04 29 1991 Public Minutes
,
HB CORPORATION 01' THB TO1IB8IIIP 01' ORO
SPBCIAL PUBLIC DftIHG
MONDAY. APRIL al. 1111' '1:00 P.M. - COUNCIL CBAKBDS
ORB IIUHDRBD ANI) PInY-THIRD DftIHG 1188-1111 COUNCIL
council met this evening pursuant to adjournment @ 7:00 p.m. with
the following members present:
Reeve Robert E. Drury
Deputy Reeve David Caldwell
Councillor David Burton
Councillor Alastair Crawford
Councillor Allan Johnson
Also Present Were:
Mr. Fred Haughton, Ms. Pat Harwood, Ms.
Thelma Halfacre, Mrs. Meryl Drake, Mr.
Darrell Drake, Mr. John Corkett, Mr. Paul
Haughton, Mr. Stephen Woodrow, Mr. wilf
McMuhan, Mr. Randy Bowman, Mr. Al Storey,
Ms. Amanda Storey, A. Hofer, Mr. Douglas K
Holland, Mr. Murray Angus, Ms. Barbara
Weaire, Mr. Malcolm Weaire, Mrs. Jacquie
Besse, Mr. Bob Besse, Mr. Al Worobec, Ms.
Carol Apokremiotis, Ms. Beth Fellows, Mr.
Bill pidlysny, Mr. Ray Bowes, Mr. Ray
Schiole, Mr. Max Crump, Ms. Judith
Longstaffe, Mr. Ralph Longstaffe, Ms. Marj
Shedd, B. & M. Eckerman, Alhn Malwire, Mr.
John Degraaf, Mr. Robert Armstrong, Mr.
William May, Mr. Robert Blatchford, Mr.
Randall Roe, Mr. Ross Cotton, Mr. Ron
Sommers, Mr. Tony Santo, M. Santo, Ms. Jan
Howard, L. W. Howard, J. Howard, Ms. Almut
Huber, Ms. Heidi Bryans, Ms. Monica
Valleau, Mr. Berardo Mascioli, Mr. Jim Cow
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 obtain comments as to the
manner in which parking facilities are provided on former Lot 44,
which was purchased by the municipality and added to the existing
road allowance.
Reeve Robert E. Drury then turned the meeting over to the Township'
Public Services Administrator, Mr. Fred Haughton, who proceeded to
explain the various alternatives with regards to parking layouts an
traffic patterns in the vicinity of the 9th line.
The Reeve then stated that those persons present would now be
afforded the opportunity of asking questions:
Ms. Huber:
We are on Lot 1. We understood that the creek
would not be touched, it has now been partially
covered and people can turn around there and
turn right into our hedge. will we get some
protection there?
Reeve Drury:
Fred, is the hedge on Township property?
Fred Haughton:
The hedge is mostly on Lot 1 and it is a big
ditch.
- 2 -
Reeve Drury:
I would like some protection there from the car
turning.
Something like a Guard Rail?
Ms. Huber:
Ms. Huber:
Yes.
Reeve Drury:
council will consider that in their final
recommendation.
Ray Bowes:
6 Parks ide Drive. I was down there last
Saturday night and there was a massive bon-fire
on the Boat Ramp; the people from the bon-fire
consisted of a picnic table, several lengths of
construction materials and a saw horse from Lot
No.2. I called the O.P.P. and complained. I
think this is going to set the tone of things t
come.
Reeve Drury:
Thank you for your comments and with regards to
this, the Township Council have called a Public
Information Meeting to deal with the Smelt
Fishermen. The meeting has been called for the
18th of May @ 9:00 a.m. and there will be publi
notices sent out to all the people on the
Lakeshore to attend that meeting so that we can
have input from the public.
Ray Bowes:
I do not think it is just the smelt fishermen
and I think the Council has a responsibility
here to the residents in the area. We would
suggest that if the ramp is going to be there w
need more than just signs. As on Lake
Couchiching and the ramps up there, where they
have had so many problems that they have put a
lock and chain on and posted hours of
operations. I think this only reasonable and
fair to the people in the area. Possibly the
caretaker from Oro Park could come down and
unlock that gate at whatever time, 7:00 a.m. an
lock it again at 9:00 p.m. We need some
controls put into place to protect the
residents, to protect our privacy and afford us
some lifestyle down there. We do not need this
having to call the police every weekend. You
must take some action now.
Reeve Drury:
Ray, do you have hours recommended that you are
looking at so we can make note of it.
Ray Bowes:
It depends on my friends and neighbours here, I
would say 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. I think that
seems reasonable.
Beth Fellows:
I live on Lot 1. You have made it into a
recreational facility and there is no reason
that it has to be open twenty four hours a day.
Reeve Drury:
One other point I would like to make is you hav
there handicapped parking; I would like to see
a handicapped person put in a boat that cannot
walk. There is no way you are going to be able
to enforce that. How are you going to allow
parking, cutting down more trees there? I
protest that very strongly.
Let me get this straight, you are protesting
leaving a spot for the handicapped.
Beth Fellows:
Reeve Drury:
Jim cowie:
Reeve Drury:
Jim cowie:
Fred Hauqhton:
Reeve Drury:
Jim cowie:
Reeve Drury:
- 3 -
I cannot see how handicapped people can launch
boat, you are opening it up for parking by
everybody. Is the By-Law Enforcer going to com
down everyday and haul trucks and cars out of
there; I doubt it. If you really care for
handicapped people, put a bench or something
under a shade tree for them to sit while the ca
is parked, but to have handicapped parking ther
is nonsense.
Secondly, I cannot see a recreational facility
having a big dumpster. It should be like a par
where there are containers scattered in
appropriate areas including in the parking
facility. By leaving dumpsters there you are
inviting people from the whole area to bring
their garbage there.
Another problem is with the noise and dust from
the gravel. It is sort of silly the options
that you have given us, basically do we want
them parked in this direction or in that
direction, these are not things that are so
critical to us. How are people suppose to know
where they are to park if there is no lines.
Why not surface it. Please give some
consideration to landscaping. That was one of
the most beautiful areas down there with trees
and natural landscaping and it just looks
absolutely disgusting now.
As far as the noise and the dust is concerned,
the Township Council is making provision to
hopefully have the road allowance and launching
facility paved.
I agree with Beth Fellows, the turning circle i
right across from the handicapped parking. I
assume we are not going to have this rezoned
into a parking lot, this is a simple road
widening, is this correct?
That is correct.
So in other words the intersection is between
Parks ide and Lakeshore? Could you please point
out the intersection of the two roads, Parks ide
and Lakeshore that you have created? (Fred
Haughton indicated on the map where the
intersection was.) You have Parks ide on the
bottom and Lakeshore on the top and they are
intersecting. Your own By-Law states that ther
is no parking within intersections, no parking
within 9 metres of an intersection. Your own
parking By-Law is exactly the same as the
highway traffic act.
Parking comes under the authority of the
municipal Council.
Mr. Cowie, is your concern a safety concern?
You are violating the Highway Traffic Act, if
there was an accident there, the Township would
be liable.
We hear your concerns and will take them into
consideration in the final design.
- 4 -
Jim cowie:
Just a second, this Public Meeting is called
after the boat ramp is in.
This is a Public Information Meeting.
Reeve Drury:
Jim Cowie:
Can I read a few things to you? (Mr. Cowie rea
various questions and answers and quoted from
Ratepayers Meetings, Newspaper Articles, Counci
Meetings, etc. with regards to the boat ramp
facilities.)
Murray Angus:
I am going to read this on behalf of Mr. Sam
Cancilla who is unavailable tonight and a
property owner in the area.
The following letter was faxed to the Oro Township Office by the
office of Klaus Jacoby on April 29, 1991 @ 5:53 p.m.:
April 29, 1991
Administrator/Clerk
Township of Oro
R.R. #1
Oro station, ontario
LOL 2EO
Re:
9th Line Boat Launch and Parking Facilities-Oro Township
Dear Sirs:
I am a property owner in the area and am unable to attend your
meeting of April 29, 1991. Please enter these comments in the
record.
Regarding the proposed use of Lot 44 as a parking lot, kindly be
advised that the Oro Township Official Plan and the Township of Oro
Zoning By-Law No. 1031 both describe Lot 44 of Registered Plan 875
as a Residential Lot.
Proposed use as a Parking Lot as indicated by the enclosed
correspondence from you office contravenes your Official Plan and
Zoning By-Law 1031.
I believe that any illegal use of this lot without a proper
amendment to your Official Plan and Zoning By-Law denies me my
rights under the Planning Act, Province of ontario.
Should you wish to proceed with a proper rezoning of the mentioned
property, my comments regarding use of the lot for parking would be
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
lot must be paved to prevent dust;
lot to be landscaped with buffer trees and/or fencing;
garbage receptacles;
lot to be closed after boating season;
properly designated entrance and exit for safety reasons;
parking to be in compliance with the Highway Traffic Act.
Yours very truly
Samuel J. Cancilla
Reeve Drury:
Mr. Cancilla's letter was brought to Council an
will be included in the final recommendation.
Mr. Weir:
Reeve Drury:
Mr. Weir:
Reeve Drury:
Mrs. storey:
Reeve Drury:
Al storey:
Fred Haughton:
Murray Angus:
Heidi Bryans:
- 5 -
I live on lot 34. Mr. Weir asked why cars
parked at the bottom of the 7th line, docking
boats etc. why their cars were towed away and
why they were not towed away at the 9th line
facility.
The 7th Line is a County Road and the 9th Line
is a Township Road.
Are we going to have donkeys parked in front of
our house just because they want to fish? The
parking lot is not big enough.
If you wish to bring forward a petition from th
members in your area to have Council consider n
parking and if it is deemed appropriate we will
pass a By-Law with regards to this.
I am on Lot 43. Our concern generally is the
buffer zone that we have been promised on and
off. We asked that some trees be planted and i
was kind of a joke we got these two foot spruce
trees planted six feet apart and you can't even
see them. We would like you to consider a good
neighbour plant because we are wide open to the
parking in this area.
We have already instructed our Parks and
Recreation Supervisor to plant some more trees
amongst the trees that are there and we will
consider the fence that you are requesting.
Lot 43. My concern is the new road that is
proposed from Lakeshore to Parkside. Is it
necessary that it has to go there, I already
have two roads, one on each side of my house an
now I will have another one on the other side.
You might as well just put one on the other sid
and we will have one all the way around.
Explained the criteria for the proposed new
road.
The more I listen to the comments regarding thi
parking lot for the boat ramp the more I realiz
that this whole thing is just a compromise, it
is not a good location for a parking lot. I
think as a responsible Council if you want to
have the majority satisfied in that
neighbourhood, you just close up the boat ramp
and put it back the way it was.
The parking lot and boat ramp is a complete eye
soar to the entire area. What I am concerned
about is the way the parking lot is outlined
right now, everybody looks right into our
property, that includes part of lot 1, 2 and
part of Lot 3. In the past there have been a
number of break-ins and people coming onto our
property and we are concerned about people
looking right in to see what we have. What I
would like to see to improve the area is some
landscaping and perhaps a hedge so that people
don't look directly into our driveway.
- 6 -
Beth Fellows:
There have been several incidents last summer
where several boats would just go out and
anchoring in front of the boat ramp facility,
drink beer, throwing their cans overboard and
completely cluttering up the area. There are
other boats that come out and do their repairs
there and you have oil spills and gas fumes and
noise constantly starting up the boat over and
over again. There should be some By-Law that
boats do not congest this area, as soon as they
have launched then to vacate the premise
immediately. I also commented to Mr. Haughton
last summer about people skiing off of the dock
This is immensely dangerous, you have boats
coming in and out, my kids are swimming there
and they do not seem to understand that there
are cottages there.
I have one more question. Can you please tell
us how much has been spent on this boat ramp to
date?
Reeve Drury:
I am sorry I do not have the exact figure, I
would have to get it from the Treasurer, but it
would be in the neighbourhood of $25-30 thousan
dollars.
Beth Fellows:
How much more is the Council prepared to spend
on this? Is our discussion just a waste of
breath tonight.
Reeve Drury:
About another forty thousand dollars. That
would be if it is paved, ditched, guard rails,
etc. The municipality has received a grant fro
the Ministry of Natural Resources for about
fifty thousand dollars to help upgrade some of
our facilities along the lake.
Mr. Cowie:
When all this was dreamed up last year, did you
take into consideration, Oro Memorial Beach and
the four hundred vehicles per weekend that is
exiting that facility going down Lakeshore or
Parks ide Drive and then some other thirty to
sixty vehicles here creating this problem. Whe
this all started you guys told us we were
denying access to the Public of Lake Simcoe.
That is the biggest crock I ever heard.
you got this thing insured?
Have
Reeve Drury:
Yes we do.
Mr. Cowie:
How much is it insured for?
Reeve Drury:
It comes under our overall coverage for the
Township.
Mr. cowie:
Your figure of twenty five thousand dollars is
little bit low, very low. You spent fifteen
thousand dollars for the concrete and it now
looks like a soda cracker, its all chipped and
broken and half of it is unusable. We told you
about that, it is unsheltered and you will neve
get anything in there to stay. You put peoples
lives at risk. Somebody is going to get killed
and let it weigh on your consciences. Somebody
is going to get seriously hurt at this hair
brain idea of a parking lot.
- 7 -
Reeve Drury:
Lets just take it to an O.M.B. Hearing and let
the gentleman from the O.M.B. Hearing decide.
Twenty Four hours a day that is crazy.
We will consider that and we will be considerin
hours of operation.
Mr. Cowie:
Jim cowie:
What are the hours of operation for the Oro
Memorial Beach Park?
Pat Harwood:
Eight in the morning until ten at night.
Jim cowie:
Why not have that for the boat ramp?
Reeve Drury:
It may well work.
I think I should mention here that the reason
the Boat Launching Facility was put there is
because all the people of Oro Township and
surrounding areas are not fortunate enough to
own Lake Front Property and be able to launch
their boats on their own property. We feel as
Council that there are other people that have t
be considered and that is what we have done by
putting these two facilities in, one at Shanty
Bay and the one at the 9th Line. If we receive
federal funding we will be considering putting
facility in at the 14th Line at Hawkestone.
There is a lot of people out there that are
denied access to the lake in our municipality
and this is one way we have to provide it.
Al storey:
If you stick to this and the road ends up
staying beside my house, I would like Council t
consider a dead end right at my driveway. Mr.
Haughton mentioned in the winter time the snow
ploughs having a problem turning around. You
could have like a spring, Summer, Fall, dead en
and you could have it opened up in the winter
time.
Reeve Drury:
You would like us to consider making Parks ide
Drive a Dead End?
Jim cowie:
I do not think anybody here has any wish to
block off access to Lake Simcoe to residents of
Oro Township, that is totally false. I just
think that if you are going to take these steps
you must take the responsibility of minimizing
the disruption to the people in the area and
must make sure that it is operated properly. I
is turning into a nightmare and a zoo down
there.
Maybe someone could explain to me how this
residential Lot 44 becomes a road widening, and
then a parking lot, and no one is informed of
this. In other municipalities if anything is
done to change a By-Law, build a small addition
onto your garage, etc., there are certain steps
and procedures to take. Maybe someone could
explain to me how this magic occurs.
Reeve Drury:
I am not sure of the dates but Council did enac
By-Law No. 90-61 to both widen and alter
Parks ide Drive back in 1990, according to the
Act, the way it is suppose to be done.
Heidi Bryans:
Reeve Drury:
Heidi Bryans:
Reeve Drury:
Pat Harwood:
Heidi Bryans:
Pat Harwood:
Heidi Bryans:
Pat Harwood:
Heidi Bryans:
steve Woodrow:
Reeve Drury:
steve Woodrow:
- 8 -
I am just concerned about the dollar figure tha
was quoted to complete the project, was it fort
thousand?
That is correct.
I presume that does not include repairing the
boat ramp that Jim Cowie mentioned looks so
unattractive right now.
Pat, have you been down to the boat ramp this
spring?
Yes, I am the Parks and Recreation Supervisor
for the Township. We visit all the facilities
at least once a week and we also check all the
dumpsters.
When has this been checked the last time?
I was down there this morning and Saturday.
Well it is full.
I called the disposal company this morning.
On checking the boat ramp it is badly cracked.
I would like to make a suggestion that will sav
everybody money and that is that we turn the
parking lot into a nice tennis court to benefit
everybody with picnic tables, it will not
interfere with anybodies privacy on the water.
It would benefit all the residents of Oro. If
you would like to admit you made a mistake then
I suggest those alternatives.
I am not a resident of the area and I am lookin
at it from an outsiders view. Fred, I would
like to ask you a question. You are using the
one lot to make a road allowance and the reason
behind it seems to be that there is a problem
with the intersection at the 9th and Lakeshore
Drive and Parks ide Drive.
It may help the Storey's out and my suggestion
would be to put a three way stop in coming up
from the boat ramp through Parks ide Drive and
Lakeshore Drive. I was wondering if that is
feasible and if it would be a consideration?
Yes it will definitely be a consideration,
everything we are hearing here tonight will be
consideration.
There seems to be problems down at the Township
especially with Council projects. It seems to
be a piece meal plan, shove a project in, deal
with the problems as they arise and try to fix
them. Although I have not been involved with
this project, it seems to me that with people
talking here tonight, they feel they have been
dealt a bad hand. I was wondering if you peopl
considered the parking issue when you chose the
site? Why is the parking configuration being
presented over a year after the project has bee
put in place? Why wasn't a meeting held before
the site was finally chosen?
. : t ' ~
Reeve Drury:
steve Woodrow:
Reeve Drury:
Jim cowie:
Deputy Reeve
Caldwell:
Jim cowie:
Reeve Drury:
Jim Cowie:
Reeve Drury:
Jim Cowie:
Reeve Drury:
Councillor
Crawford:
Reeve Drury:
- 9 -
Yes parking was a considered issue. We are now
designing the final facility and we would like
the public's input.
My final comment would be that after you take
everybodies considerations that one more meet in
be held before you implement this and state to
the people what your exact intentions are to be
with this parking lot and with the future
development of this boat ramp.
There will be a final meeting.
I was going to read this at the end of the
meeting, basically what the purpose of tonights
meeting is:
To receive public input as to the manner in
which parking facilities are provided on former
Lot 44 which was purchased by the Municipality
and added to the existing road allowance.
This is not a statutory public meeting; simply
an information meeting allowing the public to
express its views.
A future public meeting, with notification will
be required respecting any proposal to stop up,
alter, widen or divert any portion of the publi
highway system in this area. Required notice i
detailed in the Municipal Act, section 301.
Could you repeat that last section? (Reeve
Drury read out the section again.) I thought
Mr. Haughton said you widened that road. That
is a road widening is that correct? Is it a
road widening, is it a parking lot, is it an
airport strip?
The land has been purchased for road widening
and it joins Parks ide Drive and Lakeshore Road.
The change in traffic pattern has to be done.
The works have been done on the site is that
correct?
Partial works have been done.
I am still unclear to the cost factor here.
By the time we are done it will be sixty
thousand dollars.
You are not being truthful with us.
Please put your questions and comments in
writing and we will reply in writing.
Just one comment, if this was a public highway,
then you could not alter it without going
through the process, but we did not alter it an
we did not widen it. What we did was add to it
(Audience became unruly.) Reeve Drury asked if
they would like to continue with the meeting or
he would adjourn the meeting under the present
circumstances.
, .
- 10 -
Murray Angus:
Getting back to the cost. I think it is grossl
unfair that you will not deal with the cost
tonight and that you make Jim put his questions
in writing so that you can reply. You bought
the piece of property and you are not including
that in the sixty thousand dollars. The paving
of the boat ramp itself surely is not included
in that sixty thousand dollars. There is
something that doesn't reconcile here and I
think the Council owes it to the members of thi
meeting tonight to try to explain it to us. Yo
are talking about differences of thousands of
dollars of our money. Could you please reply.
Reeve Drury:
Yes, I will reply to that. If the group here
wishes to attend next Mondays Council Meeting w
will have a complete breakdown of every cent
spent on the facility to date.
Incidentally, as a matter of information, there
was an injunction placed against the
municipality for this facility and the judge
deemed it appropriate to waive the injunction
and award the Township costs, to the people who
brought the injunction forward.
Ron Sommers:
I do not live near the facility. It looks like
I am one of the few boaters that is here and we
do need a place to launch our boats. Last
summer I used the bottom of the 9th and did not
have any trouble with the launching facility or
the parking until late in the year when the
water level got very low. Some of the people
that are complaining here, maybe they could nam
a better spot in the Township. Every place you
seem to go, people seem to be complaining,
people who don't even live near it are
complaining. I enjoy having a place to put my
boat in. I feel that people that live right
next to the facility should be protected but I
also feel that people who do not live on the
lake should have a place to launch their boat a
well.
Helen Crump:
I live on Lot 10 on Parks ide Drive. I would
just like to tell you about an incident that
happened on Saturday morning when I was out in
my back yard. I heard this ruddy racket so I
went to the end of the driveway and here were
two boats and two trailers that just roared pas
our place, you could hardly even see them. I
hope this is not an example of what we are goin
to get. I would like to see Parks ide Drive
completely cut off.
Tony Santo:
Lot 31. First of all my heart goes out to the
people on Lot 43 and Lots 1, 2 and 3 right
beside the boat ramp. I agree with the lady
that just spoke and someone who spoke earlier t
make it a dead end and not make it possible for
any traffic per say.
Randy Roe:
I live on the 9th on the far side of the highwa
and we use the boat launch, it is a good
facility and will need some more money spent on
it as far as the docking facility and a
breakwall. As far as the parking lot facility,
I like no. 2 and think it is a better plan.
(Explained briefly why he felt this was the bes
plan of the three plans.)
- 11 -
Beth Fellows:
Why does there have to be such a big parking
lot, as I recall, Alastair Crawford said there
would not be more than ten spots. Why are we
not allowing for any trees or any buffers, etc.
Secondly, with all due respect to boaters who
have problems coming in, in rough weather, I
certainly cannot see appropriate use of funds
for a breakwater that would be a permanent
structure like the Hawkestone dock.
Reeve Drury:
I think it is Council's wish that we keep the
parking contained in one area off the street.
The more parking we can get into this area, the
better it will be for traffic and safety
standards.
Reeve Drury then requested that the people who
had commented, even though the meeting is being
taped, sometimes it is not aways clear and
things are missed, to put their comments in
writing, description of your property etc. so
that each situation can be identified. He
stated that it appeared there were two or three
people who came forward and wanted to make
Parks ide Drive a dead end street. I would
recommend the people who live on both sides of
Parks ide Drive get together by way of perhaps a
petition and if the large majority on Parks ide
Drive wish it to be closed then it is another
consideration Council will take. I would
suggest that you do it as quickly as possible s
that Council can get this matter cleaned up.
Reeve Drury:
Once again the Reeve stated the purpose of the
meeting and that being:
To receive public input as to the manner in
which parking facilities are provided on former
Lot 44 which was purchased by the Municipality
and added to the existing road allowance.
Reeve Drury:
This is not a statutory public meeting; simply
an information meeting allowing the public to
express its views.
A future public meeting, with notification will
be required respecting any proposal to stop up,
alter, widen or divert any portion of the publi
highway system in this area. Required notice i
detailed in the Municipal Act, section 301.
Reeve Robert E. Drury then thanked those people in attendance and
advised them to watch their newspapers respecting notice concerning
road closures and realignments.
MOTION NO.1
Moved by Burton, seconded by Johnson
Be it resolved that we do now adjourn this Public Meeting @ 8:20
p.m.
Carried
~i!b
Clerk Robert W. Small
Reev