THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ENDERBY

 

 

Present:   Acting Mayor Beryl Ludwig

              Councillor Sue Brookes

                  Councillor Hubert van Berkel

                  Councillor Tony Vetter

                  Councillor Dee Wejr

 

   Administrator Maggie Knox

                  Planner Rob Smailes, NORD

                  Public Works Superintendent, Alf Soros

                  Recording Secretary Bettyann Kennedy

 

Councillor Ludwig read the rules of procedure for the evening’s public hearing.

 

Councillor Ludwig introduced the following bylaw:

 

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 1361, 2005

Lot 2, Section 27, TWP 18, Range 9 West of the 6^th Meridian, KDYD, Plan KAP46537 – 222 Salmon Arm Drive

From Country Residential (C.R) Zone to Residential Single Family (R.1.A) Zone

Applicants:    James Macknee and Leonard Theriault

 

The Planner provided an overview of the application and demonstrated on the OCP map the affected area.

 

Members of the public were invited to make presentations to Council:

 

James Macknee, applicant – 114 Timberlane Road

Mr. Macknee stated that he and his business partner purchased this particular piece of land to develop a 14 lot subdivision. Mr. Macknee stated that there is no intention to eliminate the tot-lot on Preston Crescent. The tot-lot will enhance the new development. Access to the subdivision is planned to be from the road allowance at the top of Preston Crescent.

 

The Administrator read aloud written submissions from the following:

 

• Robert Galloway and Margaret Galloway of PO Box 53, Dugald, Manitoba, owners of Lot #1, 99 Gunter Ellison Road, dated March 20, 2005;
• Anita Tokairin of 37 Preston Crescent, dated March 20, 2005.

 

Kim Clifford, 33 Preston Crescent

Ms. Clifford spoke on behalf of all but 4 residents of Preston Crescent. A copy of her presentation and signed petition was presented to Council. Preston Crescent residents are opposed to the proposed re-zoning if road access is permitted from any entry point off Preston Crescent. The following concerns were also expressed:

• Safety – no sidewalks on Preston Crescent and additional vehicular traffic entering and exiting from Preston Crescent.
• Traffic noise which will effect current quality of living in neighbourhood.
• Lot size – smaller proposed lots will not be as aesthetically pleasing and will reduce property values.
• Loss of green space – possible access via tot-lot which is maintained by residents.
• Future development – future development of lot 1 with access from Preston Crescent would magnify all these concerns.

Ms. Clifford stated alternate access possibilities including Salmon Arm Drive, Gunter Ellison, straightening proposed road change, or installing traffic lights.

Maurice Hesketh, 108 West Enderby Road

Mr. Hesketh expressed concerns of the City outpacing infrastructure with new developments. He feels that this development and proposed developments on the Knoll will affect the capacity of the sewer and water plants and storm drainage systems. Seapage from this site has made the land “spongy”. Water is presently running down the west side to inadequate drainage. With flow of water down the east side, where will the water go? West Enderby Road has a “Mickey-Mouse” system. Mr. Hesketh is worried that heavy snow and rain may result in basements getting water. Also expressed was a concern for the poor traffic infrastructure on the west side. He feels it is not adequate for large trucks transporting heavy loads. Pavement is deteriorating and these heavy trucks will ruin the streets.

 

Wilfred Fournier, 9 Preston Crescent stated the following:

• He had purchased his lot 15 years ago on the understanding that the road would only serve traffic in the Preston Crescent area;
• The road width is only 24’ and should be 36’ and questioned whether Preston Crescent is adequate to handle additional traffic.

 

Ed Rusenstrom, 57 Preston Crescent

Concern about the creek and access for cleaning the ditch was expressed. Lot 18 has a proposed roadway. Is that still the plan?

 

Jonathan Turpin, 223 Salmon Arm Drive

Mr. Turpin commented that the public has not seen any subdivision plans. He is in favour of the re-zoning

as it forms part of the Official Community Plan and more lots are needed. He likes the idea of sticking to the Plan. He asked that Council consider the OCP greenways systems. One of the proposed future greenways cuts along the Knoll and down Gunter Ellison and is very long. If the re-zoning is approved and the subdivision is being dealt with, he suggests that the greenway go along the landscape buffer thereby starting the greenway network for the OCP.

 

Barry Fawcett, 10 Preston Crescent stated the following:

• He has resided on Preston Crescent longer than anyone else;
• Concerns re people walking, children on skateboards, snowboards;
• Need to ensure safety of children and elderly – can’t do that if traffic is doubled or tripled;
• A young girl was almost killed on the corner – guaranteed that someone will get killed if traffic increases.

 

James Macknee, applicant – 114 Timberlane Road

Mr. Macknee acknowledged that all expressed concerns are valid. He agrees with the safety issues surrounding increased traffic. The reason they have opted for access at the top of Preston Crescent is because of the OCP major road designation. It is not feasible to have access off a major roadway as it would be too dangerous. The tot-lot is not an issue. They have been advised that access to the drainage ditch must be provided. They have no problem complying with any of the conditions presented.

 

Wilfred Fournier, 9 Preston Crescent

Mr. Fournier stated that there is not 300 feet of clear vision from Salmon Arm Drive to Gunter Ellison. Vehicles coming at high speed from Gunter Ellison cannot be seen. He feels that this roadway needs to be altered to improve vision.

 

The Administrator clarified to those present that the purpose of the Public Hearing is to consider zoning only and that subdivision servicing, which includes access, is dealt with during subdivision application.

 

There were no further speakers.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

The Public Hearing adjourned at 7:45 p.m.

 

 

 

______________________ _____________________

MAYOR                                                                               ADMINISTRATOR