Loading...
04 02 1991 Public Minutes # Il- THB CORPORATION OP THB TO_HIP OP ORO SPBCIAL PUBLIC DftIHG TUBSD&Y APRIL a. 1111' '1:00 P.M. - COUNC~L CHAKBDS ORB Jt'O'NÐRBD ANI) PORft-BIGIITlI KBftING 1'88-1"1 COUNCIL The following members of Council were present: Reeve Robert E. Drury Deputy Reeve David Caldwell Councillor David Burton Councillor Alastair Crawford Councillor Allan Johnson Note: Councillor Allan Johnson arrived at the meeting @ 7:40 p.m. Also present Were: Mr. Ron Watkin, Ms. Kris Menzies, Mr. Jim Phillips, Mr. Bryan Richardson, Mr. Paul Bowen, Do Nardell, Mr. Joseph King, Mr. Derek Anderson, Mr. Gerry Rich, Ms. Irene Cole, Mr. Lanny Cole, Ms. Kathy Hayward, Mr. steve Hayward, Mr. Donald MacDonald, Mr. Carol Alderdice, Mr. Randolph Forbes, Ms. Marilynn Forbes, Mr. and Mrs. Ross Cotton, Ms. Deb Hyland, Ms. June Cotton, Ms. Dorothy Sarjeant, Mr. Allan Sarjeant, Mr. Al Lees, Mr. Dave McLaughlin, G. Bronson, Mr. Ray Schiele, Mr. Rex Meadley, Mr. Ted Levison, Ms. Karen Levison, Mr. Alan Worobec, Mr. Jim Cowe, Mr. and Mrs. Hubert Schaefers, Maxine and Bud Arbour, Beverley and Michael Hamilton, Mr. Neil MacLeod, Mr. Ian Crokam, Mr. John Dale, Mr John Borysiak, Mr. Philip Goomaly, Andy an Jani Nyenhuis, Mr. Garry Sanderson, Mr. Christopher Holman, Bill and Jenny MacDonald, Mr. Dave Brown, Patrick and Davina Doorly, Jane and Paul Walsh, Karen and David White, Jean and Bob O'Slare, Bob and Jacquie Besse 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 public comments 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 Lots 27 and 28, Concession 3, (MSL). 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 March 1, 1991, to al 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 March 2, 1991. The Reeve then asked the Deputy Clerk if there had been any correspondence received on this matter. The Deputy Clerk responded by indicating that correspondence had been received from the following agencies: . - 2 - a) Letter from Mr. Bruce Bigelow of stewart, Esten, addressed to the Township of Oro and dated March 12, 1991, indicating that they had no objection but that they were greatly concerned tha proper drainage be maintained. b) Letter from the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, dated March 21, 1991, addressed to the Township of Oro, indicating that the subject property is located outside the N.V.C.A. Watershed. They indicated that if flows are to be directed into their watershed, they could have major concerns with the development and therefore, would wish to comment on the proposal. Note: The Deputy-Clerk read the above two pieces of correspondence. The 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. Reeve Robert E. Drury then turned the meeting over to the Township Planning Consultant~ Mr. Ron Watkin, to explain the purpose and effect of the proposed zoning By-Law Amendment. Ron Watkin: The purpose of this Public Meeting is to review what the proposal is for these land which are located in Concession 3, Part of Lots 27 and 28. The development has been in process for a year or more and has been under one Public Meeting in the past. As result of that Public Meeting and as a result of Council's deliberations and concerns with making sure that some of the issues were addressed that were raised at those meetings, the applicant and his consultants have been asked to take anothe look at what they are doing and to make sure that they are coming in with a favourable plan. Tonights meeting is for them to give you an opportunity to see wha they are proposing and for you to ask questions of them regarding the development. Joseph King: We are proposing a total of 83 lots. The lot average in size approximately 2200 square meters, which is just over 1/2 an acre each. The lots along the top which abut the railway line are approximately 3/ of an acre. Throughout the Planning process a number of technical reports have been prepared in support of this development. These reports include a hydrogeological study, storm water management reports, Shanty Bay Central Water system and noise and vibration studies that address the impact of the C.N.R. Lines. We have had correspondence sent to us that were not read tonight and think they are pertinent. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food has responded to us i September 1989, indicating that they have no objection to the development of these lands and both of the School Boards have indicated they have no objection to the development of these lands and do not foresee any need for a school site on the property. - 3 - Derek Anderson: I own property on the west side of Oro Lin 3 and I have certain concerns as far as th drainage system goes which would pass alon adjoining my property. First of all a fou foot ditch is highly dangerous to children and you certainly cannot put an 80 cm Culvert Pipe in less than a four foot open ditch. Open culvert pipes are also a risk to children crawling in and out of and if you put a grate over them to solve that particular problem, that creates another problem of garbage collecting against the grate. The existing drainage that comes down there, floods my property and goes into my basement. I feel these problems have not been addressed and I feel that these problems could be addressed; if where the pipe comes out south of the Shanty Bay Road it could be buried until i gets to the access to the Lake. In that case it would not freeze up and it would not flood the adjoining properties and it would not be a risk to small children. Brian Richardson: I am with the firm of F.J. Reinders Engineering and we were involved in their Stormwater report. I think the points tha were raised are legitimate ones. A four foot deep ditch meets the normal design criteria for a ditch along the roadway. The size of the culverts that we propose, also meet the normal Township standards. The side slopes of the ditch also meet the normal side slopes that would be required by the Township. Regarding the safety of the children, that is a valid point. The proposal to put a pipe in all the way down would obviously satisfy any of the safety concerns that one would have with children however, there could be problems with this and I would first have to discuss with my client and I think an issue like this coul basically be resolved by sitting down with the Township Engineers and possibly with yourself and with the Township. I think the concerns you have raised are valid but they are not unique to rural drainage problems. Regarding the outlet pipe and the culverts the driveway culverts could in fact be smaller pipes. Safety grates required for the safety of children, obviously one woul have the disadvantage of garbage that caul collect on them. Gerry Rich: I have property on the east side of Concession 3 and in the past in the spring culverts have overflowed and I have had to put in three loads of gravel and I really think a covered pipe would certainly satisfy me. Brian Richardson: Donald R. McDonald: Joseph King: Gary Sanderson: - 4 - If I could just address the issue of the east side of Concession 3, the flow to the east side would be lessened by this development except right down at the lower end of Concession 3. (Pointed to sketch 0 wall to explain.) Today before 3:00 p.m. I asked to see the additional information at the Township of Oro Municipal Office with regard to a notice of a Public Meeting for this proposed amendment. Staff Member Lynda Aiken consulted with other staff and indicated to me that none was available at that time. I therefore contend that this is not a legal Public Meeting. The subjec properties consist of Class 1 land adjacen to the rail line and the remainder being 70% Class 2 and 30% Class 3. section 593 of the Oro Official Plan states that such land shall be preserved for Agricultural purposes. The crop of hay on it and crops growing in adjacent farms indicate the agricultural worth of this land involved. There is a barn located directly across th 3rd Concession adjacent to the subject property, as well as one on the subject property. Under section 784, I feel there is a need for additional information and request a second public advertised Public Meeting. I cannot properly express any additional concerns, if I have any, without the referred to additional information. with the railway mainline adjacent to the site, Section 475 of the Official Plan of Oro is pertinent. I object to this proposed amendment and request to be notified of th passing and adoption or any future additional Public Meetings. How many acres are involved? 26.8 hectares I am here on two counts, I am representing land owners to the east, namely my parents who are unavailable for this meeting and who have no objection to this development. My parents, along with myself, have been partners of a farming operation adjacent t this property and we do have some concerns with regards to this. Our concerns are about the protection for the agricultural operations in the area regarding carrying on of the normal farming operations. But our main concern could be the extra traffi which might be generated on County Road 57 since we do have the overpass which would probably be closest and the majority of th traffic that could be generated from this development, might use that overpass. Gary Sanderson: Joseph King: Reeve Drury: Dr. Patrick Doorly: Devina Doorly: Paul Bowen: - 5 - Our concern with the travelling on County Road 57, is in our opinion, it is not wide enough to accommodate todays modern farm machinery in travelling and meeting oncoming and passing traffic. I was wondering if the gentleman here has had an conversation with the Simcoe County Roads Department as to any improvement that migh be made to that road if this development i approved. I would like to address a couple of points that were made. First with regards to adjacent existing farms, as I mentioned earlier, the letter from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (read letter out loud indicating that the Ministry had no objections to the proposal based on the information available at the time. with regards to the traffic implications, in once sense we consider that we are probabl improving the traffic flow of the micro area by extending William street through the subdivision and diverting some of the traffic off the Ridge Road. I do not believe we have had any specific talks wit the Engineering Department as to whether any road improvements will be necessary, but that is obviously part of the whole approval process. We have had correspondence with Regional Engineering Department with regard to the design of th subdivision and the road pattern within th subdivision and to date they have not raised that as being an issue. I think Mr. Sanderson has made a good poin regarding the County Roads and I think Council will take it upon themselves to correspond with the County. I live on the property directly east of th proposed subdivision on the other side of the Ridge Road. I have a question regarding the clarification of the drainag pattern. You mentioned that the majority of drainage would be going down through culverts on the west side, but there will be an existing percentage that will go through towards my property. What is the percentage? Discussion took place at the map and it wa explained that the flow in the area in question would decrease. 82 homes on wells is going to make a significant difference in the availability of water in the area. What is proposed for this subdivision is t hook it into a municipal system so there will be municipal water from a municipal well supplied to the subdivision. R.G. Robinson did a study of the two municipal wells that are in the area and found that there was enough capacity to service the 8 homes that are being proposed. - 6 - Davina Doorly: What do we do if we find that our water ha decreased? Paul Bowen: The municipal wells are about 1000 feet to the west of the subdivision so they are quite some distance from your house and th wells are quite deep. I am not sure how deep your well is but it could be that the are drawing from a totally different level As part of the study that Robinson did, that was one of the considerations, that i more water were drawn from the municipal wells, would they affect the people that already take water from their own individual wells. Their conclusion was that we can safely draw the water from the municipal wells. Davina Doorly: The homes will probably have a lot of children, how will the local schools absor these children? Ross Cotton: We are proposing 83 lots, and as I mentioned earlier, unfortunately you misse it, we have had correspondence from both School Boards and they have a student generation figure that they use and both School Boards have indicated that there is not a problem with students that will be generated from this development. I live east of the proposed subdivision on the Shanty Bay Road. From your studies, what are the present nitrate levels in the surrounding wells in the area adjacent to the Plan of Subdivision? From your geological studies, how do you expect this Plan of Subdivision to effect these presen levels? Jospeh King: Paul Bowen: We did in fact look at the nitrate levels in some of the wells around the subdivision, the properties directly abutting the subdivision, (explained various wells that were looked at in the area and that there were no problems.) In general people that have deep wells in the area do not appear to have any nitrate in the wells, the shallow wells have a low to a moderate level of nitrate in the wells. Ross Cotton: To my knowledge there is one well that is about 700 metres away from the proposed subdivision and is under a monthly test from the Ministry of Health and I believe it is in the class above the 10 milligrams per litre. How would you predict this would change? The samples that were taken were they taken at the four seasons of the year? Paul Bowen: There was only one sample taken. For the shallow wells you will see the nitrate levels change throughout the year with the worst being in the wet days of the year in the Fall and spring and sometimes during the Summer you can see it decrease. with the deep drilled wells you do not see that fluctuation. - 7 - Paul Bowen: The subdivision will be serviced with septic tanks and tile fields and as a result of that there will be an increase i the nitrate level in the shallow ground water. For that reason we are proposing that the subdivision not be serviced with individua drilled wells, just to be on the safe side but that it be serviced with a municipal pipe supply. One of the recommendations that we provide in our report would be a consideration for any of the private wells that are right beside this, that there be consideration to provide municipal supply in the event that it was needed. Reeve Drury: Under the Reasonable Use Policy, is it in your opinion that there will be 83 lots allowed by the Ministry of the Environment Paul Bowen: Right now the Ministry of Environment have a very loose policy for determining how many lots you can put on a piece of property and still service it with septic tanks and tile fields. One of things they look at is how much nitrate all these septic tanks and tile fields will end up putting into the ground water. This development is slightly above the level that the Ministry would permit if the whol site were serviced with individual wells. It is not going to be serviced with individual wells, it is going to be serviced with piped water. It is by no means a sure thing and the Ministry could possibly ask for the number of lots to be reduced. Ted Levison: I own land to the north of the proposed subdivision. I was wondering if someone could address the letter we sent to the Municipal Office. (Deputy-Clerk read the letter out loud.) Brian Richardson: Our design has allowed to accommodate the flow. Lanny Cole: I live on the west side of the current subdivision, Lot 20. You discussed the different drainage, what about the current the field flows right down between my property and the right of way, do you intend on changing the lay of the land? Brian Richardson: There is a drainage easement between Lot 2 and 21, and we propose to reduce the area that is drained to that easement, such tha the flow off the development will be approximately 50% of the flow that exists at present. We have not looked at any detail of changing anything of existing problems that you may have, but we are reducing the flow that is coming through there. - 8 - Donald MacDonald: You say you are cutting the area in half, is not the drain-off from a residential area doubled, so that in actual fact it would probably stay static. Brian Richardson: We are not cutting the area in half we are cutting the flow from the area in half. Donald MacDonald: There was a letter from the Agriculture an Food read that states that this land is of little significance to Agriculture any mor and that the Ministry has no objections. Are you implying that no one should be concerned about it, seeing as the Ministry says that they have no objections? Joseph Kinq: No we are not implying that. Phil Gorman: I do not understand the Simcoe County's position that no additional school area will be required for a subdivision of 83 lots. The Shanty Bay is now overcrowded and they are working with portables now. I would like to say that when this is developed I would like to see William Street closed until the construction is completed so that construction traffic wil enter off the Ridge Road and the 3rd Concession. The proposed Park Area, half of it you hav put into detention ponds, I would like to know how much of that area is usable? Joseph Kinq: with regards to the Board of Education, as I have indicated they have responded to us formally and they have indicated there is not a need for the school site. (Read out loud the letter from the Simcoe County School Board.) with regards to William Street being open during construction, part of the approval process for this subdivision will require subdivision agreement between the develope and the municipality and the Engineer Department usually addresses that consideration. In most cases the trucks would avoid residential streets and I am sure the Engineers will take that into consideration. (Explained by pointing to the map the different usable area.) The actual area 0 the park is 1.25 hectares, the detention pond area is .81 hectares, in fact what we are proposing is 5.03% of the area for parkland which excludes the detention pond Randy Forbes: To the right hand side said you were going to is anyone going to get unless they go through next door neighbours? of the parkette, yo put a walkway. How to Shanty Bay Schoo my property and my - 9 - Randy Forbes: The other question I have is the area between the white and yellow on the map, has a tremendous number of maple trees, ar these going to be affected? Joseph King: The comment you made about the walkway, I was not implying that we were going to build a walkway. In the event these lands develop in the future, whether it be ten, twenty, one hundred years from now, this would afford the beginning of a walkway system. Joseph King: with regards to the maples; under the subdivision agreement with the municipality, there are provisions during the construction process to protect trees, etc. Michael Hamilton: I have a question about the location of th park being so close to the detention ponds and the safety of the children playing close to the ponds. Perhaps the park woul be better located somewhere else in the subdivision, if it is really needed at all Joseph King: Ultimately the municipality and the Parks and Recreation Department of the municipality will determine whether that i an appropriate use or not. with regards t having the park beside the stormwater detention pond, there is pluses and minuse to it. We looked at it as a plus. storm water detention ponds are essentially empt 99% of the time, they are grassed areas. Davina Doorly: Due to the extra traffic flow from 83 homes, will the Shanty Bay Road or Simcoe Road 57 have to be widened and if that is the case will we loose the 100+ maple tree in front of our place? Joseph King: We have not done a specific traffic report yet but I would suggest based on my experience, 83 lots will not generate a Ie of additional traffic flow and I will be very, very surprised if the Region or the Town would widened the roads, as mentioned earlier the Reeve is going to contact the Regional Engineering Department directly with regards to the issue of the farm equipment being on the roads and perhaps that can be addressed at the same time. Davina Doorly: I keep hearing you saying that you are going to be surprised if these things happened, if these things do occur, then where do we stand? Joseph King: This is the whole purpose of the meeting tonight, is to raise issues so they can be looked into. Donald MacDonald: I am wondering what % of Phase II for Shanty Bay has been developed so far? Ron Watkin: Ross Cotton: Reeve Drury: Randy Forbes: Joseph King: Deputy Reeve Caldwell: Joseph King: Councillor Crawford: councillor Johnson: - 10 - Phase I has been completed. Any more development in Shanty Bay has to take plac in the process which you are going through tonight. with regards to nitrates and the comments that were made earlier, I do not feel that one set of test results is adequate engineering data and I would like to submi to the Township from myself that we put a little more effort into completing a comprehensive study of the effect of the nitrate levels in the surrounding areas. council will certainly take that into consideration and may ask for another set of tests, that is certainly a reasonable request. You keep mentioning that there are professional groups making decisions and I think most of the people in Shanty Bay moved there to get away from traffic and the population crunch and now we are going to be dealing with this. Growth is not necessarily negative. 83 lots will create more tax base for the municipality. Municipalities cannot stay the same forever, people have a right to apply for the land to be developed and as long as it goes through the process and what is being proposed is reasonable then it should be dealt with accordingly. There was some comment about fencing, particularly in view of the fact that the parkland is right next to the municipal road and the subdivision road. I do not believe it has been addressed at this point. To date, we have not addressed the need fo fencing around the storm water pond or the road. Again, these details pertaining to design will be dealt with in conjunction with the municipality and ourselves as to what is required. In our Official Plan, we had an O.M.B. hearing in this room today and it was concerning someone who wanted a severance to build a home in the country and the Official Plan states that these people who want homes are generally denied severance and asked to move to a City or to a Hamlet The Hamlet of Shanty Bay does not have any where to go to, so this is one of the best rational for expanding your hamlets. I have a concern with regard to the parkland proposal and its location. My concern is addressed to another area that we had whereby the Insurance Company requested that a fence be put around the detention pond. I always like to see kids that don't have to have web toes to play i a play ground. - 11 - Dave McFadden: I live just west of the proposed subdivision and my question is, we may hav a lot of water below the soil but what about the pump capacity and the pressure that we have today in our lines; is this going to effect us with 83 more homes. Paul Bowen: I can only answer that based on a report that I read that was prepared for the Township. The system would have to be upgraded in order to accommodate these homes. Reeve Drury: There is one way the municipality would have of upgrading the water system in Shanty Bay at no cost to the people and if the development was approved, that is for the developer to pay for the upgrading of .the pumping system and the wells. Davina Doorly: What happens after this meeting? Reeve Drury: council will take all of the comments into consideration, both pro and con, will look at it with our consultants, our planners and our engineers and our lawyers and we will decide whether this proposal should g ahead or be denied. If we decide not to support the development, the proponents have the option to go to the O.M.B. and as for the development on their own, without working with the Township of Oro. We will prepare the Draft Official Plan Amendment and decide whether or not it will proceed, probably within a month or two. Debbie Hyland: If you do decide to support it, when do yo perceive the development taking place. Do you have a timetable in mind. Reeve Drury: Generally approval takes from one to five years and this has been ongoing for about one and a half years now. Joseph King: It depends on a lot of factors. Once the Township gives their go ahead first, we still need Draft Plan Approval from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in Toronto. Their approval is based on a number of other approvals from other Government Agencies, particularly the Ministry of the Environment. The Canadian National has to be satisfied. The approval process is probably about one to one and a half years away. We are probably looking at two and half to four years before you see houses. The Reeve after enquiring and ascertaining that there were no 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. . . ' - 12 - MOTION NO.1 Moved by Caldwell, seconded by Crawford Be it resolved that the Special Public Meeting of council (MSL, Concession 3, Part Lots 27 & 28) now be adjourned @ 8:20 p.m. Carried ~(~ Ree Robert E. Drury