PAGE 4, WEDNESDAY, AUGYUST 11, 1976, WFITBY FREE PRESS w hitby", si Voice of the Cou nty Town îERVING OVER 28,000 READERS > Published every Wednesday (~i\by M.B.M. Put - and Photograp BurgssThe Froc Press B BugsPubIi.rher-Managing Editor. 11Wh treet Assistant Editor -- Blake Purdy' Community E ditor - Brion Winter Con tributing Editor - Jim Qu-.1 Production Manager- Marje B3urgess ~lsigDisplay Advertisîng Manager - blishingRobin Lyon )hy Ine. Classified Ad Manager Maln Brn Circulation Manager - Sharon Lyon Box 206, Whitby. Wilding North, MaIlinq Permit No. 2941 PIIOOQ 668-6111:; Toronto Line 282-1004 . We need downtown redevelopment It appears that a rule estab- lished by the Province- of Ontario's Ministry of Education is standing in the way. of a $3-million project which would give the downtown core of town a welcome shot in the arm. The developer of McLaughlin Square in Oshawa wants to purchase and demolish St. Bernards Separate Schooi to clear the path for a $3-million____________ development which would include apartment units, office space and commercial outiets, similar to but on a smaller scale than the project in Oshawa. However, a ministry rule, which says, in effect, that if a separate school is sold another can flot be buit in the area for 10 years unless A classrooms in the region are fihlled, is holding up the developer's plans. We would like to see the ministry relax this mile to allow the first of many steps in the long-needed redevelopment of downtown Whitby. Corridor A rea Ratepayers- Association. Integrity of town co-uncil at stake over lot coverage issue An open letter: Are the people of the Town of Whitby being deliberately victimized by our Development dire ctor? Is this the second time in as many months that he has interferred with Council's judgement and exercised his influence to reverse Council's decision? Why would the, devel- opmerIt officiai disdain- fuliy ignore Ontario Government Orders, 0. M. B. directions, a Town resolution adopted one month ago and public input from the people? It appears that on July 26, 1976, four rnonths of concentrated work on the part of our counciliors was complete- ly ignored by our hired, officiaIs, when they recommended Zoning By-law 390-76 fo r Councii's approval. Is this actually the case? The people of Whitby are asking a direct question, and they deserve an answer! Necessity dictatcs that Council rely on the judgement and directions of our Senior Staff. Oniy one senior staff member was present at the Summer Council meeting of JuIy 26th. Was he being derelict in his duty Mhen lie failed to advise our elected Council menibers of the full implication of this by-law? Did he know that it was diarnetrically opposed to Council's own Town Policy resolu- tion, to retain 25 pe rcent lot coverage,, that had be'unaniniousiy agreed upon June 28, 1976? Supposedly the 25 per- cent lot coverage cla:ý-se represents the amnount of a gi -' en lot that will be allowed to be covered by buildings. In their wis- dom, on Septenîber 10, 1973, Council members in office at that tume approved and adopted, wîth amnendrnents, the Officiai Plan for the Town of Whitby Plan- ning Area, which had been iecommended by the Town of Whitby Planning Board. The Officiai Plan becamne by-law 1024-73. Five of these wise councillors are stili on Council. If this clause is ignored at the whim of the developer, our 'protection' is non-existent. Whitby taxpayers have vigorously and con- scientiously objected to the high density develop- ment thgt resuits in new subdivisions like the Bradley Farni develop- ment, north of the Curling Rink. Citizens of this town are appalled at the thoughtiess lack of foresighit and the questionable planning this subdivision repre- sents. Three years ago Public meetings were lield to discuss the Officiai Plan, at wilîi time Couincil memibers stressed tlhe urgency of such a plan to protect the citizens against the encroachnient of ilîi density, incompatible developiînent. Assurances were given tliat witli the l)assing of our Officiai Plan, we could rest assured that uindesirable developînent could not take place. In essence, the Officii Plan guarantees t luit developers wiIl be pre- vented from repeating Bradley- Farms. The resolution of Council, No. 352-76, reaffirmns the retention of 25 per- c.ýrît lot coverage. The whole lot coverage controversy appears to be a variation of the old "which cornes first, the chicken or the egg" theory. On the one hiand you have a developer who appears to be thinking, 'I have a lot 20' by 100%. on whiclî 1 build an i1800 sç storey To«wnh<c know the Off] won't ailow this to worry, 1I Couincil to ciat Plan to suit m( just continWer with this in min do developersa feel that they d( to abicle by Town by-Laws? (levelo pers plOicy to oLir reprisenta.tives?ý On the otlîcî we say, iliat developer W a1 build anil 800 townhouse, fine, correct approac determine, wit] confines of the zoning by-law large the lot nlu accommodate t]' lîouse, and accord ingly - solution is reali' tiiat difficuit. Citizen w.inted a house covering cent of his extra door, hie woLild b the right. Alorý an out-of-town di with hundreds4 to build, and corporation bac] up and he dema expects that the this Town v want to clîanged to suit his pur- q. ft. two- pose. Where is, our oUse. 1 protection? icial Plan On July 26, 1976, a s, but 'lot by-law containing allow- can get ances for lot coverage of [nge their Uip to 45 percent was t, s0 l'Il passed by our Council, ny plans with a recorded vote of iid.' Why 5 to 1. This was a black appear to day in Whitby's history. on't have, The Corridor Area existing Ratepayers Association Are the participated in 5 or 6 dictating pulblic meetings, three elected days of O.M.B. hearings, an appeal to the Ontario r hiand - Cabinet, resulting in an if the order in Couincil froni î-ts to the Ontario Cabinet, and isq. ft. four months of defend- but tlîe ing the 25% lot coverage ci, is to provision. The culmina- hin the tion of this extensive Sexisting involvemnent by the s, how Association was Council's List be to Lnanimnously passing re- lie town- solution No. 3 52I-7 6, proceed which retained the section So, Uie of the OfficiaI Plan y îîot aIl containing thc 25 percent If Joe lot coverage restriction. to build At this point, the g 45 per- Association feit tlîat their lot next goals in this area had be denied been accomplished. ig cornes Valuable time could leveloper now be directed - to of units other matters of concern a large in the Area, suich as king him recreation. ands and We were absolutely -laws of shocked by the passing A'îll be of by-law No. 390-96. .4. ~ 4 .'g x'~'~ .2 * ~ 4 , - . * ~1 S' ** - *-~ *~ *J.4~. - ~ 02*1 ~ ~1~ <*~ft*.*~~ .1~'- 4' - -'j j01~ ~ SUMMARY TO RECAP A. The Ontario Go- venment lias ordered the Town of Whitby to either: i. Change the Officiai Plan to allow greater lot coverage; or 2. Iîîsure that ail plans of subdivision are restric- ted to generaliy 25 percent lot coverage. B. Council chose not to change the OfficiaI Planî and passed resolu- tion No. 352-76 on June 28, 1976, retaining clause 3.3.7 of the Officiai Plan, which reads "Generalîy, lot coverage in residential areas shahl not exceed 25 percent". C. A zoning by-law was passed July 26, 1976, to allow up to 45 percent lot coverage. There is tirne to correct this conîtradic- tion. The welfare of the residents of the Townî of Whitby is in jeopardy. A situationî, like the West Lynde higlirise, cati be prevented. Represen- tative Goverient was a pledge in the last election. 'The integrity of our town council is at stake' Corridor Area Ratepayers AssociationI