Public Info Meeting: Draft Plans of Subdivision Applications – Ontario Infrastructure and Land Corporation Seaton Community

Information Report No. 06-15
Draft Plans of Subdivision Applications SP-2015-01, SP 2015-03, SP-2015-04; SP-2015~05, SP-2015-06
Zoning By-law Amendment Applications A 2/15, A 5/15, A 8/15, A 10/15 and A 11/15
Ontario Infrastructure and Land Corporation Seaton Community

Download

Download Report

Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, October 5, 2015

A public information meeting was held under the Planning Act, for the purpose of informing the public with respect to the above-noted application.

Ross Pym, Principal Planner, Strategic Initiatives, with the aid of a power point presentation, provided an outline of Information Report 06-15. He provided an overview of the five applications for the Seaton Community, explaining the various land uses within the developable areas and along Brock Road. He noted he would be available after the meeting to answer questions. He also explained the permitted uses for the buffer area surrounding Whitevale, explaining low intensity uses such as parks and schools, with no new residential development in this area.

Emma West, planningAlliance, appeared before the Committee on behalf of Infrastructure Ontario, noting she was in attendance to receive comments from the residents.

Lloyd Thomas, 489 Whitevale Road, appeared before the Committee, providing Members with a map, outlining where the trails come down from the 407 along North Road. He indicated the Old Quarry could be a potential site for a secondary trail head. He explained the ecological sensitivity of the area where the development was proposed, and questioned a better use for this land, which is a hub for trails. He stated this would be an ideal area for a trail head, as it head north into Rouge Park. He also stated parking is already inadequate in the area. He asked that Council request the Provincial Government to place this land into the greenbelt for use as a trail head, noting the influx of residents would have access to hiking and fishing.

Rob Quig, 440 Whitevale Road, appeared before the Committee questioning what the proposed plan was for the Heritage Hamlet open space. He requested clarification on the use of a community park.

Susan Wilson, 3245 North Road, appeared before the Committee noting her concerns regarding the impact on existing wells. She questioned whether an assessment would be done to ensure water protection for existing residents with the subdivision being to the north, and subsequent recourse should they experience water problems.

Marion Thomas, 489 Whitevale Road, appeared before the Committee, noting some confusion with respect to the North Road development, questioning where exactly the development would be in proximity to the pit. She also noted concerns with respect to illegal dumping, stating the pits are a great place to walk and experience nature. She noted it was unclear where the Natural Heritage area is and where the residential and industrial development would be going, noting she would like to see a better plan. Ms. Thomas noted her support with the plan to build a trail head as well as the need for additional parking. She also stated her desire to see a car pool area in the Seaton development.

Mrs. Douglas, 3230 Mulberry Lane appeared before the Committee noting her concerns with respect to trail head issues. She stated that currently there are a number of issues with respect to noise from dirt bikes and four wheelers. She stated this should be a quiet area, and requested justification for what the usage would be for the trail heads.

Karen Hodson, 3555 Sideline 34, Green River, appeared before the Committee questioning whether the current residents would have an opportunity to upgrade to City water and sewer.

Scott Finlayson, 3185 Altona Road, Whitevale, appeared before the Committee questioning whether an environmental assessment had been done and what the next steps were.

Arzo Baig appeared before the Committee questioning the greenspace use and whether a wildlife impact study had been completed.

Jennifer Krueger, 492 Churchwin Street, Whitevale, appeared before the Committee and also questioned whether City hook ups for water and sewer would be offered, as Whitevale residents are currently on wells and septic tanks. She also questioned what would happen in the event that the current residents experience problems with their wells.

Mike Rowan, 75 Highway 7, Green River, appeared before the Committee questioning where the waste disposal site would be situated as well as traffic plans for Highway 7 as Seaton develops.

Abel Wong, 540 Whitevale Road, appeared before the Committee questioning the open space areas and noting concerns with respect to noise, safety as well as traffic. He questioned whether the traffic studies were realistic or underestimated. He also noted concerns with respect to the impact on existing wells and water pollution due to construction.

Peter Rodrigues, 750 Whitevale Road, appeared before the Committee, stating this was the time for Council to take action to protect sensitive land. He stated more precision was needed to determiDe exact boundaries and questioned the number of housing units being proposed.

Hyder Baig, 3181 Golf Club Road, Whitevale, appeared before the Committee, noting concerns with respect to the impact on underground streams with the digging around Whitevale and who would be responsible in the event their wells go dry. He also noted concerns with respect to safety, questioning whether fencing was being considered.

Nicole Brewster, 335 Whitevale Road, appeared before the Committee noting concerns for the lands being proposed for school sites, questioning what the process would be should a school not be constructed. She also noted concerns with respect to a lack of parking, noting the area is heavily used and also questioned how the open space areas would be utilized.

Emma West reappeared in response to questions raised, noting that the concerns would be discussed in more detail once all comments had been received, including agency comments such as TRCA and the Region of Durham.

A question and answer period ensued with respect to the Quarry, infrastructure for additional roads to move traffic in and out of the area on main roads such as Brock and Taunton.