REPORT - The Township of Uxbridge
REPORT - The Township of Uxbridge REPORT - The Township of Uxbridge
Appendix DPublic Submission ReviewSubmission Discussion Conclusionas possible at the rear ofproposed Lot. We will alsorequire a robustcompensation/restoration planand an edge management planfor the removal of the forestfeature (7-CUP3-3) as conditionsof approval. If the Township isamenable to this proposal, it canbe addressed as a condition ofdraft approval.”3.2 David Pilote and Charlene Summerfield, 14 Cyril Richardson Court-“The forest area and wetlandarea near the creeks supportmany wildlife... that help keepa balance in the ecosystem.”-“Setbacks are too small forthe backyards and the forestarea would be cut. This wouldreduce the buffer to run offinto the creeks (especially onthe south side) as the treesystems absorb the water andslows the flow.”The applicant submitted anEnvironmental Impact Study andan addendum. The LSRCA hasreviewed this information, ashave the Township engineeringconsultant. They are satisfiedwith the information providedand have not identified anyissues with respect to impacts onthe environment subject todetailed design and conditions aspart of the plan of condominium.No issues have been identifiedwith the natural environmentsubject to detailed design andconditions as part of the planof condominium.“The area is EP and should notbe changed from that.”3.3 Mason HomesConcerned that once setbacksfrom top of bank andfloodplain are applied thatthere is little developable landremaining. Also concernedabout location of stormwatermanagement facility withinthe floodplain which isprohibited under provincialThe lands proposed fordevelopment are primarily zoned“Rural” and are designated“Residential Area” in theOfficial Plan. The lands zoned“EP” will continue to be zoned“EP”. See 3.2Stormwater managementfacility is not located in thefloodplain.The lands zoned “EP” willcontinue to be zoned “EP”. See 3.2Stormwater managementfacility is not located inthe floodplain.D-3
Appendix DPublic Submission ReviewSubmission Discussion Conclusionlegislation.4.Fill4.1 Nicole Banich, 56 Apple Tree Cres.“The “developer” talked ofbringing in a “few” truckloadsof fill to improve the grade to4% - if the grade is about 42%now, how can they do it with“only” a fewtruckloads?....There will betruck after truck coming intothis area... causing trafficchaos, dirt and noise.”The Township engineeringconsultant has indicated that aroad grade of 5% should beachieved. Detailed drawingswill be required at the draft planstage. The exact extent of the fillrequired cannot be determineduntil detailed drawings areavailable. The issue ofconstruction traffic can becontrolled by the Township tominimize impacts on theresidents.4.2 David Pilote and Charlene Summerfield, 14 Cyril Richardson Court“At the time of the town Drainage will be required to bemeeting... a question as to the dealt with on the lands which areamount of fill was not known. the subject of the developmentsome in the community application and not to impactcommented that it would need adjacent properties. Theto be a large amount to raise Township engineer is satisfiedthe houses above existing that there is sufficientgrade. This would further information with respect to fillimpact the drainage problems. and drainage to proceed with theIt would appear that the rezoning. Detailed drawings willdeveloper has not carefully be required at the draft planassessed all significant stage. The exact extent of the fillparameters of this proposal, required cannot be determinedand to hear that something as until detailed drawings aresignificant as this is not available. Drainage issues willknown makes one question also be reviewed in detail at thatwhether other important issues time.have not been propertyascertained.”That approval of aconstruction trafficmanagement plan be acondition of approval.Drainage will be required tobe dealt with on the landswhich are the subject of thedevelopment application andnot to impact adjacentproperties.4.3 Eileen and Chris Ethier, 12 Cyril Richardson Court“The following issues concernus and should be fully addressbefore or if this developmentis permitted...slope issue – how much slopeSee 4.1and 4.2 See 4.1and 4.2D-4
- Page 1 and 2: Development ServicesREPORTTO:FROM:M
- Page 3 and 4: esidents of the regional market are
- Page 5 and 6: The proposed development conforms t
- Page 7 and 8: small area between the EP Zone and
- Page 9 and 10: ANALYSIS:The subject lands are loca
- Page 11 and 12: detailed physical models of the com
- Page 13 and 14: Submitted by:______________________
- Page 15 and 16: Appendix ADurham Region Official Pl
- Page 17 and 18: Appendix ADurham Region Official Pl
- Page 19 and 20: Appendix BTownship of Uxbridge Offi
- Page 21 and 22: Appendix BTownship Official Plan Re
- Page 23 and 24: Appendix BTownship Official Plan Re
- Page 25 and 26: Appendix BTownship Official Plan Re
- Page 27 and 28: Appendix BTownship Official Plan Re
- Page 29: Appendix CTownship Engineering Cons
- Page 32 and 33: Page 2February 27, 20122.3 Grading
- Page 35: Page 5February 27, 2012If you shoul
- Page 44 and 45: Appendix DPublic Submission ReviewS
- Page 48 and 49: Appendix DPublic Submission ReviewS
- Page 50 and 51: Appendix DPublic Submission ReviewS
- Page 58 and 59: Appendix FRecommended Zoning By-law
- Page 60 and 61: 6, Part 3 Plan 40R-8507 in the Town
- Page 62 and 63: provide for improvements to the val
- Page 64: READ A FIRST, SECOND and THIRD time
Appendix DPublic Submission ReviewSubmission Discussion Conclusionas possible at the rear <strong>of</strong>proposed Lot. We will alsorequire a robustcompensation/restoration planand an edge management planfor the removal <strong>of</strong> the forestfeature (7-CUP3-3) as conditions<strong>of</strong> approval. If the <strong>Township</strong> isamenable to this proposal, it canbe addressed as a condition <strong>of</strong>draft approval.”3.2 David Pilote and Charlene Summerfield, 14 Cyril Richardson Court-“<strong>The</strong> forest area and wetlandarea near the creeks supportmany wildlife... that help keepa balance in the ecosystem.”-“Setbacks are too small forthe backyards and the forestarea would be cut. This wouldreduce the buffer to run <strong>of</strong>finto the creeks (especially onthe south side) as the treesystems absorb the water andslows the flow.”<strong>The</strong> applicant submitted anEnvironmental Impact Study andan addendum. <strong>The</strong> LSRCA hasreviewed this information, ashave the <strong>Township</strong> engineeringconsultant. <strong>The</strong>y are satisfiedwith the information providedand have not identified anyissues with respect to impacts onthe environment subject todetailed design and conditions aspart <strong>of</strong> the plan <strong>of</strong> condominium.No issues have been identifiedwith the natural environmentsubject to detailed design andconditions as part <strong>of</strong> the plan<strong>of</strong> condominium.“<strong>The</strong> area is EP and should notbe changed from that.”3.3 Mason HomesConcerned that once setbacksfrom top <strong>of</strong> bank andfloodplain are applied thatthere is little developable landremaining. Also concernedabout location <strong>of</strong> stormwatermanagement facility withinthe floodplain which isprohibited under provincial<strong>The</strong> lands proposed fordevelopment are primarily zoned“Rural” and are designated“Residential Area” in theOfficial Plan. <strong>The</strong> lands zoned“EP” will continue to be zoned“EP”. See 3.2Stormwater managementfacility is not located in thefloodplain.<strong>The</strong> lands zoned “EP” willcontinue to be zoned “EP”. See 3.2Stormwater managementfacility is not located inthe floodplain.D-3
Change language