Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-050-16Planning Services Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Municipal Clerk at 905-623-3379 ext. 2102. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: June 27, 2016 Report Number: PSD-050-16 Resolution: File Number: 18T-87083 By-law Number: Report Subject: Amendment to Draft Approval for 2408406 Ontario Inc. (Fourteen Estates) for 28 Hamlet Residential Lots in the Hamlet of Newtonville Recommendations: 1.That Report PSD-050-16 be received; 2.That Council supports: Option 1 Retaining the current draft approved 1.16 hectare park site on the north side of the approved Jones Avenue extension; or Option 2 Revising the park site to a 0.62 hectare site on the west side of Street “A” and taking cash-in-lieu of parkland for the balance of the developer’s obligation; 3.That extension to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision 18T-87083, as amended to October 27, 2016 be supported; 4.That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PSD- 050-16 and Council’s decision; and 5.That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-050-16 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. PD-114-16 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-050-16 Page 2 Report Overview The report recommends that Council supports either Option 1, retaining the park site in its current location or Option 2, relocating the park site to the west side of Street “A”, within the Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision and an extension to draft approval to October 27, 2018. 1. Application Details 1.1 Owner/Applicant: 2408406 Ontario Inc. (Fourteen Estates) 1.2 Proposal: 28 lot residential subdivision 1.3 Area: 57 hectares 1.4 Location: Part Lot 8, Concession 1, former Township of Clarke (Figure 1) 1.5 Roll Number: 030-010-09100 1.6 Within Built Boundary: No Figure 1: Subject Property Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-050-16 Page 3 2. Background 2.1 In 1992, the Region of Durham draft approved a 28 lot residential plan of subdivision in the hamlet of Newtonville. The implementing zoning by-law was also approved by the Town of Newcastle in 1992. 2.2 Prior to 1995, the Region of Durham was the subdivision approval authority. Plans of subdivision were draft approved with no time limit for obtaining final approval. In 2011, the Municipality of Clarington amended Conditions of Draft Approval for 18T-87083, by including an expiry date of three years to 2014. In 2014, Fourteen Estates was in the process of acquiring the lands and requested an extension to Draft Approval. At that time, the Conditions of Draft Approval were amended by adding conditions to ensure development would proceed in keeping with current policies and guidelines, realigned Rose Crescent to intersect with Street “A”, changed the location of the park to a more appropriate location given the closure of Newtonville Public School and extended draft approval for two years to October 27, 2016. 2.3 Fourteen Estates have retained an engineering firm to prepare engineering drawings as part of fulfilling conditions of draft approval, however, they cannot obtain final approval in advance of the October 2016 expiry date. As a result, the Owner has requested a two years extension to October 27, 2018. 2.4 Earlier this year, a few existing residents in the adjacent subdivision to the east, expressed concerns with the approved amendment to draft approval that reduced the size and relocated the park from its original location beside Newtonville Public School to the northeast quadrant of the draft plan. They are concerned that the park would bring nuisances that would impact their quiet rural lifestyle. 2.5 The purpose of this report is to; Provide background for the park location in 1992 and the rationale for relocating the park in 2014; Discuss the concerns of the residents; Provide Option 1 to retain the park in its current location or Option 2, revising the park location to the west side of Street “A”; and Recommend approval of the extension to draft approval for two years. 3. Park Locations 3.1 In the original Draft Approved Plan the location of the park was adjacent to Newtonville Public School. It had an awkward configuration, however it provided opportunity for overlapping facilities between the school and park block. (See Figure 2). It allowed for a sports field, either ball or soccer on a joint park/school site with adequate parking. The park size exceeded the 5% parkland dedication requirements and as such the municipality was required to pay for the over-dedicated lands. In 2007, the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board closed the public school. It was used as a maintenance shop for the Board’s tradespeople and computer training lab for Board staff. In 2014, the Board Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-050-16 Page 4 declared it surplus to their needs, however shortly thereafter the Board revoked the declaration and the school remains in the Board’s ownership today and it continues to be used as a maintenance shop. Figure 2 –1992 Park Location 3.2 With the closure of the school, the opportunity to overlap shared facilities is lost. The park was an irregular shape fronting onto Jones Avenue, Street ‘A” (future extension of Charles Tilley Crescent) and Regional Road 18 (Newtonville Road). The east portion of the park was 45 metres wide by 210 metres long. Too narrow for sports fields and only useful as a tot lot and a walkway between Newtonville Road and Street “A”. This is an inefficient use of parkland. Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-050-16 Page 5 3.3 In 2014, the draft approved plan was amended by realigning Rose Crescent so it intersected with Street ‘A’ rather than being an off-set intersection. The block created between the east limits of Jones Avenue and the subdivision limits was determined to be appropriate for the new park (Block 29) in the northeast quadrant of the draft plan. It is centrally located for residents in the southeast quadrant of the hamlet. The park has frontage on three local roads, Rose Crescent, Jones Avenue and a small portion on Paynes Crescent which provides good exposure and a quieter environment, rather than fronting onto a busy regional road. The regular shape and 1.16 hectare size, is more efficient for development of a park and the Municipality would not be required to pay for the over-dedication of any parkland (see Figure 3). Figure 3 – 2014 Park Location The park is not of sufficient size to support a sports field or parking lot, but have a limited playground with play structure and swings, central seating area with shade structure, walkways connecting to Jones Avenue and free play area. Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-050-16 Page 6 4. Comments from Residents regarding 2014 Park Location 4.1 On May 3, 2016 a Public Information Centre (PIC) was held at the Newtonville Community Hall. The meeting was held to provide information regarding the park. Thirty (30) residents were in attendance as well as the Owner’s consultants, staff from the Planning Services Department and the Manager of Park Development. 4.2 Draft approval was issued 24 years ago, prior to most of the residents moving into the community particularly to the east. Some attending the PIC were interested in finding out about the development, its configuration, timing of development and what measures will used to mitigate impacts during the construction process. Some residents spoke in support of the relocated park because it is central to the area and no longer had frontage on Regional Road 18 which was a safety concern. A few residents were concerned with the revised park location in proximity to their properties. 4.3 Following the meeting a lengthy letter was received from a resident in objection to the park. The letter reiterates concerns expressed at the PIC. The letter forms Attachment 1 to this report and is summarized below. Parks bring a number of negative consequences because they attract people who are “up to no good”, such as late night activities and crime particularly in the new location because it is hidden away. Garbage and illegal dumping which gets blown around or ransacked by raccoons. Users of ATV and dirt bikes will not be averse to using the park. Significant loss in privacy for area residents. Constant noise from various activities. Increased traffic on local streets. Parking issues will impact area residents. Park location is too close to existing Ina Brown Parkette. Amending the draft approved plan of subdivision without notice to area residents. 5. Discussion 5.1 Municipal staff support the retention of the municipal park in its currently approved location and configuration as shown as Block 29 on Figure 3 for the reasons outlined above. This is identified as Option 1. 5.2 Subsequent to the Public Information Centre, Staff met with the Owner of the subdivision and their consultants to discuss the location of the park. The Owner strongly agrees that the current location is the best location for the subdivision and the hamlet, however will agree to relocate the park in order to satisfy resident’s concerns and expedite the process to receive final approval. An alternate location for the park is Lots 27 and 28 in the approved draft plan fronting onto the west side of Street “A”. The current location at Rose Crescent and Jones Avenue could be lotted out for two lots to maintain the number of lots within the Draft Approval at 28. (See Figure 4). This is Option 2. Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-050-16 Page 7 5.3 The size of the relocated park will be approximately 0.62 hectares with 98 metres of frontage. This is approximately one half of the size of the approved park but meets the minimum frontage requirements. The owner would be required to pay cash-in-lieu for shortage in required land dedication. The revised park is considerably smaller than is required in the Official Plans for hamlet parks but so is the currently approved site. It is a parkette. Parkettes are required wherever the Municipality deems it necessary to augment or adjust the park requirements of any neighbourhood. The park in Option 2 is not centrally located to the area which it serves. It could have a playground similar to the previous park site. It is not an ideal location in terms of being central to the quadrant it serves and the site was selected because there are no existing residences abutting the site. Should the School Board declare the school lands surplus to their needs, there may be opportunity for the Municipality to acquire a portion of the lands to enlarge the parkette, should that be deemed appropriate in the future. Figure 4 –Relocated Parkette on Street ‘A” Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-050-16 Page 8 5.4 Requests from the Fourteen Estates The Owner has advised that should Option 2 be chosen, it will come with some financial and timing costs to them and without any benefit. These include changes to reports and plans that are complete, or are substantially complete including, revised engineering drawings, all required to fullfil Conditions of Draft Approval. In return for their support, they have requested the following: i) Expedited review of the engineering submission; ii) Parkland dedication be considered in full without additional cash-in-lieu for the new location of the parkette which is less than the 5% required; iii) Additional cost of the second conceptual park concept plan be included as a component of the parkland development in the Development Charges calculation for this site; and iv) That full two year extension request be granted with assurance that Fourteen Estates will expedite submissions and the finalization of the subdivision well before the two year timeframe. 5.5 In response to the Owner’s request Staff offer the following: i) Once the engineering drawings are submitted to the Engineering Services Department, staff agree to expedite their review. ii) The required parkland dedication for the entire draft plan is 1.159 hectares. Park Block 29 represented 1.16 hectares. The Owner was required to pay cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication for the under dedication of the required 5%. The smaller park block allows the Park Block 29 to be divided into larger lots and therefore the potential for the Owner to charge a premium for those lots. Staff do not support concessions on meeting the parkland requirements. iii) The parkland concept has not been submitted for approval and was not based on any grades, as required in the Conditions of Draft Approval, as such it is considered preliminary. Much of the concept can be transferred to the new park location. Staff do not support including the costs of the design in the costs of developing the park which is borne by the Municipality. iv) Staff support the extension to draft approval for an additional two years for October 27, 2018 provided that Fourteen Estates use their best efforts to finalize all the necessary works and receive final approval. 5.6 For the most part, people enjoy living close to parks. Developers often want the park to be built in earlier phases of development of their subdivision because they are a selling feature and will often require a premium for lots abutting a park. The Director of Planning Services will issue a Notice of Decision advising interested parties of the decision and advising of the appeal date which is 20 days after the decision is made, for anyone wishing to appeal. Notice will be provided to anyone who signed in at the PIC as well as anyone previously on the interested parties list. At that time, anyone can appeal the amendment to the draft approved plan. The Owner would be responsible for all costs Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-050-16 Page 10 The following is a list of the interested parties to be notified of Council’s decision: Denise Borkwood Martha Gibson Chrissie Borutskie Donal Robins Tony Gray Ray Tompkins Mark & Nancy Smithson Bernice Milligan Patricia Likogiannis Jean Hill Meaghan Crawford Charlene Bowman Mark vanVoorst Tunney Planning Carolyn Molinari, CM Planning Robert Pawlett Norm Pond Phil Kacaba Jen Kacaba Georgia Ashby Ganean Ashby Doug & Marlene Timms Glen & Lynda Farrow Donald Robins Donna & Noel Charran Dave Higgins Stuart Day Jason & Ester Glavin John & Karen O'Donnell Ray & Doris Tompkins Dennis & Irene Burtinsky Sandy Lyall Attachment 1 to Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-050-16 Patricia & George Likogiannis 67 Jones Avenue Newtonville, ON, L0A 1J0 May 6. 2016 Dear Willy Woo, Wendy Partner and David Crome: This letter is to provide our concerns regarding the 2014 amendments made to the 1992 subdivision plan for the Newtonville property that is South of Highway 2 and East of Newtonville Road, which is currently owned by Fourteen Estates. The 2014 amendments to the 1992 plan were made without notice to the public and without consultation with the public, until the Public Information Centre which was held on May 3, 2016 due to concerns raised by local residents. We attended the May 3rd PIC and were invited to provide comments at the conclusion of that meeting. Rather than completing a Comments Card we are providing this letter to outline our concerns with the amendments to the 1992 development plan. Our sole concern with the amended plan is that the proposed park has been relocated to a new location different from the original 1992 plan. We believe that the old park location was clearly a better location for serving the public interests than the new location for a number of reasons, including the followings: Parks bring a number of negative consequences to the local area. The old park location was on the outskirts of the subdivision and so would not have brought these negative consequences into our quiet, safe, rural subdivision. Instead, the old park location isolated these negative consequences to the outskirts of the subdivision. The old park location was also less likely to attract people looking for a place to get “up to no good” since it opens on Newtonville Road, and so is less hidden away. The new park location is much closer to Newtonville’s only other park, Ida Brown Parkette, and so largely serves the same group of residents. The old park location is in fact accessible to a larger group of residents since it had access points onto Charles Tilley Avenue (serving Veltri Estates and Fourteen Estates) and Newtonville Road (serving those living in the hamlet outside of these subdivisions). The new park location will increase the risk of children being hit by cars if there is an access point onto Paynes Crescent as planned. The old park location had safe access points, given the wide sidewalks on Newtonville Road that were in place to service the old school. It is in the public interest for residents to be able to rely on existing plans and that they will not be changed without good reason. The local residents relied on the original 1992 plan when making their home purchasing decisions, and the plan to move the park to a new location has a major impact on these residents. Those with properties backing onto the previous park location had purchased their homes with the hopes of backing onto a park, and the remaining residents moved to the area to escape the urban problems of living close to a park and are unhappy that one is now being added right in the middle of our subdivision. It was clear at the public consultation that the majority of the local residents do not want the park to be moved. Since so many local residents are unhappy with the new park location, it is in the best 2 public interest to move the park back to the previously approved location which is a better location to serve the local community. The town planning department explained at the PIC that public notice and consultation were not deemed necessary for the plan amendments because they perceived this was a minor change to the plan. We respectfully disagree and strongly object to the amendments being labelled as “minor”; assessing a change as “minor” is a matter of perception and the change in park location is in fact a “major” change for the local residents. Many of the local property owners reviewed the 1992 development plans for this property before selecting a lot in which to build their home or before purchasing existing homes, and the 1992 plan was a major consideration in their decision to purchase their home. The location of local parks is in fact a major factor in home purchasing decisions for many home buyers, and as such the town should not change existing plans for parkland without consulting with local homeowners and the change in the plan should be made for strong reasons that are in the best public interest. Changes should not be made without consultation and without very strong, good reasons. At the May 3rd PIC, the town planning department responded to our concerns with the explanation that it was too late to make any changes to the amended plan since the plan was now final and if changes were made then the builder would have the right to appeal to the OMB. However, the local residents firmly believe that the planning department did not take the best interests of the residents of Newtonville into account in making changes to the 1992 plan without public consultation, and as such we request that the town do the right thing now and work with the builder to move the park back to the previously approved location. The builder appears to be indifferent as to where the park is located, so we are sure this could be achieved. For good reason, the Ontario Planning Act frequently refers to the necessity of holding public consultations to allow the public to make representations for plans and revisions to plans, and we believe that the planning department should have followed this good practice before approving the amended plan. Respectfully, the planning department appears to have taken short cuts when amending the 1992 plan, which have resulted in the local residents being very upset and we request that the town do the right thing and fix the issue arising from the shortcuts taken in amending the 1992 plan. Before explaining our concerns, we will provide background about the neighbourhood surrounding the park. We are a small, quiet, sheltered, and close little neighbourhood. Homeowners purchased homes in this neighbourhood to enjoy a safe, quiet, and private lifestyle; most of us have lived in urban subdivisions previously and were looking for a much quieter and more private place to live. We want our children to live in a community where children can play street hockey, ride their bikes, and walk to visit friends safely without fear of being hit by a car. The plans for our development, Veltri Estates, did not include a park, but this was of no concern to us since our lots are large enough (1/2 – 2 acres) that families have parklike backyards with plenty of room to play and play structures, soccer fields, basketball courts, swimming pools, and trampolines right in the backyard. 3 Our children have not missed having a local park because they have plenty of room and play equipment to play anything they wish right in their backyard. Parks Involve Negatives and Positives; They are Not for Everyone Especially Not in Rural Communities The planning department explained at the May 3rd PIC that they did not hold a public consultation when they amended the 1992 plan because they felt that the changes were minor; explaining further that they viewed a park as always being a positive to the neighbouring properties. This was an incorrect perception of the planning department; parks are not always a positive to neighbouring properties especially not in rural communities. Respectfully, the planning department failed to take into account that the 1992 plan involves a rural community, and that rural landowners do not have the same needs or desires that urban landowners may have. While parks may offer some positive benefits which make them attractive for some home buyers, in fact there are a significant amount of negative issues and problems that arise with parks and so many home buyers do not wish to purchase a home that is in close proximity to a park. In fact for rural homeowners, parks provide little or no benefit and the negative issues arising from a park are much more significant. When concerns regarding the negative aspects of a neighbourhood park were raised at the May 3rd PIC, the parks engineer acknowledged that the town frequently experiences significant problems with existing parks, but explained that this is just something that local residents must stay on top of so that the park can be enjoyed by the neighbourhood. We agree that any negative issues will be our problem to deal with, given that police presence in our rural community is very rare. However, we don’t think that it is advisable for residents to be dealing with these issues on their own. I will outline a few of the problems and issues that affect local residents when a park is introduced to a neighbourhood: o Late Night Activities – Bringing late night activities closer to your home is clearly an undesirable side effect to having a park nearby. Where groups such as teenagers, beer league ball teams, and other groups are looking for a location to partake in late night activities, they will frequently look to local parks. The side effect of these late night activities for local home owners include loud noises, music, and swearing late at night, broken beer bottles on their property, tire tracks from cars and ATVs on their lawn, etc. o Crime – Bringing illegal activities, such as drug dealing, closer to your home is clearly another potential side effect to having a park nearby. Unfortunately parks are frequently the location where people choose to engage in illegal activities, such as drug dealing and vandalism. This has a significant impact on local home owners who feel less secure, whose houses are more likely to be targeted by the criminals, and who worry about the safety of their own children. o Garbage – Unfortunately parks tend to attract a lot of garbage and illegal dumping, which leads to a significant amount of garbage being blown on to neighbouring properties. Illegal dumping and littering is already a significant problem in rural communities such as 4 Newtonville. We see this regularly along road sides and at the carpool lot on Newtonville Road, and the wind and raccoons ensure that any garbage is quickly distributed to the surrounding properties to be cleaned up by local residents. o ATVs and dirt bikes – ATVs and dirt bikes are already an issue in rural communities such as Newtonville, with people driving them on any vacant property. Many locals own either an ATV or a dirt bike, and residents of Newcastle also frequently venture out to Newtonville looking for a place to ride their machines. These people tend to use any spare piece of land that they can find, and will not be adverse to using the local park. o Significant Loss in Privacy – Parks are built by the town with the hopes that they will be well used by the local residents, which means that they can be very busy locations. The result is a significant loss of privacy for those homeowners living nearby. This is a particularly significant concern for the residents of our quiet, sheltered neighbourhood, as we all left urban subdivisions to enjoy the peace, quiet, and tranquility of living in a rural neighbourhood. o Constant Noise – Parks tend to add a significant amount of noise to their immediate vicinity. Whether it is late night parties with music and swearing, ATVs and dirt bikes, or just large groups of people congregating for fun and parties, people simply tend to not worry about noise levels at the park as they do when they are in their own backyard. This is a significant concern for the residents of our quiet neighbourhood, as we all left urban subdivisions to enjoy the peace, quiet, and tranquility of living in a rural neighbourhood. o Increased Traffic on Local Street – The new subdivision will significantly increase traffic along Jones Avenue, as it will now become a through street. Adding a park on Jones Avenue, right in the middle of the subdivision, will increase the traffic along this street further. This is of significant concern to the local residents as we purchased homes in a rural subdivision so that our children can feel safe to ride bikes and walk to friends’ homes. The increased traffic in the subdivision is already a concern, and adding a park into the middle of the subdivision will make the traffic worse. This subdivision was only built for local traffic, as there are no sidewalks and no curbs. o Parking Issues – Given that the proposed park will be almost 3 acres, there is also the concern that it will become a practice area for local soccer and other ball teams, and that this will create problems in the neighbourhood. With two children in soccer, I am very aware that open space for teams to practice on is limited, and that teams look to all parks with available green space to practice at. While the proposed park is big enough to attract local teams, the location is entirely unsuitable for accommodating the parking needs of large groups of people if the park were used for such purposes. Jones Avenue is a narrow road, such that if cars are parked on both sides there will barely be enough room for one car to squeeze through at a time. Rose Avenue is a very small and narrow street, and so will not accommodate parking either. In addition, the neighbourhood does not have curbs or sidewalks so we will have to deal with people parking on our lawns and leaving them a muddy, rutted mess. We left the May 3rd PIC very worried that our concerns may be downplayed since the Parks Engineer at the PIC downplayed the concerns outlined above, explaining that the town has these issues at all parks, and it is really up to the local residents to clamp down on this activity so it doesn’t become a problem. This certainly did not alleviate our concerns. The Parks Engineer also 5 indicated that he felt that the issues outlined above would be minimal at such a rural location, but we beg to disagree. Instead, we believe that these issues are likely to be particularly acute for this park location for the following reasons: 1. Given that this park is a rural park, we believe that this park location will be very attractive for people looking to partake in the activities outlined above because it is on a secluded rural side street. As you are aware, all of the activities outlined above are either illegal or are considered a public nuisance and so the police will crack down on any of these activities if they are aware of them. As a result, people typically look for an out-of-the-way location that is not frequently patrolled by the police when conducting these activities. This park location is the perfect location for those looking to get “up to no good” since it is in an out-of-the way location that is rarely patrolled by police, while being easily accessible. 2. Newtonville has the same issues with late night activities, illegal activities, etc as any town, so the park will be convenient for locals to use for this purpose. So to say that these issues will be minimal because the park is in a rural location is simply not accurate. 3. Newtonville is also in very close proximity to larger towns such as Newcastle and Port Hope, such that the park is only a 5-10 minute drive away from two fairly large towns. The town planning department indicated at the May 3rd PIC that they had believed that a park would only be a positive to the neighbouring homeowners. We recognize that parks are viewed as a positive for homeowners in urban subdivisions, since children need a large space to play sports and other games. However, these are not a plus for rural homeowners since our children already have all of the space they need to play right in their own backyard. All homeowners in Newtonville have acreage ranging from a minimum of ½ acre to several acres, with most homeowners tending towards 1 or 2 cares [minimum local lot size is ½ acre since homes are serviced by septic tanks.] If you were to drive through our neighbourhood you would see that all of the family homes are already well set up for children to play, with soccer nets, play structures, basketball courts, trampolines, and swimming pools. Children have plenty of space to do anything they wish right in their own backyard, and so the neighbouring homeowners perceive no benefit in having a local park. In fact, the plan for our subdivision, Veltri Estates, did not include any park land, and we were all happy to purchase our homes with the full knowledge that there would be no park. Given that parks have both negative and positive attributes, and in fact there is little benefit to residents of rural communities, it is clear that many people would choose to not reside next to a park. It is true that many urban homeowners choose to purchase a home in close proximity to a park; however it is also true that homeowners everywhere avoid purchasing homes in close proximity to a park. This is why the local residents are upset; there are people on Old Jones Avenue who purchased their homes with the knowledge that they would back onto a park, and they are now upset that instead of park they will now have extremely large homes behind them. However, most of the local residents moved to Newtonville to escape the noise and lack of privacy found in urban subdivisions, and so do not want to have a park in close proximity to our homes. Personally, we do not want to live across the street from a park, and so also want the park to be located where it was previously planned. Alternatively, we would be fine if the park were totally removed from the plan. 6 Moving the Park is Not a “Minor” Change to the Local Residents A home purchase is a very big decision. We took our home purchase decision very seriously, visiting the Veltri subdivision for four years before moving forward with the decision to build a home with Veltri in late 2011. Veltri still had 24 lots available at this time, and we chose our lot carefully. Given that our lot was adjacent to the land now owned by Fourteen Estates, we visited the town planning department before moving forward with finalizing our lot selection. A number of the local residents did the same thing when purchasing their homes. When we visited the town planning department, a town planner showed us the 1992 plan and assured us that if there were any changes to the plan (even minor as he assured us) that the town would consult with local residents and would notify the residents. In 2013, a neighbor who works for Durham Region told us that he had learned through his work that there was going to be a park located across the street from our house. We visited the town planning again and were assured that the 1992 plan was still in effect, and the planner assured us that he was not aware of any pending plans to change the plan. We left our name with planner and asked to be notified if there were any proposed changes to the plan. Again, we were assured by the planner that if there were any changes to the plan (even minor as he assured us) that local residents would be consulted. However, we were never notified of the change in the plan. Instead, in January 2016 we found out that the plan had changed when a neighbor told us that Fourteen Estates was going to develop the property and we found plans for the new development in the corporate brochure posted on Fourteen Estates website. We immediately contacted the town planning department, and our concerns regarding the amendments to the 1992 plan were ignored for four months. We believe that this was likely because the planning department felt it was too late to address our concerns, but this is inappropriate given that we were not given the chance to address our concerns when the plan was amended. The May 3, 2016 PIC ultimately happened because Wendy Partner and Willy Woo were kind enough to arrange it when we explained our concerns to them, after having been ignored for four months by the planning department. The location of the park in fact matters very much to the local residents. We’ve all made our home purchasing decisions with the previous plan in mind; those who wanted to back onto a park bought homes next to the previous park location and those who did not want to be near a park purchased homes away from the previous park location. So it is, in fact, a huge deal to the local residents that the town planning department has moved the park location. Given that the local residents do not want the park to be moved, the town should move it back to the previously approved location if there isn’t a clear benefit to local residents from the new park location. The planning department has indicated that the new location is more central to the local residents, but as we will explain further below the previous location is just as central (or more) to the hamlet than the new location is. Given that there is no clear advantage to the new location, we urge the town to do the right thing and move the park back to its’ previous location. Local residents relied upon the previously approved plans in making home purchasing decisions, and as such the town should not be changing the plan unless there is a clear benefit to the hamlet arising from the amendments. 7 The most frustrating aspect of the change in the plan is that it heavily impacts current residents, who are very unhappy with the new park location, instead of being built in the midst of the new Fourteen Estates subdivision. Fourteen Estates have indicated that they think the park will be a selling point, so it makes sense to build the park in the midst of their subdivision so that the new homebuyers will purchase knowing that they will be adjacent to a park and will be happy with this. Instead, the park is being moved so that it is right in the middle of the existing residential, surrounded by existing homes on old Jones Avenue, new Jones Avenue, and Rose Avenue. Given that existing homeowners are unhappy with the new plan, and Fourteen Estates is happy with the plans for a park, we request that the town seriously consider moving the park back to the previous location, which is in the midst of Fourteen Estates and backs onto some existing homes who were pleased with backing on to a park. Alternatively, the town could move the park elsewhere in the huge 56- acre parcel being developed by Fourteen Estates such that it doesn’t impact existing residential so substantially. Another option could be to remove the park completely from the plan, and include parks in some of the other developments that are being planned for Newtonville. Previous Location Will Reduce Negative Consequences to the Local Residents As explained above, there are a number of serious, negative consequences to adding a park to a neighbourhood. While we do not feel that a park is needed in the subdivision at all, given that the residents use their backyards as a park, we were not as concerned with the impact of the previous park location on our quiet, safe, rural subdivision as the old park location was on the outskirts of the subdivision. As a result of the old park location being on the outskirts of the subdivision, the subdivision would be significantly less impacted by the negative consequences of the park, including noise, illegal activities, late night parties, etc. Our concern with the new park location is that it moves the park so that it is right in the middle of the subdivision, and so we will be significantly impacted by the negative consequences of the park being added to the subdivision. Given that the old park location was just as convenient to the local residents as the new park location, we request that the town move the park back to the previously planned location so that it will have less of a negative impact on the neighbourhood. The old park location was ideal because it provided a centrally located park to the hamlet, which was not as close to Ida Brown Parkette, while not bringing the negative effects of a park into our quiet, rural, safe subdivision. Previous Location is More Central to the Rest of the Hamlet The town planning department explained at the May 3rd PIC that they decided to change the location of the park because the park would no longer be adjacent to a school, and they felt that the new location would be more central to the hamlet. We respectfully disagree with the assertion that the new location is more central to the hamlet, and given that the new location is no clear winner over the old location we respectfully ask the town to hold to the previously approved plan that has been relied upon by all of the local homeowners. 8 The town planning department’s assertion that the park will be more central to the hamlet simply does not hold water. Instead, the only residents who may possibly benefit from being closer to the new park location are the 12 homes located on Paynes Crescent, and these homes are already a short 2-5 minute walk away from Ida Brown Parkette and so are already serviced by this existing park. In fact the Paynes Crescent homes may not even benefit from the new park location; they will only benefit if the town builds a path from the park to Paynes Crescent and the town has not determined if they will be allowed to use the existing right-of-way to build this path. We have expressed serious safety concerns with building this path (explained further below), and the town planning department responded to say that they are not sure if the path can even be built. If this path is not built, then the new park location will be no less convenient to the homes on Paynes Crescent than the old park location. If the path is built then it will create a significant safety concern for children using the path. Given that there are only 12 homes who may benefit from the new park location, and these homes are already a 2-5 minute walk to Ida Brown Parkette, this does not seem a good reason for the new park location. While the new park location may possibly be more central to the 12 homes on Paynes Crescent, it will not be any more convenient to the remaining homes in the neighbourhood. In fact, the new park is only 400 feet away from the old park. For those living on new Jones Avenue and Rose Avenue, the park will be marginally closer but being only 400 feet closer this is a marginal improvement; maybe a 2 minute walk. For those living on Charles Tilley Avenue and old Jones Avenue, the old park location was actually more convenient as it was closer to them. Given that the old park is more convenient for half of the subdivision (those living on Charles Tilley Avenue and old Jones Avenue), and is only 2 minute walk farther for the remainder of the subdivision (those living on new Jones Avenue and Rose Avenue), we respectfully disagree with the planning department’s conclusion that the new park location is more central to the subdivision. In fact, the previous location was more central to a larger portion of the hamlet and therefore was able to service more of the hamlet than the new park location. The previous park location had an access point from Newtonville Road and an access point on Charles Tilley Crescent, thereby servicing the rest of Newtonville (from Newtonville Road) and servicing Fourteen Estates and the Veltri homes (from Charles Tilley Crescent). The previous park location was much more accessible to the 20 homes located on south Newtonville Road and the south side of Highway 2. The previous park location was also more centrally located to the 48 homes on Charles Tilley Cresc and the proposed future subdivision that is South of the Fourteen Estates subdivision. The town already has sidewalks and low speed limits (50 KM/hr) along Newtonville Road and Highway 2 so that residents can safely access the downtown area and children can safely walk along the sidewalks that were put in place to provide access to the old school. As a result, families can safely travel along these roads to access the park on Newtonville Road. In addition, the new park location is closes to the hamlet’s other park, Ida Brown Parkette, than the old park and therefore creates overlap with Ida Brown Parkette. Residents on the East side of the four corners in Newtonville and on Paynes Crescent already benefit from living close to Ida Brown 9 Parkette, so it does not make sense to move the park so that it closer to Ida Brown Parkette. The new park is less than 1000 feet from Ida Brown Parkette, and if the path is created from the new park to Paynes Crescent then the parks will only be a 2 minute walk away from each other. We also have significant concerns with the proposed pathway from the new park to Paynes Crescent. The town planning department has indicated that it is not yet certain whether this path will be approved or not. If the path is approved, then the town must address safety concerns associated with this path to ensure that children are not hit by vehicles travelling along Paynes Crescent. It is likely that children from North of Paynes Crescent will use this path to access the park, but this portion of Paynes Crescent is in fact an extremely dangerous access point for children. Paynes Crescent is not an appropriate entry point to the park. Paynes Crescent does not have sidewalks, and is an old, beat-up, very narrow road, with the entry point from Highway 2 being a very steep hill that is lined by trees and has a blind 90-degree corner at the bottom. It is very dangerous for kids to walk or ride their bikes down this hill as it is very steep, ends in a 90-degree corner, and cars approach the corner blindly from the opposite direction. In order to make this safe, the town will need to remove the trees at this corner and install sidewalks, so that it is safe for children to use; otherwise it is highly concerning that children will be hit by vehicles coming around the corner. In contrast, the old park location was accessible from Newtonville which is comparatively much safer, with wide sidewalks that were previously used for children to walk to the school that is adjacent to the old park location. The Paynes Crescent access point to the new park location is not a safe entry point, whereas the Newtonville Road access point to the old park location is a safe access point. We Ask the Town to Do the Right Thing for Local Residents The town planning department expressed their concerns at the May 3rd PIC that the park could not be moved back to the previously approved location because the 2014 revisions to the 1992 plan have now been approved, such that the builder can appeal any changes to the existing plan. However, given the numerous concerns raised by the local residents it is clear that the planning department should have held public consultations to share the revisions with the public and understand any concerns they might have with the revisions. We are asking that the town do the right for the local residents and take action on our concerns. At the end of the May 3rd PIC, Willy Woo suggested that it may be possible to revise the plan if the town were to work with the builder on any changes to ensure that the builder is on board and so will not appeal. There was a representative of Fourteen Estates at the PIC, and she indicated that Fourteen Estates was indifferent between the two park locations, so it seems quite likely that the town can address our concerns if they work directly with the builder. We were very disappointed that the planning department felt that potential objections from Fourteen Estates were a valid reason for not addressing our concerns. The town should do the right thing for the local residents. We did the right thing in consulting with the planning department, and were misled to believe that we would be notified and a consultation would take place if any changes 10 (even minor) occurred to the plan. In reading the Planning Act, it is clear why the two planners believed that we would be consulted on any changes as public consultations are core to the Planning Act and are referred to throughout the Act. We notified the town planning department over four months ago, as soon as we learned about the revisions to the plan, to explain our concerns and the town planning department ignored these concerns until Wendy Partner and Willy Woo became involved. We now understand that our concerns were ignored because the planning department likely felt it was too late to address them. However, if we work with the builder it is not too late. We hope that this delay has not caused this issue to have come to the point where it cannot be resolved. We respectfully state that the town planning department has dropped the ball on this one, and the planning department and the town should have the accountability to address the issues arising from this lapse in judgement. Residents should be able to rely on existing plans when making home purchase decisions, and they should be able to trust that existing plans will not be amended without good reason and without public consultation. As explained above, the town planning department has not provided a strong reason that is clearly in the public interest for moving the park, and we believe it is more in the public interest to retain the park in the previously approved location. We understand that the town planning department took a fresh look at the park location because co-use with the Newtonville Public School was no longer available. While we understand the need to take a fresh look at the park location, we respectfully disagree that the new park location is better than the previous location, so it makes sense to abide by the original plan. Given all of this, we request that the town move the park back to its previously approved location. It became clear to the local residents at the May 3rd PIC that the town planning department is very resistant to the idea of moving the park back to its previously approved location because this will not be easy. However, this difficulty could have been easily avoided if the planning department had held a consultation with local residents as they had promised us that they would. The planning department incorrectly assumed that this was a minor change and that the local residents need not be consulted. We ask that the town to fix this lapse in the planning process and do the right thing by the local residents and make every effort to move the park back to the previously approved location Conclusion In conclusion, we believe that the old park location was clearly a better location for serving the public interests than the new location for the following reasons: Parks bring a number of negative consequences to the local area. The old park location was on the outskirts of the subdivision and so would not have brought these negative consequences into our quiet, safe, rural subdivision. Instead, the old park location isolated these negative consequences to the outskirts of the subdivision. The old park location was also less likely to attract people looking for a place to get “up to no good” since it opens on Newtonville Road, and so is less hidden away. 11 The new park location is much closer to Newtonville’s only other park, Ida Brown Parkette, and so largely serves the same group of residents. The old park location is in fact accessible to a larger group of residents since it had access points onto Charles Tilley Avenue (serving Veltri Estates and Fourteen Estates) and Newtonville Road (serving those living in the hamlet outside of these subdivisions). The new park location will increase the risk of children being hit by cars if there is an access point onto Paynes Crescent as planned. The old park location had safe access points, given the wide sidewalks on Newtonville Road that were in place to service the old school. It is in the public interest for residents to be able to rely on existing plans and that they will not be changed without good reason. The local residents relied on the original 1992 plan when making their home purchasing decisions, and the plan to move the park to a new location has a major impact on these residents. Those with properties backing onto the previous park location had purchased their homes with the hopes of backing onto a park, and the remaining residents moved to the area to escape the urban problems of living close to a park and are unhappy that one is now being added right in the middle of our subdivision. It was clear at the public consultation that the majority of the local residents do not want the park to be moved. Since so many local residents are unhappy with the new park location, it is in the best public interest to move the park back to the previously approved location which is a better location to serve the local community. We ask the town to move quickly in taking action on this, as the builder is progressing with his plans and will be less willing to make changes the further he moves along. He has already cleared the roadways and pathways to the lots and is completing soil testing at this time, and so is becoming more and more invested in the amended plan as time passes. The town planning department has ignored this issue since January, and we are concerned that any further delay will make it impossible to get the builder onside with addressing the residents’ concerns. Please do not delay with addressing this issue any further. Sincerely, Patricia & George Likogiannis