Loading...
MINUTES - Council - 195807101. ;.i. ·- l MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEJiTING OF THE COUNCIL HELD IN THE COUNCIL 1~5 CHAMBER, ON THURSDAY, J~Y lOTH, 1958 AT 7,00 P.M, ---,,--------- All members of Council were present. ,\ ~ Mayryr Murray outlined that this_ meeting had been specially called to sign an agreement 11Tith Sunnybrook Investments Limited and that r,ras the only item of the agenda. Councillor Child stated that the Sunnybrook Subdivision Agree@ent had been thoroughly read over,and it had been found to be in order. Therefore the following motion is proposed: CHILD: NISBET: Mayor Murray: "That a by-law be prepared authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to sign the Sunnybrook Subdivision Agreement. u Discussion of this-Hotion Mr. Vanek appeared before Council and raised_ an objection to the actual design of subdivision at its easterly section fronting on his property, Mayihr Murray advised Mr. Vanek that this was a Special Council i4eeting held bet1•een the Town and the Subdivider and concerned specifically financial arrangements. However, in this instance, Council 1-rould hear Mr. Vanek. Mr. Vanek said he presumed lllhis includes financial arrangements of services and must insist that services be laid along road allowance m~~ing connections, --_:d.p Councillor Child advised that at~last Planning Board Meeting it was~ unanimous opinion of this Board that~roposed plan was· uneconomical' and did not present sufficient 11 usua~le 11 lots to warrant its adopt- ion. Actual~y Mr. Kelner's property became frontage for Mr. Vanek. Planning Board submitted a letter to the Department of Planning and Development regarding this matter and to date we have had no neply. Mr. Vanek advised that: approxi.mately t1oro •reeks ago I submitted a pketch and also letters reques·ting an audience with Council, out- lining good table lands available and the manner in which Mr. Kelners property may be utilized. I was indeed amazed to hear only te.day that a meeting w-as called for this evening and to receive a copy of a lette·r from the Planning Board sent to the Department of Planning and Development in which my plan was rejected although I had not personally represented myself to the Town Planning Board or Town Council, This was not my fault since I had written 2 letters a week or two ago in which I requested an interview 1orith Council slil that I might have an opportunity to make personal representation on my ovm bell'alf. There 1rras not, as suggested this evening, any lack of interest on my part since 1956. I do not agree with Planning '· • 146 - 2 - July 7. 1958 • Boaruthat there'is a lack of completeness and conformance to Town By-laws in the plans submitted to the Planning Board. Councillor Child stated that it would appear that the planners taken it upon themselves to draw up lots that did not conform with To>m 1 s Land Use By-Law. There, to my knowledge, had been no word · received from you since 1956 until about one month ago and do not believe it fair to 11 hold a stick 11 over anyones head at this late date. Mayor Murray advised that some of us on Council, are new this year and I, myself, was not a member of Council in 1956, however have 1i'IOrked with Mr. Kelner since Janurary, 1957 and until a week or two ago had never heard of· Mr. Vanek with relation to this proposed sub- division. Mr. Vanek said in 1956 I attended Council and objected at this time and have ever since attempted to come to an agreement with 11r. Kelner. Hoever this does not alter the fact that the present plan of sub- division actually boxes me in. j ,]! M~or Murray advised Mr. Vanek that he did have access from his prop- erty to Wellington Street and Machell Street. l>lr. Vanek stated that I do not feel I have any proper access and must as a result approach the Ontario Municipal Board, since one adjoining land o1mer is entitled to 1 or 2 r·oads of access. All I request is 1 or 2 roads of access. I have offered to discuss this 'with Hr. Kelner ancl Trrould be •rilling to accept a decision of any tribunal such as his planners and my planners may get together and arrange a solution. I ask that a decision be made as an application of good planning and before this plan is approvea.; that on good planning prindlipals this metter be given consideration. There are 2 effects in this matter as I see it·. Presentation to Ontario Municipal Board would entail: 1. A considerable delay. 2. A decision would be necessary. I have a plan to submit to the Planning Board outlining how these lands· could' be used to the best advantage. My ·plans show the· best method of planning this area and 10 lots •muld result at a reasonable cost. I cannot insist that this particular plan can be adopted, hovrever on planning principals only, he is. bound to shovr on his plan 1 or 2 access roads to my property. Mayor Murray advised Mr. Vanek that you do,,.b.ave other accesses now. Councillor.Child.stated that the extra 10 lots Mr. Vanek indicated are in reality reduced to 7 and 3 of this 7 are not usable. !1r. Kelner stated that we agreed 2 years ago that the Tovm Planning. Consultants would be satisfactory to both and they stated it was not logical to develop these lands like you desire and we 1-rere both ·told this, Both of us acknowledged that the Toom Planning would be the judge and a neutral source of information. 'Economics are not the busi.ness of Council or Planning Board. I feel your caase is very badly founded. Proctor & Redfern said 10 lots 1vere available at a selling price of $3,000,00 each and 650 feet of street created at a cost of ~20.00 per foot vrith a net profit of $17,000~00;. When you take all the ~actors into '"~-· -J -July 7. 1958 more realistic consideration as the $300.00 per lot etc. the/cost would be behreen ~~40. 00 -$50.00 per foot to develop th:Ls land. I do not think this is a reasonable-scheme upon 111hich I could embark to develop ; your property. My dealings with the Town have been above board and never have I entertained the thought of deriving you of your . lands. Mr. Vanek advised I have never met with Nr. Kelner, I did not retain Dr. Fleuty anddid not adopt his sketch. On the basis of this sketch I asked Kelner what he is going to do. The sketch submitted is not up to date. I merely ask for road allowance through Kelner's property so I vJon 1 t .be boxed in. I orish to present facts to Council at a :·future date and until this time I request that this meeting be adj-ourned. Deputy Reeve Nisbet .inquired of Mr. Vanek how much frontage do you have on Wellington Street. Nr. Vanek advised he had 150 -180 feet. Deputy Reeve Nisbet stated that Mr. Vanek wants to develop on his own property. 1-'lr. Vanek advised he was ;villing to bet that there are road allow- ances bet>veen Aurora Heights and Sunnybrook Subdivisions. Planners •rill agree that you do not block off adjoining area. Councillor Patrick stated that subdivision has been on agenda for 3 years and asked Nr. Vanek if he anticipated then of subdivi!ling. Mr. Vanek an:swered No, and further stated that only after his father's death vras the property deeded to him. Councillor Patrick stated this appears to be some kind of game and not a matter for Council. Councillor Stoddart said it appears somebody is trying to come in at the last moment and after meeting, after meeting has been held it is only the last. few weeks I've heard of Vanek and if Mr. Kelner has to lose lots to let Nr. Vanek have a fevJ lots, I don"t think we should hold Kelner up any longer but sign the agreement tonight. Motion to sign Agreement and By-Law was -Carried. CORBETT: CHILD: "That leave be given .to introduce a By-law to authorize the entering into of an agreement with Sunnybrook Investments Ltd. and that the same be now read a fi:sst time. 11 Carried. The by-law was then read for a fi:sst time • PATRICK: DAVIDSON: ... 11 That the by-la1v novJ before the Council be read a second time and that the Council resolve itself into a committee of the whole for that purpose," Carried, 147 l~B DAVIS: NISBET: - 4 - July ?. 1958 "That the second reading of the by-law be taken as read. 11 Carried. Mr. Vanek stated I formally register my objection to the passing of this by-law and mg;y this be included in the minutes and may I .receive a certified copy of these minutes. STODDART: NISBET: DAVIS: NISBET: NISBET: CORBETT: 11 That the by-la;.r now before the Council be re.ad a third t.ime this day and that Rule 22 of By- lavr No. 862 be suspended for that purpose.11 Carried. 11 That the third reading of this by-.lavr be taken ?. as rea<l. u Carried. 11 That we adjourn.11 The meeting then adjourned. 7J -l, • ----...., !