Loading...
11 17 1993 Public Minutes ""' THB CORPORAT%ON OF 'l'HB 'lOWNSHIP OF ORO SPBCIAL PUBLIC HEBTING UDNBSDAY" NOVDBBR 17 1993 (t 7:00 P.M. - COUNC%L CHAKBBRS FORTY-FIRST HEBTING 1991-1994 COUNCIL The following members of Council were present: Reeve Robert E. Drury Deputy Reeve David Caldwell Councillor Alastair Crawford Councillor Joanne Crokam Councillor Leonard Mortson Also Present Were: Mr. Nick MacDonald, Mrs. shirley Woodrow and Rob Talaska Reeve Robert E. Drury chaired the meeting. Reeve Robert E. Drury opened the meeting by explaining to those present that this Public Meeting was to receive public comments respect to a proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment, pursuant to provisions of the Planning Act, 1983, Section 34 (12). The applicant has applied to rezone certain lands described as Part 1 and 2, Range 1, (Pritchard). date, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro 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 on this ication. of the Public Meeting was mailed out on October 28, 1993, to II property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands. Robert E. Drury then asked the Clerk if there had been any received on this matter. The Clerk responded by indicating that no correspondence had been received. Reeve then stated that those persons present would be afforded opportunity of asking questions with respect to the proposed He then turned the meeting over to the Township Planner . Kris Menzies, to explain the purpose and effect of the proposed By-Law Amendment. Menzies: The property is located on Part Lot 1 and 2, Range 1, in the Township of Oro. It is located just south of County Road 20. The purpose of tonights Public Meeting is to afford Council the opportunity to hear public comment on the rezoning request currently before Council. The property is designated Country Residential in the Township's Official Plan and is currently zoned Hold. In order to appropriately develop the site, the site must be rezoned to an appropriate zone. The reason why Menzies: MacDonald: Reeve Caldwell: - 2 - rezoning is before the Public this is the applicant, a few months ago, went the Committee of Adjustment and requested severance of three lots, leaving the gatehouse property as a remnant. Condition of the Committee of Adjustment granting the severance is that the be rezoned to residential use. The appropriate zone being chosen in my opin by the applicant is a Country Residential Exception. The reason the Exception is being placed on the property is to permit larger lot frontage and a larger lot area than is currently the minimum in the Country Residential Zone. This would preclude any of the large lots which are conditionally severed by the Committee, t be further severed in the future. Unless the owner of one of those lots were to co to Council and go through a full rezoning process and ask question in order to qualify. The Clerk has stated that comments have been received regarding the zoning circulation, this is correct, however two comments were received from various agencies at the time of the Committee of Adjustment circulation. One comment was the Health unit stating that they had no objection, as long as any dug wells on property were abandoned by a licensed wel installer. Secondly, the County had no concerns with the entrances which were proposed. Those conclude my comments Mr. Reeve, Mr. Nick MacDonald is here representing the proponent and he may have more informat for the public. The only thing I would like to add is the reason that we went the severance is because we originally made an application for Plan of Subdivision on property and we decided after a meet with residents and having some discuss with those residents that we would scale down our proposal to the one you now see i front of you. I do believe that the residents were happy with the scaled down proposal as they did not object to the consent being granted. The only other comment I may make is that there seems to be an issue with respect to parkland and the cash-in-lieu of parkland and on behalf of my client, we would be more than willing to pay any parkland requirement that the Township has currently, which I believe is $500.00 per lot. Any questions, and I would be happy to answer them. You said your client is prepared to pay $500.00. Would you be in a position to commit your client to that $500.00. - 3 - Nick MacDonald: Yes I am. There being no further questions or comments, when being called for the third time, the Reeve 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 Caldwell, seconded by Crokam Be it resolved that this Special Public Meeting of Council now adjourn @ 7:11 p.m. (Part Lot 1 and 2, Range 1, Pritchard). Carried ~ ~ fky RE E RO ERT . DRURY