council has not made a decision on how that will be handled. One of the possible avenues is the rezoning of it and if it has to be rezoned then it requires a Public Meeting under the Planning Act. There is no point in having a Public Meeting on something, prior to determining whether it has to be handled under the terms of the Planning Act. If it does then that is the procedure we will follow. I would like to make two points. One directed to Deputy Reeve Caldwell. Am I to understand that a Public Hearing will only be held if it is required under the Municipal Act? The requirement would be under the Planning Act rather than the Municipal Act. If we are required to rezone the area intended for parking, there is no Public Meeting required as far as the ramp or the road is concerned. So if it is not required under any Act that you are ruled by, you do not intend to hold one? I didn't say that. The point I was making was if the requirement is that we have to do it under the Planning Act, we will do it under that form, if not there is nothing to prevent us from having a Public Meeting for general input. In your opinion, one is not required for the Boat Ramp, is that correct? That is correct. Are you intending to hold one? If we are going to have one, we will have a Public Meeting and deal with both things at the same time. There is no sense in having two Public Meetings. Are you planning on having the meeting for the Boat Ramp after the Ramp is installed or before? Deputy Reeve Caldwell: Murray Angus: Deputy Reeve Caldwell: Murray Angus: Reeve Drury Murray Angus: Reeve Drury Murray Angus: - 7 - As far as the Boat Ramp is concerned, there is not a Public Meeting required, so if there is a Public Meeting required under the Planning Act, for the Parking Lot, it will be held under the terms of the Planning Act for the Parking Lot. If it is not required for the Parking Lot, then it would be my hope that Council would have a Public Meeting to deal with both things combined. And, it may be after the ramp is in. So you will hold a Public Meeting after the ramp is in? I said it may be after the ramp is in, yes. That is like closing the gate after the horse is loose. What good is having the input from the Citizens of the Township, after you have done what they want their input for. We are having input this evening, you have brought some points to us and we are going to consider before we go ahead with anythingelse. They are good valid points. We are not arguing your points, we will look at them all and consider them. I am hoping this is not considered the Public Meeting. It is certainly a Public Forum. As Deputy Reeve Caldwell stated, if we have to go to a rezoning, there definitely will be a Public Meeting, Council would make the decision whether or not we do go to a Public Meeting to inform the residents any further than what we have at this point. There is the same process going on in Shanty Bay, they are upgrading the facility there, we had residents at last Monday's Council Meeting, they had some concerns, we addressed their concerns and they went away happy. This is the way a Public Forum is suppose to work. Second question was, there are many people here that do not have any idea of what this project entails. I am wondering if someone from the Council can make a quick summary of what the project is and what it is going to invole in the neighbourhood. Prior to doing that, could I hand out copies of the presentation to the press? - 8 - Reeve Drury: I will attempt to explain the process that has taken place with the launching facilities we are establishing in the Township. Some three years ago we undertook a Parks and Recreation Masterplan Study. Out of that study, as Mr. Angus quoted from page twelve, it recommended that two boat launching facilities be established in the Township. One on Bass Lake and one on Lake Simcoe. At that point we already had one on Lake Simcoe, at Shanty Bay. Since then nothing happened until Gull Rock Marina closed down, that was a private facility where most of the people who operated a small boat, less than twenty feet, could launch their boats safely. When Gull Rock Marina closed down, about one year ago, there was a committee of about fifty people who were interested in having a facility to launch their fishing boats, so we had a meeting in Shanty Bay, in the summer of last year. From that, we recognized there was a greater need for a facility. We brought it to our Parks and Recreation Committee and was dealt with there for several months. The election came along at that time, so it was put on hold for a while. From the Parks and Recreation Committee a sub-committee was formed with myself, Councillor Crawford, three members of the Parks and Recreation Committee, and six members along Lake Simcoe. We tried to get three people pro and three people con to be members of our Boat Launching Facility Committee. The Boat Launching Facility never got under way until May, because it was hard to get together during that part of the winter and we wanted to do sight visits. We had at least two sight visits, along the lake to try to determine where a proper facility could be located. We went back to Shanty Bay, some five or six years ago we established a small facility there, not properly installed as we did not have a large budget at the time, but it did work well for two or three years. So from that we decided that Shanty Bay would be a proper area to put one in. Recommendations were made to go ahead with Shanty Bay and the 9th Line. The 9th Line was brought to us, by a letter from a rate payer down in your area, suggesting the 9th and the empty lot there would make a good spot for a Boat Launch Facility and a Parking Area. From that we decided to put an offer in on the land, and it was done through C6uncillor Crawford, who graciously used some of his funds of which he was reimbursed for later, to go ahead and purchase the land. The land was offered for sale at $54,000. We put an offer in at $lO,OOO., it was signed back at $15,000., we settled for $12,500. We agreed at that time that if in fact we did not require it for a Parking Facility we would dispose of it in the usual manner. This is what leads us to the meeting this evening. Councillor Crawford: Reeve Drury: Murray Angus: Councillor Crawford: Murray Angus: Councillor Crawford: Reeve Drury: - 9 - One of the reasons that the 9th Line was chosen is because the grade or the earth level on the roadway is two feet above the high water level of the lake. In Shanty Bay you have a thirty or forty foot lift. At the 9th line there is two feet which is ideal facilities for getting a boat in and a boat out and that was one of the reasons it was chosen. Also at Shanty Bay you have to go out about almost forty feet from the high water mark to get the drop off and it is only half that distance at the 9th Line. That is the main reason it was chosen, besides the fact that there will be parking there. Another reason being was it was felt it was a fairly ideal location. There was a lot available across the road to be purchased but it was $150,000., a far cry from the $12,500. we paid for the lot we have on the bottom of the 9th that could be used for a parking facility. Councillor Crawford, you outlined two reasons why you put it at the 9th. Are they the two criteria that you used? That and the fact that there was parking. They were the best sites in the Township. I understand that you sighted forty eight other sites. Do you have a summary of how those forty eight sights stacked up within those three criteria. No, we looked at them all. I see two hands up and unless Council directs me I cannot take your questions or your remarks. We have a delegation that was due at 8:30 and we are running overtime so we will allow ten minutes more. Motion moved by Councillor Crawford, seconded by Deputy Reeve Caldwell NOTE: After Council suspended Section 24 (a) of its Procedural By- Law, Council allowed ten (10) more minutes for those who wished to discuss the proposed Boat Launching Facility at the 9th Line. - lO - Ross Cotton: First point I would like to say is, the right of the public to use the lake. I know Mr. Angus mentioned he would like the questioned Road Allowance to be a park area, I served on the Committee and was one of the people involved in getting the initial group together in Shanty Bay; it is hard to get access to Lake Simcoe if every Road Allowance is a park. At election time last year, I asked the simple question if all candidates would be in favour of a Public Boat Launch Facility. The answer was an unanimous yes. From a boaters point of view there is no doubt that there is definitely a need for a Boat Launching Facility. In my personal opinion, two sites is not enough. We do not want a large facility like Port Credit where there is three or four hundred boats, and if you only have one, I am afraid there is more pressure on that site to end up being there. So we felt small sites were the answer. My final point is about boating safety. From a fishing point of view, most of the fishing takes place out in front of the seventh and eight area in the Township. To ask a person to launch his boat at Hawkestone and drive to Big Bay Point and beware of the weather conditions, I do not think this is very safe. The more sites there are the better boating safety is. Jim Cowie: This is directed to Councillor Crawford. When did you purchase this property, of Lot 44, Plan 875? Councillor Crawford: I think the deal was signed about the 30th of May and was to close on the 14th of June. Jim Cowie: 27th of May is that not correct? Councillor Crawford: It was signed back a couple of times and was to close on the 14th of June. Jim Cowie: You used your own funds to purchase this property, for a deposit I believe? Councillor Crawford: Yes for a deposit. Jim Cowie: Did you buy it in trust for the Township? Reeve Drury: Sir, I do not think your questions are relevant at this time, what took place Councillor Crawford did what he thought was best and Council thought was best, in the interest of the Township and I am not going to allow you to stand there and point questions at him. Jim Cowie: Who put the motion forth for the Township to buy that property? Reeve Drury: We would have to go back to our records and find that. Does anyone remember who moved the motion? Jim Cowie: Councillor Crawford did on June 5th, he directed that his own property be purchased by the Township. - II - Allan Warbeck: I live on the waterfront and I am deeply concerned with use of the lake, yet I am in favour of this Boat Ramp. The lake is a fantastic resource which everyone should be able to enjoy. That particular Road Allowance was established as intended from instructions from the Crown to be surveyed as a Public Road Allowance, Access, to and from the lake. In my opinion this is what this road was always intended for and anyone purchasing or making improvements or investing in that area has had full knowledge, it is only common sense that the potential for improvements to be made there for access to the lake has existed since 1820. To me any opposition would be like buying property on Highway #11 and then complaining about the noise. I attended the Oro Beach Rate Payers Association last week and I would like to point out to Council that the concerns expressed here by the Rate Payers Association, presented by Mr. Angus, do not necessarily reflect the views of all of the residents in the immediate area. I think that the interests of a few are trying to make their attempts to override the interests of all of the Oro Township Residents. I must also mention that there are some concerns that must be addressed such as litter, construction of the facility to eliminate the possibility of overnight docking, traffic congestion. I would be more than happy to sit on a committee or provide assistance to a committee to help to minimize the affects of this particular construction. There was concerns raised about snowmobilers, with the creek abutting the West limit of the Road Allowance. I gain access near Oro Park where there is a creek that comes across the lake and it is only common sense that you exercise due care and caution in operating a snowmobile. There is also a creek at the bottom of the 7th and hundreds of snowmobilers and ice fisherman go down there every year, and I do not know of any disasterous effects. As far as traffic is concerned at the bottom of the 9th, there are two stop signs within a short distance and coming down the 9th approaching Parks ide Drive you would have to be at an almost stopped speed, so it should not create a problem. I feel the overall concerns of Oro Residents have been dealt with properly and I am in favour of Council's actions. - l2 - (b) 8:55 p.m. Mrs. Loreen Lucas and Mr. Howard Campbell, members of the Oro History Committee addressed Council concerning a proposed chain of office. 4. REPORTS OF MUNICIPAL OFFICERS: (a) Beverly Nicolson, Township Planner Report re: OPA #34 P-16/88 and OPA #36 P-17/88 5. COMMUNICATIONS: (a) Leonard Mortson, President Jersey Cattle Association of Canada re: use of the Oro Arena Community Room on March 25th, 199 0 ; (b) G. M. Sernas and Associates Limited re: the Letter of Credit for Sugarbush Phase (c) Richard C. Jones of Jorden and Jones re: Application P-31/89 (Mackie); (d) Richard C. Jones of Jorden and Jones re: Development Application P-20/88 (Clark); (e) The Royal Canadian Legion (Branch 34) re: Naming of Streets for Township Residents who served and died in the Armed Forces; (f) AMO re: 1990 Transfer Payments to Municipalities; (g) Plan of Survey re: Part of the Road Allowance between Concession 6 & 7; (h) Dr. G. W. Honeywood, Allan Dale, Veterinary Clinic re: Rabies Clin ic. request to reduce III, Stage III; Development 6. NEW BUSINESS: Deputy Reeve David Caldwell asked the Administrator/Clerk whether there were any blue boxes available for those people who did not receive them? The Administrator/Clerk responded by stating that the courier company is still available to deliver blue boxes and there are a supply of blue boxes available at the Administration Office. MOTION NO. 1 Moved by Caldwell, seconded by Crawford Be it resolved that the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Council held Monday, October l6, 1989, be adopted as printed and circulated. Carried. MOTION NO. 2 Moved by Burton, seconded by Johnson Be it resolved that the minutes of the Special Meeting of Council held on Wednesday, October 25, 1989, be adopted as printed and circulated. Carried. MOTION NO. 3 Moved by Crawford, seconded by Caldwell Be it resolved that the minutes of the Special Public Meeting of Council held on Monday, October 30, 1989, (Wright) be adopted as printed and circulated. Carried. MOTION NO. 4 Moved by Johnson, seconded by Burton Be it resolved that the minutes of the Special Public Meeting of Council held on Monday, October 30, 1989, (Chew) be adopted as printed and circulated. Carried. - l3 - MOTION NO. 5 Moved by Burton, seconded by Johnson Be it resolved that the accounts presented for the period ending Monday, November 6, 1989, in the amount of $105,908.56, plus payroll for the period ending November 2, 1989, in the amount of $54,801.04, in accordance with the computer print-out presented to Council, be approved for payment. Carried. MOTION NO. 6 Moved by Caldwell, seconded by Crawford Be it resolved that the Road Expenditures for the period ending Monday, November 6, 1989, be accepted as presented, and further the Treasurer be authorized to issue cheques in the amount of $193,722.93. Carried. MOTION NO. 7 Moved by Crawford, seconded by Caldwell Be it resolved that the recommendations listed on the Consent Agenda, Item No.5, be approved. Carried. MOTION NO. 8 Moved by Johnson, seconded by Burton Be it resolved that the Report from Beverly Nicolson, Township Planner, concerning OPA No. 34 and Development Application P-l6/88 and OPA No. 36 and Development Application P-17/88 be received and adopted. Carried. MOTION NO. 9 Moved by Caldwell, seconded by Crawford Be it resolved that the correspondence from Leonard Mortson, President of the Jersey Cattle Association of Canada be received and the Organization be advised they will have to abide by current Township policies concerning the Rental of the Oro Arena Community Hall. Carried. MOTION NO. lO Moved by Burton, seconded by Johnson Be it resolved that the correspondence from G. M. Sernas and Associates Limited with regards to a request to reduce the Letter of Credit for the Sugarbush Subdivision, Phase III, Stage III, be referred to the Township Engineer, R. G. Robinson and Associates Limited for a report back to Council. Carried. MOTION NO. II Moved by Caldwell, seconded by Crawford Be it resolved that the correspondence from Richard C. Jones of Jorden and Jones Planning Consultants concerning Development Application P-31/89 (Mackie) be received and referred to the Township's Planning Consultant and Planner for a review and further the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro directs this application proceed to the next step under the Planning process, further that the lands required for fire protection will not be part of the 5% parkland dedication. Carried. - l4 - MOTION NO. 12 Moved by Johnson, seconded by Burton Be it resolved that the correspondence from Richard C. Jones of Jorden and Jones Planning Consultants with regards to Development Application P-20/88 (Clark) be received and referred to the Township Planning Consultant, Mr. Ron Watkin and Township Planner, Ms. Beverly Nicolson, for a review and further Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro directs that this application proceed to the next step within the Planning process. Carried. MOTION NO. 13 Moved by Burton, seconded by Johnson Be it resolved that the correpondence from Doug Hawkins of Ontario Branch No. 34, of the Royal Canadian Legion, be received and referred to the Township Planning Department and further the Corporation of the Township of Oro hereby directs the Planner to ensure that these names are made available to prospective developers of future subdivisions within the Township of Oro; provided that the name Clark is only used once. Carried. MOTION NO. 14 Moved by Caldwell, seconded by Crawford Be it resolved that the correspondence from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario concerning the 1990 transfer payments to Municipalities, be received and further the Corporation of the Township of Oro directs the Administrator/Clerk to correspond with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Treasurer, the Premier and MPP Allan McLean and advise them that a continuation of constraining transfer payments to Municipalities and shifting new programs and responsibilities to the local level will result in increases to the Mill Rate and many unhappy constituents. Recorded Vote requested by the Reeve. Carried. Councillor Burton Yea Deputy Reeve Caldwell Yea Councillor Crawford Yea Councillor Johnson Yea Reeve Drury Yea MOTION NO. 15 Moved by Johnson, seconded by Burton Be it resolved that the Plan of Survey with regards to part of the Road Allowance between Concession 6 and 7, be referred to the Township Solicitor, David S. White, for a report back to Council and further this portion of the Road Allowance should be appraised by the Township. The cost of the appraisal to be bourn by Mr. Miller and Mr. DeMartini. Carried. - 15 - MOTION NO. 16 Moved by Crawford, seconded by Caldwell Be it resolved that Report No. 89-l9 of the Committee of the Whole Meeting held on Monday, October 30, 1989, and the recommendations contained therein, be adopted as printed and circulated. Carried. MOTION NO. l7 Moved by Burton, seconded by Johnson Be it resolved that the Petition presented to Council by concerned ratepayers with regards to the proposed concrete Boat Ramp on the 2nd Concession, be received and referred to the Public Services Administrator, for comment. Carried. MOTION NO. l8 Moved by Johnson, seconded by Burton Be it resolved that Development Application P-39/89 (Alfa Aggregates Limited) an application to rezone the East Half of Lot 9, Concession 7, from Rural Aggregate (RUl) to Extractive Industrial (M2) Zone to permit an aggregate extractive operation, be recommended to Council to establish a date for the required Public Meeting and that the hydrology report be submitted one week prior to the Public Meeting and that no residential use of the existing structures be permitted following the agreed upon termination date. Carried. MOTION NO. 19 Moved by Caldwell, seconded by Crawford Be it resolved that the proposed amendment to the Official Plan to establish new (Estate Residential) policies and redesignate certain lands in the Township, specifically an area identified as "North West Oro" to proceed to establish a date for the required Public Meeting: and further, that the Planner and Planning Consultant should indicate in writing the results of the study to the four applicants in the "North West Oro" area. Carried. MOTION NO. 20 Moved by Crawford, seconded by Caldwell Be it resolved that Development Application P-33/89 (William and Marjorie Jones) an application for a Zoning By-Law Amendment to amend the zone from Natural Area (NA) Zone to General Residential (RG) Zone to permit development on Lots 122 to 131, Plan 589, of a permanent single family dwelling, that the applicants be advised that Council is proceeding to amend the Official Plan as it pertains to private and unassumed roads and the "Natural Area"; and, since this may take some time that the applicants be given the opportunity to withdraw their application, and the fee be refunded in full if they withdraw; and further, if Official Plan Amendment No. 4l is approved then the Planning Advisory Committee and Council would entertain their proposal at that time. Carried. - 16 - MOTION NO. 21 Moved by Caldwell, seconded by Crawford Be it resolved that Development Application P-43/89 not be considered at this time and that full fees submitted by the applicant be returned. Carried. MOTION NO. 22 Moved by Burton, seconded by Johnson Be it resolved that Development Application P-32/89 (Morley Shelswell) an application for an Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendment to redesignate the North Part of Lot 16, Concession 14, from Environmental Protection and Inherent Hazard (OS2) Zone to Industrial to permit Industrial Development, be deferred until the proponent undertakes the following; to have a Planning Consultant review the proposal and; (1) investigate matters related to access to the property; (2) boundaries of the environmental area; (3) proposed uses; (4) an appropriate concept plan. Carried. MOTION NO. 23 Moved by Crawford, seconded by Caldwell Be it resolved that the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro have now reviewed Official Plan Amendment 15 and 16 for the Township of Flos and the relevant background material and would like to express the following concerns. While we recognize that the Official Plan does allow for development on a communal water system or individual wells and that the reports prepared by Ian Wilson and the review by the Ministry of the Environment indicate sufficient water appears to exist for the 44 lot development on individual wells; the Council has concerns relating to the ultimate development of the Hamlet with respect to water supply. The Hamlet of Craighurst rests within four municipalities and with the development of the 44 lots proposed, combined with the residentially designated lands in the three remaining Townships, a total development potential for the area of approximately 200 lots exists. We note further that an existing water system exists, although limited, within the Hamlet. We note that the Wilson Report only addresses water supply for the 44 lots in Flos and does not address the potential for the development of an overall water supply for the community or the affect this development would have on the development on private water on the additional 150 units. The Township of Oro feels this is an oversight in the report and feels that the issue of an overall water supply should be addressed. It is a concern that if a municipal water supply system is going to be a requirement of the Ministry of the Environment in the future then all four municipalities should be involved and participate. In the interest of the overall long term planning of this Hamlet, development of private wells on the basis of first come, first served is not in our opinion appropriate. We, therefore, feel that the issue of an overall water supply system should be given consideration prior to the approval of Official Plan Amendment 15 and 16. Secondly, Council has concerns with respect to the potential for development within the Craighurst area and the lack of fire protection and or a water reservoir for fire fighting capability. Council does not consider it appropriate to approve development within Craighurst without the provision for fire fighting being made available. continued.... - 17 - MOTION NO. 23 cont'd Finally, Council considered that for the future long term development of the Hamlet of Craighurst that it should politically be under one jurisdiction and that the Ministry investigate the inclusion of the Hamlet under one jurisdiction. Carried. MOTION NO. 24 Moved by Crawford, seconded by Caldwell Be it resolved that a By-Law to Adopt Amendment No. 32 to the Official Plan (Winfull) be introduced and read a first and second time and numbered By-Law No. 89-97. Carried. That By-Law No. 89-97 be read a third time and finally passed, be engrossed by the Clerk, signed and sealed by the Reeve. Carried. MOTION NO. 25 Moved by Caldwell, seconded by Crawford Be it resolved that a By-Law to Rezone Lot 10, Plan 1242, Concession 13, (Wright) be introduced and read a first and second time and numbered By-Law No. 89-98. Carried. That By-Law No. 89-98 be read a third time and finally passed, be engrossed by the Clerk, signed and sealed by the Reeve. Carried. MOTION NO. 26 Moved by Crawford, seconded by Caldwell Be it resolved that a By-Law to Rezone Part of the West Part of Lot 28, Concession 3, (Douglas) be introduced and read a fikst and second time and numbered By-Law No. 89-99. Carried. That By-Law No. 89-99 be read a third time and finally passed, be engrossed by the Clerk, signed and sealed by the Reeve. Carried. MOTION NO. 27 Moved by Johnson, seconded by Burton Be it resolved that a By-Law to Establish a Site Plan Control Zone, Part of North Half Lot 21, Concession 6, (Appletree Garden Centre and Northway Truck Stop) be introduced and read a first and second time and numbered By-Law No. 89-100. Carried. That By-Law No. 89-l00 be read a third time and finally passed, be engrossed by the Clerk, signed and sealed by the Reeve. Carried. . - 18 - MOTION NO. 28 Moved by Johnson, seconded by Burton Be it resolved that a By-Law to dedicate certain lands as Public Roads within the North Oro Industrial Park and to assume the said roads for public use be introduced and read a first and second time and numbered By-Law No. 89-101. Carried. That By-Law No. 89-101 be read a third time and finally passed, be engrossed by the Clerk, signed and sealed by the Reeve. Carried. MOTION NO. 29 Moved by Burton, seconded by Johnson Be it resolved that a By-Law to rezone Part of the South Part of Lot II, Concession l, (McKee) be introduced and read a first and second time and numbered By-Law No. 89-102. Carried. That By-Law No. 89-102 be read a third time and finally passed, be engrossed by the Clerk, signed and sealed by the Reeve. Recorded Vote requested by Deputy Reeve Caldwell Carried. Councillor Johnson Yea Councillor Crawford Yea Deputy Reeve Caldwell Yea Councillor Burton Yea Reeve Drury Yea MOTION NO. 30 Moved by Johnson, seconded by Burton Be it resolved that a By-Law to Establish a Site Plan Control Area on the South Part of Lot ll, Concession I, (McKee) be introduced and read a first and second time and numbered By-Law No. 89-103. Carried. That By-Law No. 89-103 be read a third time and finally passed, be engrossed by the Clerk, signed and sealed by the Reeve. Carried. MOTION NO. 3l Moved by Caldwell, seconded by Crawford Be it resolved that the correspondence from Dr. G. W. Honeywood concerning a proposed rabies clinic be received and further the Corporation of the Township of Oro endorses the Rabies Clinic on November 14, 1989, or an alternate date of November 2l, 1989, at the Township Garage. Carried. MOTION NO. 32 Moved by Crawford, seconded by Caldwell Be it resolved that Section 24 (a) of By-Law 89-39 be suspended to allow those who wish to speak on the Boat Launching Facility to do so. Carried. . - 19 - MOTION NO. 33 Moved by Burton, seconded by Johnson Be it resolved that a By-Law to Confirm the Proceedings of council be introduced and read a first and second time and numbered By-Law No. 89-104. Carried. That By-law No. 89-104 be read a third time and finally passed, be engrossed by the Clerk, signed and sealed by the Reeve. Carried. MOTION NO. 34 Moved by Johnson, seconded by Burton Be it resolved that we do now adjourn @ 9:05 p.m. Carried. L?~ert ~ 1iU- ~ Cler.-o~. Ll