<< New text box >>

An update regarding traffic issues through the southwest portion of our village (Hwy 10, Troiless, Travelled Rd and Charleston)

We thank Councillors Ian Sinclair and Lynn Kiernan for bringing this forward to the Town of Caledon.

Information is in chronological order

April 28th 2021

Hello Councillor Kiernan and Councillor Sinclair,

 

Thanks for your email and for bringing this to our attention. Staff have holistically investigated the traffic situation in the area, and below are the mitigation measures and next steps:

 

Findings:

 

  • Our traffic investigations have indicated this issue is mainly a matter of traffic infiltration and cut-through traffic;
  • This finding is consistent with residents' complaints as it usually occurs during an accident on Highway 10 as people using Travelled Lane and Troiless Street to take Charleston Side Road;

 

Immediate Actions:

 

  • Current "No Trucks" and "No Through Traffic" is not visible from Highway 10. A vehicle/truck notices the sign when they are already on Travelled Lane, and it is unlikely to make a U-Turn. The sign should be well visible from Highway 10.
  • Therefore, the sign will be relocated further east at Highway 10, closer to the intersection, and a larger "No Truck" sign will be used along with a message of "NO ACCESS to CHARLESTON SIDE ROAD from Troiless Street" and "LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY" sign will be installed. Using larger and more visible signs along with a new “No Access to Charleston SR” sign will further discourage trucks and cut-through traffic.   
  • MTO has been consulted and has no corners with the proposed signage plan;
  • The two (2) seasonal speed cushions will be reinstalled at Troiless Street, just south of James Street;
  • A new Speed Bollard will be installed on Travelled Lane, close to the intersection to visually narrow the road and in addition to signage, further discourage trucks and cut-through traffic; and
  • Larger and more visible signs along with "Local Traffic Only" sign will be installed at Charleston Side Road;
  • The figure below shows the overall implementation plan.

 

Next Steps after implementation:

 

  • It is expected that the signage plan and proposed traffic calming measures can improve the traffic condition and address the root of the issue;
  • We will also monitor the situation and complete the traffic review to assess the effectiveness of measures by collecting traffic data, including volume (for both vehicles and trucks) and speed, and
  • If the study indicates that the problem still exists, additional measures will be implemented depending on findings.      

 

 

Follow up May 17th 2021

Hello Councillor Kiernan and Councillor Sinclair,

 

Kindly be advised that the new traffic calming measures, including a centreline bollard and speed cushions, have been installed on Troiless Street and Travelled Lane as per the plan below.

 

New enhanced signages will be completed soon. As a next step, staff will monitor the situation and assess the effectiveness of measures by collecting traffic data, including volume and speed. If the study indicates that the problem still exists, additional measures will be implemented depending on findings.

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Thanks,      

 

ArashOlia, Ph.D., P.Eng.

Manager, Transportation Engineering

Engineering Services Department

 

 

Follow up June 1st 2021

Hello Councillor Kiernan and Councillor Sinclair,

 

I am happy to advise that as per the plan below and further to implement traffic calming measures on Troiless Street and Travelled Lane, including speed cushions and centreline bollard, the signages in the subdivision have been improved.

 

The message is now clear, stronger, and they are now well visible from Highway 10 to act as a deterrent to the truck and cut-through traffic. Please see below.

 

Staff will monitor the impacts of changes and will implement additional measures if they are still warranted.

 

If you have any questions, please let us know.

 

 

Caledon Village Association

Meeting with concerned residents.

Wednesday, May 19, 2021 –

Virtual Meeting on “Google Meets”

7-9 pm

Minutes of Meeting – Proposed Draft Plan of Condominium – 0 and 18314 Hurontario St.

Rezoning application to amend zoning of site from “residential” to “townhouse residential” to allow construction of 30 townhouse units.  File Nos. 21CEM-210001C and related File Nos. RZ 2021-0001 & SOA 2021-0001.

Present:

Name                                                                                                                                                    Address

1

Kate Hepworth (Chair)

Kevinwood

2

Lynn Kiernan

Area Councillor

3

Ian Sinclair

Regional Councillor

4

Dale Neilly & Christine Schubert (Recording Secretary)

Alanavale Rd.

5

Barney Beckett

Massari

6

Jackie Flynn

Kevinwood

7

Phil & Beth Staite

Hurontario

8

Kelly Pischzan

 

9

Julie Ann Pereira

 

10

Mark Florence

Oakdale

11

Yves Delisle

Hurontario

12

Bruce Savage

Autumn

13

Bruce Craggs

Troiless

14

Patty Halls

Travelled

15

Robert Payne

 

16

Pauline Petri

McCort

17

Shari Gouzvaris

Birch Haven

18

Thomas Ruth

 

19

Ron Chliszczyk

 

20

David and Michelle Windross

Troiless

21

Keri Valade

 

22

Gordon Whitelaw

 

23

Marianne Marcello

 

24

Pauline Petri

 

 

 

 

Topic                                                                                                                                                            ACTION REQ’D.

Identifying Main Issues of proposal, following neighbourhood presentation by TJ (Milani Group) on May 12, 2021:

  1. Accumulative nitrate building in groundwater and affecting neighbouring wells
  2. Extreme density of proposal and impact on surrounding area
  3. Drainage impact of site on surrounding area
  4. Traffic/parking
  5. Heritage

 

 

Councillor Kiernan reiterated that the proposal is “ambitious”.

She acknowledged that TJ (for the applicant) grossly misrepresented the intent of the Official Plan and the impact of the proposal on the area in his comments at the meeting of May 12th.  The Councillor suggested that the formal meeting for this proposal would not likely occur until the Fall of 2021.  It was her opinion that the TOC staff will identify the deficiencies of this proposal, resulting in a refusal of the application, forcing the applicant to resubmit a more reasonable proposal.  She clarified that the Official Plan allows for residential use of the land, however the proposal is too dense for the site, inappropriate, and out of keeping with the area. 

 

 

Christine Schubert highlighted the main points of her comments/concerns submitted to the Councillors, CVA and neighbours subsequent to the May 12th meeting:

  1. The applicant’s misrepresentation of application as meeting the intent and purpose of the Official Plan without acknowledging impact of proposal on area.  The idea that the studies accompanying the application suggest the proposal is “sound”.
  2. The need for independent and updated TOC studies to address issues of water management, traffic flow & congestion in area (among many others)
  3. The precedent-setting nature of this application and what it represents for future development in the area, should it be approved
  4. Upholding the identity (heritage) and integrity of Caledon Village (let’s not have the Village be the “guinea pig” for development that doesn’t work in the long run).  Can the applicant be made responsible to implement heritage guidelines?
  5. Recognition that the TOC doesn’t have the infrastructure in place to properly assess this and other development in the area.  Planning for this area should be dealt with as a whole vs. in a piece-meal fashion.  Can the TOC delay consideration of this and other applications until the new Official Plan and infrastructure are in place?
  6. What are our rights and what strategies should we use to move forward with our cause?
  7. What resident input is permitted in forming the guidelines of the new Official Plan?

 

 

Councillor Sinclair:

The Councillor reassured residents that the TOC has its own professionals to review the studies submitted by applicant and that they are not going to approve “bad planning”.  The applicant must meet the test of “good planning”.  It was his view the studies submitted were superficial and already expressed doubt surrounding the need to enhance the septic system.He was concerned that there are currently no quality controls in place for these studies.

 

A 2015 Intensification Study addressed development and densities for a larger area encompassing Inglewood, Caledon East and Bolton, but not Caledon Village specifically.

 

The MTO recognized increased traffic needs back in the late 1980’s, acknowledging that no further 400 series highways were likely and, instead, focused on public transit to support public needs.  The transit supportive studies largely addressed Toronto but Caledon does not have this transit infrastructure yet.

 

Pauline Petricommented that her professional experience in the construction industry offered no help in understanding the studies submitted by the applicant.

 

 

Can Current TOC Review Process beShut Down/Expedited?

 

Phil Staite

Given that the proposal doesn’t meet the existing Zoning By-laws, heasked whether the application could be “pre” assessed by TOC staff to fast-trackor alternatively endtheir review to avoid a lengthy process for residents.  How can area residents ensure the TOC is aware of the seriousness of their concerns, especially as staff have no personal experience with the challenges of the area?  What role can the Councillors take as our elected officials to protect our rights?

 

Councillor Kiernan explained that the TOC cannot deny submission of development applications.  She referenceda letter from TOC staff indicating there is a legal obligation for the TOC to accept applications under The Planning Act so long as the proposal is accompanied by studies that support good planning and public concerns are addressed.  The Councillor advised that she would send a copy to us.

 

Councillor Sinclairconfirmed that TOC staff must assess the studies accompanying the application, regardless of how outlandish the proposal.  The applicant has the right to request a rezoning application and the process of rezoning.

 

The Councillors advised that they have made TOC staff aware of the proposal’s unique implications of development on this area and that they would keep us informed.

 

Pauline Petri felt the applicant should provide more detailed plans given the unique character of the area and its current issues.  She felt the studies with the application should be based on peak capacities, not just compliance with the base Ontario Building Code requirements, for example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Kiernan to send copy of legal opinion (TOC staff Stephanie) to CVA/area residents for consideration.

Bruce Craggsreminded all that when Hwy 10 was widened, many assurances were offered to compensate any fallout from the construction, but in the end, no one was accountable for the impact to his property and the personal $20K cost he incurred to go on Town water.  He explained that residents cannot rely on anyone to look out for their best interests.  He urged everyone to ensure their rights are exercised and suggested that even if development of the site is approved, contingencies must be put in place to prevent the fallout he experienced.  He emphasized that we all need to learn from past experiences.

 

Bruce reviewed his research on the three septic companies referenced in the studies for the proposal.

  1. Waterloo Bio – no longer involved
  2. Newterra is the named accepted company, however there is concern whether the company is still in existence.
  3. Bio Filter (head engineer) agreed to talk to neighbours

 

Kate Hepworth commented that a 3rd party suggested the proposal could work but the ‘gray water” stats represented by the studies need clarification.

 

Bruce reiterated that the studies do not address the concerns of those that live here.  Flooding and dry spells impact residentsnow, notwithstanding this proposal.  Councillor Kiernan confirmed that there is chronic flooding in the area.

 

Barney Beckett noted that the development of the PetroCan gas stn and the Tim Horton’s at 10 & 24 were both theoretically plausible when they were in the planning stages but the area residents have since experienced the failure and impact of the underestimation of the real needs of these land uses and the impact on surrounding residents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bruce Craggs:  How soon can we arrange a meeting with Head Engineer of Biotech?Could this discussion happen on line as a neighbourhood meeting?

TRAFFIC/Parking

Dave Windrossnoted recent traffic calming measures taken on Troiless and Travelled Rd – 40Km signage on Travelled Rd and speed bumps on Troiless.  He felt the area wouldn’t be able to support the added traffic and parking congestion introduced by the proposal.

 

Mark Florence

He suggested a minimum of 60+ additional vehicles generated by the proposal will prompt problems with illegal parking at the Fairgrounds and library across the street and perhaps with the Tim Horton’s parking area as well.  He noted that Tim Horton’s already offers overflow parking to Knox Church on w/e’s.  He noted that illegal parking across the street will cause serious pedestrian safety issues on Hwy 10.

 

Kate expressed concern about bussing students to the local school(s), among the many other traffic flow concerns created by this proposal.

 

Traffic Updates:Councillor Sinclair will renew his staff request to implement traffic studies, specifically in this quadrant (Travelled, Troiless, James, Elizabeth Streets) – includes traffic counts, at peak periods, long w/e’s, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Sinclair to pursue request for area traffic studies. Should include peak times.

Opening of Brock St. Easement

Councillor Sinclair expressed concern about the logistics of opening the Brock St. easement between the affected houses on James St.  The easement is comprised of large rocks that would have to be removed and that process may domino into further drainage issues for the area. 

 

Kate asked about the statute of limitations for the easement (Brock St).  Long-term area residents do not recall when the easement was ever used for access purposes.  She asked if residents should pursue research of the easement as part of our case.

 

Councillor Sinclair offered examples of other easements in the area where no formal agreements exist.  Archival documents and the original Caledon Plan of the late 1800’s indicate that there was no need to formalize these arrangements in the past.

 

Councillor Kiernan explained that neither Elizabeth nor James St is sufficiently wide to address the traffic generated by opening the easement.

 

Marianne Marcello (adjacent neighbour on James) asked what recourse the adjacent neighbours have should their well & septic be impacted by the easement.  Are there any distance minimums required for development?   Councillor Sinclair strongly urged adjacent neighbours experiencing direct impact to send written submissions to the TOC. 

 

Patty Halls confirmed she had reached out to the owner of the Veterinarian business at Elizabeth & 24 but had not heard back.  Councillor Kiernan advised that the chiropractor on Elizabeth has been contacted and has concerns.  It is likely both parties share the concerns of parking congestion and traffic flow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contacts to send your letters:

To: Zoning <zoning@caledon.ca>; Planning <planning@caledon.ca>; Caledon VillageAssociation<caledonvillageassociation@gmail.com>; Laura Hall <laura.hall@caledon.ca>; Lynn Kiernan <Lynn.Kiernan@caledon.ca>; Ian Sinclair <Ian.Sinclair@caledon.ca> Subject: Zoning By-Law Amendment RZ2021-0001 and Draft Plan of Condominium Development 21CDM-21001C

Sending Notice of Proposal and Concerns to Area Residents thru the Post Office

Dale Neilly advised he spoke with Merle at the P.O. and confirmed that a flyer could be sent to Caledon Village residents serviced by the local P.O. for a fee of $50.  This flyer could develop awareness of the proposal to the area and should include main points, map of quadrant and proposed site plan.

Kate confirmed that this idea and expense would likely be approved by the Board.

Notice content to be drafted by Dale, Dave W., Kate, Mark on Friday, May 21/21 @ 1 pm Dale’s house (Alanavale Rd).  Once drafted, Notice to be reviewed by CVA/neighbours for feedback before issuance.

 

 

Dale, Mark, Kate, Dave Windross to draft Notice.

Once drafted, CVA/neighbours to review for feedback before issuance.

Kate to confirm Board approval for expense.

 

What development recommendations for this site?

Robert Payne, as a previous Heritage Board member, explained that residents should consider what type of development would be acceptable for the site.  We cannot simply deny any future development of the property; however, plans need to make sense for adjacent neighbours.

 

Bruce Craggs stated that the studies will reveal what development the subject and surrounding properties can genuinely withstand.

 

Mark Florence reiterated the pressure the area is under.  It is rumoured that a recently-sold modest home on a large lot across the street from him will be replaced by a monster home, or maybe multiple homes.  If this trend is allowed and continues, the entire character of the area will be permanently changed and should not be encouraged.  The very quiet nature of the area that attracted residents to this area is threatened by developers who are mainly concerned about maximizing dollars, not the needs of the neighbours.

 

Kate pointed out that the “Mistywood Development” was originally opposed by area residents as well.  There are many “monster homes” built in the area that have already challenged “The Village” character and residents need to take control of what development makes sense to uphold this unique character before its too late.

 

Councillor Sinclair explained that the pressure to build larger homes and duplexes in Inglewood and Caledon East, respectively, resulted in development that is out of character with those areas and adversely impacted sewage and drainage systems for existing residents.  The current infrastructure of this area was not designed for this level of development.  The TOC does not have the means to address all the issues raised by this type of development.  Completion of the Official Plan will take years to complete.  In the meantime, we are vulnerable to development applications that provoke development on a case-to-case basis.

 

In the absence of an updated Official Plan to work with and the infrastructure lacking to address current development pressures, Pauline Petri urged the Councillors to make Council aware of the larger issues raised by the application.  She asked if/how area residents could assist in changing/establishing new development by-laws and criteria?

 

Councillor Sinclair commented that the 2015 Intensification Study addressed development in the area, excluding Caledon Village specifically.  He suggested the Study be redone and resubmitted to include Caledon Village as part of the Official Plan Review.

 

 

 

Next Meeting (to be determined)

Meet as needed, predicated on any new info provided: by residents, by Councillors, the TOC, BioFilter or other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pictured above is Caledon Village surrounded by the Settlement Boundary

 

Do you know how many homes are in Caledon Village?

 

The population of Caledon Village is approximately 1750 in 490 units.

 

What would you say if the boundary was expanded?

 

Should it stay the same?

 

Thoughts?

 

Please send them to caledonvillageassociation@gmail.com

PLEASE, if you do not want your comments shared, please say so and your remarks will stay confidential, but we would like to know what you think.

 

 

 

Caledon Village Association

Meeting with concerned residents.

Wednesday, May 5, 2021 –

Virtual Meeting on “Google Meets”

7-9 pm

Minutes of Meeting – Proposed Draft Plan of Condominium – 0 and 18314 Hurontario St.

Rezoning application to amend zoning of site from “residential” to “townhouse residential” to allow construction of 30 townhouse units.  File Nos. 21CEM-210001C and related File Nos. RZ 2021-0001 & SOA 2021-0001.

Present:

Name                                                                                                                                                    Address

1

Kate Hepworth (Chair)

Kevinwood

2

Lynn Kiernan

Area Councillor

3

Ian Sinclair

Regional Councillor

4

Dale Neilly & Christine Schubert (Recording Secretary)

Alanavale Rd.

5

Barney Beckett

Massari

6

Corey Crang

James St.

7

Phil & Beth Staite

Hurontario

8

Aaron Grabowski

McCort

9

Shannon Brewster

 

10

Mark Florence

Oakdale

11

Yves Delisle

Hurontario

12

Bruce Savage

Autumn

13

Bruce Craggs

Troiless

14

Patty Halls

Travelled

15

Robert Payne

 

16

Pauline Petri

McCort

17

Shari Gouzvaris

Birch Haven

18

Thomas Ruth

 

19

Ron Chliszczyk

 

20

David and Michelle Windross

Troiless

21

Jackie Flynn

Kevinwood

22

Mari-Anne Tate

Village of Inglewood

23

Marianne Di Leo

 

24

Mara Kinnear

Oakdale

 

 

 

Notes in the order of the Agenda:

Topic

Agenda Item 1 –Welcome new participants

Kate welcomed any new participants to the CVA Meeting for this proposal, including Councillor Kiernan, who was previously unable to participate in discussions. 

 

 

Agenda Item 2-Review & approval of Minutes of Meeting April 28, 2021

Action:  Approved with one revision:  Robert Payne was not listed as present April 28th (Noted)

Agenda Item 3.a. –Research of Milani Group (possible owner/developer of site)

Kate referenced links she provided on her research of Milani Group.  Milani Group predominantly develops commercial/industrial projects but records indicate they were involved in a 31-townhouse development in 2016 that generated significant community opposition.

One of the links from 2018 described community outrage and shock at negotiationsbetween the developer& the City (Vaughan?) at that time that circumvented the OMB process and the community input and details of those negotiations were not made public.  Of course, this info generates concerns by the community that the subject proposal follow strict application/review policies and protocols by the TOC, LPAT, and any other governing body involved.

 

Bruce Craggs referenced several of the proposal links to studies that date back to 2008, 2010 and would no longer provide relevant information.

 

Councillor Kiernan confirmed that outdated material would not be readily accepted by TOC.  Instead, both generic and specific studies will be considered by Council.  She commented that the proposal is ambitious and TOC depts. are aware of the concerns raised by it.However, in spite of obvious concerns, the TOC cannot deny an application.

 

Councillor Sinclair confirmed that a similar rezoning application in the area required consultation with TOC Depts., the Region of Peel, the Niagara Escarpment Commission and more, in advance of any decision on development.  This proposal would be subjected to the same scrutiny.

 

 

 

 

 

Item 3.b. (and c.) – Rezoning and Appeal Process

Councillor Sinclair explained that the applicant is responsible to provide relevant studies in order for the application to be deemed “complete”. The studies are circulated to MOT, TOC, CVC, etc. and those agencies offer comments on whether the proposal meets standards.  Unfortunately, there is no quality control on the studies provided and those accompanying the current application are “skimpy”.  TOC will hire experts, if necessary, to provide peer review for these studies (at cost of applicant).

 

Regardless of Council’s decision, residents will want to be involved in the application process.  In order to appeal, the OMB (now LPAT) will want to see a consistent record of participation from residents throughout proposal process in the form of submissions/letters written by residents and/or CVA.  CVA can represent Village residents as a whole.  LPAT will want to address specific items of concern and how these affect development policies.As no formal meeting of the application has been scheduled, discussions about an appeal to LPAT are premature.

 

Residents were encouraged to write letters to TOC (via email, snail mail) to the TOC Clerk (Laura Hall) with cc’s to Councillors Kiernan and Sinclair. Please specify the name of the application and file numbers as stated at the top of the minutes.

 

In response to an enquiry, it was suggested by Councillor Sinclair that the rezoning/appeal process would take significant time, perhaps up to two years.

The public meeting would likely take place in July 2021.  TOC Depts. will then make comments to Council; residents will have opportunity for input, and applicant will have opportunity at that time to proceed/withdraw the application and/or appeal decision of Council.  If application is appealed to LPAT, there is already a significant backlog of applications to be heard, so proceeding with any development of the site is unlikely for the foreseeable future.

 

Participants are concerned that the timing of the application during Covid is “opportunistic” on the part of the applicant.

 

Councillor Kiernan commented that the site in question involved a previous application some time ago that would have required opening the right-of-way/easement.  That application was denied due to stormwater issues.  So, stormwater issues are not new to this site.

 

Barney Beckett advised that a large house built to the rear of the site and one to the north resulted in drainage issues.  The grade of the subject property will have to be raised to avoid drainage issues, but in so doing, will result in drainage to his property to the southeast which is at a lower grade.

 

David Windross confirmed preliminary stormwater reports on file that suggest water will be directed to the southeast of the site.While the reports on file appear fully contemplated, the end result is all water will be directed towards the Cragg’s property to the southeast.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lynn.kiernan@caledon.ca

Ian.sinclair@caledon.ca

Laura.hall@caledon.ca

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Kiernan:

What/when was this application? Can we get details?  The same argumentsfor refusal may be relevant for this proposal.

Item 3.d.-Land development regulations for Caledon Village where properties rely on private wells.

Councillor Sinclair advised that he has alerted the Public Works & Buildings Depts. of the private wells in the area and expressed concern about the impact of the proposal on these existing services.  There is a limit to sewage flow, that once exceeded, becomes subject to MOE approval.  It was his view MOE approval would be required in this instance.

A recent visit to a local gravel pit to the west of this site confirmed that water drains thrusoluble rocks such aslimestone, dolomite and gypsum, creating caves and water channels that destabilize the rock bed on these lands (KARST).  Councillor Sinclair was not aware of other KARST affects on septic in the area but cautioned that inadequate drainage/sewage management of the subject site would adversely affect wells in the area, resulting in the TOC having to “rectify” the situation.

In response to an enquiry, Councillor Sinclair confirmed that as a rule of thumb, there is a 100’ required distance between new septic beds and existing wells; however, that limit also depends on type of soils, gradient, etc. Ultimately, he felt the proposed septic plan would be inadequate.

 

It was noted that studies on file with the application appear to reflect desired outcomes of the applicant; the ones that best suit the needs of the applicant, not the reality of the current topography and location of the neighbourhood.

 

 

Item 3.e. – Cheese Factory Site – Heritage Designation

Corey discussed proposal with Sally Drummond (Heritage) of the Planning Dept. who conferred with Councillors Sinclair & Kiernan.  The Heritage Cmtehas not made public their comments on the proposal; instead,first consulting with internal TOC Depts. and the applicant about concerns.  Mentioned on the list of concerns by Heritage: the conservation of “the Creamery” and the attributes of the adjacent property; development in keeping with the Village character; the need for a Heritage Impact Study report; grading concerns, to name a few.  Details of these concerns to be provided once public.

 

 

 

Item 3.f. – Traffic stats/studies from MTO, Region, TOC

Kate referenced 2017 traffic stats that are now outdated.  Councillor Kiernan advised updated stats will come from MTO & Region of Peel.  Camera info will reflect current driver patterns.  It was her view that the collection of volume of traffic will not impress the MTO/Region, as the argument is that Hwys 10 & 24 were designed to deal with this increased traffic flow.

 

Phil Staite advised that efforts were made to reduce traffic on Troiless, Travelled Rd, Elizabeth & James Streets. The one-way designation of Troilessfrom Hwy 24 was intended to reduce traffic on these small residential streets and prevent drivers from by-passing the traffic at the intersection of Hwys 10 & 24.  It was noted that Travelled Rd., Troiless, James and Elizabeth Sts had a history of traffic incidents, in spite of efforts to redirect traffic flow.

 

The Councillors are working with TOC traffic specialists and MTO to address this situation.  They will be advocating process of traffic patterns as a direct link to the proposal.  Councillor Kiernan acknowledged that the veterinarian and other businesses in this quadrant will also be affected by the proposal. 

 

Beth Staite iterated that a traffic study is needed for Caledon Village, regardless of the current application but added that the traffic study MUST be independent and not generated by a consulting firm for the applicant (which would skew the results).

 

Councillor recommended that ArashOlia(TOC traffic specialist) will be brought into the meeting to address the traffic issues.

 

David Windross referenced recent traffic counts of the subject proposal area conducted months ago and asked if those stats were available to the residents.  Councillor Kiernan advised that studies for implementation of Community Safety Zones and traffic calming were prepared recently and she would share those results with CVA for distribution.

 

Residents agreed that stats from June 2020 traffic studies might not accurately reflect traffic flow during Covid.  It was recommended that traffic studies be prepared on long weekends to better assess current issues.

 

Councillor Sinclair supposed up to 40,000 cars per day use Hwy 10 on a long w/e, while the original rebuild capacity of this road was intended for 20,000 cars per day.  Another northbound route is needed over the escarpment, as truckers use this route for long hauls northbound.

 

 

 

 

ACTION:  TOC needs to conduct independent traffic study of subject area to assess current traffic issues and those generated by proposal (direct link).

 

ACTION:  Councillor Kiernan to provide traffic study stats(June, 2020 study) results to CVA for distribution to area residents.

 

Councillors to bring traffic specialist (ArashOlia) to meeting (on the 12th?)

 

Councillor Sinclair awaiting results of traffic counts on Travelled Rd. &Troiless.  Should be within week-10 days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 3.g.-Use of residents’ names/addresses in Minutes for public viewing

Kate advised that the petition containing residents’ signatures and addresses will be scanned and sent to the TOC.  Minutes of the CVA Meetings are posted on the CVA website for public viewing.  She asked if anyone had an issue with their identity being revealed in publicly-shared documentation, that they email her to remain anonymous on record.  She suggested that street addresses could be generalized to the street of residence only.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 4. – Prep for May 12th Residents Meeting

Aaron Grabowski raised a new issue of concern re: increased crime rates due to high density developments.  He referenced the Shelbourne area as having increased crime rates relating to high density development in that area. 

 

Mark Florence asked whether any crime stats were available to compare before/after high density development in Caledon East or South.  Councillor Sinclair was not aware of any stats of this nature.  Councillor Kiernan suggested that stats may not be available due to privacy issues.

 

Top areas of concern to be identified for the May 12th meeting were those first five items listed on Section 4 of the agenda. Effort should be made to avoid duplication in presentations.  Meeting is only one hour in duration, so oral submissions must be concise.

 

CVA to draft letter on behalf of residents.

 

Immediately affected neighbours to southwest should express their concerns (could be scripted for reading purposes)?

 

Meeting on May 12th is not a formal meeting but an opportunity for residents to learn more about the proposal and supporting info.

Letters from residents can be submitted for May 12th, regardless of whether all outstanding info has been determined (ie. traffic studies).

Submissions will stay on record with application throughout the process.  Revised (updated) letters can also be submitted after May 12th, in time for formal meeting under the Planning Act (potentially July, 2021).

 

At the request of the residents, Councillor Kiernan confirmed her request to have the meeting of May 12th, 2021 recorded for future review/use by CVA and the public.

 

Mark Florence urged residents talk to interested neighbours and to forward their emails to the CVA website so that information about the proposal can be shared with interested parties.

 

 

ACTIONS:

Combine areas of concern under larger headings:  ie. Density (affecting parking, access, traffic, noise pollution, etc.)

 

CVA to draft letter for May 12th meeting.

 

Minutes of Meeting of May 5, 2021 to be distributed asap.

 

Area residents free to submit letters to TOC for May 12th meeting, but can also submit post meeting for subsequent formal meeting (date TBD) to ensure their concerns are on record.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACTION: Councillor Kiernan requested recording of resident meeting of May 12, 2021.

 

 

 

NEXT MEETING of the Town of Caledon (Residents Meeting)

Wednesday, May 12th @ 7 pm

 

ACTION:  If you wish to participate, please ensure you confirm by phone or link-See Notice of Resident’s Meeting previously scanned and sent to you April 28, 2021.  Contact Kate for further info

 

 

 

 

Caledon Village Association meeting with concerned residents.

 

Wednesday, April 28, 2021 – Virtual Meeting on “Google Meets”

7-9 pm

Minutes of Meeting – Proposed Draft Plan of Condominium – 0 and 18314 Hurontario St.

Rezoning application to amend zoning of site from “residential” to “townhouse residential” to allow construction of 30 townhouse units.  File Nos. 21CEM-210001C and related File Nos. RZ 2021-0001 & SOA 2021-0001.

Present:

Name                                                                                                    Address

Kate Hepworth (Chair)

Kevinwood

Dale Neilly & Christine Schubert (Recording Secretary)

18 Alanavale

Richard Bertram

 

Corey Crang

 

Gordon Whitelaw

 

Andy Forrester

 

Kelly Pischzan

 

Ian Sinclair

Councillor

Mark Florence

 

Heather Dowell

31 James St.

Bruce Savage

 

Bruce Craggs

 

Jennifer Paschalis

 

Patty Halls

 

Knox Church Minister

 

Pauline Petri

 

Shannon Brewster

 

Shari Gouzvaris

 

Thomas Ruth

 

Ron Chliszczyk

183 Autumn Dr.

Mary Valade

 

Michelle Blanchard

 

David and Michelle Windross

 

Jackie Flynn

 

Betty Huider

 

Gord Whitelaw

 

Craig Simpson & Yvonne Parker

 

Robert and Donna Payne

 

 

Not Present on call but expressed interest:

Karen Wall

 

Marie Ann Tate

 

Barney Becket

 

Patrick Smith

 

Ricky Madden

 

Joanne Ledo

 

Aaron Grabowski

 

Lynn Kiernan

 

Harpreet Grewal

 

Marion & Ed Standish

 

Joyce Brocklebank

 

David Russell

 

Nelson Anast

 

 

Reviewed proposal for benefit of those not familiar or up to date on the proposal.

 

Topic

Possible Owner of Site (frequent mention of Milani in proposal implies they are likely owner/developer)

Milani Group

11333Dufferin St., Maple, ON L6A 1S5 Attn: Cam Milani

Milani has history of developing sensitive/challenged lands.  Not much known about them but they usually enter into agreements with landowners whereby they purchase land only if/when a proposal is approved by all required parties.

Milani Group appears to have ties with Premier Ford (Election funding) and deal with large developments in Vaughan & Oak Ridges Moraine areas.

 

 

 

Action:

Need to find out more about Milani Group. Anyone wishing to bring forward information on Milani at the next meeting, please feel free to do so.

Input from TOC (Town of Caledon) Depts?

Ian advised that plans have been filed and are currently under review (Development Review Application Team-“DART”) by various depts: CVC, Fire Dept, Public Works, Planning.  Site specific studies have been done and are under review.

 

 

 

 

Application Process/Meeting May 12/21

May 12/21 is a resident meeting when the applicant can present the proposal.  All available reports will be reviewed then.  TOC has own staff and specialists that work with CVC and use peer reviews to assess the proposal.  Consultants are hired when needed to fill in expertise.

Meeting will be virtual at 7-8 pm.  Planning staff present, presentation by applicant and open discussion for residents.

Meeting will only be 1 hr in duration.  Virtual meeting only.  Ian advises that residents can participate, ask questions/comment on proposal within time limits.

 

Ian advised that everyone needs to participate in meeting in order to have legal access to appeal application, if TOC approves it.  The meeting can be followed up by submission of letters by the residents.  Other depts will have opportunity to comment on proposal and another meeting will be held for residents to participate.

 

 

Question whether Aleah Clarke will be present. 

How can concerned residents be assured access to meeting if not specifically invited?

ACTION:  Copy of Meeting notice to be scanned and distributedby Kate to interested parties on this call and those unable to join tonight.

 

ACTION:

Ian to clarify process for us please.

Area of concern:

Access to Site/Easement

MTO reluctant to allow site access from Hwy 10 and, as a result, proposal involves access thru “Brock Rd”.

Heather Dowell (31 James) received notice of meeting but advised that no one from TOC or developer has been in touch to deal with creation of “Brock Rd” easement between 31 and 33?  While they were aware of easement when they purchased property, they never anticipated current land use and impact on their property.

Brock Rd. represents 30’ road allowance that is not wide enough for proposal.

 

 

 

Area of concern:

Water flow/water drainage

Ian Sinclair- water flows E-W direction and under Charleston Srd and down thru Caledon Village, onto Elizabeth St. and between the 2 new houses?

Corey advises that in spring it is obvious that water travels W on Troiless.

Corey advised that stormwater mgmt studies were supposed to be prepared in advance of the 2 new house builds.  What impact on proposal and surrounding properties?

Bruce Craggs notes that the 2 new houses on adjacent properties have been built on raised grades to deal with water issues, thereby forcing water overflow onto his own property (and potentially others) that are at lower grade.

There are no stormwater mgmt provisions on the site plan which implies water will drain onto private lands on Troiless and likely Travelled Rd.

Development is predicated on water management – Ian cannot imagine MTO would be in favour of current proposal.

 

Ian noted that properties in area have private wells – they are potable.  A study of the area needs to be made in order to ensure wells remain safe if septic/sewage/stormwater plans fail.  If not, then the proposal poses a threat of nitrate poisoning to area wells.

Tim Hortons location on Charleston Srd & Hwy 10 pumps their septic 2X/wk.  This implies the proposed site with greater density will have increased septic needs than the Tim Horton’s site.  Proposed systems aren’t appropriate for land size/location.

“Bladder Septic” planned for site requires replacement every 5 yrs.  Residents are concerned about how this septic system will be managed/replaced; whether design is suitable for proposal; potential for leachate over time to other neighbouring water sources/systems.

The current report on file is by company that is no longer in business. 

 

Ron referenced a development regulation of .75 acres/house when he purchased his home on Autumn Rd many years ago.  This rationale was based in part on the provision of sufficient space for septic systems.  It was questioned whether this regulation is still valid given that most of the properties in the area are still on private septic systems?  Ian advised that development has to meet the provisions of the Ontario Bldg Code and the MOE.   Septic flows dictate the available land area for development.  Ian suggested that the proposal for 30 townhouse units would require MOE approval.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACTION:

Question of what are existing regulations for land development in Caledon Village where properties are still on private septic systems.

Area of Concern:  Heritage Designation of “The Cheese Factory”

Cheese Factory has historical/heritage designation.  New proposal would involve houses on the heritage site – how is this possible? Are special provisions required for this portion of the site?  Is the Heritage Office aware of proposal?  Impact?  Comment on proposal?

 

Sally Drummond is Heritage Officer for TOC.  Corey says that he can start discussion with Faye McCrae (former Heritage contact).

 

 

 

 

ACTION:

Corey Crang to contact Faye McCrea re: heritage issue of Cheese factory and site proposal for input and comments by next meeting.

Area of Concern:  Parking and Traffic Congestion

Mark Florence, as a former resident in a townhouse complex, recounted issues with parking and traffic concerns resulting from high density land use.  Neighbours are concerned the subject proposal does not include sufficient (realistic) parking needs and will result in overflow of parking and traffic congestion to the neighbourhood.  Excess parking on adjacent sidestreets of Troiless, James, Elizabeth, Travelled Rd, will pose fire hazards, snow plowing challenges, problems with bussing of children, policing of parking/traffic, etc. to these already narrow roads.  It was noted that the roads are not only narrow, they have no sidewalks.  The TOC will ultimately have to widen these roads to accommodate added traffic flow.

Residents recounted traffic accidents (incidents) in area, noting there is already a serious problem on these streets and the Charleston/Hwy 10 vicinity that will be made worse by the proposal.

There were recent car count studies madein the area (Troiless, James, Travelled Rd) that were independently prepared on behalf of the site owners.  Corey spoke to the individuals prepping the info and noted they only covered stats for Sunday thru Thursday (not weekends when traffic was likely the heaviest). 

The most current traffic study accompanying the site proposal was prepped in 2016 (outdated and grossly understated by current traffic patterns and development of region).

We need a thorough traffic study of the area to determine current traffic issues before considering further density in the neighbourhood.

Ian advised that red light cameras are under consideration for the area.

Ian said he would talk to the TOC traffic engineer (Haresh) to see what info is available to us.

It was noted that increased development in the area would also increase traffic threat to neighbourhood Post Office on Hwy 10.  Entrance is too close to intersection at 10 & Charleston Srd, and already a problem to safely access.  What impact will 30 additional townhouses have on this existing problem?

30 additional townhouses will increase congestion on Charleston, and it is already difficult to get out of our development (Kevinwood) with current gravel trucks, Tim Hortons access and already increased traffic congestion.  Proposal will intensify existing problems.

The question was also raised about any plans of a bypass and how this development would impact that. Kate stated that during the Pit Rehab discussions a bypass was discussed, however those plans are far in the future (possibly 30yrs) pending the Official Plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACTION:

Not sure if anyone took on this search for info from OPP, MTO on traffic incidents/speeding, etc.

Ian clarified that MTO keeps records for provincial highways only.

 

 

ACTION: Ian to discuss with TOC traffic engineer to see what traffic stats/data is available to us.

Area of Concern:  Setting Precedent/ Out of keeping with development in the area.

No other development like this in Village.  Surrounding homes are single family and on larger lots with private septic systems.  Proposal veers significantly from this type of development and will place greater pressure on all amenities these properties currently enjoy, including increased noise, loss of privacy, loss of light, increased parking and traffic and a threat to their own water systems.

 

 

 

Area of Concern:  Property Management

The condominium owners would have to manage their own waste, snow removal, road access, etc.  TOC will not look after these private lands, based on other developments in the area that requested servicing.

Residents are concerned about increased noise and safety issues due to operation of garbage trucks, snow plows, etc. associated with the proposed 30 new townhouse units.

 

 

 

Proposed Playground

Not well planned.  Children would not be in full view based on current site plan location.

 

 

Actions Required

Area residents should send letters opposing rezoning application and expressing their concerns to:

Aleah Clarke (Planning, TOC)aclarke@mhbcplan.com

planning@caledon.ca

zoning@caledon.ca

 

Remember to “cc” Ian Sinclair on your email so he can keep track of what has been sent.   Ian.sinclair@caledon.ca

And Lynn Kiernan Lynn.kiernan@caledon.ca

 

It is important for area residents to formally voice their concerns about this proposal by email asap so TOC Depts are aware that there is opposition to the proposal.

Ian urged residents to attend the May 12th meeting.  Notice of Meeting for the May 12th meeting has info on how to participate.

 

Ensure residents of Travelled Rd. and south side of Troiless are notified of May 12th meeting and the info shared by Caledon Village Association.  These neighbours will be most affected by the proposal in terms of water drainage, sewage, etc. 

 

Kate encourages everyone, if you have the time to go to the Town of Caledon website https://www.caledon.ca/  go to the meetings portion and look for planning and development, you can watch older meetings to get a good idea of how applications are processed.

 

 

 

Email your concerns to:

aclarke@mhbcplan.com

planning@caledon.ca

zoning@caledon.ca

 

cc your comments to:

Ian.sinclair@caledon.ca

Lynn.kiernan@caledon.ca

 

Contact for participation in May 12th Resident Mtg:

Lynn.beaton@caledon.ca

 

 

 

 

Pauline Petri to contact Phil & Elizabeth Staite to update on development discussions.

NEXT MEETING

Wednesday, May 5th @ 7 pm

 

ACTION: 

  1. Minutes of this meeting to be distributed asap.
  2. Residents to email contacts at Town of Caledon (see previous emails) prior to next Caledon Village Association meeting.
  3. Residents to communicate info to all interested and affected parties in the neighbourhood to ensure awareness of proposal, petition signature and May 12th participation.Anyone wishing to sign the existing petition please contact Kate through  caledonvillageassociation@gmail.com

 

  •  

 

  •  

 

 

Caledon Village Association welcomes everyone to the conversation, for or against, bring your thoughts. We are not saying NO development, we are pointing out why this is not reasonable development.

 

 

 

 

 

CALEDON VILLAGE

RESIDENT

YOU’RE INVITED

 

Resident Meeting Regarding Townhouses
When Wed Apr 28, 2021 …..7pm – 9pm Eastern Time 

 

Meeting is being held online through Google Meets

Please email the Caledon Village Association to get added to the attendance list and the link to the meeting will be emailed back to you

caledonvillageassociation@gmail.com

Attn: Kate Hepworth

Opportunity to discuss opposition to the Townhouses as proposed.

Please bring your thoughts, lets prioritize a list and how to proceed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CVA working with residents and their concerns

 

 

April 15, 2021

 

Bullet form notes from virtual resident meeting of April 14th, 2021 regarding the proposed Townhouses.

 

  • There is no provision for drainage, leading to concerns of where water will go, concerns that drainage will head to the culvert at Troiless. It is noted that the creek runs to the Credit, the CVC (who only have commenting ability) will be contacted for their input.
  • Car trips. With 30 units being proposed with parking for 2 vehicles each, it is almost guaranteed that an extra 60 vehicles will be mobile within a small portion of the village, this does not take into consideration visitors to each home.
  • With extra vehicles comes the added issue of entering and exiting the proposed area. Should the easement be opened up it is still only one road in and same road out. In order to exit, go straight across Elizabeth to Charleston, an already congested intersection within meters complicated by the Tim Hortons entry/exit. Alternatively exit the area via Travelled Rd, the only safe option to do this is if you are heading south on Hwy 10, turning left to go north is not suggested. In order to return, there is the option of Troiless (one way entry) or Elizabeth, again, both roads very close to Hwy 10 of Charleston and the Tim Hortons entry/exit. Coming in off Hwy 10 southbound at Travelled is an option, however, turning left off Hwy 10 northbound should not even be a consideration due to safety. Overall, there is no safe way to add extra vehicles to the area.
  • Concern was raised regarding a pool to the rear of a residence of James St adjacent to the easement. The easement on its own is of specific concern to two homes on James St. Further discussion needs to be had with the planners as the opening of the easement with incur considerable issues for the home owners.
  • Given that all (except one) homes in the area are on wells, there is concern about how different levels of drainage will impact wells. All Caledon Village residents need to remember that not all of Caledon Village is on Regional water. 
  • The usual expectation of a family being parents and 2 children, given that those dynamics frequently change, can water supply and the proposed septic service be expected to perform at acceptable levels without creating difficulties for the existing residents?
  • While it is clear that two new houses have been built, there is a third lot in between that to this point hasn’t been touched.  CVA will inquire as to the status of the lot as there is concern that there is a drainage issue that could also be attached to drainage issues on the proposed townhouse site.
  • There are no existing sidewalks in the area and given the recent events of traffic trying to bypass a Hwy 10 closure there is considerable concern for residents both existing and potentially new.  Larger vehicles such as school buses, delivery trucks, garbage trucks, snow plows already have restrictive movement areas, added large vehicles is contrary to safety.
  • By having so many homes placed on lots this size sets a standard and there is concern that others in the area may wish to sell their land with the expectation of more townhouse type projects being built. The land currently with 4 lots on it north of Charleston comes to mind.
  • The Caledon Official Plan must be complete before the next election. Given the number of applications at the Town of Caledon there is concern that this project could get “pushed through”
  • More people need to know about this proposal. CVA is excited to hear residents reach out to help get the word out. CVA will build up their information resources including their website.
  • Many of us have papers delivered and they find a direct route to the recycling bin.  Could we suggest that you take a look at the papers first? Notifications have to be placed in the media regarding applications, notices and so forth. For those without internet, or social media, reading the paper is an asset.

 

 

It is important to recognize that while we have serious concerns about the development of 30 townhouses, we realize that something will be built, thoughts and ideas of what that could be are welcomed.

 

Stay tuned for updates via email, CVA website  caledonvillage.org and social media

 

As always we can be contacted at caledonvillageassociation@gmail.com

 

Many thanks from the CVA

 

 

 

 

___________________________________________________________________________

 

Protect the West Credit River - Sign the Petition
From Kyle Seeback


Dear Constituents,

 

The Town of Erin has been permitted to dump effluent into the West Credit River at one of the most ecologically sensitive areas of Canada. As many communities in the river's watershed include those within Dufferin-Caledon, environmental activists in Belfauntain initiated the petition which I am ready to present in Parliament. 

 

As a UNESCO World Biosphere, more consideration must be given to protect the West Credit River which is one of the last pristine cold-water fisheries in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, home to native brook trout, and providing enriched biodiversity for communities in the headwaters and downstream to Lake Ontario.

 

As we need as many signatures as possible, please sign this petition at https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-3194 to request a federal environmental impact assessment.

SIGN THE PETITION NOW
Please add your email to show your support of our efforts to stop treated sewage from being pumped into the West Credit River?
Your email...
Submit

Note: Adding your email here does not automatically add your signature to the e-petition. Please sign the petition at https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-3194

Follow Kyle on Social Media


Office: 229 Broadway, Unit 2, Orangeville, ON L9W 1K4
Phone: 519-941-1832