About 50 residents crammed into the upstairs meeting room at the Cramahe Township offices on Oct. 20 to voice their opinions and hear plans for an 11,000 square-foot, two-storey, 14-unit apartment building in Colborne.
Cramahe Mayor Marc Coombs told the crowd that there would be no decision at the meeting about proposed changes to the township Official Plan, and zoning bylaws. It will be discussed again at the November 17 meeting scheduled for Castleton Town Hall.
McDonald Homes is requesting permission to build the unit on about .86 acres at the northwest corner of Victoria and Arthur Streets in the former village. With rents of $1,000 or more, the apartments will be aimed at seniors and people who do not want the burden of home ownership.
Township Planner, Peter Josephs, outlined how the owners are requesting that a portion of the land be rezoned from Community Facility to R3. Much of the rest would remain environmentally protected. R3 allows a range of residential dwellings.
Mr. Josephs had just received some of the comments on the proposal and is expecting more from the province within two weeks. Council agreed with his recommendation not to make any decision now. When it does make a decision he suggests that a detailed site plan be in place.
The planner outlined how the proposal appears to meet the current provincial guidelines for urban growth.
Bob Clark is consulting for hte builder, Dave McDonald of McDonald Homes. He was on hand for an open house before the public meeting, and commented that it had been a useful discussion.
Mr. Clark attempted to show how a multi-residential building is feasible for the area. Mixing the residential land use is good planning, he said. It would be a transition between the single-family dwellings to the south and the downtown area to the north.
The project fits all the provincial and municipal guidelines, and related regulations for buildings of this size. Provincial policies now stress increasing the housing density in urban areas. This is considered a medium-density project.
The consultant acknowledged that the plan he was discussing was conceptual and asked council for permission to allow him to consider all suggestions and bring forward a detailed plan. Mr. Clark praised the builder for his willingness to invest in the community, produce a quality product and provide jobs.
Councillor Tim Gilligan asked numerous questions of the consultant.
He wondered if there were too many multi-unit building proposed for the area. Another multi-unit building is possible in the unfinished Johnston subdivision immediately to the east.
That prompted Mr. Clark’s explanation of the value of blended land use, and a suggestion that having 25% of housing provided by multi-unit buildings is not uncommon.
Mr. Clark assured Mayor Coombs that rumours about it being low-income housing were false. This project will be market-driven, with no government financial inputs or restrictions. The estimated rent will be about $1,000.
Later in the discussion Mr. McDonald assured the group that he would not be reducing the rents to fill the building. If he offered a rent of $600 to one tenant, he'd have to do it for all his tenants.
John Brunke spoke on behalf of many of the residents in the room.
He worried that the plans were hypothetical and that few changes have been made in response to expressed concerns. The builder may not be seeking subsidies for the apartments, but the renters might. He is gravely concerned about the burden the building would put on the existing sewage treatment capacity. Environmental concerns about runoff into Colborne Creek were also mentioned.
Mr. Brunke felt that the building, as it was presented, would not meet the needs of the seniors for whom it was being built. It should be located closer to the downtown.
Mr. McDonald did attempt to meet one of Mr. Brunke's concerns, commenting that he would look into having an elevator in the building.
Mr. Brunke was one of 93 people who signed a petition opposing the project, which Councillor Gilligan presented to Council at the meeting
Numerous others stood up to state their opposition.
Most did not support their comments, causing property owner, Steve Bowskill to ask if they were opposed to the concept or the fact it was going to be in their back yards. He believes there is nothing available in the community for the population he is trying to serve. He has difficulty believing the building will negatively affect property values and increase traffic substantially. He thinks this is a viable option for those who do not want to own homes.
Were people saying this is not for Colborne, or simply NIMBY?
That brought a statement from Councillor Gilligan that it won’t remain a seniors building. “They always turn into out-of-town or low-income places. We’re building a soup kitchen.”
Tracy Singleton seemed to agree, noting there were far too many fmailies in the village right now which had parenting issues. If this building goes ahead, she thinks she may move.
Laws against discrimination have meant buildings formerly housing only seniors now house a range of people. Sometimes that hasn't brought positive results. But, nonetheless, Mr. Bowskill sees a need for the type of housing being proposed. If the community says no to multiple-unit housing then he feels the word should be put out to developers.
A proposal to locate two family homes on the property was rejected by the builder who noted that there is a surplus of single-family lots, including those in Colborne Creek.
Mr. Josephs outlined the process for the crowd.
The Official Plan must be amended. Any amendment can be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).
The zoning bylaw, which is a township document, must be amended. Changes to it can be appealed to the OMB.
In order to have the right to appeal, people must speak at one of the township-run public meetings or submit a written comment before any decision is made.
The final requirement is a site plan which defines everything which will be done on the property. Use of the property can be frozen until all the terms of the site plan are met.
Council is expected to review the proposal again at its November 17 meeting.
No comments:
Post a Comment