Loading...
06 15 1994 Sp Public Minutes I, DB CORPORATION OP DB TODSBIP OP ORO-KBDON'lB 8PJlCIAL PUBLIC DftIlfG WBDHB8DAY JUNB 15.1114. 1100 P.K. - COUNCIL CBaKBBRB ftBftY-PIUT DftIlfG 1114 COUNCIL council met this evening present: @ 7:00 p.m. with the following members 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: Mayor Robert E. Drury Councillor Joanne Crokam staff Present: Kris Menzies, Planner, Cunnington, Administrator. Gary Mr. Also Present Was: John Wright, Ben Wright, Glen Bryinton, Helen Bell S. D. Borins, A. Borins, William Baker, Margaret E. Baker, Jean Kendall, Djénane M. Lemmon, M. J. Scott, Ross Bradley, Velma Bradley, Shirley Woodrow, Thelma Halfacre, Robert Ward, John Hare, Loreen Rice Lucas, Syd smith, Rick Hunter, George Ochryro, Alex Ochryro, Gary Henry, Lorne Van Sinclair, Violet Ready, Stephen Woodrow. Deputy Mayor Ian Beard assumed the chair and opened the meeting. Deputy Mayor Ian Beard opened the meeting by explaining to those present that this Public Meeting was to receive public comments with respect to a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, pursuant to provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13. sections 17 and 34. The applicant has applied to rezone certain lands described as East Part Lot 28, Concession 3, formerly Oro. (Mullabrack). To date, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro- Medonte have not made decision on this application other than proceeding to a Public Meeting. Only after comments are received from the Public, Township Staff and. requested Agencies within an appropriate time period, will Council make a decision on this application. Notice of the Public Meeting was mailed out on May 26,1994, 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 and Times on May 26, 1994. Deputy Mayor Beard then asked the Clerk if there has been any correspondence received on this matter. The Clerk responded by indicating that a letter had been received from Reinders & Associates on behalf of M.S.L. properties, owner of Lot 27, Conc. 3 stating they do not support the application and would object to municipal approval mainly as a result of the subject site would not be serviced by municipal water services and is located on environmentally significant lands. - 2 - The Deputy Mayor then stated tha~ those P7rson~ present would be afforded the opportunity of askJ.ng questJ.ons J.n respect to the proposed zoning By-Law Amendments. The Deputy Mayor then turn~d the meeting over to Ms. Kris Menzies, Township Planner, to explaJ.n the purpose and effect of the proposed amendment. Kris Menzies: Thank you Mr. Deputy Mayor. As the Deputy Mayor has stated, the proposal is located on ~art ,Lot 28, Conc. 3 in the former Township of Oro. It lJ.es Just e~st of the village of Shanty Bay. The proponent, Mr. ChaJ.rman, has provided a map, somewhat of a small scale. For th~se ~f you who are familiar with Shanty Bay, the sch~ol lJ.es J.n this location (indicated location on map.) It J.S two lots east of the Shanty Bay school and it fronts onto the Ridge Road. The MSL proper~y, which was ment~o~ed ~n the correspondence, lies in thJ.s area of the munJ.cJ.palJ.ty. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to afford council an opportunity to receive public comment on, t~e pro~osal before you tonight, before they make a decJ.sJ.on on J.t. The purpose of the application is a Official Plan Amendment and a rezoning in order to permit three additional severances off of the current piece of property. The property fronts onto the Ridge Road and it also fronts on to Lake Simcoe. The property currently contains one cottage, a boat house and various out buildings. The property currently has what we call a split Official Plan land use designation on it. The bottom of the property, approximately a third, is designated for Shoreline Residential development in the Official Plan. This type of designation does permit severances. The back portion of the land which fronts onto the Ridge Road is designated Natural Area in the Official Plan and there are very restrictive policies currently in the Plan related to severances. What the applicant is requesting is, relief from council to allow the severances which he wants down at the lake to traverse all the way to the Ridge Road, in order that he can put homes down on the property, three additional homes. The reason why he needs the Official Plan Amendment is that technically the line which would be allowed to be divided, the Shoreline Residential area has to traverse through the Natural Area portion of the property. The reason that the applicant has requested a rezoning is, the zoning on the bottom portion of the property, currently only allows Seasonal Occupancy of dwelling units. It is a common practice of the municipality to encourage people to have what is called conversion of their seasonally zoned property to a year round use. That zoning is from Shoreline Residential to General Residential. The proponent wants the flexibility to be able to have year round use of the properties, if he so chooses. If I could, Mr. Chairman, Mr. vince Baffa is here representing the agent. He is a planner with the firm Evergreen Developments and he has some additional information of a more detailed nature for the public. ince Baffa: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of Council. My name again, is vincent Baffa and I have Mr. Delzotto here with me this evening. Just to highlight on what Kris was saying, again, a brief overview of the property. - 3 - vince Baffa: It is a 15 acre parcel of land. The property has about 535 feet frontage on Ridge Road and roughly about 1250 feet in depth. Currently it is improved with a one storey single family residence, two garages and a boat house. The lands generally slope from north to south and has a full pre cup and the surrounding lands consist of predominantly existing and proposed residential uses. Again, the request is for Official Plan Rezoning By-law Amendments to introduce what is essentially a four lot residential proposal or an addi tion of three. The application is being pursued by Mr. Delzotto with the intention to create additional lots for his children and their families. The existing designation as Kris was mentioning, represents a very unique situation. We have a split. In order to accommodate the request, the application would simply consist of amending an area to allow for severances and limited uses within the residential dwelling, being septic tanks and some driveways. The NA area is typically restrictive to further developments due to poor soils, yet engineering studies conducted to date, indicate that the lands are capable of more intense development. The report, which was prepared by engineers, actually indicates that the lands are capable of supporting ten residences in total. However, we are only asking for an addition of three. Given that the lands are suitable for development proposed, request is being made to amend the NA area to allow for severances. Amending the existing SR zoning designation to General Residential, will permit permanent residential dwellings. It should be noted that the General Residential or this Shoreline Residential area is not an environmentally sensitive area. . Just some brief supporting comments, as previously noted, the. lands are quite unique and that they represent a split designation. Amendment to the Official Plan is required only because the SA area does not front onto Ridge Road. If the designation was essentially reversed, only a zoning amendment would be required as the SR or GR area allows for severances. Because of this a new development area is not being created. The proposal would limit the future residences to the SR, GR area. It should be stressed that no homes will be permitted within the NA area. This amendment is essentially required for access. The proposal is in keeping with the general character of the area and similar to the properties to the west of the subject which have been similarly created. I don't have the map with me but I believe it is this area here (indicated location on map.) Concern over the application setting a precedent can be diffused since only one other property has a similar split designation within this immediate area. There is no encroachment onto viable farm land and no impact on significant environmental features. From a transportation perspective, access to the property can be a mutual driveways (indicated location on map) in order to limit access points onto the existing Ridge Road. This would allow for a separation of driveways in the order of 225 feet. On an engineering note, the preliminary report prepared by our consulting engineers indicate that private wells and septic tanks could be accommodated within the property without impact on adjacent lands. Storm water currently flows towards Kempenfel t Bay. The proposal maintains the existing drainage patterns. From a visibility perspective, because of the mature tree coverage on the lands, three or four residences would barely be noticed. - 4 - vince Baffa: Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to make this presentation. Deputy Mayor Beard: Ok I am now going to open the floor to questions. From co~ncil first and then from the Public if they have any questions. councillor Dickie: They are proposing three severances, wi th four residences, is that right? with one remaining apart from the three severances. vince Baffa: Yes. councillor DiCkie: What is the road frontage on the Ridge Road of the lots you are proposing? vince Baffa: The average size of the lots would be about 3 to 3 \ acres. You are looking roughly at about 110 - 115 metres of frontage. councillor Dickie: Metres? vince Baffa: No sorry. It would be feet. Deputy Mayor Beard: Anyone else? Ok, we will now take questions from the Public. When you ask a question, please come to the microphone standing down there and state your name because this is all being recorded for future reference. Djénane Lemmon: If they have four driveways down there, it is not going to be very nice area. Deputy Mayor Beard: Could I ask you for your name please? Djénane Lemmon: My name. is Dj énane Lemmon, summer. IIi ve next door, in the Deputy Mayor Beard: So your concern is that the four driveways? . - 5 - Djénane Lemmon: Well, the corner of the hardwoods (inaudible) it makes a great backdrop for the school. But if they get three more driveways down there, it is not really going to be a natural area any more. Deputy Mayor Beard: Is there under your proposal? vince Baffa: Yes, if I may, there would be only two driveways that we are looking at proposing, there would be mutual driveways, there would be two of them coming down along the common property line. We are basically looking at two driveways to get into the property and that is all. We realize there are a lot of trees on the site and of course Mr. Delzotto wants to keep it as natural as he can. Djénane Lemmon: (inaudible) vince Baffa: They would share, yes. I guess I should have put it on the plan as well. Djénane Lemmon: Well the other concern is that you have 60 variances already and gradually it is going to become a City, if you keep on. Deputy Mayor Beard: Are you referring to Council having 60 variances? Djénane Lemmon: That is the number given to me over the phone. variances 61. Number of vince Baffa: That does not apply municipality wide. to this site, I think it is Djénane Lemmon: But I mean, this is going to have to stop some place. Deputy Mayor Beard: I don't really know how to respond to that Norm, do you have. . . Norman Dalziel: Are you talking about 61 changes to the Official Plan? Djénane Lemmon: Yes, right. - 6 - Norman Dalziel: I should be happy to respond to that because I am a Councillor from former Medonte. I think that with all the activity that has gone on in the ex-Oro Township that it is not a vast number. . It is probably a fairly reasonable number. That does not mean that the Official Plan is perfect. (inaudible) . Norman Dalziel: The other aspect that I want to address to Mr. Delzotto, for some reason or other, I thought there was a previous discussion when this was first presented to Council, that there was some talk about having a suitable driveway to service all of the lots. Mr. Delzotto: I would be delighted to have a central dri veway and create a easement to that. That would not trouble me. Norman Dalziel: Who came up with the idea to have two driveways? vince Baffa: We understood, after talking with Kris, after the Planning Advisory Committee Meeting, that there was some concern over the number of driveways onto the property. I had discussed it with Kris, the idea of putting mutual driveways on the property. We have done it up in Rama Township and it has worked fine. Norman Dalziel: I can appreciate that but I thought about one driveway for all four lots. vince Baffa: I am sorry, that was again, mentioned at the Planning Advisory Committee Meeting. Again, that would be something that can still be address. We would have no problem with that. Norman Dalt:iel: I am glad driveway. vince Baffa: Oh no. Deputy Mayor Beard: you didn't tell me that I asked for the second I am sorry I sort of left you hanging there madam. Is there any more questions that you have in particular? Djénane Lemmon: Well if I listen to what you are saying, I may not. - 7 - Deputy Mayor Beard: Councillor Martin? Councillor Martin: Mr. Deputy Mayor, I would just like to address the question, when he said soil test, (inaudible) 10 lots? Could you explain that? vince Baffa: I am not an engineer and I can't say exactly what it is but I would be glad to give you a copy of the hydrogeological report. What they are saying is that the type of soils that are there are, you could accommodate 10 septic tanks. Kris Menzies: That is correct. Deputy Mayor Beard: Is there any further questions on this property? Bradley. Please state your name. Mr. Ross Bradley: The notice that was put in the paper, if I am correct is from Kris, suggesting that the area proposed be rezoned from a Natural Area zone to a General Residential zone. It did not mention anything about it being already Shoreline Residential. Could you clarify that for me. Kris Menzies: The property at the bottom is designated Shoreline Residential. The zoning, yes, is Natural Area and in my opinion that was an oversight. In the Plan, the Zoning By-law on the bottom of the property does not conform to the designation. It should in fact today be zoned Shoreline Residential. It isn't. Ross Bradley: Then it is currently zoned as Natural Area? Kris Menzies: The bottom part is, yes. It doesn't conform to the Official Plan, so it is in error. Ross Bradley: The growth policy under Oro's Official Plan says that County Roads 20 to 1120 which is Ridge Road, Ridge Road is one, the policy is to prohibit any widening or road realignment, now they are proposing two, an extra exit on this road does in effect a realignment on Ridge Road. It also directs that where scenic drives are involved that access from major roads should be restricted to residential lots which also having access only from minor Township roads, which would be across the concession. Has any thought been put into, perhaps, extending a road right through, a service road, if you would? (inaudible) , would it, to the East? - 8 - Vince Baffa: Yes, as far as the interpretation of ali~nme~t, wou~d be again like a shifting of the road 0: wJ.d~nJ.ng, wh~ch I guess really isn't being proposed l;n thJ.s case J.S ~. Number 2, with respect to a road comJ.ngth~ough, we ~J.d discuss that at the planning Advisory commJ.~te~ MeetJ.ng and basically we look at this road here (J.~dJ.~ated on map) and swinging it across, but the problem J.S J.f you do that you could possibly create eight ~ots ~nstead of four because you would essentially have (J.n~u~J.ble) onto both sides of the road. So in or~er ~o ~J.mJ.t ~he proposal, and of course, restrict anythJ.ng J.nsJ.de thJ.s NA area we decided to ... Ross Bradley: Part of the Natural Area to be rezoned? vince Baffa: Exactly, and that is not our intention, so that is how we are basically addressing that. Ross Bradley: So why is this designation being sought if it is contrary to certain policies of the Official Plan, because anything you have done (inaudible) Kris Menzies: No, the policies related to severance are contained in the Official Plan. They do not need a rezoning to get a severance. They need an Official Plan Amendment to qualify for a severance. Ross Bradley: But it is a general statement in the Official Plan that thè policy of the Council of Oro, will ensure that all developments will take place in accordance with land use designation. Land use designation in this case is Nature Area. Kris Menzies: i'Qat is why the province has the ability to amend Official Plan policies, to allow different proposals to be looked at. Ray Kelso: My name is Ray Kelso and I am with the firm of Reinders & Associates, (inaudible) letter sent to the Township, we represent MSL properties who is developing the lands of OPA #57. I wanted to go over a little bit of history of OPA #57. When we first approached Bev Nicholson, she was the Township Planner at that time, that is prior to MSL actually purchasing this property. We asked the Township Planner at that time what was the policy of the Township for the development South or below the Ridge Road. They said categorically there would be no further development. That was important because at the time we were looking at nitrate dilution and that type of situation and how that effects us on that site. The development of additional lots will effect us and we feel the application is premature at this point, at this time. The confusion, I guess, is with regards to servicing, - 9 - whether or not this is going to be serviced by municipal water or private wells. We came in yesterday to look and review the information submitted on behalf of this application and I found it sadly wanting. There was a hydrogeological report for a 10 lot subdivision, not for four lot severances. There was a. Plan report by Evergreen Consultants for a five lot severance but not a four lot severance. So really, actually, no information available on this particular four lot proposal. When I talked to Kris about it, she said, "well five lots, four lots, what is the difference?". There may be no difference, I don't know, that is up to you to determine. There are, I made a site inspection yesterday of the proposed road entrance and we are hearing tonight, two entrances, one entrance, you know, what is it? It doesn't seem to be known. There is a very steep slope, I saw yesterday, right off Ridge Road and if you were going to have more than one entrance there, it would involve a fairly significant impact into the Natural Area, into the treed area. Also, looking at the road entrance, you are looking at a curve, that area is curved and also there is a change in elevation, one of the consent policies is that consents should not be allowed if it is going to create a traffic hazard. I wish that Council would review that traffic consideration about the access. If you are going to have roughly four lots accessing that one entrance, possibly, so I think that it should be looked and there has been no Township comments that we have been able to review or no agency comments. There was no Zoning By-law to review or Official Plan Amendment that was made up at the time. Also, just looking over some of the, I looked at the hydrogeological report and it says that the soils there are hardpan soils. Now, whether or not they are the type of soils that should be developed, that is another question and I think that was originally behind Oro Township's resolve not to allow any development. So I want to reiterate where we are coming from. We are looking at development there and off site impact of our own development, obviously, the more lots there are off site, the more the impact MSL's proposal will have.. Of course, it is our view point that we want to minimize the off set impact that our proposal is going to make, so for a number of reasons we feel this proposal is premature. Other concerns that we looked at were erosion and water quality concerns. Now these four lots, we are running a drainage down the 3rd Concession, some water control facilities on site, I have not seen anything proposed actually to control some water run-off from this site. From what I have heard tonight from the consultant is that it will be running the same as it was before, well, I suggest that it can't run the same as it was before because there is going to be three additional houses on it. So, I think that it is premature and there are a fair number of questions and primary in our minds is the water servicing question. Is there going to be service by municipal water or not? site access, what is the situation there? You are looking at erosion of water quality. What type of water quality is going to be going off that site into Kempenfelt Bay? All these questions, I don't feel are addressed from my review of the material that has been submitted to date. So, our position is that it is premature. Councillor Martin: 8 Mr. Kelso would you point out where your property is in relation to this property? - 10 - Kris Menzies: It will be difficult for you to see, it sits right here (indicated on the map). Ray Kelso: It goes right up to the CN rail line over to the 3rd Concession, all along the Ridge Road and then we are back on to the existing development. We have been involved with this for 5 years and worked through the many regulations from the Ministry of Environment. Very difficult. Kris Menzies: I wòuld just like to respond to some of the issues which Mr. Kelso has brought up, especially to some of the comments he received from me. I certainly can't comment on the conversation he would have had with the previous Planner regarding no development. Just for the benefit of the public, the policies of the municipality have, policies related to how development can occur, if it can occur, if it cannot occur. If a developer is in a position where they ask for a development proposal to be put in front of Council, one of the first things we look at is does the Official Plan allow me to develop? If it doesn't allow you to develop then they have the option to ask Council for an Amendment to the Official Plan to change the policies to allow that development to occur. This is one of the things that the MSL property did. They purchased a piece of property which was designated Agricultural which did not allow for residential homes. They then asked Council for an Official Plan Amendment which Council granted and from a Council stand point, although, it is not yet approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, it has been changed to a Residential category. This is essentially the same type of process which the proponent today is going through. The second thing I would like to address is the reason why Mr. Kelso didn't have an opportunity to review an Official Plan Amendment or a Zoning By-law Amendment in the office is that, Council has the opinion that those documents should not be produced until such time as this Public Meeting takes place. Council may decide this evening that this development is not going ahead. If they make that decision, there is not much point to ask the proponent to spend all the money to produce those documents. They would be producing those documents without the benefit of public input. In fact, the MSL property did not produce an Official Plan Amendment document prior to going to Council, at least not to my knowledge and I have not prepared a Zoning By-law for that particular development, so it is not in their file either. I don't recall today telling Mr. Kelso that four lots or five lots makes no difference. The proposal has been downgraded by the applicant because Council provided them with a sl,lggestion that five lots would be a little onerous~ The documents were not amended by the applicant, probably due to my suggestion because I didn't see a lot of point if the public was aware of four lots and they saw a development proposal in the development application that said five lots that it would prejudice the public in seeing a development proposal by the applicant in the file with one lot difference. - 11 - Kris Menzies: In relation to the hydrogeological .report, hydrogeological engineers typically go on sJ.te a~d determine the maximum number of lots th~t yo~ c~n get J.n a property and still maintain th~ on~arJ.o DrJ.nkJ.ng Water Objectives. My review of the fJ.le J.n tha~ Mr. Delzotto hydrogeological engineer has stated, a maxJ.mum of 10 lots can be placed on the property. Mr. Delzotto has chosen less than that. In fact, if I recall" the MSL pr?perty is going through another hydr~geologJ.cal a~alysJ.s and talking to the Ministry of EnvJ.ron~ent, th~J.r prop~sal mayor may not change based on the J.nformatJ.on provJ.ded to the Ministry. So I just wanted t~ take ~he opportunity to clear up some of those .J.ssu~s. wJ.th Council, especially related to th~ ?on-avaJ.labJ.lJ.ty of the zoning By-law and the OffJ.cJ.al Plan Amendment document. Deputy Mayor Beard: Any further questions, or comments? councillor Dalziel: Mr. Kelso, I appreciate the great concern about the small acreage on the south of Ridge Road, therefore, I would expect that a Council in the future would have many, many concerns about that vast area on the north side of Ridge Road when it gets developed and puts all that traffic out on the Ridge Road. Also, you have .indicated that there are many reasons, I think that was the word, why this small development is going to have such a detrimental impact on the land on the north side. I would like to know a few of those reasons. Ray Kelso: The Ministry of Environment has requested us to do a study examining the down gradients impact of our subdivision on neighbouring properties with wells. Our review to date has shown that there is, it is the realm of around 10 - 15. Our primary interest is here, we believe this application is premature because servicing is not clear. It was not told to us today whether it is on water servicing or not. That is very important to us because MSL would be required to hook, pay, pay the amount to hook these people up with water by the Ministry of Environment. That is a concern to MSL, we don't want to be on the hook with this. That is our concern. We are also concerned that the site access has not been looked at and storm water management has not been looked at. . Mr. Delzotto: 1. (inaudible), I can assure you that if there is going to be a detrimental effect in this area by any development, it is going to be by the large one to the north, not by the four lots. 2. I can today, extend that cottage and make it look li~~ a motel on 300 ft. of land, probably I can. I don't want (inaudible) nobody can stop me today, from building a 40,000 sq. ft. house if I wish on that property. I come here looking at the environment, minimizing the damage to the environmental conditions -- - 12 - that are there, and to have a developer who has a 80 or 90 lot subdivision, stand up and object, I find it offensive. councillor Hartin: Thank you Deputy Mayor. Mr. Kelso, the hydrogeological study or analysis that you did of your own property. Would it be reasonable to assume that the same (inaudible) Ray Kelso: This subdivision, this severance application, beca'l;lse they are next to the lake, they do not have to examJ.ne down gradient impact. '1'hey are next t? ,a large water body and the regulations of the MJ.nJ.stry of the Environment do not require them to look at down gradients. They still have to maintain a nitrate dilution and they have to maintain conformity' to the Reasonable Use Guidelines, which they can do with the size of the lots proposed - 3\ - 4 acres. Again, we are not saying that we' will be objecting forever to this proposal, but at this .time we are saying it is premature until we have a definite idea of whether or not this three lots will be hooked up with water. Mr. Delzotto, again, this is the question we are putting to them, is it going to be hooked up with water? Is there going to be some sort of storm water management plan done? . What concerns the road access? councillor Martin: Is this soil the same? Can we assume... Ray Kelso: No I would not say the soil is the same. There are hardpan soils, this area (indicated on map) where it was lake bottom at one time, the soil up on top are different soils. . councillor caldwell: Mr. Kelso, you implied the development of this particular property is going to impact on the dilution effects of the MSL site. My understanding is that the Ministry of Environment requires all dilution to be done on site that you cannot use neighbours properties to conclude ~ dilution factor. Am I wrong in that, assumption? Ray Kelso: We have had, originally in 1989-1990, we were allowed to look at down gr~dient dilution. At this point, possibly we had to examJ.ne, we are looking at that we have to maintain the 10 mg per litre at the property boundaries. B'l;lt w~ also, because there is a background ni trate sJ.tuatJ.on here, we also have to look at off site impacts. Does that answer your question? councillor Caldwell: That is what my question (inaudible) , you have part answered my question. I didn't get a yes or no, but I understand now that you have to consider the existing nitrate levels of the property below you and if you are going to impact at all. -- - 13 - Ray Kelso: Yes and we will have to supply them with water. our con~ern is that if we are going to 'have to supply people with water, we would rather supply one resJ.d7nce than four. Or at least be viable. ~e don't b¡elJ.eve that there is an impact or that there wJ.lI be an J.mpact. our studies have shown over monitoring for a number of years that the background nitrate was primarilY caused by agricultural run off. Tha~ area ~s a~j~ce,nt ~o farm land area and the background nJ.trate J.S dJ.mJ.n7shJ.~g over t~e years we have waited three years of monJ.torJ.ng at thJ.s point: So the background nitrate is diminishing., But we are very concerned that we don't want to be IJ.able to supply an additiöna.l three residences with water and again that is. our concern. councillor caldwell: Now, the other issue you raised was the Township has (inaudible) traffic access. That is a county Road and we will receive comments from the county which is the body that deals with that particular road. At the PAC meeting discussions were held about alternate ways to get to a road rather than the County Road, to see if there were any other alternatives at that time but maybe the members of the public have an alternative that we have not considered. That is why we have public meetings. The other thing is, it was stated that there is enough room on this site for 10 septic systems and can handle 4 lots if necessary. Are those 10 septic systems proposed on the lands that would be designated and zoned General Residential or are you contemplating using some of the lands that are Natural Area for septic systems? Ray Kelso: This is not my proposal, it is their proposal. vince Baffa: No, the original, when we first did the hydrogeological report, it basically said the entire site was capable of supporting 10 residential lots or 10. septic tanks. Through the process and through further discussions with Kris and of course, Mr. Delzotto's direction, you have to understand, we ~re still at the preliminary stages of the process and tYPJ.cally proposals are not clarified until we are where we are right now, the public hearing stage And ~t is clarified ~nd we are on a proposal of 4 lots: It .J.s. to be only J.n the. SR area and it should be defJ.nJ.tely stressed that that SR area does exist it is not something we are making up. .' Deputy Mayor Beard: Further questions from the public? Vince Baffa: ~us~ some respon~es to Mr. Delzotto's comments. Again, J.t J.S ~ery ear~y 7n the process, the discussion about the confusJ.on, thJ.s J.S the stage where we are at right now where we know exactly what we are proposing. with respect to the method of servicing, we can't say right now, again, at this point in the process and I have seen a lot of OPAls basically allow flexibility that we will - 14 - vince Baffa: identify the method of servicing through further engineering studies, which is typically done. Kris, correct me if I am wrong on this. wi th respect to the traff ic hazard, as Mr. Delzotto pointed out, I can't say if 'he is definitely right or ~ot but if he could do a lets say a 40,000 sq. ft. dwellJ.ng there I could. see a' considerable increase in the popul~tion as opposed to 4 units. So I would think that would be more of a traffic hazard. I definitely wanted to make that point. with respect to the storm water management, I am not saying that the current flows of the water is going to be the exact same. I did not say that. the direction, which is being towards the bay is what we are going to maintain. So I just wanted to basically make those comments to clarify our position. Of course, we are open to further discussion. Joyce scott: My name is Joyce Scott and I live directly below the subdivision in Shanty Bay. I live, there is one street between me and the school, I am west of the school. Before they put the new subdivision up above the Ridge Road, we did not have to treat our water but once the septic tanks are in there, we got top readings for bad water. We went many times to test our water and we finally had to put an ultraviolet system in to purify our water. We were not able to drink the water from our well. I guess that is for your information. Deputy Mayor Beard: Is that a dug well or a drilled well. Joyce Scott: It is very small, it is not a dug well, it is a drilled well. councillor Martin: I have a question directed to Kris. A statement just be7n ~ade ,by Mr. Delzotto that he could build such a buJ.ldJ.ng rJ.ght across his property, is that feasible? Deputy Mayor Beard: I am not sure that the question is in order (inaudible) at such a time we are in that situation. (inaudible) Djénane Lemmon: We get our water from Barrie, we bring it all in from Barrie. Deputy Mayor Beard: Are there any further questions relating to this? Councillor Dickie: ~ am comin~ back to this driveway, this shared driveway J.dea. ,How wJ.de are you ~roposing these driveways and this questJ.on through to KrJ.s, can we allow a driveway right on the property line? - 15 - Kris Menzies: council has recently seen a proposal for a mutual ,shared driveway and accepted that proposal on a property J.n Bass Lake. The By-law, no municipal By-law, ,that I a~ aware of and the zoning By-law does not restrJ.ct the dJ.stan~e between driveways. I am, however, aware t~at the PublJ.c services Administrator, if there is one drJ.veway next to another as opposed to shared, he like~ to see at least 10 ft. between. If it is a shared drJ.veway rather than having say a 10 ft. entrance, it ,wo~ld be a 20 f~. entrance as a generic example, that J.S ~ust to,all~w hJ.m to place his culverts properly. There J.S nothJ.ng J.n the zoning By-law or any municipal By-law that I know of that would restrict that. Deputy Mayor Beard: Further questions from the public or from council? councillor Dalziel: I see a lot of people out here in the au~ience ~ere tonight, I think that is great for, a ~ublJ.c meetJ.ng. From the audience I have heard prJ.marJ.ly from three people but I don't think the rest of you have heard from any more, so I am wondering why there is so many people out there, I hate to have this meeting end and .go away wondering, who is there who hasn't chosen to get on their feet and say we support or we are against it. Now maybe you are here for all the excitement that, I don't want have this meeting close and hear from you. ,That lady over there on the right, has been very quiet. Deputy Mayor Beard: Are there any further questions? John Hare: I am John Hare, R. R. #2, Oro station. I am talking about the soil content'down there. Now I am going back 24 years when I a Fire Chief/Building Inspector in this Township. I do know that everything below the Ridge Road then, was considered, well you have to watch it because there is that hardpan. Now you could go down a foot or you could go down two feet of top soil and get the hardpan. Once you hit the hardpan, it goes right into Lake Simcoe. So all I would say is that, give this good consideration because it is right down on the lake and it is near Lake Simcoe. You really have to take a soil test to find out where the hardpan is, but as the people here have said, in Shanty Bay their wells have gone bad because the hardpan is there, the new subdivisions, there is leakage of their septics that have gone into their wells and this is what you have to be careful of not for , ' now but J.n 20 years time. Joyce Scott: This question is about the roads, you are talking about putting roads in. There have been two new roads put in up to the Ridge Road in the past two years. One is Mr. Sarjeant's and the other is Mr. Douglas. Do you have to get permission? My road that goes up to Ridge Road from the lake is currently falling into complete disrepair. - 16 - Joyce scott: Mr. sarjeant cut it off at the fence ,in order to,put his road up because it snakes through fJ.ve propertJ.es. Do you have to get permission to build a road? If I wanted to put another road up to the Ridge Road, I currently go acrosS my neighbours property into tpe Village of Shan~y Bay and if I wanted to put a road up there, could I do J.t without permission? Deputy Mayor Beard: No, you would have to have an entrance permit o~ you~ own property onto the Ridge Road. There wJ.ll be (J.naudJ.ble) Joyce scott: There was an entrance road, the gate is still,there, ~ut the culvert is still there to get to gate, rJ.ght besJ.de Mr. sarjeant's, but the road itself is cut off by Mr. sarjeant's fence and I would have, all I woul~ have to do is repair a short bit or part of the road J.n order to reclaim that road. It was a very old road that had been there a very long time. Reeve Caldwell: Deputy Mayor, just a point of clarification, the County Roads require it. If you require a new access onto the County Road, they will require you to obtain a permit. But if you already have an access that you are not using, you would simply be realigning a private lane, and there is a distinct difference between a private lane on your property and on a municipal road. The realigning a private lane on your business or general property, as long as it does not adversely affect your neighbour. Then there is limits to what they can do, for instance chopping trees on your property. But generally, your lane way is suppose to be 10 ft or something from your property line. I am not sure whether there is any specific By-law in effect or not. But if you have got an entrance onto the county Road, then you do not have to get a new entrance permit (inaudible) own property. stephen Woodrow: stephen Woodrow, Mr. Deputy Mayor, R.R. #2, Oro station. I attended one of our strategic Planning Committee Meetings and at that meeting, and I have heard at others one of the important issues that came up was th~ protection of shoreline in our municipality because we see it as an asset to the community. The problem is that the Township owns very little of this shoreline and at some point, I think, residents would like to see some purchasing back to the Township itself to the community. If we continue to intensify development along the shore line, we may lose that ability because of course, we are creating more people (inaudible). I think we have some ~eautiful big lots down there and I think this gentleman J.S very fortunate to have the lot that he. does and he purchased the lot as it is, as everyone else does he has a r~ght to m~ke (in~udible) I hope Council will give some serJ.ous consJ.deratJ.on to the future that this is an asset that we don't want destroyed. . , - 17 - There being no further questions or comments, when being called for the third time, the Deputy Mayor in closing the meeting, thanked those in attendance for their participation and advised that Council would consider all the 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, would they please leave their name and address with the Clerk. MOTiON NO.1 Moved by Dalziel, seconded by Mortson Be it resolved that this Special Public Meeting of Council (East Part Lot 28, Concession 3, formerly Oro) now be adjourned @ 7:51 p.m. Carried .~ ß~ IAN BEARD, DEP . Y MAYOR 4 Æ.ä4.'¿ \A.Q#~. ;",,~ ( DARLENE SHOE:ãIUDGE, CLERK