Addition to Item D) Concession Road Allowance Application No. RAC-2016- 0011-F (Salmon) of Correspondence from Joe Ruffo & K
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TOWNSHIP OF SEGUIN COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 17TH, 2016 @ THE TOWNSHIP OF SEGUIN COUNCIL CHAMBERS ADDENDUM 06. Shore/Concession Road Allowances: — Addition to item d) Concession Road Allowance Application No. RAC-2016- 0011-F (Salmon) of correspondence from Joe Ruffo & Kimberley McLean Ru ifo. 08. Staff Reports: — Addition to item b) Report No. CS-FC-2016-013 of correspondence from Brian Spiteri. 09. By-laws: — Addition to item a) Rezoning Application No. R-2016-0008-F (Martin) of correspondence from John Jackson, Planner Inc. 10. Business: — Addition of item f) Ontario Municipal Board Review — Town Hall Dates and Locations. 15. Closed Session: — Removed, information not received. Mr. Craig Jeffery Joe Ruffo Clerk 2783 Duncairn Drive The Corporation of the Township of Seguin Mississauga, ON S Humphrey Drive LSM 5C6 Seguin, Ontario P2A 2W8 Joe Ruffo/ Kimberley McLean Ruffo 327 Brooks Road and 11 Trillium Trail Parry Sound, ON Wednesday, October 12, 2016 (sent via email 1:30pm) Dear Craig: RE: RAC 2016-0011-F Please accept this letter as our written objection to RAC-2016-001i-F. To be more specific, we are opposed to Part 1 being conveyed to the township or any other party. We are not opposed to the stop-up and closure of Parts 2 and 3 (as designated on the Notice) as it does not appear that Parts 2 or 3 will have any effect to our enjoyment of our properties on Brooks Road or Trillium Trail. Our family is the owner of the adjacent property to the north (Lot 21 parts land 2). In addition, we own and enjoy year-round a cottage at 11 Trillium Trail (labelled Trillium Lane - one of the five properties directly west of the subject lands). Our and our neighbours would be in direct view of the proposed Part 1 shore road allowance (which would be iOOm from the Trillium Trail cottages this at narrow part of Qastler Lake). I have highlighted our respective properties in red on the attached drawing. We purchased the property abutting the area designated as Part ion the Public Notice less than three years ago (November of 2013). We purchased the property for the sole purpose of privacy for our family cottage on Trillium Trail (and the resulting privacy of our five (5) neighbours on Trillium Trail). It became a common occurrence for campers to trespass on or beside the area designated as Part ion the Notice (from a simple picnic to a full weekend campsite) in clear view of the five (5) cottages. Since purcha5ing the property north of Part 1, we and our neighbours no longer have this issue. And we would not wish the opportunity to return. It is our intention to leave the 2.5 acres on the north end of lot 21 as wooded/treed to enjoy the view across this narrow channel of Oastler Lake (which would be only i00m to the proposed new shore road allowance). Having a shore road ailowance abutting our property and directly in front of our cottage property would defeat the reason why we invested $250,000 in the adjacent property north of Dr. Salmons. To repeat, we are objecting to Part 1 being conveyed to the township or any other party. We are not opposed to the stop-up and closure of Parts 2 and 3. Sincerely, fl ‘,i ‘ Joe kullo k7 I / Kimberley McLean Ruffo - aJBJECr tAJIDS 1\ o 20 40 80 120 — (Dustier L. PART OF LOT 21, CONCI PART OF THE ORIGINAL IN FRONT THEREOF ANt. PART OF THE ORIGINAL PART 1 BETWEEN LOTS 20 AND PART OF THE ORIGINAL pr——i 9P1* IN FRONT ThEREOF GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP LU? LOT NOW IN THE TOWNSHIP C DISTRICT OF PARRY SQl ThLLOCH GEOMA11CS INC., jt’ SCALE 1:750 -5-- 1 -:‘ —--5---- XIRINq-NOlt: MO AQ Otfl’W FG’ t7OG4O’! •TE *A RO9t OI. ‘.;fl USrnC UN fin. C) ME771 S al •10 UkIkTtS tJlO.44 1W’ P 9, ‘tEl 9* IIM9S 99 7 WlC L9IEMaI HaIEII EMA riP: IAL?flVPNG er A tJJI3KO XA1 PATO9 çmxncc N01E P*L)dr en., as A jp.ApY;tfl.i - wnrs ma to •m—lIs7 MO - 1A•Q71 St in t ‘_\ , Will C P.9 139 599. nP SUP.- PPP5r5__!-5 *5959 3*5 Ps-c rUT--F RAC-2016-0011-F (SALMON) PltIuil *57999 CA9IUR L3*t II Property RoIl: 4903-030-007-00400 • OO*C’UP o 9O7t1 P;,:UflTPfl N71tI P.:c,- -.49 328 Brooks Road, Oaster Lake A. ii P nIP 2 9 LlpP.;I. pUns ‘P4) * 275 tlipPnlIP. -.1,5. $,rp’.%.Ic.t. P’S &200 5 ‘1 94* *Ap;(APP5P’-IPSPL I-• - 42R-20616 Parts 1, 2, and 3 45925 0 9 ,Øl*PhpsPi-. P0-F fl ‘iTp i--5Pl.t *0*1 t SPPUIITTII - We have reviewed report CS FC 2016 013. We can understand the efforts made by municipal staff to investigate to viability of the road allowance available for a potential public boat ramp, however, we respectfully request that an approach to determine a solution, rather than identify only the challenges, is really the objective that should be identified. At some point, a previous town council identified hold backs when the properties around Star Lake were to be made available for recreational properties. we can be certain that consideration was given to the I think subsequent tax base that could contribute to a treasury to serve all ratepayers. It should have been a consideration then, that people who buy lake front property are highly likely going to want to use that lake in a recreational manner. Unfortunately, the hold backs did not take into consideration that very important issue, unless they thought that one of the sites had the potential to be developed, if and when private solutions became unusable for whatever reason. From what we can see on the image of the actual road allowance, there is actually more room than we originally observed. There is a potential to lengthen the ramp, which means reducing the grade to an acceptable degree and, financial cost aside, to run the ramp along the eastern edge of the boundary would reduce the influence affecting the cottage directly to the west of the allowance. Our opinion is that perpendicular road access is not a requirement. We see a note associated with erosion challenges and we think it is good that the observation was made to allow proactive planning to ensure that past construction maintenance support costs are not prohibitive. We continue to pay taxes anyway, so we have the capacity, through our current tax assessments to ensure funding is not an issue, through budget planning as required. We have heard about the concern about recognition of a precedent and we would like to point out that potentially a different precedent is set by not identifying a solution. The petition signed by 110 residents on the lake, requesting that a solution to the challenge of a previously accepted access point (Star Lake Lodge) being denied. Currently Seguin Township has a $246,100 surplus from its 2016 budget. We applaud that sound fiscal management. The township is a non profit operation designed to support the needs of its community. We have a community that has collectively requested support from our elected town council to provide a solution. There is money in the treasury that afford5 the luxury of offsetting all concerns identified in CF FC 2016 013 without having an undue negative influence on one of our fellow cottages who, through due diligence, should have been aware of the road allowance site directly adjacent to their lot. That being said, positioning of the ramp, coupled with a proactive understanding of ensuring the safest, most effective solution, can be accomplished. Further to the concern regarding a challenging precedent being set; If, for any reason, the treasury does not have adequate funds, when establishing a budget, Council is well within its mandate to manage funds to vote no on subsequent applications. There is money now that can be used in a responsible way now, to support a community need. There is no benefit in delivering a surplus, unless Council intends to rebate back the 5urplus to ratepayers. It is understandable if an emergency fund is established to accrue against future needs, but, if you can manage a budget at below expected requirements, then taxes should be reduced accordingly. Planning against a surplus is not serving your constituency. Our position in response to the current report under consideration is if Council genuinely chooses to serve the needs of a specific community requirement, then next steps should be determined that will address the need, versus coming to a full stop when encountering an obstacle. Brian 70 Isabella Skeet #110, Par ac planner, inc. Unit Sound, Ontario P2A 1MG fl Tel: (705) 745-5667 Fax: (705) 746-1439 E-mail: jjplan©Cogeco.net October 14, 2016 Township of Seguin 5 Humphrey Drive Seguin, On P2A 2W8 Attention: Steve Stone Dear Mr. Stone: Re: Gord Martin I am puzzled by your position on the rezoning for Mr. Martin’s property on Badger’s Road. Your recommendation is to permit a second dwelling unit on this property. The application is for three dwelling units. This is puzzling because the Planning Act requires municipalities to permit a second dwelling unit on properties (section 16(3)) as a matter of right. Why would we apply for something that we are entitled to? You argue that the second dwelling unit being recommended is a little larger than allowed under the by-law. One would not file a rezoning for such a variance.