01 05 1987 Public Minutes 7:30
THE CORPORATICN OF THE 'IU-JNSHIP OF ORO
SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING
MCNDAY, JANUARY 5, 1987 @ 7:30 P.M. - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The follCMing Members of Council were present:
Reeve Robert E. Drury
Deputy Reeve Thelma Halfacre
Councillor David Burton
Councillor David Caldwell
Councillor Robert Swerdon
8
Reeve Robert E. Drury chaired the Meeting.
Also present were:
Gary Foster, Vicky Way, Eric Runacres, Rene DeMartini, Victor
DeMartini, Jamie Vince, Nancy VanEssen, Gordon Keith, J6hn
Britten, William Eric May, Susan Seymour, Bill Seymour, G.W.
Whiteside, C.N. Bennett, wim Van Winden, Gordon Ball, Edwin V.
Abbott, Gerry VanEssen, Eric Bennett, Gary Parrish, Brent
Jbhnson, Robert Brown, Dave Caplam, Neil McNiven, Holly
Helen Lepek - Weston-Templeton eonsultants, Martin Sernas-
G.M. Sernas & Associates, also present were two members of the
press.
Reeve Drury opened the Meeting by explaining to those present, that the
of the Public Meeting is to introduce the Proposed Official Plan and Zoning
Amendment for the West 1/2 of Lots I, 2 & 3, Concession 7; the Proposed
Plan Amendment will designate certain lands within the effected area from the
"Rural Land Use" Designation to the "Resort Area" Designation to permit the
development of a 204 Lot - Single Family Residential development by Registered
of Subdivision. The Proposed Rezoning would zone lands wi thin the effected area
frcm the Rural"'RU" Zone to the General Residential "RG" Zone. Recreational
facilities and Open Space Areas will be zoned frcm the Rural "RU" Zone to the
Recreation and Open SPace "OP1" Zone. The effect of the designation changes will
be to permit the development of a Residential Plan of Subdivision.
Notice of the Public Meeting was circulated to the area effected, and to all
land owners within 120 metres of the area effected on December 3, 1986 in
with the Ontario Regulations. In addition, notices were sent to Agencies
to have an interest in the matter. This Meeting is being held under Section 17 &
34 of the Planning Act.
The Reeve then stated that all persons present would be afforded the
of asking questions in respect with the Proposed Official Plan and Rezoning
Amendment.
The Reeve then asked the Clerk if any correspondence had been received
the Proposal, the Clerk responded that no correspondence had been received.
8
The Reeve then turned the Meeting over to the Township Planner, Ms. Holly
who explained the purpose and the effect of the Proposed Amendrnent. The Reeve
then asked those present if they had any questions or concerns with regards to the
Proposal¡
Q.
Edwin Abbott
- Is a third of an acre adequate to support a septic tank with
density, and I can see in that small area, sane where between
50,000 - 75,000 gallons of sewage having to be disposed of
day.
A.
Helen Lepek
- First of all, that's the same size unit that have gone in
bush's Phases I and II, and the Horseshoe Valley, and of
course, there are Estate Lots in Residential Areas where lots
are larger and so on. But these have been reviewed to be
sufficient for development of spetic tanks. All of the
preliminary Engineering work indicated that there should be no
problem.
8
8
Q.
John Britten
A.
Helen Lepek
Q.
William May
SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING
PAGE 2
- I own the property right beside the Sugarbush, I have l25
to the East, totally surrounded by the Subdivision;
Would 200 septic systems have an effect on the water, will I
own a Cess Pcx:>l in 5 years;
This is a very isolated area for the Rugby-Edgar Fire Hall
(on the border line, that serves these two areas) and I am
wondering if they have seen the Planner, or if they have any
input in this Plan at all to the input of 204 rrore units, and
thus greatly increases the chance of fire being such a dry
area with so many trees;
I have a dug -well, and will there be any contact with the
Simcoe County Board of Health, if the dug wells have any
wi th the drilled wells and the water tables, I would hate to
my dug well which is 20 feet deep, 6 months frcm nCM, which
dug a few years ago, and thus since then has been upgraded
new piping, but I would hate to see it go dry, and thus have
have a new well to provide myself with water;
The road on the 6th which canes out beside Coulson United
has a bad line of site and is very p<X>r, it's not like where
they have the road nCM, and I feel it is a very dangerous
intersection, if 204 rrore units go in, there will be that much
more traffic going out, and thus I was unaware that they were
going to close the other road. More traffic, bicycles,
and pedestrians being increased all dangers for the residents
and future residents of this area;
I would like to knCM what the liability would be if scmeone
trespassed on our land as far as snowmobilers, x-country skiers
crossing fences and lighting fires if theyJre cold during the
winter.
- One of the main issues is density, and I feel when you are
Planning there is a heir archery of density and certain
are appropriate for certain uses; and when the Township did the
Planning, it picked the Estate Residential Lot Size for certain
sized units. It wants to locate in limited areas, and takes
another size to go for Resort Residential, which is what this
that is the size that has applied in the first two Phases, and
is in this Phase and basically this does not deviate frcm that,
the density or the size of the lot is the same and the look
probably of these lots will be very similar to what you did
on Cayuga Court. This expansion falls out of the Township's
Official Plan, it is a concept and a designation of development
in that document. There is a heirarchy of density in the
Planning document, which has been thought of and this is the
place where what they call Resort Residential cernes in. You
never knCM what the next day will bring, and it is part of the
Public Process, and that's why you get Public Notice. The
Township wants this to be called permanent, so that there is a
certain level of services, so there is a certain level of Fire
Protection, there is a corrmual water system that's up to
certain standards, and so on and so forth. But realistically,
speaking for the type of houses that are going in and thè type
of services and the place they'll be. Planners look at this
type of thing and do have generations as far as children are
concerned, as generated in other areas of Simcoe or other
similar areas. In terms of the road aspect, I seriously
figure this road will not be closed this year. A MUnicipal
Engineer will look at this again, and again offer his
comments.
- What study has been done on the effect upon run-off water.
Council - Have you as a Council at all considered what the
desirable limits to grCMth are?
8
8
A.
Martin Sernas -
Q.
Gary Foster
A.
Helen Lepek
Q.
Jari1Íe Vince
A.
Helen Lepek
SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING
PAGE 3
Surface run-off has been lcx:>ked into quite closely, and I have
a Plan here which is called "Low Grade and Drainage" I it was
infact exhibited at the Meeting of the Indian Park
We will be building sane sort of a Siltation Trap to prohibit
Siltation to occur on the private property. "Siltation
Measures", are rrore or less requested now days in develcpœnts
by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Now Subsurface Drainage
being the drainage that eminates out of septic tanks into the
tile beds and ultimately ends up in the water tables. NCM
you all knCM that the whole area is sand, you also knCM the
fact that there is a distance by the Ministry of Health
allocated between a well, you can have a well and a spetic
and in absoption bed closer than 50 feet. That means that the
Minister of Health has been satisfied over many, many years
with that distance of 50 feet. So, in any event, the water
table is very deep, the water table there is well over 100
You do not contaminate water tables, if the water tables are
very low, in other words, if you have a long ways to go
sandy soils. If you have to go through clay, well firstly it
does not go through too fast, it goes very slCMly.
- You are saying that the Lots in the new develcpœnt are
approximately the same size, that is mayble true, but maybe in
this statement, the present Sugarbush Phases I and II are
about 200 acres with 150 hemes and 100 acres of that is unfit.
Talking density wise, 156 acres and may rrore hemes. It
that the Lots are a considerable size larger, in the other
development. There is the situation of near double density.
Is there a possibility of getting more green space, lowering
the density and alleviating some of the concerns of the
expected problems and decide what they are.
- This was discussed at the Indian Park Association, they were
the ones who were approached prior to the Public Hearing
because they were the knCMn bodies that represented a lot of
people, and sane of the density was in effect, taken out of
develop:nent because there was sane proposal for marketable
tCMn house type lots and so on, and so forth. This was the
concept that represents or that is in keeping with the
Plan document, and infact no policy frcm the Official Plan
had to be changed, but it's a question of redesignating for
Phase. This configuration and this trail system and this
concept is in keeping with the policy of the principles of the
Official Plan.
- In the new Phase frcm what I understand frcm being at the
Association Meeting, that we had the opportunity to attend,
the lots to my understanding are a minimum of 1/2 acre, what
the other Phases I and II, Sugarbush are the reason that there
is more Open Space, is that in the old Sugarbush there are
steep hills and the trees and what not, where they absolutely
could not put a lot to build anything, that's why there
to be more Open Space, there's not as much density and trees
and what not in this Phase. I understand that in the new
there are also going to be fire hydrants, because it is zoned
Residential as opposed to Resort, and the only other thing is
whether you buy 125 acres here, or whether you buy wherever,
the properties in this part are going to be resold as resale
properties go progressively up with this concept going in.
There is only 35% of people in the old Phases I and II that
are there-full-tirne, so 35% out of 162 hcmes today, not 150.
- This type of unit has a different absorption rate, than other
types of Residential developments, and that's something to
bear in mind.
Q.
Gordon Ball
.
A.
Helen Lepek
Q.
John Britten
SPOCIAL PUBLIC MŒI'ING
PAGE 4
- Density is the thing that I am mostly concerned about, the
density is nCM 204 units on this piece of property which
amounts to 15,000 square feet or a 1/3 of an acre, this I
find overwhelming. I guess particularly so, when I see that
the same owners also own the property which cares around
right next to mine, as it leads out onto Concession 7, I see
Phases IV, V and VI, perhaps caning, and all of a sudden see
ourselves next to New York City. I guess, what I feel is
that in addition to all of the pressures on the land, and
on the water table, whatever, there is a pressure here on a
way of life; and it's a way of life that those of us that
live here permanently, cherish, love and contain, and I guess
our fears are that we shall kill the gcx:>se that laid the
golden egg. That way of life is going to disappear and none
of us will be happy. Our carments and our address to the
density issue is that I would like to see the density reduced.
- I would like to cœrœnt on the chalet type of residence on a
10 acre lot with a cœmunal water table, I just don't think
that that is a feasible type of development. Fdon't think
that you can canpare the t'WO types of developænts.
- When you go through the Sugarbush Phases I and II, and perhaps
see Phases IV, V and VI, but when you go through and see where
they are going to be building, it is no where near like where
they are already built upon, open areas and that front section
is a whole road, and the Court goes around, and thus it's
right beside it, it's a wide ditch, areas with very few trees
in it, there are a few around the outside edges, past that,
it's a very vast open area; as well as the area behind there
open space there. Our concerns are the open areas that are
densely populated as you lcx:>k at it.
The Reeve prior to closing the Meeting asked if anybody wished to be notified
of the passsing of the Proposed By-law, they were to leave their name and address
with the Clerk.
Motion No. 1
Moved by Burton, seconded by Halfacre
Be it resolved that Council adjourn the Public Meeting @ 8:20 p.m.
Ræ r J2#¿r-
8
L~~M~. ~l