CREEMORE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT - DOUG MACINTOSH
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Creemore Residential Project - Doug MacIntosh
Summary
CARA is a volunteer organization whose purpose is to represent the
interests and concerns of all residents of Creemore and to act on issues
which impact the way we live. With a membership of over 300 residents
living in the village and surrounding area, one objective is to preserve the
unique character of the Creemore area.
Creemore has been extensively profiled as one of Canada’s most
attractive small towns, based on outstanding Victorian architecture and a
wonderful natural environment framed by the Mad River. CARA supports
the need for residential growth as a means of sustaining and renewing
village life in Creemore. CARA has long maintained that a
comprehensive secondary plan is necessary for the community to map out
its future effectively and to preserve its unique village attributes. The
creation of such a plan would allow residents of Creemore to give careful
consideration to its future allowing the community to provide ample public
input and build on and preserve its unique assets and character.
CARA has a number of concerns with the proposed MacIntosh
development which are outlined in this paper. Our most serious concern
is that the proposed development, particularly its high density, conflicts
with the small town atmosphere and unique village characteristics which
Creemore has enjoyed. The application is also premature since it lacks
detailed information on critical aspects such as design, traffic, water
management, and impacts on Creemore’s services.
On these grounds, CARA respectfully requests the Board to dismiss the
appeal on the grounds that it is premature. It is premature in the absence
of (a) sufficient information on the site specific application and (b) a
secondary plan that studies, and sets out how Creemore’s historic small
town ambience and charm are to be maintained. Additional time would
give Council and the community the time to develop a needed
comprehensive secondary plan.
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
1The purpose of this report is to provide comments on behalf of the
Creemore Area Residents’ Association (CARA) regarding this proposed
development. This paper supplements CARA’s earlier report submitted
April 6, 2006 to the Township.
1.2 CARA
Established in 1998, CARA is a volunteer organization whose purpose is
to represent the interests and concerns of all residents of Creemore, its
neighbouring villages and rural communities, and to act in the relevant
issues which impact the way we live.
CARA is a registered not-for-profit corporation in the Province of Ontario
with a membership list of over 300 residents living in the village and
surrounding area. One objective is to preserve the unique character of the
Creemore area.
CARA supports the need for residential growth as a means of sustaining
and renewing village life in Creemore. The challenge in planning for this
necessary growth is to make these important decisions in a
comprehensive and integrated manner. The municipality, developers and
the public have a responsibility to ensure that all elements of a proposed
growth plan are discussed and resolved in a transparent process taking
into account existing and future community impacts and benefits.
1.3 MacIntosh Appeal of Clearview Township Decision to OMB
As Mr. MacIntosh has given notice to appeal the Township’s decision to
deny his application for Plan of Subdivision file # SD-2005-005 and for an
amendment to the Zoning By-Law file # ZB-2003-028, CARA has elected
to participate in the appeal process. The following comments form the
basis of CARA’s input to the Ontario Municipal Board appeal process.
2.0 Context
2.1 Need for a Comprehensive Approach to Planning
Creemore has been extensively documented as one of Ontario’s and
Canada’s most attractive small towns. These include articles in
Harrowsmith Country Life magazine in which it was profiled as one of
Canada’s top ten towns; as well as Fred Dahms book, Beautiful Ontario
Towns.
Creemore has benefited from a century of being somewhat off the beaten
track. Its neighbourhoods contain outstanding examples of Victorian
architecture. The tree-lined main street contains much of the original
Victorian streetscape including residences and commercial
2establishments. It has grown very slowly, doubling in size over the last
century and retained fine examples of the original architecture which have
been carefully restored. The community is well defined and contained by
the Mad River, surrounding farms and green spaces which have given it a
well defined scale, village character and compact urban form.
Commercial development has been contained primarily along Mill Street
which has prevented commercial or residential sprawl so evident in many
other Ontario towns.
CARA has always been a supporter of growth, but believes the Village’s
unique historical, architectural, cultural and natural assets need to be
preserved and enhanced - an important aspect of this is Creemore’s
smalltown atmosphere which needs to be respected.
More recently, Creemore has been subject to significant growth pressures
including this and other substantial development proposals. It is the view
of CARA, that Creemore is at a critical juncture in its history and that there
should be a moratorium on future development until a comprehensive
secondary plan has been undertaken.
CARA has long advocated the need for a secondary plan. It has offered
to finance the development of the plan and has supported preliminary
visioning work and community workshops attended by over 100 people as
background to the formation of these plans1.
This secondary plan presents an outstanding opportunity for the
community to develop and articulate a clear vision that addresses the
community’s future development needs in a comprehensive, proactive and
balanced way. The plan would be one which builds on best practices and
invites the best professionals to participate in the development of such a
plan. It would address physical, natural, social, fiscal and environmental
aspects such that all future development contributes to a net gain to the
community. It would be a democratic plan based on the collective will of
the community. It would be developed on Mill Street – not on Bay Street.
It would preclude the fragmented, reactive, episodic, opportunistic, and ad
hoc approach to planning that is now being experienced. It would be
buttressed with improved site planning controls and possibly the creation
of a Heritage Conservation District.
As was outlined in the planningAlliiance report, a more detailed
comprehensive secondary plan for Creemore (and other areas in
Clearview Township) would address the following:
- the provision of a mechanism for directing the nature of further
growth related to a specific context
- the provision of a mechanism for phasing growth in a manner that
is suited to the larger community
1
Village of Creemore, Summary of Planning Workshop, October 16, 2004, prepared by
planningAlliance, November 10, 2004.
3- the provision of definitions (i.e.., through design guidelines) of terms
like “character of place”, “rural”, or “historic” and recommendations
on how the guidelines should be implemented
- the definition of specific sub-areas within the Township of Clearview
which need to be evaluated and planned in ways that may vary
from other parts of the Township
- the provision of an opportunity for residents of the Village of
Creemore to influence proposed designs for development before
they are finalized and submitted to the Planning Department for
approval.
In the course of drafting CARA’s response, we are particularly concerned
by very recent developments. Specifically, proposals and new materials
are being filed by the appellant to address obvious deficiencies in the
original application. CARA finds this particularly unsettling. This is
essentially planning as brinkmanship – the goal being to work out a
solution amongst the lawyers before all parties spend too much money. It
comes over the hectic Christmas and holiday season, which does not
allow for easy public input. It is likely to result in a substandard solution,
with insufficient public input and scant attention to the Village context.
It is in the public interest that this proposal and other developments
contemplated on designated lands within the Creemore settlement area
be taken into consideration in a comprehensive planning exercise. A
document such as a Comprehensive or Secondary Plan to the Official
Plan would serve to address many if not all of the concerns expressed
regarding this and other potential developments.
It is with this principle in mind that CARA requests the Board to dismiss
the appeal on the grounds that it is premature in the absence of (a)
sufficient information on the site specific application and (b) a secondary
plan that studies, and sets out how Creemore’s historic ambience and
charm are to be maintained.
Further, CARA wishes to ensure that the community and CARA are
included in all discussions, and requests an adjournment to circulate the
new material, and have it considered by the community and the new
Council.
With the dismissal of the appeal, CARA requests the board to instruct all
parties to this appeal and others necessary to direct their resources and
energy to the preparation of such a comprehensive plan for future growth
in Creemore.
42.2 Public Consultation
2.2.1 Developer Initiated
While the applicant has made an effort to personally contact and explain
the proposed development, specifically with homeowners immediately
adjacent to the site, the forthright discussions did not result in any
substantive commitments to respond to stated concerns.
Subsequent to the initial submittal of documentation, various architectural
renderings from several elevations were made public. Further inquiries as
to the relevance of these drawings revealed that in fact these were offered
as representational and not to be taken as an actual depiction of what was
being proposed. This approach added to the common view that the
application was largely speculative in nature and further raised concerns
as to the eventual design and type of development to be built. As a result
of these drawings and features which have continued to change, it is clear
that the design aspects of the proposed development underscore the very
preliminary nature and fluid nature of the application. Further, they do not
contain adequate or sufficient detail to warrant approving the
development. A dismissal would provide the community and Council with
time to have a meaningful and fair opportunity to review the materials and
respond.
2.2.2 Residents and CARA Initiated
The Creemore Area Resident’s Association has been active in informing
the public of its assessment and understanding of the MacIntosh
application. Through newspaper reports (See Appendix A - Attachment 1)
and public information meetings CARA has attempted to understand
individual resident concerns so as to develop a representative viewpoint.
These efforts, in part, resulted in over 70 residents submitting written
comments as part of the first scheduled Public Meeting on this application.
Even though this meeting was postponed, these written comments remain
on the record as a clear and overwhelming public statement of the
concerns and opposition with which this proposal is regarded.
2.2.3 Township Initiated
Despite the unusual cancellation of two planned public meetings, CARA
contends that adequate opportunity was afforded to the applicant and the
public to express, exchange and address their concerns on matters
relating to each of their own interests. Time was granted to both the
applicant, his agents and the public to address Township Council and
Staff. CARA made several presentations addressing topics related to this
proposal. To our knowledge the applicant chose not to. Throughout this
process CARA has maintained its support of the right of the applicant to a
5public meeting. We note that the applicant was invited to address the
public concerns at Council and declined the opportunity.
The following sections address selected issues raised in the OMB’s Issues
List.
3.0 Density/Character of Community
1. Does the proposed density of development maintain the character of
the neighbourhood in keeping with the smalltown atmosphere and
historical character of Creemore?
3.1 Density/Character of Community
CARA believes strongly the proposed density does not maintain the
character of the community and is not in keeping with the small town
atmosphere and historical character of Creemore. We have a
fundamental concern that if the development is approved, then what gets
built may have little resemblance to the application. We would expect the
plan of subdivision to include sufficient detailed information on the nature
and form of development that it is possible for the community to
understand the detailed designs of the development and the detailed
conditions of approval.
Setting this aside and assuming the applicant builds to the concept
designs submitted, the density proposed is grossly out of line with
Creemore’s density levels. The proposed development2 is for 44 units per
hectare more or less, in stark conflict with existing neighbouring single
family densities ranging from 4 to 10 units per hectare. This proposed use
is not in keeping with the planning objectives or the overall context of the
Official Plan. The proposal therefore is not in compliance with s. 2.2.7.3,
3.6.1.4, 3.6.2.3 and 4.6.2.1.1 of the Official Plan. S. 4.6.2.3.2 also makes
it clear that medium density residential development should not be located
in the midst of established single family housing which is directly adjacent
to the proposed development. Therefore the development is not in
compliance with this section of the OP. Tables have been presented in
Section 3.7 of this report which summarize a number of areas where
CARA believes the development is not in compliance with the OP.
In general CARA supports the development of a diversity of residential
housing types at a range of prices including affordable family living units.
There may be a demand for more apartment type accommodation in
Creemore, but there is no logical reason why this type of accommodation
should all be concentrated on such a small parcel of land. While the
Official Plan does permit the development of medium density housing, this
application seeks to maximize the amount of multiple living units on this
2
At the time of writing. As indicated, the proposal continues to change and CARA has not been
privy to recent amendments.
6property. The proposal is to cover the site with four three storey
apartment buildings. There are currently no three storey apartment
buildings in Creemore. Further, there are many vacant lots close to the
downtown core that through redevelopment or intensification could serve
to provide some part of Creemore’s higher density residential
accommodation.
S. 2.2.7.3 of Official Plan states that future development must maintain
consistency with the following principle: “maintaining a built-form which
complements and enhances the natural and cultural heritage (including
architectural) features and resources which provide each area of human
settlement, particularly the historic communities of Creemore and Stayner
with their unique sense of identity. It is expected that the form of new
development, including the design of new subdivisions and buildings, may
vary from community to community in maintaining consistency with
established streetscapes, road patterns, local architecture, etc.”
The addition of three storey buildings of high density on a small tract of
land on the periphery of the community is clearly not consistent with the
above section of the OP. The estimated population of 181 residents will
result in a concentration of people 3 to 4 times greater than in the
surrounding neighbourhood and similarly is not in compliance with this
section of the OP.
Furthermore, no justification has been given for the establishment of this
new built form (2 and 3 storey buildings) in this location and for the shift of
this type of high density residential housing (condominiums) away from
Mill Street, the commercial and cultural centre of Creemore. The parcel is
on the periphery of the community. Historically, Creemore’s periphery has
been single family with a well defined transition to natural and agricultural
land. As such, the proposal concentrates in a small space medium
density development on the periphery of the community; whereas if there
is a role for such development, it would better be situated closer to Mill
Street where services are located. This is consistent with s. 2.3.5 which
encourages infill development.
The proposal gives little information with regard to the demographics and
needs of residents associated with the new development nor the impact of
the development on demand for services such as recreation, health, social
amenities, education, shopping and so on.
The Township Official Plan calls for growth of 6,219 people over the
period 1997 to 2021 with the bulk (5,380) of this growth being allocated to
the Township’s three urban areas. Assuming Creemore receives its pro
rata share of future growth (15.3%), this means Creemore should accept
825 persons over the period covered by the OP, or 34.4 persons per year.
If approved, the MacIntosh proposal would single-handedly provide
enough housing for all Creemore for the next 5 years to the exclusion of
other types of development.
73.2 Storm Water and Drainage Management
2. Does the proposed lotting pattern on the plan of subdivision recognize
the potential need for storm water management facilities?
3. Should there be a condition of draft plan approval requiring appropriate
recognition of ground water conditions with respect to building design?
CARA has not undertaken technical studies to address ground water
management issues. On the technical aspects of this application, storm
water management and ground water infiltration are major concerns
identified by the Township’s engineers that must be more fully assessed. It
is interesting to note that provision for these common services seems to
have been planned independent of and in some cases in conflict with
those of other current developments and proposals.
Storm water management and its impact on ground water, especially in
this section of Creemore, is of major public concern. The proposed
grading and drainage plans seem to ignore well known and documented
local concerns with seasonal fluctuations in ground water levels. Surface
water run-off and storm water management designs are in apparent
conflict with current existing ground water problems on adjacent existing
lots. A reliance on infiltration designs would not appear to adequately
protect the proposed development and the surrounding homes. No
assurances have been given regarding the mitigation of these potentially
harmful effects to the surrounding area during peak seasonal surface
water run-off conditions.
A moratorium on this and other development applications pending
development of the comprehensive secondary plan would allow the
Township to complete its master drainage plan in order to address these
concerns.
3.3 Prematurity of Application
4. Is it appropriate to rezone the property prior to finalization of the draft
plan (or potential condominium plan applications)?
The Township planning staff and engineering reports have commented on
the prematurity of the application. The prematurity of the application has
made it difficult to comment on the design issues since the possible
development form which is being proposed appears essentially
speculative in nature. We note that Council refused the application not
only because it was premature, but because it is does not meet Township
policies and is not in the public interest. These latter issues are clearly
fundamental and must be redressed and in CARA’s view trump the
prematurity of the application which is a secondary issue. We are also
8concerned by the new planning documents that the applicant has recently
been creating and which do not give the community or Council adequate
time to respond to the changing designs.
3.4 Design Issues
5. Is the creation of a “land-locked” lot within the plan of subdivision good
planning? (Block 5)
6. Is the creation of a “flag lot”3 appropriate given its relationship to other
lots within the proposed plan of subdivision? (Block 6)
7. Has the appellant dealt adequately with the internal traffic movement
within the plan of subdivision?
8. Does the design of the subdivision and the entitlements created in the
zoning by-law satisfy the design criteria of the Official Plan?
S.2.2.7.3 cited above requires that development must maintain
consistency with established streetscapes, road patterns, local
architecture, etc. Clearly the creation of a land locked lot is inconsistent
with historic patterns as is the creation of a “flag lot”.
Due to the preliminary and speculative nature of the MacIntosh proposal, it
is very difficult to comment on various design aspects since there has
been little supporting detail on many of these design issues submitted with
the application.
The following are a number of design guidelines from the Official Plan
which conflict with the MacIntosh proposal.
(s.8.12.2.2) “Provide consistent, or improved street elements to
complement and unify the built form (e.g., streetlights, signage, trees,
etc).” – CARA is particularly concerned that the proposed development is
not well integrated with the adjacent development. Despite the developer’s
statement that an architectural style “compatible with the area and with the
vision for the Village as a whole” will be used, no firm design documents,
reference models or Village plans were submitted. His further statement
that “the proposal will integrate seamlessly with the surrounding
neighbourhood” seems unattainable as the subject lands are adjacent to
single family homes on Mary and Edward Streets, a one storey nursing
home, open space and in plain view of Gowan Park.
3
A "flag lot" is characterized as having a small amount of frontage on a street and then opening
up into a larger lot some distance back from the frontage. There a number of problems identified
with flag lots, for example, the development is behind adjacent development and essentially
stares into the back yard.
9The elevations of the proposed buildings alone will conflict with the
surrounding dwellings, rising more than twice the height of some existing
structures. This area of Creemore is currently being developed along
Edward, Mary and George Streets with single family homes.
(s. 8.12.2.3) “Ensure the proposed street network accommodates all
intended uses (e.g., automobiles, pedestrians, cyclists and persons with
disabilities)”. Parking for approximately 150 cars will occupy a significant
portion of the project lands and contribute negatively to traffic on bordering
and adjacent streets.
The proposed development will create a considerable amount of traffic
that is unfair to the residents in the immediate area, particularly those in
the Quanbury development to the north who did not anticipate these traffic
volumes when they bough their houses.
It is interesting to note that a key concept underpinning the recent
redevelopment of Regent Park in Toronto is based on rejection of the
superblock concept on which Regent Park was originally designed. While
we are not drawing a direct comparison to Regent Park, the proposed
redesign contains some useful lessons. The original Regent Park
superblock which clustered a series of three storey and higher walk-ups,
had little street access and was originally intended to make the area safe
and pleasant for families while eliminating traffic. However, the site design
produced an area that enabled antisocial elements to operate and made it
difficult to police. The new redevelopment plan restores the traditional grid
street pattern providing street access to the apartment blocks and
townhouses as well as introduces other uses such as business and
parks.4
(s.8.12.2) “Maintain the protection of vegetation, woodlots, or individual
significant trees and the maintenance/restoration of linkages between
natural areas”. This proposal appears to make no provision for public
greenspace or pedestrian linkages to the existing community. What is
referred to as ‘amenity space’ is simply the private lands surrounding each
condominium building. The predominate visual impact of this development
will be that of multi-storey buildings and parking lots, an image all too
common throughout urban Ontario and inconsistent with Creemore’s
unique Village character.
Further planning consideration needs to be given to the modification and
integration of this proposed plan into the existing community and with
other potential developments, particularly in light of the high concentration
of new residents proposed.
3.5 Servicing
4
“Revamp of Regent Park okayed by City Council”, Brief Article, Community Action Publishers,
August 18, 2003.
109. Has the appellant dealt adequately with the relationship of the subject
site to an adjacent closed landfill? In particular, has the appellant
submitted a satisfactory study …
Clearly, there needs to be an adequate study of this issue before the
development can be approved.
10. has the appellant established appropriate conditions of draft plan
approval to deal with the servicing of the site with respect to water and
sewage services?
As well as the servicing concerns mentioned above, there are
environmental concerns regarding possible ground water contamination
with leachate from the adjacent waste disposal site. The County of Simcoe
has commented that studies submitted by the applicant are not sufficient.
3.6 Adequacy of Studies
11. Do the studies filed by the appellant in support of the proposed
subdivision and zoning by-law sufficiently reflect the entitlements
proposed in the said zoning bylaw?
The new studies that are being generated by the applicant since the filing
of the OMB appeal clearly show that his legal representation believes the
original studies were inadequate. We have not been given copies of the
new studies and believe this underscores our points that this development
is premature and speculative in nature. A temporary moratorium until the
secondary plan is developed would give this and other developments the
time and attention required which the community deserves to map out its
future.
3.7 Compliance
12. Do the applications offend s. 24.1 of the Planning Act?
13. Do the applications offend s. 1.6.4.1(e), 2.6 or 3.1.1(b) of the 2005
PPS, if applicable?
14. Do the applications offend s.2.2.7.3, 2.2.7.10, 2.3.5, 3.6.1.4, 3.6.2.3,
4.6.2.1.1, 4.6.2.3.2, or Schedule A1 of the Official Plan?
As this application falls under the provisions of the new Provincial
Planning Policy Statement 2005 (PPS 2005), evidence must be provided
that sufficient water supply and sewage treatment capacity is available
before lot creation is permitted. As none was provided, this application
does not meet the requirements of PPS 2005. Further, as other pending
proposals will make similar and greater demands on the limited services
infrastructure of the village, CARA considers a comprehensive review of
the services infrastructure reserve capacity necessary before any
applications, including this one, be approved.
11As stated above, the application is not in compliance with s. 2.2.7.3,
3.6.1.4, 3.6.2.3, 4.6.2.1.1 and 4.6.2.3.2. The following table summarizes
these areas where the development is not compliant.
Section 2.2.7.3 CARA’s comments
3. Maintaining a built-form which complements • the proposed development as
and enhances the natural and cultural heritage outlined conflicts with
(including architectural) features and resources surrounding development
which provide each area of human settlement, especially established single
particularly the historic communities of family residential
Creemore and Stayner, with their unique sense • there has been no indication
of identity. that the design will respect the
natural, architectural and cultural
heritage
• designs are premature and
there is no guarantee that
concept designs will be
respected
• elevations conflict with
surrounding development
Section 3.6.1.4
• It is a development goal of this Official Plan to ∫• density levels are considerably
foster future development of a type consistent higher than the historic norms
with the historical form of the Township’s urban • there is no rationale for
and agricultural communities. concentrating this development
on one small parcel of land
• designs are premature,
changing and unclear
• there are no three storey
developments in Creemore
Section 3.6.2.3
• To direct major forms of new development to ∫• density levels are considerably
the Township’s primary (municipally- serviced) higher than the historic norms
urban settlement areas in a manner which • designs are premature,
complements each community’s changing and unclear
unique/historical form and function. • medium density development
on the periphery conflicts with
the historic form
Section 4.6.2.1.1
• Future residential development shall be of a ∫• density levels are considerably
character in keeping with the small- town higher than the historic norms
atmosphere and, where deemed relevant, • designs are premature,
historical character of the host urban changing and unclear
community. • no detailed consideration has
been given to the small-town
atmosphere and unique
attributes of Creemore
12Section 4.6.2.3.2 CARA’s comments
· Wherever possible, access to townhouses and • traffic deficiencies documented
apartments shall be from privately owned and in Burnside study
maintained service driveways emptying onto
collector and arterial roads. Triplexes and
double duplexes may be permitted on local
roads provided Council is satisfied such
development will not significantly increase traffic
volumes.
· Medium density residential development shall • development is close to
be encouraged to locate in proximity to nursing home, access to park is
community facilities such as parks, schools, limited as is access to
commercial and recreational facilities. commercial facilities.
• there needs to be a more
comprehensive study of the
impact of the development on
community services
· Adequate off-street parking shall be provided
for all permitted uses.
· Adequate buffering shall be provided between • there does not appear to have
medium density residential areas and lower been much consideration of
density residential areas and/or non-residential buffering from adjacent
uses. Such buffering may include the provision development
of grass strips, screening, the planting of trees
and shrubs or the location of a berm or fence of
sufficient height to provide privacy.
· The scale and design of a medium density • the proposed development
residential development, in respect to such conflicts with adjacent
matters as building height, setbacks, development both in design and
landscaping and vehicular circulation, should proposed densities.
maintain consistency, and be compatible with
the surrounding residential area.
• It is the intent of this Plan that medium density • The development is directly
residential development generally be adjacent to an established low
encouraged to locate in newly developing areas density neighbourhood.
rather than in the midst of established low-
density neighbourhoods
The comments here are made without prejudice. They are made solely in the
interest of the residents of Creemore.
13Appendix A
The following contains CARA’s original position paper, April 6, 2006, as well as
(Attachment 1 of Appendix A) correspondence and newspaper articles
representing part of the public discourse CARA has maintained with the public
and the Township on the subject of the MacIntosh application.
14You can also read
