Title
APPLICATION FOR A PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT - INNOVATIVE PLANNING SOLUTIONS ON BEHALF OF JOE AND MARY SANTOS - 200C DOCK ROAD (WARD 10) (APRIL 8, 2013) (D09-OPA026)
Darren Vella of Innovative Planning Solutions explained that the purpose of this public meeting is to review an application to consider an Official Plan Amendment submitted by Innovative Planning Solutions, on behalf of Joe and Mary Santos, for lands located on the south side of Dock Road, west of the shoreline of Kempenfelt Bay with access from Plunkett Court. He noted that the property is known municipally as 200C Dock Road, has a total area of approximately .48 hectares and is contained within the Bayshore Secondary Plan. Mr. Vella described the surrounding land uses and provided the background history concerning a number of applications that have been submitted to the City concerning the property, including two matters before the Ontario Municipal Board. He explained that the lands are designated Residential within the City's Official Plan and are zoned Residential Low Density (R1) in accordance with Zoning By-law 2009-141. Mr. Vella indicated where the property is located with the Bayshore Secondary Plan and that is identified as Low Density.
Mr. Vella explained that the existing Medium Density lands contained within the Secondary Plan are unable to be developed and that he believes the location for Medium Density residential lands should be changed to the subject property. He described the development proposal for a 24 unit three and a half storey rest home. Mr. Vella listed the studies that have been submitted to the City in support of the application and highlighted a number of features of the development proposal. He provided his planning rationale basis for relocating the Medium Density within the Bayshore Secondary Plan. He concluded by providing his professional opinion with respect to the planning rationale associated with the application.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
1. Craig Duncan, 34 Plunkett Court expressed his concerns regarding the proposed medium density development. He noted that development proposals for the subject property have been ongoing for a number of years. Mr. Duncan indicated that he was opposed to the development proposal and asked the other individuals in the audience who opposed the proposal to stand. He explained that the written comments he had submitted to the City and previous comments in opposition to the development proposals on the subject property continue to reflect his own concerns and the concerns of the neighbours.
2. Alan Mather, 201 Tynhead Road stated that he objects to the proposed development and indicated that he spoke in opposition to the proposals at the previous public meetings. He noted that the current proposal is located in close proximity of Tollendal Village and abuts the Southshore Planning Area. Mr. Mather provided details concerning the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision for the Marandal application on Dock Road. He explained that the OMB decision suggested that the development proposal must reflect the character of the neighbourhood. Mr. Mather notedwhen the servicing of the Tynhead area was discussed the owner of the property originally indicated that he would maintain his single family dwelling ans was interested in creating an additional two redsidential lots only. He expressed concern regarding the impact the development may have on the vegetation on the property and the destruction of the trees. Mr. Mather observed that the lands would be raised to accommodate the development resulting in a taller building. He suggested that the City review the impact of the grading and the stormwater management plans prior to approval of any development applications. Mr. Mather questioned if any studies had been conducted concerning the impact of the City's intensification policies on existing neighbourhoods. He concluded by expressing concern regarding the amount of hard surfaces within the development and the impact of run-off to Kempenfelt Bay.
Members of General Committee provided a number of questions related to presentation and received responses from the presenter.
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
1. Correspondence received from Bell Canada dated March 26, 2013.
2. Correspondence received from Craig and Kelly Duncan dated March 29, 2013.
3. Correspondence received from Brad and Jenny Harris dated April 1, 2013.
4. Correspondence received from Eugene Lee dated April 1, 2013.
5. Correspondence received from Rowan and Nicki Maré dated April 1, 2013.
6. Correspondence received from Sarah Saville dated April 2, 2013.
7. Correspondence received from Tony and Agnes Galea dated April 3, 2013.
8. Correspondence received from Alan Mather dated April 3, 2012.
9. Correspondence received from Sasha Opacic and Sasha Minchin dated April 3, 2013.
10. Petition submitted by Aaron and Melanie Cooper containing 40 signatures and circulated by email to 52 recipients dated April 3, 2013.