PAGE 6, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1982, WHITIBY FREE PRESS Developer wiIl appeal to the 0MB.... Counci rej eets ýOtter Creek townhOUses Whitby Town Council tion on the grounds that Joe Bugelli, the public since it was first to be built upon. road in the land would property values of their unanixnously rejected a the proposai put for-- road allowance shown in brought forward last "4We were promised cause unsurmountable properties. proposai that would ward by Grossman, the plan did flot legally September. that land was flot to be traffic, road clearing, He also complained' have seen the construc- Bleeman, J. Silver Hold- exist because of a lack According to the resi- developed and no inter- and maintenance, pro- that tbe input of ar'ea tion Of sonre 41 town- ings, Limited was of subdivision agree- dents' spokesman, John nal roadways were to be blems. residents l'bas been of houses in'the Bonacord "linappropriate and pre- ments and land sever- Dale, of 110 Frost Dive, built," Dale told coun- Dale also admitted no effect"l and that the Avenie/Frost Drive mature." ances. they were promi sed -at cil. that another concern' three alternatives put area of Otter Creek on According to the The decision pleased the time they purchased The residents have- was the potential im-' forward by the develop- Monday night. motion, authored by area residents who have their homes' that -the maintained that tbe con- pact the townbouses er were 0fly Council took, the ac- West Ward Councillor been fighting the plan land ini question was not struction of any type of would have on the "marginal" changes in his original proposal. Even before the & ~debate on the matter Browns hommadecame forward, . the Freeze Beefdeveloper's legal ad-' b re à Alistoe cu & raped t yor rqulrinets.visor, Karl Jaffary, told d- H nds... ... .... ... . . ... ...1 . 7 -1 . p r e - o r kcouncil that his client 24OZ.will take the matter to kiaf lb.the Ontario 'Municipal< Side ............... 1. 621 b. sau age IL Board. -05 Chcks, .............. . 5lb.The application 'Sunpunficn unweeene Suapunparhnwa plcff ez ýftflhefore council was for a Foetine eces~ 911118site plan agreement that conformed 'to the current land use desig- m am ienations for the property. 12.5& 1 L 10OZ.Jaffary said that bis* oz. fn pkg finclient bas not been able to bring forward a plan 07 9 -ý----4 9 0suitable to the majority Sunsuà Snspn suispm ma%,e Vkoeof council. "My client, therefore, bas to do what bie can to get site plan approvalp" hie said. "My client would mucb rather deal 500 g 6with tbis council than cont jarwith the Ontario Munici- 059 pal B3oard and the Suns] ~POP PEOPLE POP rg), j~SU spUf e eThe administrative Iîo kg IlNjU4committee bad CAS TU recommended that the 3.99 A C S developer's plans be FOR EITHER > 14 approved subject to the 12 X 30 OZ. BOIUTLES construction of a five- OR 24 X 10 OZ. BOTTLI3S foot-high chain link fen- 9 9PLUS DEPOSIT. ce and other conditions frothat were more accept- able to tbe. fire and eas public works depart- lçiI1,lements. bag bagwas not even dealt- with 9 ~as Bugelli's motion was introduced first. fi)rrumfng ll potionCentre Ward.Coun- p budiccillor Barry Evans at- tempted to amend the 250 Pit Wcrht aftm caorkdenial motion by adding chee ....Z711- _'1.4'a clause that would have Pb& allowed tbe developer to cd 10bring back the proposal dinnr ............. .49if hie signed a subdivi- IL23 b. pg* tote w 'ches 0sion agreement. Prid ofCanaa mxed __ IL"It is only fair that. counicil indicate to bim what he is facing," lunche n meatEvans said. However, Evan's amendment was lost. 500 lec i 6Bugelli nopposed it MM -y750 g pkg9, mchie1 e OL eb pointed authority," he vork $las$. ers.3.28 ot Cn N.1 9Budcontinued., Deo SM UkMoepak WW "lu.»M #mu fl eoM19 et. lin Sumn, ,choie Lu f Iie con etB4uy Set for an 0MB bearing. A lot of people cal life <"The Survival of BROWN'S FOODMASTERth tes. Ybu know, a lot BROOK IN 65m4521of people are right. 8:0am to 6:00 prn Except Thurs. & Fri. NIghts fi 9- pr