Corporation of the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury

Transcription

1 Corporation of the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury Special Meeting 2001/06 MINUTES February 20, 2001 PUBLIC MEETING UNDER THE PLANNING ACT REVISED STATUTES OF ONTARIO 1990, CHAPTER P.13 TO DISCUSS A PROPOSED PLAN OF SUBDIVISION AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPALITY'S RESTRICTED AREA ZONING BY-LAW RE: TIME: LOCATION: Applications for Zoning By-Law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision Approval Planning Department Files: Z and S :00 p.m. Council Chambers, Court House Building, 57 Holland Street East, Bradford, ON L3Z 2A8 Attendance Record: Members Present: Mayor Fn nk Jonkman Councillor Jim Comeau Councillor John Gorzo Jr. Deputy Mayor Dennis Roughley Councillor Del Crake Councillor Gary Lamb Councillor Brian Bonany Councillor Peter Dykie Jr Councillor Marty Toombs Staff Present: Eric Hodgins Patricia Nash Richard Vandezande Others: Miriam King Jim Craig Ted Kemper Frank Henriques Crozotina Ricciuto Susan Swanek Danny Gottdank Leo Chustockie Tony Lima Leslie Lima Ed Veal Erin Mazor Michelle Nadolny Glenn Robertson Stewart Kreller Karen Saunders Shawn Corrigan Jennifer Edgar Rob Bladon Herb Witzig Michael Wilson Brenda DePalma Eric Galdiks Kim Lawson Ron Stubbs Agata Crook Cindy Bird Helen Reaume Gary Reaume Matt Gammage Ferenc Jakab Jarrett Williams Frank Colasurdo Gerhard Galdiks Jim Rooney Laura Kemper Mike Ricciuto Bob Gottdank Dawn Farah Ruth Ann Francis Matt Saunders Jeff Torcato Leanne Wilson Jennifer Galdiks Jennifer Stubbs Jennifer Gammage Matt Gillmore Bobbie Jo Becule Donna Miller Carlos Faria Aprile Myrsky Mark Contois Glenn Crane Rayann Crane And others. Bill Bird Steve Menchion Massimo Riccioto Amanda Veal Mike Pulcine Nicole Bossi Glenn Sheppard Jack Lawson Gisele Blanchette Edith Jakab Trish Robertson Rose Jong Colleen Mazor Dean Bragg Mike Gibbs Tony Lobus Luc Valade Dyly Sar

2 Planning Department Files: Z and Page 2 OPENING Moved by: P.?ykie Seconded by: J. Gorzo 'That this special meeting of Council being held pursuant to the Planning Act come to order at 8:00 p.m. consider a proposed draft plan of subdivision and a proposed amendment to the Zoning By-Law of the former Town of Bradford, in respect of certain lands located on the west side of Noble Drive between Breeze Drive and Line 8, in Part of Lot 14, Concession 7." CARRIED. INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE OF THE MEETING Mayor Jonkman welcomed those present to this Special Meeting of Council and advised that this was the statutory public meeting held pursuant to Sections 34(12) and 51 (20) of the Planning Act, R.S.O to discuss a proposed plan of subdivision and proposed changes to the Zoning By-law of the former Town of Bradford. The lands affected by the plan of subdivision and the Zoning By-law Amendment are located west of Noble Drive between Breeze Drive and Line 8. The lands are 25.5 acres in size with frontage on Line 8, Breeze Drive and the extension of Professor Day Drive. The initial subdivision proposal called for 245 street townhouse dwellings and 60 lowrise apartment units. The development was to be accessed from Line 8 and the extension of Professor Day Drive. A second proposal was submitted to the Town on February 9, The revised submission proposes 85 street townhouse dwellings and 81 lots for semi-detached dwellings for a total of 247 units. The low-rise apartment units have been deleted from the plan. The development is now proposed to be accessed from the extension of Professor Day Drive and from Breeze Drive. In the original proposal, the Zoning By-law Amendment would rezone a majority of the lands to a Street Town House Exception Zone which would allow for street townhouses, accessory buildings, and public parking lots. A number of site-specific provisions regarding lot size, lot frontage and other zone provisions were also proposed. Lands planned for the apartment units were to remain in the Fourth Density Residential Zone. In the revised proposal, the Zoning By-law Amendment will rezone the western portion of the property for street townhouses while the remainder of the property is to be zoned for semi-detached dwellings with reduced frontage and area requirements.

3 Planning Department Files: Z-OO-18 and S-00.{)2 Page 3 EXPLANATION OF MEETING PROCEDURE The Mayor explained that the procedure for the meeting would be that the Associate Planner would outline the method by which notice of the public meeting was given and confirm that proper notice was provided in accordance with the legislation. The Associate Planner would present any written responses to the publication and circulation of notice of the proposed amendment. The Associate Planner would then explain the details of the proposed amendment. The meeting would then be opened to the public to hear comments in support, or in opposition to the proposal. The applicant or his representative would then speak, and final questions or comments would then follow. The proposed amendments would then be referred to Town staff for the preparation of a report to Committee of the Whole after all the issues are resolved. The Mayor noted that persons requesting formal notice of Council's decision on the proposed amendment must provide their full name and mailing address to the Deputy-Clerk. CONFIRMATION OF NOTICE REQUIREMENTS Mayor Jonkman then called upon the Rich Vandezande, Associate Planner to provide confirmation of notice requirements. Rich Vandezande, Associate Planner reported that Notice of the public meeting was mailed to the property owners and public bodies prescribed by regulation under the Planning Act on January 26,2001 and published in the BWG Times on January 27, CIRCULATORY COMMENTS The applications initially requested a 245 unit townhouse development together with 60 low rise apartment units for a total of 305 units. The development was to be accessed from Line 8 and the extension of Professor Day Drive. Circulation of the original proposal to municipal departments, commenting agencies and notification of the public meeting resulted in a total of sixteen responses. On February 9, 2001, a revised proposal was submitted to the Town. The revised submission calls for 85 street townhouses and 81 lots for semi-detached dwellings for a total of 247 units. The low-rise apartment units have been deleted from the plan. The development is now proposed to be accessed from the extension of Professor Day Drive and from Breeze Drive. Circulation of the revised proposal to municipal departments and commenting agencies resulted in a total of 5 responses. INITIAL PROPOSAL The following staff and agency comments relate to the original requests. These comments are summarized below.

4 Public Meeting. February 20, 2001 Re: Applications for Zoning By law Amendment and Subdivision Approval Owner: Mod Aire Homes Limited Planning Department Files: Z-OO 18 and Page 4 Internal Circulation Clerk-Administrator The townhouse project is proposed to proceed under a new zone not the current R4 Zone; The provisions of the proposed R5 Exception Zone include a Lot area of 165 sq. metres, a lot frontage of 6 metres and a lot coverage of 50 percent. The Developer is proposing a minimum exterior side yard of 4.5 metres. The Zoning By-law requires a 5.0 metre side yard setback for corner lots. The draft Zoning By-law Amendment provides that the maximum length of street townhouses erected shall not consist of more than 8 units or have a length greater than 50 metres. The draft plan of subdivision submitted does not reflect the 8 units with side yards. It appears the only time there will be side yards is when the unit is a corner lot. The developer is proposing parking on hydro/utility easement. Problems may result if the need arises to repair/replace the hydro/utilities infrastructure found within the easement. For the on-site snow removal for the additional parking, the Developer needs to identify how snow removal will be carried out. In the long term who is going to be responsible for maintaining the additional parking areas? Play ground in the same location as a Hydro tower is a liability that should not be entertained. Access to the proposed playground would be through a walkway from an internal street or through parking lots. It would not be wise to promote young children walking through parking lots to access a park. There are several lots that are quite large and an explanation as to how they are to be developed is needed. Sidewalks on both sides of the street should be a requirement. It would appear the apartment building is proposed for the northeast corner but the required playground will be located in a different area. Section 4.5 of the Zoning By-law requires that the apartment play space is to be located at least 5.0 metres form the nearest wall of the main building, is accessible to the main building without the necessity of crossing a parking lot or driveway and the requirement for apartment play space to be in one location at the rear or side of the main building. This has not been achieved if the playground shown on the draft plan is meant to be the playground for the apartment building. Section 4.15 of Zoning By-law 2263 provides that in no case shall the driveway exceed a width of 7.3 metres or 50 percent of the lot frontage, whichever is the lesser. As the proposed lots will have a minimum of 6 metres frontage, means the driveway will only be 3.0 metres in width thereby restricting the parking to a single driveway. Based on experience with the Natale Court townhouses, a single width driveway is inadequate for families having more than one vehicle or to accommodate visitors.

5 Planning Department Files: Z and Page 5 - Section requires that parking facilities are to be within 100 metres of the location which it is intended to serve. The Developer should be required to confirm that the proposed parking areas comply with Section A concern exists that the Town does not have sufficient remaining water capacity that would permit the holding symbol to be removed to allow the entire development of 305 units. Superintendent of Public Works/Senior Engineering Technologist No concern regarding the amendment to the Zoning By-Law. Concern exists regarding the proposed alignment of Professor Day Drive towards the west onto property owned by others. Concern exists regarding the close proximity of the two entrances/exits onto the 8 th Line. Concern regarding the 300mm watermain, valve chambers and fire hydrants located in a six metre easement from the property line easterly. The mainline sewer and servicing layout would be reviewed in detail at the construction drawing submission period. It would appear that the development should be restricted to Professor Day Drive as the only exit onto the 8 th Line and also be aligned straight north/south parallel through the Mod-Aire property. The watermain, valve chambers and fire hydrants would then be fitted into the Professor Day right of way. As a result, the interior road pattern would have to be realigned somewhat and the lots shifted to the east. Director of Parks and Recreation - Does not affect the Davey Lookout park. Treasurer - No concerns. Fire Prevention Officer - Mr. Burns provided a number of comments regarding the proposed development. Generally, many of these comments are recommendations for incorporation in a subdivisior) agreement. A copy of the Fire Prevention Officer's comments are attached hereto. The comments which pertain to the proposal at this time are summarized as follows: - Access to the subdivision from adjoining developments must be approved by the Chief Fire Official. This shall consist of two permanent roadways into the subdivision which are independent of each other. - A block of townhouses shall not exceed a distance of forty five metres without an access to the rear of the townhouse block. In further comments to the developer, the Fire Department indicated that a block of townhouses 50 metres in length is acceptable. Access to rear yards shall be provided by means of a 3 metre break.

6 Planning Department Files: Z and Page 6 Chief Building Official The draft plan of subdivision shows the future extension of Professor Day Drive on another assessed owners property. The draft plan of subdivision does not show the water line going up through Breeze Drive to the 8 th Line and to Middletown Industrial Park. There should be a limit to the amount of accesses to the 8 th Line. Internal streets should be designed to link to Professor Day Drive and only Professor Day Drive exiting to the 8 th Line. Professor Day Drive should be shown within the applicants property boundary and not that of lands which are not owned by the applicant. The draft plan shows proposed parking on the hydro/utility easement. The hydro easement should be kept free and clear of any obstructions and should be properly fenced as there are hydro towers shown on the plan. Fencing may be a requirement of Hydro One. Town Engineer In general, it was expected this area to develop at much higher densities. It was anticipated that apartments would be built containing their own recreational facilities so these lands were not planned as part of the surrounding neighbourhoods. As a result, there are no walkways or street connections to integrate the current proposal with the surrounding lands. The plan should be redesigned to include the extension of Professor Day Drive to the 8 th Line. Review of the plan is premature until this redesign takes place. With a proposed lot being 6 metres wide and a building setback of 6 metres will allow one car to be parked in the driveway of each unit. A second car can be parked in the garage. It will be difficult to accommodate visitors cars and cars of people who choose not to park in the garage as street parking will be limited by the high number of driveways. The Town engineer requested a proposed layout to assist in dealing with this issue. - As part of the traffic review for previous development, it was determined that road access to the 8 th Line should be limited to Northgate Drive, Noble Drive and Professor Day Drive. The access to the 8 th Line proposed for this development should be disconnected. The parking lot north of Breeze Drive in the hydro easement should be redesigned to restrict through access to prevent it from being used as a short cut. The proposed parking lot at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac should also be redesigned to prevent through access as well. Locating a parking lot above the Town's existing sanitary sewer would make it difficult to service in the event of an emergency repair as the owners of the cars would need to be to have the cars removed. Professor Day Drive should be realigned to locate the existing watermain at the western edge of the property in its west boulevard.

7 Planning Department Files: Z and Page 7 - The site currently drains west to an existing creek. It is proposed to divert minor flows to the existing storm system which outlets just north of the No Frills grocery store. No further flows should be diverted to this watercourse as it is extremely sensitive. The basic premise of the sanitary servicing report appears sound subject to further review with site plan revisions. The basic premise of the water supply servicing report appears sound as well. External Circulation Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board - School Board staff indicated that the pupils generated by this development are within the current catchment area for Mother Teresa elementary school or the Holy Trinity secondary school. Due to enrollment concerns in the area and the pace of residential development the Board requested that the following condition of draft approval be incorporated. "That the owner include in all offers of purchase and sale a clause advising prospective purchasers that pupils from this development attending educational facilities operated by the Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board may be transported to/accommodated in temporary facilities out of the neighbourhood school's area." The Board also indicated that they encourage the linking of residential areas through sidewalks and walkways to provide better connections to schools and other community facilities. Barrie Hydro - Barrie Hydro would like to come under contract with Mod-Aire Homes to do the electrical design. The hydro tower line is owned and operated by Hydro One. Enbridge Consumers Gas - The utility requested conditions be included in the subdivision agreement relating to the installation of utilities. The conditions are outlined in their letter attached hereto. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority - The storm water facility within earlier phases of development was only designed to provide stormwater quantity controls. Current standards require stormwater management facilities to provide for Level 1 requirements for quality. The stormwater management facility can be achieved by either providing an appropriate facility within the site or through retrofitting the downstream facility to meet this requirement. Once this issue has been addressed, the Conservation authority will be able to further assess their position on these files. Rogers Cable TV - No concerns. Bell Canada - No concerns.

8 Part of lot 14, Concession 7 Planning Department Files: Z and S-OO-02 Page 8 Hydro One - Hydro staff indicated that Hydro One's Real Estate Group will be commenting on the proposal and have forwarded the information to them. County of Simcoe - The County suggested the use of alternative parkland dedication requirements to allow for additional parkland to be provided for the development. The County also expressed concern regarding shifting the alignment of Professor Day Drive to the west to lands not owned by the developer. The County also expressed concern regarding the public parking lots within the hydro easement. It was indicated that the public parking lots were necessary as there appears to be little on-street parking spaces due to the proposed density. Finally, the County expressed concern regarding the proposed development in proximity to the hydro easement. Simcoe County District School Board - School Board staff have no objection to the plan of subdivision. Elementary pupils who may reside in the proposed dwellings may walk to attend Fieldcrest Elementary School and secondary pupils may walk to attend Bradford District High School. REVISED PROPOSAL Internal Circulation Chief Building Official The plan does not show the watermain easement which travels up through Professor Day Drive and carries on through to the 8 th Line. The watermain is situated at the rear of the subject lots. Professor Day Drive should carry on through the 8 th Line. There should be a route that can take you directly to the 8 th Concession from Highway 88(Holland Street for a by-pass route in case of a road closure. Fire Prevention Officer - The proposed new entrance under the Hydro Lines causes some concern. Approval from Hydro One or the authority having jurisdiction shall be required. Mr. Burns also indicated the designated fire break lots shall be determined at a later date from the submitted site plan. All other comments from their previous correspondence of November 20, 2000 remain the same. Treasurer - Comments remain the same as November 20, 2000 in that the taxes on the above property have been paid and there is no outstanding invoices. Director of Parks and Recreation - No Concerns. External Circulation Rogers Cable - No concerns.

9 Planning Department Files: Z and Page 9 Community Notification In response to the publication of the Notice of Public Meeting, a petition with approximately 60 names in opposition to proposal of the subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment was faxed to the Town on February 14, Seven additional responses have been received regarding the revised proposal and are summarized below: South Simcoe Police Service - indicated concerns regarding adequate parking for the proposal and indicate that a school crossing guard may be required as population increases. County of Simcoe Planning Department - expressed the following concerns: extension of Professor Day Drive is identified in the former Town of Bradford Official Plan as an arterial road with an alignment along the western boundary of the subject lands; - the extension of Professor Day Drive as proposed by this plan is located in an area identified having environmental concerns relating to flooding; consideration of the proposed subdivision can only be taken in the context of the current Official Plan not the new Official Plan which is before the Ontario Municipal Board; the location of proposed road under the hydro easement; that the residents on Breeze Drive will not have been made aware of the proposal to link Street "A" in the subdivision to Breeze Drive by way of Street "B"; Superintendent of Public Works and Senior Engineering Technologist - indicated the following: Professor Day Drive should be extended within the developer's boundaries with a minimum 26 metre right-of-way in a straight alignment to Line 8 and constructed in the same time frame as the project is scheduled; if Professor Day Drive was allowed to shift west, the watermain pipe, fire hydrants, valves and chambers must be relocated from the back yards of the proposed lots; concern of accessibility to the storm and sanitary manholes if located in the rear of Lots 14,19,20,21,22 or51; Barrie Hydro - whatever design is approved by Council, Barrie Hydro will design the electrical to fit with the existing system;

10 Planning Department Files: Z-oO-18 and Page 10 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority - indicated the plan does not contain a stormwater management block and until the stormwater management quantity and quality issues are addressed they are unable to provide draft plan conditions on this proposal; The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority indicated the proposed alignment of Professor Day Drive appears to be situated partially within the Regional Storm Floodplain; Detailed plans showing the floodplain, proposed road alignment and grading plans would be required to assess the feasibility of this alignment. Hydro One Networks Inc. - has no objections to the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of subdivision provided that specific conditions are included as part of draft approval. A copy of the letter is attached hereto. Public Response A letter was received by the County of Simcoe regarding the proposed subdivision on February 19, 2001, from Susan Swanek of 66 Breeze Drive, Bradford, ON. A letter was received by the Town, and copied to the County of Simcoe regarding the proposed subdivision dated February 11, 2001 from Mr. & Mrs. Jason Boucher of 32 Breeze Drive, Bradford, ON L3Z 3A7. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Mayor Jonkman asked Mr. Vandezande to confirm and explain to the public the Planning Act notice requirements. Mayor Jonkman then indicated that the meeting was open for input from the public. The Mayor asked if there were any persons present who wished to speak in support of the application. There was no response. Mayor Jonkman asked if there were any persons present who wished to speak in opposition of the proposed application. There were several responses. In Opposition Ron Stubbs, 81 Noble Drive, Bradford, ONL3Z 3B4 when he purchased his home from the builder, he was told that the property behind him was a green space, golf course and would have the same or bigger homes when developed; totally against the initial proposal; revised proposal - relieved to see that the apartment buildings were deleted and were being replaced with townhouses and semis; - this type of development brings lower income families; did not like that there is no green space proposed in development; proposed is high density development; revised proposal is better than the initial proposal.

11 Planning Department Files: Z-OO-18 and Page 11 Jack Lawson, 105 Noble Drive, Bradford, ON L3Z 3B5 - would like to present a petition, signed by 102 residents in opposition of the proposal; opposed to the high density development; delighted to see that the proposed apartment buildings have been removed; with the high density, he is concerned with the increased storm run off; he and his wife have two young daughters; the new elementary school already has two portables; are more portables proposed for the children of the families of this proposed development; variety of concerns; concerned over townhouse component; density issues; when researching home, this property was not identified by builders for high density; still opposed to the high density townhouses. Mark Contois, 104 Noble Drive, Bradford, ON L3Z 3A9 will there be a maintenance fee for the townhouses to maintain integrity of neighbourhood; are the proposed town homes to be freehold; no playground or parkland has been included or considered in the proposal; no green space has been proposed for the development. Dean Bragg, 61 Noble Drive, Bradford, ON L3Z 3AS revised proposal does not identify any access to Line 8; - the existing traffic volume is high, concerned with increased traffic volumes and speeds; the speed of the existing traffic is a big concern, it is like a race track; traffic volumes will increase substantially with the proposed volumes; will the town be considering installing speed bumps to slow the traffic down; there is no park proposed; he would love to see a park area included in the development; traffic volumes on existing streets is too much and too fast; needs to be monitored and enforced. Bob Gottdank, 92 Breeze Drive, Bradford, ON L3Z 3A5 presently resides at the corner of Breeze Drive and Professor Day Drive; his back yard has been flooded throughout most of winter; the water has come up to approximately 6 feet from his rear patio; he has contacted the Town on a number of occasions, nothing has been done about the water problem and flooding, how is the Town going to get rid of water; if townhouses are built behind his home, what will happen with the existing water; how close is the proposed development to Professor Day Drive; is Professor Day Drive to be extended to Line 8; is the Town going to fix the existing flooding problem before they approve more homes and create more flooding problems; what is going to happen to the development that is underway that is not finished yet. Luc Valade, 70 Breeze Drive, Bradford, ON L3Z 3A5 original proposal shows a park under the easement, he has concerns with this; the development changed from 305 units to 247 units;

12 Part of lot 14, Concession 7 Planning Department Files: Z-OO-18 and Page 12 Luc Valade cont'd. game plan of developer, ask for alot, reduce the number, and still get lots, shoot high and get lower number; concerned with no access to Line 8; concerned with how traffic will be routed through existing streets; will there be enough grocery stores; concerned that development will lower his home value; proposed homes, will they be lower priced homes, therefore lower income families; families within the proposed development will have to go to Newmarket or Barrie Hospitals; with there be a shortage of doctors or enough Medical Centres in Bradford to support the development; the development will bring more noise and more pollution to Bradford; proposed traffic flow, one street in and out to service the development; bigger tax base is not always better for the Town; existing schools are overcrowded; comments from school boards identify, that may have to send children out of boundaries to attend different schools; are more portables being considered for existing schools or is an addition planned to accommodate the development; - traffic volumes high; speed of existing traffic is very high; are there any proposed improvements for Highway 88, making it a four lane highway rather than existing two lane; is there enough water and sewer capacity for the development; articles in our local paper stated that the Town has to improve our existing water systems at a cost of more than five million dollars; if we have to pay over five million dollars to renovate, can it handle more people and more growth; one street in, and one street out. Glenn Robinson, 8 Breeze Drive, Bradford, ON L3Z 3A8 concerned with road access to the proposed development concerns routing traffic across Breeze or south on Professor Day Drive; will there be an entrance/exit to Line 8 or will the proposal generate traffic to be routed through Professor Day Drive to Highway 88; Professor Day Drive has an elementary and secondary school located next to it, not good planning; high volumes of traffic; concerned about access across Breeze Drive and Professor Day Drive; concerned with on street parking creating incredible parking problems; 30 foot lot is standard for zoning; with proposing foot lots parking will be a big problem; concerned with small frontages; concerned with setbacks from the streets, two cars will not be able to be parked in the driveway; parking problems; no additional parking is proposed; adding people will cause problems with congestion; car congestion; no additional parking provided; with stats of 1.3 children per family, therefore 320 kids with no parkland proposed; should be recreational area added within the development;

13 Planning Department Files: Z-OO-18 and Page 13 Glen Robinson conrd. limited accesses in and out of the development; existing area is already congested, development will increase the congestion; if parkland is to be introduced, not suggest it be located near or under the hydro lines or easement; proposed entrance under easement is not a good idea; health concerns with proximity to transmission lines; corner of lots; is it possible to extended Street E to Professor Day Drive; route traffic away from existing homes not into existing neighbourhoods; key point is the density proposed, density is too high; concemed with the foot lots proposed; park needed; why not propose some type of retail services and keep the residential development to the central part of Town; why not consider some retail establishments such as walk in clinic, video stores, support. Dan Gottdank, 90 Breeze Drive, Bradford, ON L3Z 3A5 high density is not acceptable; concems with the application is the reduced frontage from minimum 9 m to 7.5 m; minimum is 9 metres for a reason, why are the developers proposing less; if construction is approved, there should be construction vehicle accesses off Line 8 for access and egress; problems with dump trucks on Breeze Drive and Professor Day Drive now; he calls the Police Service frequently; open Professor Day Drive for egress/ingress to construction; high density unacceptable; if he knew that this type of proposal was going to be built near his home, we would have reconsidered buying in Bradford; this is not why he bought his home in Bradford. Kim Lawson, 105 Noble Drive, Bradford, ON L3Z 3B5 shows disappointment in that what was circulated to be discussed was the original proposal and now revised; no time to consult and review changes; concerned with access under easement; concerned no walkways proposed to join existing neighbourhoods; Noble Drive and east, no family walking accesses; concerned with traffic volumes and patterns; vary the location of street B to Breeze Drive; speed of existing traffic is high, Breeze and Noble have become a racetrack; phones the Police Service regularly; speeding vehicles at 2 am; motor bikes running up and down the road and easement; Police response is that they will send an officer as soon as they can; hate to see if a child is hit by speeding vehicle; not access Street B back into the subdivision, proposed it closer to Professor Day Drive and Line 8; children are at risk; she is a nurse, and has seen what damage can be done to children who have been hit by speeding vehicles;

14 Planning Department Files: Z and Page 14 Kim Lawson cont'd. would like better enforcement; excessive speeds of vehicles are often times people rushing to get to work; needs green space; Davey Lookout - blocked with access bar, you can not get a stroller through to enjoy the park; have been living in Bradford for 1 Y, years and can't even use the park. Ted Kemper, 65 Noble Drive, Bradford, ON L3Z 3B4 is the developer going to build fences for existing houses on Noble/Breeze; what type of fencing is proposed. Shawn Corrigan, 39 Breeze Drive, Bradford, ON L3Z 3A6 agrees with points already raised by neighbours; works in the insurance industry; density and postal codes do affect insurance rates; density creates increases in insurance rates; higher statistical claims, higher property rates; increasing rates are affected by increases in people, cars, homes; usually increases in taxes. Tony Lima, 76 Noble Drive, Bradford, ON L3Z 3B4 streets are very congested now; concerned with high speeds of vehicles; concerned over congestion with proposed townhouses; this week he was walking his 16 month old daughter; a vehicle passed them traveling excessive speed, he caught up with person and told them to slow down, they in turn responded by presenting inappropriate jesters; very concerned with excessive speed of vehicles on Noble Drive/Breeze Drive; no access between Noble Drive and Breeze Drive for walkway; no access to parkland; need walkways. Mark Contois, 104 Noble Drive, Bradford, ON L3Z 3B5 will Line 8 be widened to handle the proposed traffic; may have to install lights to slow traffic down; better enforcement of speeds; only enforcement when quota required. Trish Robertson, 108 Noble Drive, Bradford, ON L3Z 3B5 corner home; moved to Bradford from Aurora, single mother; likes neighbours; - why do we need more homes; concerned with congestion and speeding vehicles; she wants nice detached homes in her neighbourhood; bad winter this year, a lot of snow, the roads were not maintained well; proposal will cause more cars on the streets and more delays in clearing; do we want this type of development in Bradford.

15 Planning Department Files: Z and Page 15 Dawn Farah, 116 Longview Drive, Bradford, ON L3Z 3A5 promised a tree when they bought their home; - they paid for a tree, the developer has still not put in a tree; she wants a tree; is the Town going to allow the developer to start another project when it has not finished the previous ones; she signed the original petition in opposition and is still in opposition; - no one will take responsibility. Colleen Mazor, 10 Breeze Drive, Bradford, ON L3Z 3A8 concern over schools; where do the schools boards draw the boundary lines for enrollment and busing, depeuter Crescent/Line 8, what schools will the children of the families within the development be attending. Michael Ricciuto, 84 Breeze Drive, Bradford, ON L3Z 3A5 moved from the city to a new retirement home in Bradford; hope improvements to Town so he can enjoy his retirement; if Town is going to allow this project it is like living at Jane and Finch in Toronto; he does not want this type of development; he likes Bradford and wants to continue to live here, but if development proceeds as proposed he will be moving; not like this type of development, townhouses are too dense; he will look for another nice place to live and enjoy his retirement. Herb Witzig, 114 Longview Drive, Bradford, ON L3Z 3A5 after the last snow storm on Sunday, very difficult to get to his mail box; he has not been able to get his mail for 8 days; called the Town and spoke with staff; roads are not cleared; he can not get out to get his mail; staff advised that only one snowplow; suggested renting equipment if you don't have it; unacceptable way to have roads, road and sidewalks need to be plowed; if proposed frontages are approved, even a small VW will not fit in drive; lots too narrow. Brenda depalma, 107 Noble Drive, Bradford, ON L3Z 3B5 highly insulted with the format of the meeting; seems bait and switch by Mod-Aire; all told the same story when we bought; this is 2001 and individuals are not uneducated buyers; not the 1950's and uneducated buyers; the developers can not just do what they want; developers are dealing with educated people.

16 Planning Department Files: Z-OO-18 and Page 16 Michael Wilson, 75 Breeze Drive, Bradford, ON L3Z 3A5 trying to sell their home lost a potential sale to Newmarket as the prospective buyers went to the Town and found out that a high density housing development was proposed on the green space; they did not even know that; couple bought in Newmarket instead; he has one child and one on the way, needs a bigger home; the intersection of Longview and Breeze Drive requires a three way stop; traffic speeds are well in excess; cars just whip by the schools and homes. Jeff Torcato, 59 Noble Drive, Bradford, ON L3Z 3A8 moved from Newmarket; bought a Westbury Home; told by builder that the subject land was proposed green space or same type of homes; concerned over speed of vehicles; not finished selling all homes in previous development; proposing a neighbourhood similar to Jane and Finch in Toronto. blind corner Breeze/Noble. Aprile Myrsky, 53 Noble Drive, Bradford, ON L3Z 3A8 has filed many complaints regarding the large pile of soil with the Town; it was to be removed in the spring or early summer but is still there; her children are not allowed to play on the pile of soil; thankfully no accidents yet; streets are not safe for walking; no sidewalks; make neighbourhood safe; her 12 year old child walks to school each day, each day she reminds him to be careful crossing and watch for vehicles; Professor Day Drive already has too much traffic on it; traffic speeds are excessive; does not want townhouses in her neighbourhood, if the Town permits this type of development, her home will be going up for sale and she will move. Matt Gammage, 98 Noble Drive, Bradford, ON L3Z 3B5 feels that people have been fooled tonight; - the notice is not reflective of the changes introduced; the residents were not adequately provided with notice of the changes to the development; requested an explanation, why the Town would want to permit this type of development; tell us why the residents of Bradford West Gwillimbury would want this; high density is not required; is there enough water to service this development; speeding concerns; will there be additional schools provided to service the families of this development; increased traffic volumes. Mayor Jonkman asked if the applicant or agent for the applicant would like to speak. Mr. Jim Craig was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Craig was available to answer any questions of Council.

17 Planning Department Files: Z and Page 17 Mr. Craig: - this is the 4th time the developer is before the public regarding the Northgate Planning Area; similar concerns were raised by residents on DePeuter and Noble opposing the Breeze Drive INoble Drive extension; transition period in a large planning area; take a step back, in 1989 the subject land was zone R4 by the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury, which permitted units; we have brought it back to where we feel we have a good plan, we have circulated to agencies and reduced the proposal to provide a viable project; to respond to the high density concerns, every municipality in the Province of Ontario must adhere to the Provincial Policy Statement and provide a wide range of housing; in 1988 zoned for 1200 apartment units; 1200 apartments were permitted 12 years ago; assurance that the developer is listening to the concerns of the residents; the subject land has a zoning which permits development; in response to the excessive speeds of vehicles on streets, streets do not create speeders, people speed; often see the concerns raised regarding excessive speed while driving throughout the Town; clarification issue that the Planning Report circulated is missing some important data as it does not contain the comments of the Town's Planning Department; nothing has been filed formally to advise the Developer of the issues by the Planning Department; not dealing with planning issues; suggests another forum and public meeting; need to have the Town's Planning Report; the revised plan evolved out of the comments on the first draft; commitment by developer to work with the Town and County of Simcoe regarding the issues; not deal with housing type of affordability; lot size does not make final price; zoning matters; the development on Breeze Drive, the developer could not build a 1,200 sq. ft. bungalow on these lots which amendments; times change, lot sizes change; will respond to issues; wants Town to circulate to those who signed attendance roster; not the intent of the developer to build a development that is undesirable; like to work with the Planning Department; some of these lot areas are larger than those on Breeze and Noble; wants to consider phasing of the development; seems to be a large concern on how to treat Professor Day Drive; whether the Town wants Professor Day Drive to be a four lane road to Line 8; the elementary school was located on Professor Day Drive long after the road was widened; the Town's existing Official Plan makes reference to the designation of Professor Day Drive; the Town's adopted yet unapproved Official Plan does not even reference Professor Day Drive as a collector road; Professor Day Drive is identified within the Town's Master Servicing Plan; developer needs to see the justification for the future development of Professor Day Drive;

18 Planning Department Files: Z-OO-18 and S-OO-02 Page 18 Mr. Craig cont'd. future discussions with the Town are required; public meeting is part of the process; assured the public that the developer is listening to their concerns however not everyone will be happy with the outcome; Mayor Jonkman thanked those present for attending the meeting and showing an interest in the matter Moved by: P. Dykie Seconded by: J. Gorzo "That this special meeting of Council being held pursuant to the Planning Act close at 9:27 p.m." CARRIED. CONFIRMED IN OPEN SESSION THIS 13 th DAY OF MARCH, ~rd>p "Y>~ -RJ )~:s J anita Dempster-Evans, Clerk-Administrator Mayor