Loading...
10 21 1991 Public Minutes (2) to TRB CORPORATION OP TRB TOWNSHIP OP ORO SPBCIAL PUBLIC KBBTING (Sugarbush) MONDAY. OCTOBBR al. 1111 " '1:10 P.M. - COUNCIL CllAllBDS ONB ItUNDRBO ANI) BIGHY PIPTR MBBTING 1188-1111 COUNCIL The following members of Council were present: Reeve Robert E. Drury Deputy Reeve David Caldwell Councillor Alastair Crawford Councillor Allan Johnson Absent: Councillor David Burton Also Present Were: Ms. Kris Menzies, Mr. E.R. Fleming, Mr. Garry Sanderson, Mr. Alan Wayne, Mr. Conra Boffo, Mr. Christopher L. Grant, Ms. Vivia Bell, Mr. Stephen Sperling, Ms. Ann Budge, Mr. Hans Waldreque, Mr. Marty Greenglass, Mrs. Barbara Greenglass, Ms. Jane Tremblay Mr. Stephen Woodrow, Mr. Leonard Mortson, Mrs. Shirley Woodrow and One Member of the Press. 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 wit respect to a proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment, pursuant to section 34 (12) of the Planning Act, 1983. The applicant has applied to rezone certain lands described as Part of Block D, Plan M-8, in Par of the East Half of Lot 3, Concession 6, (Sugarbush). To date, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro 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 on this application. Notice of the Public Meeting was mailed out on October 1, 1991, to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject lands, as well a to those persons and agencies considered to have an interest. Notice of the Public Meeting was also placed in both the Barrie Examiner and Orillia Packet on October 1, 1991. Reeve Robert E. Drury then asked the Clerk if there had been any correspondence received on this matter. The Clerk responded by indicating that two letters had been received as follows: 1) 2) Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority - no objection; Steven Howcroft, 15 Oneida Avenue - objecting. The Reeve then stated that those persons present would be afforded the opportunity of asking questions with respect to the proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment. Reeve Robert E. Drury then turned the meeting over to the Township Planner, Ms. Kris Menzies, to explain the purpose and effect of the proposed zoning By-Law Amendment. - 2 - Kris Menzies: The applicants are proposing a rezoning on two parcels of land in order to qualify fo a severance of three residential lots. Th current policies of the Township allow this type of rezoning to occur and the rezoning is from Open Space (OSl) Zone to the Resort Residential (RR) Zone, which would allow seasonal residential use. The applicants require this rezoning in order to qualify for the severances and if Council does decide to rezone the property the applicants will then qualify for severances and will then have to go throug a second stage of Committee of Adjustment in order to obtain their severances. Conrad Boffo: Where exactly is the location? Kris Menzies: Kris Menzies pointed the lots out on the map. Ann Budge: I live on Oneida and live next door to the gentleman that wrote the letter. When we purchased the property a year and a half 0 so ago, I was certainly under the impression that the property was to remain Greenbelt. The main reason we bought our house is because there was nobody across the street and something we value is not having neighbours any closer than necessary. I was quite surprised to hear that there was a proposal made. I have since learned why the severance was requested rather than levies on the existing people and I agree with Steve's letter that the so called costs of putting in the hydrants and so on for everybodies benefit should be shared by everybody not simply the costs put on the people who liv directly opposite proposed lots. I do not think it is a necessary thing and do not think that piece of land should become three building lots. Reeve Drury: Just one question, when you said that the costs to upgrade the water system should b shared by everyone, did you mean everyone in the subdivision or everyone in the municipality. Ann Budge: I meant everyone in Sugarbush. Mr. Greenglass: I am the current President of Sugarbush. appeared before this Council approximately one and one half years ago to deal with th issue of how we should proceed and what should occur with this land. I would like to start by perhaps giving the Council som what of a history of what happened and why these lands are being rezoned. Sugarbush as you know has its own Board of Directors which is a volunteer board. As volunteer board, it came to the question 0 funding. The Sugarbush Community ran its own water system, we had entered into an agreement with this municipal body for transfer of the water system to you. - 3 - Mr. Greenqlass: One of the purposes in our constitution is to maintain the water system and we had undertaken to this Council that we would improve it before it is finally turned ove to you and there is a signed written agreement for that. One of the things tha came up was when this Council approved Phase III and there became an additional well which would allow Phases I and II to hook into Phase III's well and work a common system with the aspect of municipal standards have changed over the years and that Phase III had hydrants. Phase I and II did not. Obviously a serious concern i the area with everybody having wood burnin stoves and fire places, was to provide som method of fire protection. The Board of Directors brought the option of how we would proceed to do that. Our annual meeting was presented with a number of alternatives. Alternative one was to borrow money and pass a borrowing resolution, mortgage some of the common land and pay it off over time out of operating revenues from membership fees. The membership turned that down. The second option was to create a capital levy a one time levy upon each member of the association, to create this. That was als turned down as a number of residents were against it. The third option was to take some unused common land where you could pu one or two additional building lots on, no a whole community, but just sever off enough land to create a capital fund necessary for improving the water system. That was the option that was presented to the membership, which the membership voted upon. It was determined that based upon what our needs were in terms of dollars for the estimated budget, that would determine how many lots. It was thought that if you are going to disturb a section of land, the easiest to do would be one parcel and one parcel only. The perfect spot was the corner that we are talking about now, the top of Oneida and Huronwoods because the original plans for sugarbush show for actually six or seven lots right on that corner. The original proposal was for thi piece of land not to be greenbelt but actually for lots. The Board of Directors of Sugarbush, when the membership expresse their view, and it was taken by way of vot at an annual meeting; the vote of the membership was to sever these lands. The resolution was passed at the annual meetin by a majority. The membership prior to that annual meeting was sent a complete history of the situation, they were asked for written vote and everybody was given a opportunity to say their peace and have their say. One or two members of our association who live on Oneida, challenged the ability of the Board of Directors to do this. - 4 - Mr. Greenglass: The association as a whole said if you challenge our authority we will go to the Courts and ask the Court to make an order whether of not it had the power to sell these lands, subject to the appropriate zoning and planning considerations for the specific purpose in question. This Counci I believe has been furnished with copies 0 the motion record that was served together with the order of Mr. Justice Austin. His Lordship decided quite clearly, that for the purposes of creating a water system it was in the best interest of the membership as a non profit entity. All of the residents on Oneida that are complaining now are people who are without fire fighting protection, there is not hydrants along the street line. If their homes catch on fire and then the forest catches on fire, you can forget the whole subdivision. Mr. Howcroft was a member of Sugarbush at the time the Board of Directors made this decision and at the time the decision was made to proceed and he was given the opportunity if he wanted to, because the Court order is clear that every member of the association had to be served with the application to challenge the matter in Court. He declined and did not challenge at the Court stage. Now to come forward three years later after the Courts have said this is a valid reason, is simply saying well I am going to try and do it a different way. Ms. Budge who has made submissions tonight she was not a member of Sugarbush at the time. Her housing transaction closed on June 18, 1990. The Court order was made i November 1989. In all fairness, I believe she was not aware or her vendor may not have told her. The certificate that was given to her lawyer by the association, clearly says that one of the improvements left to be made in the area was for fire fighting, the addition and completion of the water system. She was also present at the annual meeting held in the Spring of 1990, as a guest, and I have a copy of her letter to our Administrator, dated May 15, 1990, where instead of saying don't do anything in the area, her letter asked tha we impose restrictions on what could be built on those lots so as to least inconvenience the neighbours. Ms. Budge: I thought it was already complete and was already decided by whoever that these were going ahead, so I did include some suggestions to try to make it as pleasant as possible. I did not realize that it wa something that was not absolutely official I was surprised to get the notice in the mail a couple of weeks ago. , '. . - 5 - Mr. Greenglass: In any event, there are suggestions and al of the residents who live in the immediate area were asked their suggestions. One of their representatives when they grouped together, was added as a Member of our Board of Directors, specifically for this issue, to deal with as a liaison person between the residents and our Board, as to what should be done and how we should proceed to develop. We have a set of guidelines that the board has basically approved, dealing with these lots which me all of the concerns of the residents in th area as to what should be built. There being no further questions or comments, the Reeve in closing the meeting, thanked those in attendance for their participation an 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 Crawford Be it resolved that the Special Meeting (Part Block D, Plan M-8 in East Half Lot 3, Concession 6, Sugarbush) now be adjourned @ 7:35 p.m. carried æ fff¿. R~VE ROBERT E. DRURY~ ~.I' ilL<'./ V' ß'h'. (JIg .7 /. LERK DARLENE SHOEBRID