Loading...
06 03 1991 Public Minutes . I ~ .. THB CORPORATION OF THB TOWNSHIP OF ORO SPBCIAL PUBLIC KBBTING MONDAY JUNE 3. 1111 Ct '1:00 P.M. - COUNCIL CllAllBDS ORB HUNDRBD AND SIXTIBTH 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. Louis Kovacs, Mr. Scott Brumwell, Ms. Celeste Phillips, Mr. Berardo Mascioli, Mr. Donald R. MacDonald, Mr. Darrell Karas, Mr. G. Daniels, V. Bell Ms. Pat Thompson, Mr. Ron Sommers and One Member of the Press. Deputy Reeve David Caldwell chaired the meeting. Deputy Reeve David Caldwell opened the meeting by explaining to those present that this Public Meeting was to obtain public comment with respect to a proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendment, under section 17 and 34 of the Planning Act. The applicant has applied to redesignate and rezone certain lands described as Part Lot 11, Concession 2, (Kovacs). To date, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro have not made a 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 the appropriate time period, will Council make a decision on this application. Notice of the Public Meeting was mailed out on May 14, 1991, to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject lands. Notice of th Public Meeting was also placed in both the Barrie Examiner and Orillia Packet and Times on May 14, 1991. The Deputy Reeve then asked the Clerk if there had been any correspondence received on this matter. The Clerk responded by indicating that correspondence had been received from the following individual and agencies: 1. A letter from Liam Marray, Watershed Planner of the Nottawasag Valley Conservation Authority, dated June 3, 1991, indicating that the Ministry does object to the proposal based on their mandate for the prevention of flooding and erosion. 2. A letter from Herman Vanwesenbeeck of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, dated September 2, 1988, indicating that they did not object to the proposal. 3. A letter from B. Keating, dated June 19, 1989, requesting permission to leave their present residence standing while their new house is being constructed on Lot 27, Concession 2. Note: The Clerk read the above noted pieces of correspondence. - 2 - The Deputy Reeve then stated that those persons present would be afforded the opportunity of asking questions with respect to the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendment. Deputy Reeve David Caldwell then turned the meeting over to the Township Planner, Ms. Kris Menzies, to explain the purpose and effect of the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendment as well as to introduce the proponents consultants who would assist in this explanation. Kris Menzies: Donald R. MacDonald: Berardo Mascioli: Donald R. MacDonald: The applicants are located on Part Lot 11, Concession 2. They currently own a little over 21 hectares of land and are proposing a twenty seven lot Estate Residential Subdivision. They are proposed to be providing a 5% Parkland Dedication which i located on Block 28 and it is a little ove one hectare of land. The current designations on the property are multiple. They are designated under the Official PIa as, Agricultural, Environmental Protection and Commercial. They are zoned Agricultural and Hazard Land. The propose redesignation is to Country Residential. The proposed rezoning is to Estate Residential. The applicants are also proposing the development on individual wells with one central roadway. R.R. 6, Orillia. It seems the Ministry of Agriculture and Food do not really have a concern about it, although I do myself. I is agricultural lands and they grow good crops of alfalfa, etc. I would have to wonder if the Township keeps on passing amendments like this one, they might as well make it be Orillia; let Orillia and Barrie amalgamate and take over Oro and se where the taxes will go then. Ministry of Agriculture and Food, is that the policema guarding the bank and robbing it too? R.R. 2, Shanty Bay. I may make issue of the comments made just a moment ago with this gentleman here from R.R. 6, Orillia. In so far as I have a farm up on the 11th Line of Oro and I am experiencing great difficulties in locating a farmer to even come and cut the hay off of it on a 50/50 basis. I really do not think at this time I would perhaps put some support towards Mr. Kovacs proposition, assuming the engineering difficulties can be addressed, for the simple reason that farming per say is becoming less and less economically feasible in the Township of Oro. This problem with finding people to cut hay. The farmland is priced at such a rat that no farmer can buy it for farming purposes, so therefore the land has been made into a commodity rather than a resource with which to feed the people of ontario and Canada. We can import sure, but why do we have the Goods and Services Tax? Donald R. MacDonald: Garth Daniels: Kris Menzies: Pat Thompson: Kris Menzies: Pat Thompson: Kris Menzies: Pat Thompson: Kris Menzies: Pat Thompson: Kris Menzies: Scott Brumwell: - 3 - Because we have a deficit within the Country, so I guess eventually some day we will all go broke and not be able to impor because of importing destroy Brazilian Rai Forest, and have the good Agricultural Ian sitting here doing nothing. Why destroy our resource here? This argument the gentleman before me used, I feel is just a shallow argument. R.R. 1, Shanty Bay. By looking at the pIa there, where does the street go? It goes from the first line right over to the second line. From my understanding of looking at the plan, are the lots placed on the fill area The mapping that has been provided by Planning Consultants shows: (Planner indicated what the different areas would b used for.) None of the proposed lots are proposed to extend within the Floodplain line. A portion of lot 16 and all or most of lot 15 are proposed to be in the fill line area. Oro Township do not recognize some of the Nottawasaga Valley yet, and what I am wondering is because they don't, then Nottawasaga has no control over the placement of fill in that fill section? The applicants would not be required from the NVCA to get a fill permit. Therefore, there are concerns of perhaps silting, eventually an erosion, eventually ending up in willow Creek. I can't address that, I think you would either have to ask the consultants if they have done that within their studies or ask NVCA that question, I am not a water resource planner. Is that not something that the Township does get concerned about? We make every effort to recognize the comments of all the commenting agencies such as the Nottawasaga Valley Conservatio Authority. You are right in the fact that this is outside the floodplain area so there is no permit required. In our discussions with the NVCA to date, is what we have agreed upon is that the subdivision agreement has a clause in it which states that the site plans for lots 15 and 16 will have to be reviewed and approved by the Conservation Authority. As far as the siltation, there will be a report prepared before final approval, it must be approved by them and believe the MNR might be involved as well. Garth Daniels: Kris Menzies: Garth Daniels: Pat Thompson: Kris Menzies: Pat Thompson: Kris Menzies: Pat Thompson: Kris Menzies: Pat Thompson: Deputy Reeve Caldwell: Pat Thompson: Scott Brumwell: Pat Thompson: Scott Brumwell: - 4 - I do not know whether this has much to do with it or not but I believe there is a Go Cart Track, is it not directly beside it? Do you not think that perhaps a Commercial area and Residential area are too close together in this case? Yes the Go-Cart proposal that has been recently passed is in this area, (pointed to the map) What is the developer going to do to protect the people who are going to supposedly purchase these lots there? I d not see how you can mesh the commercial an residential so close without buffers or anything. Is the roadway going through wetlands? This section of the roadway up here is proposed to go through wetlands and the NVCA has not addressed that in their comments as yet. What about the Ministry of Natural Resources? No, they have not been contacted to date, at this level. Do you know what Class wetland that is? I believe it is Class 2. Does the Council have thoughts on that, of putting a road through Class 2 wetlands? Council is aware of what the classificatio is and certainly has to be discussed with the proponent. The concern has to be addressed by the proponent and the appropriate agencies as to what effect it mayor may not have. Concession 2, alread cuts through the entire wetland. This roa extension, if it ever goes in, would simpl run across a corner of the wetland that ha already been severed. It would not be going across the creek. What you are saying is you are filling in some wetland to make that road? The designated wetland in this area is about 50 metres wide. As far as filling it, we will not fill it, we will go in wit the existing grade through the area. So i is a case of excavating and putting the road base in. I understand that there is another water course, is that true, leading into willow Creek? You are probably referring to this ditch here? (Pat Thompson indicated Yes) This is a man made ditch. . Pat Thompson: Scott Brumwell: Pat Thompson: Kris Menzies: Pat Thompson: Kris Menzies: Pat Thompson: Kris Menzies: Deputy Reeve Caldwell: Garth Daniels: - 5 - So it still effects willow Creek? (Scott Brumwell indicated yes) So it does not matter if it is man made or not? (Scott Brumwell indicated that was correct.) Wha are the plans concerning the steep slopes and siltage? There will probably have to be a soil stud done to confirm the stability of the slopes, right now they are very stable because there is no road present. Our siltation report will also address the siltation issue. There seems to be a lot of information tha is yet to come in, is there going to be another Public Meeting? This Public Meeting is to look at the concepts of the Development proposal. Wha this Township tends to do is get a lot of subdivision level of information, prior to going to a Public Meeting. Although the Public Meeting is dealing with the concept of the plans, we require the consultants t be able to answer a lot of subdivision typ of issues. And no there will not be another Public Meeting, unless the proponents decide to increase the density of their proposal, which I don't think the are even considering at this time. I just thought that when the answers came to more of those questions, that it would maybe only be right to have another Public Meeting so that the Public knew really wha was coming next. No, what we are dealing with here now is the concept of developing 27 lots. That i the purpose of the Public Meeting. A lot of the various basic issues that go on, th development agreement will be taking care of that at the Plan of Subdivision stage. More detailed comments will be coming fort from the effected agencies and Council wil address those at that time. That is why you did not see detailed comments from the NVCA tonight. But you are saying we will not see them again either. We will not have another Public Meeting, no. This is the opportunity for the Public to raise their concerns and then Council considers them before it makes a decision on whether it will redesignate the land or not redesignate. If the decision is made to redesignate the land, it is Council's responsibility to ensure that all the concerns that have bee raised are appropriately addressed. The land on the other side of the first that has the Goedemondt For Sale sign on i now, how is it zoned? '. Kris Menzies: Garth Daniels: Kris Menzies: Celeste Phillips: Donald R. MacDonald: - 6 - That area is designated Industrial. I just come back to my previous comment. You have commercial all around the outside and then down the other side you have industrial. Do you think that it is prope that a residential should be placed here, it does not seem right to me? The compatibility of land is something tha they are definitely going to be looking at I am here on behalf on Mr. Kovacs tonight, as a Planning Consultant with Jorden and Jones. There is a couple of issues I woul like to address. The most recent comments about compatibility, I think what we have to remember is that many of the uses along Highway 11 in this location are Industrial and Commercial and there has to be a transition at some point from the Industrial/Commercial corridor to the residential/rural character of Oro Township. We also have to remember that the lands to the north are vacant rural lands and there is some single family dwellings in the area. I cannot support the argument that there is a conflict between the Industrial and Commercial. One other point that I would like to raise regarding Mr. MacDonald's comment in respect to the use of the land for agricultural purposes. We do have comment as you know from the Agriculture and Foodland Ministry, who have advised that i their words was "declining in use as a farming community". In this particular area they consider the lands to be of non agricultural use. Perhaps if this is no longer an intent farmed area and more suitable for Estate Residential Use. In reply to Mrs. Thompson, we have certainly listened to your concerns regarding the environment, regarding the wetland and we can tell you that we will b meeting with the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority in an attempt to certainly address their concerns and certainly your concerns are also their concerns and we hope to resolve those before we have final approval. Yes, this declining use of agriculture, yo have to look deeply at that, the reasoning for it. I have right here from Lou Goedemondt Real Estate, all about what Official Plan Amendment No. 34 was, which pursued to the O.M.B. unsuccessfully. It was put For Sale sometime last Fall, the home factory that was suppose to be, Heritage Homes, has since gone defunct. I have other concerns, that being if this does get passed, why is it that there are three lots onto the sideroad? Why isn't there a sideroad on the sideroad rather than fronting on the major sideroad? ~ . . Donald R. MacDonald: Berardo Mascioli: Pat Thompson: Berardo Mascioli: Donald R. MacDonald: Berardo Mascioli: Garth Daniels: Celeste Phillips: Garth Da.niels: Audience: Reeve Drury: - 7 - I would like to summarize that I am in opposition to this. As far as Agricultura land in concerned, I consider it discrimination on the part of whatever governments, discrimination against bonifide farmers. My final comments on this proposed subdivision is that it has taken into account all the engineering questions, environmental questions in a reasonable an timely manner and this would be a very appropriate use. I have lived in that are for over eighteen years now and it has bee quite sometime that anyone has done anything with it and I wish the gentleman all the best of luck and hopefully in doin so get a few more taxes for our Township s to perhaps cut down my taxes a little. I just wanted to agree with Donald MacDonald regarding the three lots on the concession road and that they should be part of the subdivision. In regard to the three lots that front on the 2nd Concession, I can perceive the necessity for that since all those homes that are going to be existing there face onto the 2nd Concession and I think it onl natural that the lot severance when made will take that into account. It is really difficult to change your front door to the back door. Sir, I believe you are working on the 2nd Concession, that is the 1st Concession on the left hand side of the map. I stand corrected, my comments will stand. I have one question for Ms. Phillips. You stated that the property in behind was Agricultural I believe? Yes. Where is the Shanty Bay Golf Course in relation, is it almost directly behind it? I believe the land directly behind it is swamp, is it not? (Various people in attendance commented an it was clarified that the Shanty Bay Golf Course was actually two properties to the north.) If I may comment. I am very familiar with all that land back there and my experience with that land for agricultural use is tha if a jack rabbit was going to try and make a living off there he best get a job in town also to subsidize his income. It is not what you would call very good farmland \ I " " " Donald R. MacDonald: Reeve Drury: - 8 - In talking about the land directly behind, I don't know whether too many people are familiar with tile drainage but that certainly would improve the land behind where the wet is. In fact, it would be very, very productive land if it was properly tiled. A couple of weeks ago, I did observe a tile drainage truck parked just opposite the first concession there somewhere around where the roadway is proposed and large rows of tile in the field just to the left of that. So it is being farmed Agriculturally to the left an in actual fact they are tiling the land so there must be valuable land there. Some 0 it is classed 1, 2 and 3 land in that area I guess if Mr. VanWesenbeesk or whoever at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, if they want to twist their maps around, then I guess none of the land maps are correct whatsoever. So where are we at, are the land maps all wrong or are they partly wrong or where are they. I hear what the people are saying about th three lots fronting on that 1st Concession and perhaps the developer, before he bring this concept back to us again could look a a little baby cul-de-sac on the corner to service those three lots. I know it is more work for our snow ploughs, but it may be feasible. The Deputy Reeve after enquiring and ascertaining that there were n further questions from those present, 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 Crawford, seconded by Johnson Be it resolved that the Special Public Meeting of Council (Kovacs, Part of Lot 11, Concession 2) now be adjourned @ 7:45 p.m. carried Depu~2iv¡: 41f£ 1 ¡f Jfil-J <J1 élerk Robert w. Small