Loading...
08 11 1993 Public Minutes 7:19 THB CORPORATION 01' THB TOWNSHIP 01' ORO SPBCIAL PUBLIC KBBTING WBÐNBS~Y. AUGUST 11. 1993 (t 7:19 P.M. - COUNCIL CHAMBBRS I'WBNTY-SBVBNTII KBBTING 1991-1994 COUNCIL The following members of Council were present: Reeve Robert E. Drury Deputy Reeve David Caldwell Councillor Joanne Crokam Councillor Leonard Mortson Absent: Councillor Alastair Crawford Also Present Were: Ms. Kris Menzies, Mr. Henry Sander, Mr. Clementine Manzone, Ms. Gina Manzone, Mr. Ross Manzone, Mr. Bud Arbour, Mr. Ross Cotton, Ms. Suzanne Robillard, Mrs. Gail O'Brien, Mr. Barry Peyton, Ms. Angela Rudy, Mr. VanVeld, Mrs. Loreen Rice-Lucas and Mr. and Mrs. David and Sharon Sparling. 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 Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendments, under sections 17 and 34 of the Planning Act, 1983. The applicant has applied to redesignate and rezone certain lands described as Part Lot 2, Range 2, (Manzone). To 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 application. Notice of the Public Meeting was mailed out on July 22, 1993, to property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands. Notice of the Public Meeting was also placed in both the Barrie Examiner and the orillia Packet on July 22, 1993. Reeve Robert E. Drury then asked the Clerk if there had been any correspondence received on this matter. The Clerk responded by indicating that four letters had been received, namely: Ministry of Natural Resources: (Feb. 11 1992) - no objection in principle - would require as a condition, drainage plan to address erosion and sedimentation during and after construction - storm water quality control also to be addressed Simcoe County Board of Education (Feb. 10/92) - no objection Canadian National Railways (Feb. 10/92) - development requires compl with the Secondary Main Line Requirements - 2 - simcoe County District Health unit (July 9/93) - identify two wet areas (Lot 7 and 1 & 2) that need - requesting supporting reports to be reviewed The Reeve then stated that those persons present would be afforded the opportunity of asking questions with respect to the proposed Amendments. He then turned the meeting over to the Township Planner, Ms. Kris Menzies, to explain the purpose and effect of proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendments. Kris Menzies: The purpose of tonights Public Meeting is two fold. It is to allow Council an opportunity to receive public comment on the proposed Official Plan Amendment and proposed Rezoning on these lands. The lands are located on Part of Lot 2, Range 2, in the municipality, basically in the north-west corner of the Village of Bay. The redesignation would be from the Agricultural Designation to a Village Community Residential Designation. The proposed Rezoning is from Agricultural to General Residential. If this is approved by both Council and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, this would permit an eight lot Plan of Subdivision. The property is basically rectangular in and it is located just north of the CN Railroad Line and just south of the Ar Tree Nursery which there is currently a Plan of Subdivision before the Minister Municipal Affairs. The road pattern involved in this proposed Plan of Subdivision would complete the road currently proposed for the Arbour Plan of Subdivision. Mr. Barry Peyton and Ms. Angela Rudy of Reid and Associates are here representing the owners of the property and they may have more detailed information for both public and Council. Barry Peyton: I am a Planner with Reid and Associates, Engineering and Planning Consultants in Barrie. Our clients, Mr. Ross Manzone a Mrs. Gina Manzone, have asked us to look the Engineering of the Plan of of their property. Mr. and Mrs. Manzone have run a business down in gasoline alley area over the past ten years, the Sunvalley Esso, and they have also been a resident on that particular property to the very west end that property for the past five years. They are not in the development business per say but they are interested in Shanty Bays future and they plan to live there long after the subdivision has been completed. - 3 - Barry Peyton: We plan to do the presentation in two parts, starting with the Planning portion. Angela Rudy is the Planner with Reid and Associates and she will be doing the Planning portion and then after Angela is finished I will do the Engineering portion and at that time if you have any questions one or the other will answer those questions. Angela Rudy: As everyone has already mentioned, the property is located on Part of Lot 2, Rang 2, just north-west of the Hamlet of Shanty Bay and north of the County Road 20. Mr. and Mrs. Manzone actually own about 32 acres. They are only going to develop about 15.24 acres or 6.17 hectares. The plan is to develop it into eight single family residential lots. We have talked about the access which will be a road shared by the northern proposed development, Bud Arbour's Subdivision. Th Manzone property will gain access through an interior road system and will just complete the system, making it a road loop The Official Plan currently designates the property as Agricultural, so there will have to be an amendment to change that to Village Community Residential. The Zoning also zones it as Agricultural, so we will have an amendment for that to change it to the General Residential Zone as well. The lots are designed and are quite nice size lots. The average size is .83 of an acre or 3,362 metres square. The largest lot is .88 of an acre and the smallest is just 3/4 of an acre. The surrounding uses as I have mentioned before, there is a proposed development to the north, directl north of Mr. Manzone. To the south, there is an existing residential area and to the east there are about three or four homes i that corner, right off of Concession 2. Over to the very west of the property is Mr. and Mrs. Manzone's home. To the north" beside the Arbour Subdivision, will be idl land and will likely remain idle land for while. There are eight lots proposed. The houses will likely be facing the railway with the bedrooms to the back. It is designed that way really for noise. There is a berm along the front and that is for noise as well as safety and is a requirement from the CN Railway. There is a large Park are located in this corner (indicated on map), and there is a detention pond. This detention area will be a shared detention facility with Mr. Arbour's facility. When it is completed it will actually look like one large green area. As I have mentioned it is completing a loop for a road and it is designed that way because cul-de-sacs are difficult for maintenance, so it is best to make a loop and it is better for - 4 - Angela Rudy: safety for two access points. It is proposed that the ownership of the berm be in a common ownership amongst the eight residences. It is proposed to plan low maintenance ground cover for the sides and the top of the berms. In addition, it was suggested to possibly put a row of trees 0 the top and would create a buffer for the people so they would not be able to see th train. Barry Peyton: This plan is of course dependent on the Arbour Subdivision being completed and approved. The status of the Arbour Subdivision right now is that the Township has adopted the Official Plan Amendment an it has been sent down to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and has been circulated through the various Ministries. We do not have Final approval and we don't have Draf Plan approval on the Arbour Subdivision. without the Arbour Subdivision approval, 0 course there is no access. The topography on the land is rolling and drains towards the railway in a southerly direction. There is a valley down through the middle, very slight, maybe two or thre feet down. From one end of the property t this end where the drainage will be directed is approximately three metres. The drainage will be open roadside ditches In this location here there is a dry detention facility. Sometimes it is calle a pond, I don't like to used that word because it indicates it will be wet. This will not be wet except in a major storm, a really heavy rain storm. There may be a minor flow in the regular storm that we have had in the last week or so. This is located adjacent to the same sort of facility in the Arbour Development and it will be all one, once it gets completed. The idea for that pond is to simply slow down and not release the kind of flows tha this would generate. What I would like to do is show you a plan of the drainage beyond this point. We have gone through this exercise once for the Arbour Development and the drainage is really no different from this point down. It takes the drainage down around Shanty Bay, it does not put it through Shanty Bay. (Mr. Peyton put plan up on the Board for review and explained and indicated on map the different drainage areas) Any of the drainage will not be coming down through Shanty Bay. We are trying to improve the condition down through Shanty Bay because we know there has been problems with drainage down through there. The sewage disposal will be individual til fields. The lots are sized significantly large. The Health unit I believe will allow half acre lots, these lots are considerably larger, 3/4 to one acre in - 5 - Barry Peyton size. The Ministry of the Environment hav approved the fact that this number of lots will fit on the property with septic systems. We originally started with twelv lots and reduced it down to eight, due to concerns of the Ministry. So the hydrogeological studies have been done and reviewed by the Ministry of the Environment. The individual tile fields will also have to be approved by the Healt Unit, upon development of each individual lot as well. The water system will be a communal water system and will tie into th Arbour development, via these two access roads and in turn will be connected to the Shanty Bay system down through the 2nd Concession under the railway tracks. We would hope that the whole area would be within the same system so that we are not looking at several systems through Shanty Bay, providing the Township with more maintenance and problems. So if there needs to be upgrading of that system then the developers would pay for that upgrading. I know that in the Development Charges Act Study, it was indicated that the Township would plan on looking at updating that system, just for this reason because of the increased development in th Shanty Bay area. The lot grading in general, we usually put swales down the property lines and the lot will be graded towards the road. The intercepting drainage along the back of th lots so that the water does not flow onto these properties. If it is necessary to fill some areas then that will be done. W do not anticipate any wet areas. There will be no fill on the property except for those minor small wet areas. There are nice hardwood trees that border the property down at least two sides and some along the railway, white ash and maple and they will all be retained. The lots themselves, the front yards will likely have one hardwood tree. The berm that was mentioned before shown adjacent to the railway tracks, we had an acoustic study done and as far as the consultant was concerned there was no need for a berm for acoustics. The distant awa from the railway tracks was sufficient and no berm was required. However, being on a secondary main line as the CN mentioned in their letter, they require some sort of a safety berm, if a train crashes and there is a spill, a fire, then you would require some kind of a berm to protect the residents. They look for a minimum of a two metre berm. This one is 4.5 metres or 14/15 feet high. We will build that with reasonable side slope so that it can be cu with a lawn mower and maintained and the plantings will be evergreen along the top and the kind of grass that doesn't grow so fast. The ownership of the berm would be held in common with the property owners an they would in turn hire someone to come in - 6 - Robillard: and cut that berm and keep it looking nice It is to their advantage, it is their subdivision and the Township I am sure doesn't want it. It will also act as a bi of a safety precaution for the children in the Park area, keeping them away from the railway track. There is an existing fence down here and that has to be made sure tha it is properly maintained and there is a railway requirement for that fence. I live in the Paisley Court Subdivision. have two questions. I am unfamiliar with the status of Bud Arbour Subdivision. Doe he have approved planning? Peyton: Peyton: Not at this point. The Official Plan Amendment has been adopted by Council and it has been sent down to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. At this point it has been circulated along with the Draft Plan and no approval as yet has been received. Robillard: Was there any objections lodged with the Ministry? Peyton: There have been some concerns with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food but I think it is mostly based on incorrect information and they are not familiar with what is happening in the Township and they don't know how the Township feels about this development and there was a lot of unknowns. So we are in the process of notifying them. The Ministry of the Environment they are sort of waiting. The havn't objected out flat. There are a number of studies because of the new Planning Commission, the Sewell Commission they have required justification studies for new development. The Ministry of the Environment also required a form of a justification study. Suzanne Robillard: My second question relates to the Parkland dedication. Does the Township have an option to choose 5% cash-in-lieu or do the take the 5% land dedication. Barry peyton: No they have an option. Suzanne Robillard: Why would Council choose to take Parkland for an area that is so isolated and that will only serve approximately 5 children. I would assume that the subdivision to the north would also have to provide Parkland to supply its needs. My proposal to Council is that if this subdivision goes through, why on earth don't they take the money, cash-in-lieu and do something with the lack of facilities that currently exists in the village of Shanty Bay, rathe than creating an isolated Parkette? Reeve Drury: It is a firm policy of Council that we do take land instead of cash. In many instances it has been proven that when Council did not take the land, in future - 7 - Drury: years the land became quite valuable as a resource to the municipality and the municipality was able to turn it over to greater sum than what it was worth in the cash-in lieu process. This has been our policy and it has proven us right in many instances. Robillard: My question here is would a Building ever be issued for this parcel of land because of its proximity to the railway? Drury: We may not have to make a building permit available to make the land more valuable. Robillard: Its possible use, what would it be? Drury: I do not know at this time, but as far as know we would take the land and land bank it for now because we do have a fair sum reserves in our parkland accounts and if have to draw on it they are there. It would appear to us, much more efficient take the land now and just hold on to it for the future. Kris Menzies: From the stand point of the Planning Act, for one of your questions you can see this berm here is what the acoustical engineer has decided is an adequate berm for setting a residential property. The parkland is above that so if there is a disposition for this Councilor a council to issue a Building Permit on there, there is sufficient room, first of all. Second of all, the way cash-in-lieu is calculated under the current Planning Act, is that an assessment is made based the value of the land of the day, prior draft approval. So the land basically would be assessed as idle agricultural land. Once draft approval is received, is worth a different amount. Suzanne Robillard: If the Bud Arbour Subdivision is in any revised by the Minister, even in the form if it is not approved at all or approved amendment form, would the Public be given the opportunity to see any revisions to what we see before us on this Plan of Subdivision? Reeve Drury: Probably the land today is worth as Agricultural land $1000. or $2000. an Kris Menzies: When the Draft Plan approval comes in we are the first to see it. The Minister rarely comes to us and informs us about their intending decision to change a Plan Sometimes we can anticipate it if as an example, the Ministry of the Environment wrote back and said we changed our mind want four lots only. Suzanne Robillard: No, what I mean is that for what ever reason the applicant on this land decides to change his access. My question to you is will this application, if it is ever Robillard: Menzies: Suzanne Robillard: Deputy Reeve Caldwell: Gail O'Brien: Barry peyton: Gail o'Brien: - 8 - amended, be put back out to the Public for review or will it simply be an in house amendment to the Plan but will continue on with not a chance for the Public to it the second time. The Public Meeting this evening is to a~ford Council an opportunity to have the Public comment on the Official Plan redesignation and the rezoning. Specifically, the Plan of Subdivision is not before you. Usually the developers come forth and show that because people find that more tangible than talking Official Plan policies as a point of understanding. The only public process under the Planning Act involved with the Official Plan is it allows the Public to comment directly to the Minister on the Plan itself. This particular Council 1 to have a concept brought forth to the Public at the time when Official Plan Amendment. My understanding of the records on this council at this evenings meeting is that the Official Plan Amendment for the lands to the north are not approved, Council not approve the O.P. on these lands, is that true? I think if the Minister, whether he to or not to approve the proposal above this one would be dead in the water. I can't see how it can possibly go through when they have no road access. I live on Martini Crescent. Regarding drainage map that you had up there before. If I understand with the retention pond, have a little bit of a fear and I would suggest that it is going to run into ours and that we are going to be wet all the time. We are only wet for a very short length of time in the spring. You are in the Audubon Subdivision is it? Yes. Our pond is dry I would say 99% of the year. We may have 2-3 weeks in the spring where it is wet. But what does happen right now, from that field above, all ready drains down and that is what makes it wet. We don't make it wet, it what is coming from the field now. So if you are even going to divert more of, is now going to Shanty Bay, my concern is that we are going to be taking too much water on that end which then as you know runs through a ditch under the road to other side of the Ridge Road, which will lay in water for two months in the spring because it has nowhere to go. The second comment is that as the Council knows I am the School Board Trustee for School Board and we have no problem with this subdivision in the fact that it will lO'Brien: Barry Peyton: Gail O'Brien: Barry peyton: Gail o'Brien: Barry Peyton: Gail O'Brien: Reeve Drury: Barry Peyton: Gail o'Brien: Deputy Reeve Caldwell: Barry peyton: - 9 - generate very few students. We do have a problem with some subdivisions because the are running very close to be busing children to Barrie and Orillia because the cannot accommodate them in Oro. My question to you is the very farthest corne lot next to the parkland, how far from there out to the 2nd Concession would it b approximately and are the roads going to b wide enough that if we have to bus children. All the turning radii are subject to M.T.O standards and yes you can get a bus down there with no problem at all. I am curious, do you know approximately ho far it is from that corner lot by the Park to the farthest point, because every time we have to put a bus on it, it costs us $40,000. This is going to be shorter than coming down to the Lake, so if that gives you any idea. I want to know how far children are going to be expected to walk to the 2nd Concession and then walk down to the school? Would you like it in feet, miles, metres? Kilometres. Perhaps Barry, you could respond that to the School Board. So who should I talk to, Ms. Spacek? Yes, Holly Spacek. The detention pond, it is going to be joined to the Arbour Subdivision, what would the depth of water be if it was full Usually they design them to have some preboard at the top of the berm around the pond, so you are looking at, I am guessing at two feet or so preboard at the top of the pond. This is at a hundred year storm the very worst case. This whole pond system, the very best solution for these ponds to work properly is to have one pond as to a whole series of ponds. We try to eliminate them by putting them together. should mention that as soon as you get north of the railway, you are into a different sort of a situation where the railway itself acts as a dam. So this are is very much protected down here. If this doesn't work then certainly it will back u in behind the berm there. But it shouldn' even do that, if these are designed properly, and I am saying they are, then you won't have that situation. You have this detention facility and you have that detention facility right together (indicated on map), and that has been - 10 - Barry Peyton: designed to carry these flows to hold it into a predevelopment flow. There is goin to be no additional flow, the time of flow will be a little longer, thats all. 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 Mortson, seconded by Crokam Be it resolved that this Special Public Meeting of Council (Part Lo 2, Range 2, Manzone) now be adjourned @ 8:02 p.m. Carried