Loading...
03 16 1994 Sp Public2 Minutes DB CORPORATION 01' DB TOWNSHIP 01' ORO-1ŒDON'1'B SPBCIAL PUBLIC KBftING nmœSDAY. KARCH 1'. 1994 " 8122 P.M. - COUNCIL CBJUœas BLBVBlft'B KBftING 1991-1994 COUNCIL The following members of Council were present: Mayor Robert E. Drury Deputy Mayor Ian Beard Reeve David Caldwell Deputy Reeve Norman Dalziel Councillor Donald Bell Councillor Alastair Crawford Councillor Walter Dickie Councillor Murray Martin Councillor Leonard Mortson Absent: Councillor Joanne Crokam staff Present: Kris Menzies, Planner, Gary cunnington, Administrator, Andria Darby, zoning Administrator. Also Present Were: Jim Kyle, Rocke Robertson, R. Al Sinton, R. & D. Suwala, Hartley Woodside, Brian & Siske Pratt, Jean Crawford, Shirley Woodrow, Mary Dion James Sabiston, Ernest Bidwell, Don Bidwell, Robert Bidwell, John Hare, E. M. Hall, Gary Thiess. Mayor Robert E. Drury chaired the meeting. Mayor Robert E. Drury opened the meeting by explaining to those present that this Public Meeting was to receive public comments with respect to a proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendment, pursuant to provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 Sections 17 and 34. The applicant has applied to rezone certain lands described as Part of Lot 34, Concession 1, Township of Oro. To date, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro- Medonte have not made a decision on this application, other than proceeding to this Public Meeting. Only after comments are received from the Public, requested agencies and Township Staff, within the appropriate time period, will Council make a decision 0 this application. Notice of the Public Meeting was mailed out on February 24, 1994, to all property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands. Notice of the Public Meeting was also placed in both the Barrie Examiner and Orillia Packet on February 24, 1994. Mayor Robert E. Drury then asked the Clerk if there had been any correspondence received on this matter. The Clerk responded by indicating that one letter had been received from N.V.C.A. stating they have a concern for incompatible development in association with the intermittent watercourse (Matheson Creek) and request all structures and sewage disposal systems be setback a minimum of 15 metres. The Authority also has concerns for the potential impacts of storm water run off and must be assured that storm water management for the development will prevent increased flooding, - 2 - erosion and sedimentation on upstream and downstream lands. A preliminary SWM report be prepared to address these issues. If detention ponds are required, they be zoned appropriately to reflect the potential hazard. Due to a proposed development on adjacent lands to the North, the proponents are to investigate th benefits of integrating storm water management for both sites. The Mayor then stated that those persons present would be afforde the opportunity of asking questions with respect to the proposed Amendment. He then turned the meeting over to the Township Planner, Ms. Kris Menzies, to explain the purpose and effect of t proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment. Kris Menzies: Thank you Mr. Mayor. The proposal is on the property located on Pt. Lot 34, Concession 1 of the former Township of Oro. It is South of the proposal which was previously heard tonight and that property was owned by a Mr. Copeland. The purpose of tonight's Public Meeting is to afford Council the opportunity to hear Publi comment on the Official Plan Amendment redesignation and the Re- zoning which is currently before Council. The proposal is to redesignate the subject property from its current Residential designation to an Estate Residential designation and rezone the property from a Rural zone to an Estat Residential zone. The effect of the proposal would be to permit 48 lot residential plan of subdivision. Once again Mr. Mayor, Mr. Kyle may have some further comment. Mayor Drury: Mr. Kyle. Jim Kyle: Thanks. I think perhaps I should have left this one up and pull that one down. There is no space here, the two plans immediately abut each other. The Conservation Authority has mentioned the Matheson Creek and as we have been told there isn't a creek there. However, there is a valley and they still require setbacks from th valley just as if there was a water course running through the valley. If there was a water course it would be along this line. The lowest contour and as we mentioned before, the ravine in the area comes down and in this location and then peters out to really not much of a ravine down into this location. Mayor Drury: Jim I wonder if you and Kris could just move that all up just a little bit please, just up top maybe just hang it over because people can't see that. They see the portion on the top. Jim Kyle: Is that high enough? We have provided a block in this location which will be zoned Inherent Hazard Lands and designated to Open Space or Hazard Lands in the Official Plan whatever the need may be. The block is actually more than 30 metres from the bottom of the valley where any water course would be. They have requested 5 metres which would be in this location here. Furthermore, the rea of the lots here you have the Town By-law which has set backs from rear lots and building envelopes and what have you, will be set back further from at least 30 metres to the lot line and then another distance to the houses and tile bed envelopes. The property, for the Sabiston lands is again, wooded, it is rolling down, up and off into this direction and rolling off in toward the ravine an attractive setting back on to the ravine, but set back far enough from the ravine not to have a problem with the Conservation Authority. The Copeland property has some steeper - 3 - areas where we mentioned that we put larger lots in that location to provide a suitable building envelope for tile bed and for houses. The Sabiston property does not have the same constraints from an engineering point of view. The road construction on this property, there will be a little bit more grading required. That is why again, you have the larger lots to retain as many trees as possible. On the Sabiston Road alignment, there is not that problem. They won't be grading outside the road allowance, cutti trees on to property. Again, the lots are smaller and the averag lot size is slightly over an acre in size. The property has two connections up into the Copeland property and another connection into an Official Plan Amendment approved subdivision over in this location to best suit the traffic flows in the area. The propert also has a block up in this location up into wilberforce Road and whether or not that will be an entrance is to be decided by the Council. We have not shown it as an entrance. If the Copeland property doesn't proceed for whatever reason, it will become an entrance onto Wilberforce Road if Council wishes it to become an entrance. If the traffic consultants determine an entrance is needed there then it will be opened up and that is why the block i left in that location. As I mentioned, Ainley & Associates completed a report for Officia Plan Amendment #48. This plan was submitted in 1989, we were not the consultants at the time for property. Mr. Sabiston however, was the owner and Ainley & Associates said that this property was to the South of this ravine which clearly on OBM and real light field investigations, is incorrect and the ravine is in this location and forms the logical limit. This area is all wooded to here and then to the South of that is open field. So again, you have the logical limit for the development down to the South, the ravine and the wooded lands. The property as submitted in 1989, had that mistake came out, if somebody would have caught it at that time, this property would have been Draft Plan Approved at this state. When we were retaine to look at the property we noticed that mistake and we came into the Township of Oro at the time and mentioned that their consultan had made a mistake. They agreed with us that, yes, definitely the ravine is here and OPA #48, the planning justification end of it was incorrect. And our property was to the North and suitable for development and that Council did not make the determination at thi time that it was suitable for development. So, that is why we submitted this plan and when we started looking at the area, we felt from a proper planning an entire area, this property should also be developed and it would complete the development in this location, in the Woodlands area. The same hydro G report by Terraprobe is a different report, it is specifically for this property was completed. A preliminary storm water report was not completed. A plan was completed by our office, storm water management plan as was for the Copeland property. We will have to prepare a preliminary plan for the Conservation Authority in the Town and again, depending on whethe it was submitted to MOE after a magic date, we will have to drill again, approximately 5 wells, test wells on the property, prior to the Official Plan Amendment being approved and do the monitoring and other work on the property. Mayor Drury: Thank you Jim. Mr. Hall. Any question, comments or concerns from the Public Ed Hall: Thank you. I am Ed Hall a resident of the former Oro and I am representing the Jarratt-Coulson District Community Group tonight. with the service road accessing these developments, that is Bidwel - 4 - Road, its intersection with Highway #93 by my measurement is 1 fu kilometre from Craighurst. So these developments can therefore, hardly be termed adjacent to the hamlet of Craighurst. This is 0 course, a requirement of our frequently ignored Oro Official Plan. From the explanation tonight about the Estate Residential, this i still a good rule that we should develop adjacent to an existing hamlet for many reasons, particularly the quality and cost of services like schools and traffic and garbage pick up and policin It complicates all these things and increases the cost by scattering the development around the Township. Notwithstanding, the Estate Residential rules we heard about tonight, \it is bad business to scatter development. As of January 1994, Oro had some 2905 lots by my count in various stages of approval. We have the potential for 10,000 person increase in the Oro portion of the Township's population. This in fact would more than double Oro's present population and from the indication that Jim gave us tonight, where we are getting 50 to 80 building permits a year? That 2,900 lots shows the potential for 58 years of building, development, right now on the books and what kind of line was that really? What we do need in Oro is an Oro- Medonte Official Plan that represents the wishes of the populace 0 Oro-Medonte. I urge you strongly, don't approve another lot until we get a new Official Plan. Now if you decide to go ahead with this anyway, despite all our good advice, we suggest that you operate a communal well to serve all 81 lots in this latest package rather than individual wells because such a system will tie in much more efficiently when and i Craighurst expands to this area. Thank you. Mayor Drury: Any questions, comments or concerns? Ernie. Ernest Bidwell: I am Ernest Bidwell and I farm Lot 34, Concession 2, Oro. I also own the 50 acres South of that 34 lot that you are subdividing. I am very much concerned. They tell me it will make an awful difference to my farm. Also, there is no water, much, run off water leaves that lot. The only way out is across my 50 acres and what will they do if they want to take the water off that lot? That 50 acres is in a water course. Years ago, they tell me the creek ran down there from the 3rd Concession of Oro and came out a the Bidwell Highway where the other creek starts there. I have been farming where I am, for over 50 years and I don't like to be pushed out now. Thank you. Mayor Drury: Thank you Ernie. all? Jim, do you wish to respond to those comments at Jim Kyle: Should I start with Mr. Hall's comments? Mayor Drury: Yes, please. Jim Kyle: Mr. Hall indicated, as he did previously that Estate Residential should be in (inaudible) as the Township of Oro Official Plan state, adjacent to hamlets. That is not correct. The Official Plan for the Township of Oro does not state that Estate Residentia should be adjacent to hamlets. I have never seen in my ten years in planning an Official Plan shall be... - 5 - Ed Hall: What I am saying is I don't care what you call it. You can call them gas stations you can call them roses, you can call them petunias, you are talking about putting in 81 additional residence remote from an existing hamlet. You can't hide behind a different name. Calling it Estate Residential, that does not justify being there. My concern is that these 81 residences along with the others on this service road will result in traffic and increased traffic at intersections. It will be more difficult for police when it is out there scattered out in the open. Ask anybody that lives in Sugarbush that has real problems. You have an impact on the schools which we cannot afford. We can't handle the people w got in the Township now. Anything you look at, we can't afford it We can't handle it, you shouldn't be doing it. What we got to do is sit back and rethink. It is a time of change, I know a lot of you guys have said that. I have heard a lot of people say that bu really, we are at that point, I am sorry you are caught in this situation but Oro-Medonte should stop. Hold it. Lets look at wha we have got, what potential there is, where we are going, we are going to wreck streams, we are going wreck land. Are we going to be able to build schools? How are we going to live here? We should plan for that and we should come up with an Official Plan that harmonizes with that. Jim Kyle: Your point was specifically, I was just dealing with your specific point that was, in some way you referred that this perhaps not contrary to the Official Plan policies. Ed Hall: I said, notwithstanding, the terminology of Estate Residential. I don't care what you call it. I am just pointing out the impact of another 81 homes on this road, in this area. It is bad news. Jim Kyle: Ok, that is fine. You know that is a legitimate concern that you are pointing out but as far as the Official Plan policies, Estate Residential is permitted and it doesn't, you know, it is not to be beside hamlets. That is the only point I was trying to make is that the Official Plans policies... Ed Hall: You explained that adequately. Jim Kyle: As far as the other concerns, scattered development. We have mentioned that this is adjacent to proposed developments. I don't believe that you consider this as scattered development. As far as 50 to 80 building permits being permitted in the last tw years, as we are all aware, in Ontario right now building permit activity has significantly decreased over the last four years. I was mentioning current. I said the last two years had 50 to 80 building permits in Oro. In York Region where I am, where the population is slated to double in 20 years as it is in Oro, they have had very few building permits even though they are in the GPA that is a trend existing throughout Ontario right now. We do not envision that trend is going to stay around and God help us, I hop it doesn't. Jim Kyle: The concerns of Ernie, and I am sorry I missed your last name. Bidwell? Maybe I will just start with the water, the handling of - 6 - the water off this site onto your property. What we have to do, where we are going to put the water from the site is back in the site. The same as what is happening today. The large lot development, Estate Residential on sandy soils. The only impervious road &urfaces are shown and the building envelope and the tile beds, it is a storm Water Management Report, they will have to, and this is what the Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Natural Resources is doing with subdivision approvals now. In the past, we use to try to outlet it to a pond and then eventually outlet it somewhere else into a water course. Theyar telling us now, the best management practice is to put it back as if there was not development here, infiltrate it into the ground the property. That is what we will be doing on both of these developments and that is what is acceptable in these times by the Conservation Authority. The increase in run-off off the site ont your property will be calculated and based on our preliminary evaluation, there won't be an increase in run-off onto your property. If there is, by our storm Water Report, if it does sho that there will be an increase in run-off on to your property, something will have to be done. We can't change the drainage, first of all, we can't take away water that is going onto your property and we can't secondly, put more water onto your property As far as the siltation problem, it is my belief, it is probably caused from construction of the road or construction at the time the construction of the subdivision, that is when siltation takes place. After the subdivision is constructed the ditches are grassed and the lots are grassed. You don't have that problem. The Town in its subdivision agreement and through the Ministry of Natural Resources and Conservation Authority, will implement conditions that we have to ensure at construction, we don't let a silt off our property or any construction refuge get into the wat and drain across the road and onto your property. To the best of the ability of the developer, that will be done. There is absolutely no way you can absolutely guarantee that there won't b any siltation off the property but we will conform to the stricte regulations to ensure that it is a very, very slight possibility that it will happen. As far as the impact on the farming of the field in this location and I believe you are across the road on your farm. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food will have to comment on the application. If we are within a distance from your livestock operation, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food draws a line around our property and perhaps the line touches here, perhaps it goes further according to their calculations. It is the minimum separation distance. That area won't be allowed to develop. We have done t line according to the amount of livestock that has been counted 0 your property in the capacity of the property to support livestoc and the line doesn't go on to the property to impact their development. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food will do the sa thing and will come up with either the same solution or a differen one. As far as ability to farm in the location and these houses saying you are putting something on the property and it is impacting them and they want to shut you down. There are very, very strict regulations in ontario to stop that from happening. The farmers have very good rights. People moving into the area don't have as many rights and they will do everything in their power to ensure that these people do not complain about your operation and won't b able to shut down your operation in any way, shape or form or stop you from expanding your operation. Ernie Bidwell: Except my age. II . - 7 - Mayor Drury: Any more question, comments or concerns? Brian Pratt: My name is Brian Pratt and I would like to comment on this busine about that this won't affect the agricultural land. It will, to the decrement because Mr. Bidwell will have to plow his manure do within 48 hours. He won't be allowed to spread it on a hay field so he will work up more land, create more dust, create more noise you will have more complaints. So it does make an impact. What' is, you are taking agriculture is an industry. It is like putt in a development, a residential development beside a factory. How many of these people, there is some vacant land maybe close to General Tire when it was running, how many people would like to live beside a factory that produced noise and offensive odours. is something that Council has to think about. They have to think of agriculture as an industry. It is going to cause problems. I already has and will keep causing problems. You are putting hous closer to agricultural land, it is light land, you are going to g dust in these houses. How deep are these lots that are next to M . Bidwell's field? Jim Kyle: I believe they are 100 metres which is over 330'. This is all wooded down here. It is not uncommon to put a building envelope' order to maintain for instance a 30 metre wooded buffer, which is 100' between these houses and Mr. Bidwell's field. Brian Pratt: Another thing, you take people that are not use to flies and thin like that. You put them in houses like this and Mr. Bidwell, I think you are pasturing that field aren't you? Ernie Bidwell: Yes. Brian Pratt: Cattle attract flies. It is a concept that city people don't realize. If you have cows laying along there, they are going to attract flies so you are going to have a fly problem. You are going to have complaints that way. You got to think of both sides Jim Kyle: Just in answer to that as I mentioned, we do quite a few Estate Residential developments and the people who move into these developments are fully aware of what they are moving into. You might say they are city slickers. Brian Pratt: No they are not, no they are not aware of it. They come up and they see this nice lot and nothing is going on. They get the hous built and they move in and the farmer is spreading manure 50' from his back yard. All hell breaks loose because they are not aware 0 it and there is no where in their deeds that you are going to say that.. Jim Kyle: Yes there is. - 8 - Brian Pratt: Are you going to put it in their deed. We were told that they couldn't do it on the development beside us. That they couldn't put it in the deed, that the land adjacent to their property was being farmed. Yes, that is what we were told. Jim Kyle: I have seen it put in, registered on title before, a warning clause. Actually, I remember, unless something has changed since this time, I know that we have done it once in the past. Brian Pratt: Well I think it should be done, but we were told it couldn't be done. Jim Kyle: Ok, well we can check into that. Brian Pratt: What kind of a fence will there be to protect Mr. Bidwell's cattle from dogs? Because everybody that moves out has to have a dog. I there going to be a security fence? Jim Kyle: The fence that is existing there is all we are proposing at this time. It is up to Mr. Bidwell if he wants something additional to contact us and negotiate something different in that location. Mayor Drury: Brian, what I suggest to you and the audience here this evening is that the first half of mile that comes out from the City of Barrie to Oro Township on the other side of the road. There is intensive farming operations, cash crop operations, manure spreading operations and right across the road is literally thousands of homes and I have never had a complaint in all the time that I have been the Reeve by those people that live in the City of Barrie fro the farms. Farming operations goes on right across the road. Brian Pratt: Well the only thing, Joe McLean has a farm there Mayor Drury: Eldon Atkinson. Brian Pratt: Eldon Atkinson has no cattle. Quinlans have no cattle either and Smith's farm has no cattle either. So any place that is close to residential, and Joe McLean's place in the V is where Bertram's Lumber was and it is a vacant lot right now. There is a plaza across the road from Joe McLean's which is vacant too. So there i quite a buffer area. Joe McLean is the only one that has cattle there now. Another thing is, all these developments are coming out onto Highway #93 and there is a blind spot where that road comes out. If you are coming South on Highway #93 and turn in towards the development, if there is a car coming up, you can't see it. There has to be something done with that. I . - 9 - Mayor Drury: All the amount of time I have been on Council I have only received one complaint of a farm operation but that was a manure spreader going down the road and the tail gate opened up and dumped manure allover the road. I have never heard a complaint from a rate payer with farm operations. Brian Pratt: It is more the farmers get complaints than Council. We get the nasty phone calls that the dog got in our manure pile and then wen in their house and got their carpet all dirty and things like this Mayor Drury: Councillor Martin. Councillor Martin: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I might say that I moved from the City out t the country and there is some nice property just North West of me and the prevailing winds and I wouldn't create the worst stink he could put up. My question Mr. Mayor is to Jim. The setbacks from the ravine under the Flood Water Plan with MNR, is that not 45 metres rather than 30? Jim Kyle: They have mentioned in their letter 15 metres, the Conservation Authority, from the top of the bank, Councillor Martin: 15 metres from? Kris Menzies: Top of bank or toe of slope. In this case top of bank. Councillor Martin: I have heard you mention a number of times tonight a ravine. that spells... To m Mayor Drury: Comments, questions? John Hare: All I would like to say tonight is that all this money that you ar talking about this subdivisions and that, I see now where we now have a County Planning Board and really, I think to you all, these things look nice, but I think you should be putting everything in obeyance until the County goes ahead and comes out with their Official Plan before the Township starts doing something on their own. I believe Mr. Caldwell is the head of it so he might not lik what is going on here tonight because, if the County is going to come out with this plan, I believe it should be brought forward first, after that, then the Townships will know exactly where they stand. Mayor Drury: Reeve Caldwell do you wish to respond? - 10 - Reeve Caldwell: Mr. Hall made his point. The Minister of Municipal Affairs when sent a letter to the County and it was communicated to the staff the County that they want the County to move forwar~ with their Official Plans as quickly as possible. We are look1ng at probabl a two year time frame. He also indicated that he didn't wish us interfere with any municipality's existing planning policies whil that is going forward. until the County has its plan in place, there is no intent to stop everything and so forth. I know there are people out there that would like to see that ~appen but t~e Minister has already indicated that he does not w1sh to see S1mco County stand still for 2 years. Mayor Drury: Thank you. Further questions, comments or concerns? Hartley? Hartley Woodside: Even if this were the most perfect development that could be conceived, which it mayor may not be, there doesn't seem to be an rationale to proceed at this moment for Council. I say this because I think it is important for Council to recognize that it i not benign when you approve a development even if the development isn't going to be developed for years because things happen to the land. The trees get cut, the roads get put in and even if the lot are not sold and the houses are not built for a long time, Council is tying the hands of future Councils to development of a certain pattern. It would appear from the number of lots that are currently approved or about to be approved that you are in fact tying the hands of future Councils for decades. Oro grew through the boom of the eighties which almost nobody believes will return in a hurry, it grew I believe at 1% a year. To imagine the population of Oro doubling in 10 years is, these are figures that don't know where you would come up with them. We are not being driven by demand here from homeowners wanting to move into Oro. W are being driven by the demands of the developer to develop these lots to a certain point. That is their right and I grant them tha right but as Council, I think it is incumbent upon you to look at this situation and say, wait a minute, we don't have to do this right now. There is no reason to do this right now and there is some negative things that happen if we do this right now. The County has planning. Medonte-Oro is now a new Township and it reflects a new population and it has some new concerns and there i nothing driving these developments from your perspective as far as I can see. There is no reason to be pursued to proceed with these at this time. So I recommend that you not proceed with these things. Mayor Drury: Thank you Hartley. Jim? Jim Kyle: If I may just respond as far as need for this type of development. As I mentioned previously, the Township has limited this type of development to 10% of the total development in the Township of Oro That 10% was justified in a planning report by Ainley's & Associates that there is a need in the Township for 10% of the development to be this type of development. That is based on people wanting to move to this type of lot, Estate Residential developments in the Township of Oro. So they have determined ther was a need for 10% to be this type of development. We are not talking thousands and thousands of Estate Residential lots. We ar not talking the same type of need as somebody moving into Barrie for 100 lots being vacant in a subdivision, the same person is not - 11 - going to be looking at this lot. What we are doing today is that we are looking to the future of the 10% quota in Oro and the dema for this type of development. Submitting this plan today to the Council for a Public Meeting is the first step along the process. We want to get into that process. That process takes 3 to 4 year to complete before you can get a building permit for an Estate Residential development. That is an average throughout ontario f Estate Residential developments. The developer of these lots usually sells the lots to individuals or custom builders. Custom builders and individuals sometimes hold onto an Estate Residentia lot. Not necessarily do you always get a building permit immediately like the developer in Barrie putting up all the house and selling them. These types of houses, a lot of people buy the because they are becoming rarer and rarer and people want to live on these types of lots. We are not saying we are going to increa it to 20% in Oro of Estate Residential. We are saying we are goi to stay within the 10% quota which Ainley & Associates said there was a need for. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs in their planning wisdom said yes we agree, the Township of Oro should hav 10% of its population in this type of development. They recogniz that there is a limited amount of development in hamlets and that this type of development is being utilized in Oro and it is successful. So that is what we are trying to do. In order to get into the process today as the first step, as I said, by the time get out building permits, 4 years, 3 years, 2 years minimum are going to pass. I think your argument is that, lets wait that 2 - years and see what happens and that is really reactive planning. Planning in our business is looking ahead seeing what the need is going to be and getting things approved in time when the market turns around for to sell these type of lots. We are confident and the developer must be confident and he is sitting here and I don't think he has been introduced, Mr. Sabiston and Mary Dion are the owners of this property and they are confident. Mr. Sabiston does sell Estate Residential lots and does fulfil developments and take them through and they are confident that they will be able to sell these lots once they come onto the market and to wait for a County study, to wait for the entire planning study for the world to be completed to determine where things are going to go, just is not something that, it is just too onerous. As I said, this was submitted in 1989. We noticed the mistake recently, we came in an we are going to meet the 10% and we want to proceed with the development. Mayor Drury: Thank you Jim. Hartley? Hartley Woodside: I am not suggesting that we wait for necessarily for 2 or 3 or 4 years here. It would appear, you say you are going to need the 10 quota, from what you said earlier, it would appear.. First of all no one has informed us as to how many Estate Residential lots currently exist, what the current percentage is? Did someone say it is already at about 10%, there were some figures bandied about earlier in the first meeting? Jim Kyle: I think it is approaching, getting close to the 10%. Hartley Woodside: That was my impression. Your suggestion was that these lots, in fact would only be able to go on the market as the overall, not lo inventory, but the over all number of building permits on existing homes increased, that is correct? Jim Kyle: That is correct. - 12 - Hartley Woodside: So in fact, my point that you are tied to Council, my point isn't that Mr. Sabiston doesn't have the right to come forward and doesn't have reasonable expectations to sell these lots, that is his business, not mine. My point is to Council, that they don't need to tie their hands for some very long distance into the future. They are tied to this 10% per year. Perhaps there is an area in Medonte that they might decide is more suitable for Estate Residential. Who knows at this point? Council hasn't really considered it. If you commit yourself to another 80 a year, you are committing yourself presumably to 10% which is another 800 total lots, so there wouldn't be any new Estate Residential built until Oro had built another 800 buildings and at the current rate, is you know, maybe a decade. So what conceivable reason does Council have for approving, committing themselves at this point, prior to any assessment of the needs of the joint Township for a decade or 15 years into the future. To me, that is not good planning. Mayor Drury: Further questions, comments or concerns? Council Members? Councillor Crawford: I just might make one comment, Mr. Reeve. When I came on Council five years ago there was subdivisions around Oro that were in the process of development. Harbourwood was one, Canterbury Estates was one, Cedarbrook at Hawkestone was one. The lot prices were up around $90,000.00 to $100,000.00 a lot which is, which you are building a home for and not just a lot. Isn't it interesting that they are all full now. They were in the process of getting starte five years ago. What this Council has tried to do is learn by our mistakes and have some property available for building lots when the building starts up again. Nobody ever thought there was going to be the boom that we had in the late eighties. Look what happened, we were caught without any lots. The ones that were available were all full and sold and they were clambering for more to the point where they were paying two to three times as much for those lots as they were worth. Now what we try to do is to react to this and to have lots on stream for the next few years so that when we go into another period of prosperity, when people want homes and start to build, there is going to be something there for them. When you mentioned Mr. Hartley, about the settlement policy the second paragraph you read is exactly what this Council is thinking of. There being no further questions or comments, when being called fo the third time, the Mayor in closing the meeting, 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.1 Moved by Beard, seconded by Dalziel Be it resolved that this Special Public Meeting of Council (Part 0 Lot 34, Concession 1, formerlyoro) now be adjourned @ 9:07 p.m. Carried L2 / ,~ . .. ~ . . ..{ p ¿ ..If ./" 0;7 b.tl< ~Æ 6LERK, DARLENE SHOEBRIDGE