06 19 1989 Public Min 7:15
;
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO
SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 19,1989 @ 7:15 P.M. - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
THIRTY FIFTH 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:
Donald R. MacDonald, Rick Vanersande, Nelson Robertson, Bernal
Johnston, Bea Johnston, G. A. Johnston, Dave Hughes, Bob
Swerdon, R. S. Arbour, V. Bell, Ray Lockwood, Stephen Woodrow
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 the purpose of the Special Public Meeting
was to introduce proposed Zoning By-law Amendments under
Section 34 (12) of the Planning Act. The proposed Zoning
By-law Amendment would rezone those lands located in:
Part of Lot 10, Concession 12
Part of Lot 30, Concession 2
Part of Lot 7, Concession 12
From the Agricultural "A" Zone to the Rural Residential (RUR)
zone.
Notice of the public meeting was circulated to all property
owners within 400 feet of the subject lands. Notice of the
Public Meeting was also placed in both the Barrie Examiner
and Orillia Packet and Times on May 24th, 1989.
The Reeve then asked the Clerk if there had been any corres-
pondence received on this matter. The Clerk responded by
indicating that no correspondence had been received.
The Reeve then stët:ed that those persons present would be
afforded the opportunity of asking questions with respect
to the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment.
Reeve Robert E. Drury then turned the meeting over to the
Township Planner, Ms. Beverly Nicolson, to explain the
purpose and affect of the proposed amendments.
At the conclusion of Ms. Nicolsonls presentation, those present
were then asked if they had any questions or concerns with
respect to the matter.
Donald R. MacDonald:
Do you have anything in place to ensure
that these remain as Retirement
Or can the farmer live there for
three years, five years, and then
sold? What becomes of it then, does
it continue on as a lot for the use of
a farm resident in the area?
r
Beverly Nicolson:
Donald R. MacDonald:
Beverly Nicolson:
Donald R. MacDonald
Beverly Nicolson:
Donald R. MacDonald:
Beverly Nicolson:
Donald R. MacDonald:
Alastair Crawford:
- 2 -
Yes, and there is really no legal means
that the Township can take within limits
to when the exchange of lands, ownership
of lands, over say a ten year period.
Right now there are provisions that we
do utilize to ensure that the people who
are making a valid request get their
lots and they also keep the lot. But
there is no way the Township can put long
term provisions into effect.
How many years does a farmer have to be
actively farming before he can severe
a lot off for retirement?
Five years.
So therefore within a period of thirty
years you can have five separate lots
on one farm, if there was five different
owners.
No, once there has been a retirement or
residential lot taken off a parcel of
land that is the only one that can be
taken off. That is in our Official Plan.
I see, once one has been taken off there
will never be another one allowed.
At this point in time that is what our
policy says.
I see, I understand, thankyou.
Mr. Reeve This hearing according
to my understanding of the Planning Act
is out of order. Last August the
Committee of Adjustment, at a public
meeting or hearing granted consent to
these severances subject to some
conditions, one of which was, and I
quote "That the subject land be rezoned
to accurately reflect the land use". It
does not say "apply for rezoning". The
original condition, proposed by the
planner did but was changed by the
committee, of which I was chairman, to
put the onus on the Township Council,
who has the authority to rezone rather
than the applicant who has not.
Following this appeal period of thirty
days when no appeal was made by the
Township or anyone else the decision
of the committee and the conditions
became final and binding, Planning
Act Section 44, Part 14. This also
meant in my interpretation that the
rezoning was also binding on the
Township Council.
T
- 3 -
Over the past number of years the
rezoning of similar lots from Agri-
culture to Rural Residential was done
by by-law without further public
meetings because there had been
opportunity for public input at the
Committee of Adjustment hearing.
Rezoning under these conditions are
allowed by by-law under section 34
of the Planning Act. In fact, our
present planner said just that in this
room, when the last group of similar
lots were rezoned last August. To
open up the process to a public
meeting at this stage in my opinion
is out of order. Unless appealed
within thirty days of the decision,
these lots should be rezoned by
by-law without delays, following the
appeal period.
As an elected representative, I find
it offensive to think that the process
is being used just to extract fees
from the applicants for the Planning
Department coffers. By grouping
together the three applications now
under consideration and the five more
next month, the fees total $2,800.00
for two hearings, which I consider out
of order.
I know that the planner or the planning
consultant are going to get up and say
that I am mistaken or uninformed, but I
would take what they say with a grain
of salt because in my opinion they
make their living tangling us up in
red tape and then charging us fees to
untangle us. I just want the fees to
be justified and necessary, which in
this case I believe are not. I want
to go on record as believing this
hearing is out of order and that the
fees charged for it be returned to
the applicants. Failing that, the
applicants should in my opinion demand
them back on the grounds the hearings
were out of order and unnecessary.
Thank you Mr. Reeve.
The Reeve in closing the meeting, thanked those in attendance
for their participation and advised that Council would
consider all matters before reacmng a decision. He also
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.
~.
. 1\'
II .
I "
I' .
I
+
I
.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
I
I
II
II
II
I
- 4 -
MOTION NO.1
Moved by Johnson, seconded by Burton
Be it resolved that this special Public Meeting be adjourned
@ 7:25 p.m. Carried.
RE~T fQ ¡:¡;;
c~~