The Corporation of the Township of Brock. Sunderland Memorial Community Centre. Planning Committee. Session Ten Monday, May 29, 2017

Transcription

1 The Corporation of the Township of Brock Sunderland Memorial Community Centre Planning Committee Session Ten Monday, May 29, 2017 The Tenth Meeting of the Planning Committee of the Township of Brock, in the Regional Municipality of Durham, was held on Monday, May 29, 2017, at the Sunderland Memorial Community Centre. Members present: Mayor: Regional Councillor: Councillors: John Grant W.E. Ted Smith Gord Lodwick Cyndi Schaffer Mike Parliament Therese Miller Lynn Campbell Staff Members present: CAO & Municipal Clerk Thomas G. Gettinby (recording the minutes) Deputy Clerk Becky Jamieson Clerk s Assistant Maralee Drake Planning/Economic Development Co-ordinator Eric Simpson Chief Building Official Joe Bonura Director of Public Works Nick Colucci I. Call to Order Chair W.E. Ted Smith called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. II. Purpose To hold a public meeting to consider an application for an amendment to Zoning By-law Number PL. Re: GHD Limited c/o Bryce Jordan on behalf of Kaitlin Properties Limited Part Lots 11 and 12, Concession 6 - Brock Township of Brock File: RA 1. The purpose of this public meeting is to obtain public input in respect to an application to rezone the property from the Development (D), Holding Residential Type No. 1 Exception 15 ((H) R1-15), and Holding Residential Type No. 2 Exception 7 ((H) R2-7) Zone categories. This will permit the development of 268 single and semi-detached dwellings when municipal services are provided which represents an increase from the original 207 dwellings. The residential exception zone categories are proposed to recognize reduce lot area and frontage requirements from what was previously approved. 2. There will be no decision made on behalf of the Township of Brock in respect of the application at this meeting. 3. The Planning Committee of the Township of Brock will consider the merits of this application at a later date, taking into consideration all input received on the subject application. 4. Persons who wish to be notified of further meetings of the Planning Committee and/or Council dealing with this rezoning application must submit a written request. Persons who wish to be notified of the decision of these proposed amendments, if approved by Council, must submit a written request. Notification forms are available from staff in attendance. This document is available in alternate formats upon request. Please contact the Clerk s Department at

2 Session Ten Monday, May 29, If a person or public body does not make oral submissions at the public meeting or make written submissions to the Township of Brock before the by-law is enacted (if approved), the person or public body is NOT entitled. to appeal the decision of the Council of the Township of Brock to the Ontario Municipal Board Further, the person or public body may NOT be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Municipal Board unless, in the opinion of the Board, there are reasonable grounds to do so. 6. In the event that the actual by-law is enacted by Council, it will be circulated in the formal manner under the provisions of the Planning Act and at that time, if objections are received, a hearing will be held before the Ontario Municipal Board, at which time the objectors will be informed of a hearing date. 7. Chair W.E. Ted Smith called upon Mr. Bryce Jordan of GHD Limited, the planning consultant for Kaitlin Properties, to outline the proposal for the benefit of those in attendance. Mr. Bryce Jordan introduced himself and Mr. Enzo Bertucci of Kaitlin Properties Limited. He advised that the original subdivision plan was approved in 2008 with a minor revision to the plan in 2009 receiving approval from the Ontario Municipal Board. He further advised that Phase One of the plan is on the south-west side of the property which includes 90 units currently under construction and parkland. He noted that due to the current sewage capacity of the Durham Region treatment plant, 90 units is the maximum number that can be built at this time. Mr. Jordan advised that 96 additional units will be added immediately north of Phase One and 111 units will be built in the future development block to bring the total to the original 207 proposed units. He further advised that the 111 additional approved units cannot be built until the road to Highway 7 & 12 has been constructed. He noted that the 207 lots is comprised of 29 semi-detached units that are 40 feet wide and 178 lots that are 50 feet wide. He further advised that 5¼ acres is set aside for future multi-unit senior s development. Mr. Jordan re-iterated that only Phase One of the development will be built until further sewage capacity is available, noting that the lands have been designated residential since Mr. Jordan provided an overview of the amended subdivision plan. He advised that the proposed plan contains 45 foot lots instead of the originally proposed 50 foot lots, 38 foot lots instead of the originally proposed 40 foot lots and also includes smaller 25 foot lots for semi-detached homes. Mr. Jordan noted that this will increase the number of units from 207 to 268 to provide a wider range of lots. He further noted that the road pattern and conditions will remain the same as originally approved. Mr. Jordan advised that the rationale for the proposed change is to provide a variety of lots sizes and types to provide more affordability options. He further advised that the proposed plan follows local land use planning and provincial planning policies noting that the Durham Region s Official Plan was updated in 2013 to conform to the Provincial Growth Plan. Mr. Jordan further advised that the Places To Grow Plan is an anti-sprawl document that requires 50 persons & jobs per hectare of development. Mr. Jordan advised that the initial plan created 40 persons and jobs per hectare, and that the revised plan will provide 49 persons and jobs per hectare. Mr. Jordan emphasized that the purpose of the application is to have a plan ready to be developed once additional sewage capacity becomes available noting that Durham Region s Planning Department had only anticipated Sunderland growing by 10 units per year but with the success of Phase One of this development, Durham Region will need to undertake a serious review of current infrastructure and sewage capacity.

3 Session Ten Monday, May 29, 2017 Chair Smith thanked Mr. Jordan for his comments and addressed a flyer that was sent to Sunderland residents, clarifying that the flyer was not published by the Township of Brock, nor was a copy officially sent to the Township. Chair Smith clarified the following with respect to the distributed flyer: it is the goal of the development community to make a profit but the cost to service development is borne by the developer; required infrastructure is financed through the payment of development charges and sewage / water upgrades are financed by users; there is no shortage of safe drinking water; sewage is at capacity; he was not aware of any convictions; and the Durham District School Board has no objections to the plan revisions. Chair Smith advised that, prior to the additional units being built, the road connecting the new subdivision to Highway 7 & 12 will have to be completed. Prior to the road being constructed a traffic impact study will be completed for MTO approval. He concluded by advising that the plan demonstrates intensification within the urban boundaries which is mandated by the Province, and is not urban sprawl. 8. Chair W.E. Ted Smith opened the meeting to the public to receive input concerning the subject application. Ms. Andrea Liska, 23 Brethour Street, Sunderland enquired if the Traffic Impact Study will be completed prior to the road connection to Highways 7 &12 being constructed and was advised in the affirmative. Ms. Liska expressed concern with the capacity of students in the schools in Brock Township and enquired if the Durham District School Board has expressed any concerns with the proposed plan and was advised not. She further expressed concern with the lack of outdoor recreational space and services for the youth of Sunderland. Mr. Ralph Maleus, 128 River Street, Sunderland advised that he has been a resident of Sunderland for 10 years and that he has purchased a home in Phase One of the development. He expressed concern with the proposed changes to the plan as the smaller lots will not fit in harmoniously with the current buildings in Sunderland. He further expressed concern with the rapid population increase Sunderland will experience with this development advising that a high-density population may attract problems. He implored Council to be sensitive to the issues that the proposed plan may cause. Ms. Denise Wilson, 154 River Street, Sunderland advised that the content on the presentation boards is difficult to read and invited the residents in attendance to view the full size red-lined plan she provided which illustrates plan amendments. She expressed concern with water and sewer capacity, noting that it will take two years for a new sewage treatment facility to be built. Ms. Wilson suggested that the newly designed plans for Sunderland are an effort to make up lost revenue as a result of the Kaitlin Group not being successful in designating additional lands outside the urban boundary as part of the Greenbelt review. Ms. Wilson expressed appreciation for the Ontario Growth Plan and advised that no decisions with respect to this plan should be made until July 1 st when the new legislation comes into effect. She advised that 90% of Ontario s population approves of the Greenbelt. She commented that there are 100,000 hectares of land available for development in the GTA and enquired as to why the Kaitlin Corporation has chosen Sunderland for development.

4 Session Ten Monday, May 29, 2017 Ms. Wilson noted that only Councillor Harold Lodwick opposed the development when proposed in She expressed safety concerns with the proposed road connection to Highway 7 & 12. Ms. Tina Grogen, 7 Jones Street, Sunderland advised that she moved to Sunderland because of the rural beauty and greatness of the community and expressed concern for residents living in harmony once the development is built. She expressed concern with the lack of infrastructure in Sunderland and enquired as to how the development will benefit the town. She concluded by expressing concern for the businesses in downtown Sunderland noting the new development will cause Sunderland to become a bedroom community. Ms. Danielle McGriskin, 41 King Street, Vroomanton expressed concern that the plan would have a negative impact on emergency services noting that additional fire, police and EMS services would be needed. Ms. Lynne Milner, 112 River Street, Sunderland advised that she moved back to Sunderland after starting her family because of the lifestyle, active downtown and recreational outdoor spaces. She expressed concern that the proposed plan does not fit with the lifestyles of those who live in Sunderland and advised that the plan promotes a community of vehicles. She enquired if the plan could be changed to incorporate an increased number of outdoor green spaces to help reduce potential noise and traffic complaints. Mr. Tony Laundrie, 10 James Street, Sunderland advised that he has been a resident of Sunderland for 27 years. He requested clarification that Phase 2 would only be built after the road connection to Highway 7 & 12 was completed, to which he was advised in the affirmative. He enquired as to who owns that land that the road would be built and was advised by Mr. Enzo Bertucci that it is owned by Kaitlin Corporation Limited. Mr. Gord Hambleton, 205 River Street, Sunderland - expressed concern with the water flow near the fire station and enquired how increased flow is expected to be accommodated due to additional pavement. He further expressed concern with the lack of entrances to the subdivision noting that there is already an issue with traffic and trucks on River Street in Sunderland. Mr. Ed McNabb, 66 Lorne Street, Sunderland advised that he has been a resident of Sunderland since 1984 and noted that there are issues in the area with residents arguing over vehicles parked on the street in front of other resident s homes, and expressed concern for parking availability for the 25 foot lots. He expressed concern for the availability of daycare for new families moving to the area and advised that current residents are required to drive to the Town of Georgina for day care services. He further expressed concern with the current response time from police services and noted that police presence in the community is a priority. Mr. McNabb enquired where the jobs promoted by the development will be located, noting that many corporations are downsizing. He urged members of Council to review the entire matter to ensure they undertake a sound and thorough process prior to making a decision. Ms. Denise Marsh, 163 River Street, Sunderland advised that she is opposed to the development and enquired as to why Council has not opposed the development. Chair Smith advised that the purpose of the public meeting is to obtain public input with respect to the application prior to Council making a decision on the application. Ms. Marsh expressed frustration with the new proposal and enquired which part of the plan is approved by Durham Region. The CAO and Municipal Clerk advised that subdivision plan is approved by Durham Region and the Ontario Municipal Board in this case with input from commenting agencies, noting that the Township of Brock is a commenting agency. He further advised that the zoning is approved by the Township, and should the zoning be approved and an

5 Session Ten Monday, May 29, 2017 appeal is filed, the zoning would also be directed to the Ontario Municipal Board for a hearing. Ms. Marsh enquired if opposition from the Township would end the process to which she was advised in the negative. She advised that in a meeting held in 2000, the Durham District School Board advised that 300 new dwellings would only create an impact of 27 students and expressed concern with this calculation. She expressed concern with the truck traffic on River Street and that increased enforcement is required. Ms. Marsh advised that the cost of these proposed homes would require two incomes to support the mortgage expressing concern that many residents have to commute for work and that there is inadequate daycare and youth services in the community. She further advised that the current Senior Housing complex in Sunderland has a five year waitlist and enquired if the proposed Senior Housing in the Kaitlin Development could be built prior to Phase Two. She concluded by advising that property values are increasing and there is not enough affordable or available housing for seniors. Ms. Kathleen Brethour, 64 Antioch Court, Sunderland advised that she welcomes new development in Sunderland but expressed concern that this development will have a negative impact on emergency service response time and further impact the doctor shortage already occurring in the Township. She enquired as to the possibility of the community growing as was initially proposed and then increasing the number of units built once the community is able to adapt to new growth. Mr. Richard Yerema, 198 River Street, Sunderland advised the initial plan that was approved ten years ago is a good plan and should remain as is. He expressed concern that increasing the number of homes built will only increase profits for the Kaitlin Corporation, and advised that the role of Council is to represent the residents of the Township. He advised that Council s job is to create a great community noting that the additional homes will not allow the community to integrate and grow smartly. He further advised that Kaitlin Corporation should not rushing to have these plans approved until such a time as there is additional sewage capacity. He concluded by inviting the Kaitlin Corporation to help build the community by assisting with the Sunderland Arena expansion project. Mr. Gord Jones, 204 River Street, Sunderland advised that he approves of the original plan and enquired if traffic lights could be added to the intersection of Regional Road 23 and River Street. Chair Smith advised that traffic lights will be installed this year at Regional Road 13 and 23. Mr. Allan Simpson, Ridge Road, Sunderland enquired if the development would require road closures that would impact the fire department response times and require residents to take sideroads to get into town. He further enquired where snow would be put once removed from the roads in the new development. Mr. Simpson advised that he has lived in Sunderland for 30 years next to the sewage lagoon and advised there has not been any issues, but there is no capacity for the newly proposed homes, and enquired where the sewage will go. Mr. Simpson enquired if the new subdivision will have only foot access into the fairgrounds. He concluded by advising that the Sunderland Arena expansion project is currently underway and invited the Kaitlin Corporation to assist with the reconstruction. Mr. Tony Castelo, 35 River Street, Sunderland advised that he is a three year resident and suggested that the staff who advise Council should be changed and expressed concern with how the current elected officials have addressed this matter which will be reflected during the next election.

6 Session Ten Monday, May 29, 2017 Mr. Castelo advised this development would increase the rate of growth in Sunderland to more than it currently is in Toronto. He expressed frustration that the original plan was approved when only 1/3 of the initial plan should have been approved. Mr. Castelo advised that the residents of Sunderland are not psychologically ready for the new development and influx of residents. He expressed concern for the limited parking and non-existent backyards that are proposed. He further expressed concern with the current traffic on River Street and advised that the development will only increase the problem suggesting that 4 way stops be added to every intersection on River Street to divert truck traffic. He concluded by advising the need for increased traffic enforcement. 9. There being no further input concerning the subject application, Chair W.E. Ted Smith requested a motion to close the meeting. III. Adjournment Resolution No MOVED BY Therese Miller that we do now adjourn at 9:19 p.m. MOTION CARRIED CHAIR SECRETARY