Proposed development west of Willow West subdivision rejected by Kincardine council

A proposed 19-unit residential development, west of the Willow West subdivision, has been rejected by Kincardine council.

 

In planning advisory committee last night (Jan. 20), Bruce County planner Mollie Kuchma gave her planning report regarding a zoning bylaw amendment application, to facilitate the severance of five new residential lots on property northwest of the intersection of Kincardine Avenue and Fraser Drive.

 

The developer, Tom Kerr, proposes to build three semi-detached buildings (six dwelling units), an apartment building (six dwelling units) and a townhouse building (six dwelling units), for a total of 18 new residential dwellings, along with the farmhouse which will remain on the property. The entire development would have access to Fraser Drive right next to single entrance to the Willow West subdivision.

 

Kuchma said there was considerable pre-consultation with the developer and the site plan was revised. Following concerns from the public, there were further revisions, she said.

 

She explained how the development would comply with the Provincial Policy Statement, the Bruce County Official Plan and the Kincardine Official Plan, as well as the Kincardine zoning bylaw, with extensive relief from required setbacks.

 

In addition, she responded to public concerns, noting that most would be dealt with during the site plan control process. As for concerns about the mature maple trees, she noted these are to be removed to make way for the development; however, Kincardine does not have a tree-cutting bylaw that would prohibit the removal of trees. Landscaping would be required through the site plan control process.

 

As to density, Kuchma said the development provides a good mix of housing. Of the 19 total units, the existing farmhouse and seven units are proposed to be low-density dwellings, while the six townhouses are medium-density units, and the six apartments are high-density units.

 

She also stressed that any opinions about the developer, himself, or his past history have no bearing on this application. The planning advisory committee must consider each application on its own merit.

 

In summary, she said the lands are currently designated Residential Area and Natural Environment Area in the Kincardine Official Plan, and zoned Residential (R1) in the zoning bylaw. The existing zoning does not permit townhouse or apartment dwellings. The application represents good land-use planning, she said, recommending approval.

 

Developer Tom Kerr told council that the proposal represents nine to 10 months of work.

 

“This is the best use of the property,” he said. “It's an excellent proposal and I hope you will see your way to approving it this evening.”

 

The planning report had a significant number of public comments attached, all objecting to this development.

 

Jamie Hunsburger of Murray Boulevard, said the planning report has determined that the project can be done; however, he asked whether the municipality wants to do it.
 

Regarding the drop in property values, he noted the planner stated there was no documentation about decreased property value. By the same token, he said, there was no information submitted to indicate a need for additional rental units in this area. “Currently, 26 per cent of residences in the area are rental units (29 condo units on Kincardine Avenue, of 110 units).”

 

He also said the zoning bylaw is not a tool for revenue. It's there to produce areas of compatible characteristics and provide protection for the residents against undesirable uses.



Mature maple trees on the site of the proposed development, west of the Willow West subdivision in Kincardine; photo by Jennifer Hunsburger

 

Hunsburger said the lot contains dozens of mature blue spruce and maple trees (several greater than 100 years old). With this project, the vast majority will be gone. “No amount of replanting will compensate for the value lost by the removal of these majestic trees. Under the current zoning, decent-size lots could be severed to accommodate a majority of the trees."



Mature maple trees on the site of the proposed development, west of the Willow West subdivision in Kincardine; photo by Jennifer Hunsburger

 

With respect to traffic safety, he said the development introduces an inherent increased risk to public safety. “The Willow West subdivision is the largest volume of homes in the entire town that is accessed by only a single roadway. This change brings a 20-per-cent increase at the direct point of access.

 

“I struggle to see how this development is serving a greater good to our community. Rather, I see only one person who stands to benefit.

 

Other Willow West subdivision residents pointed out the same problems with this proposal.

 

Dexter Gaudette of Duncan Place, said his property is directly beside the proposed Lot 2. “My backyard would become a semi-detached housing unit as opposed to a beautiful landscape which was a big influence on me purchasing this residence.”

 

He is concerned that with the addition of these 19 dwellings on such a small parcel of land, parking would be limited. So, Fraser Drive would become overflow parking which would present a safety hazard for pedestrians as no sidewalks are present on either side of the street.

 

Gaudette is also concerned about drainage and how it will affect his property, as well as a drop in property values, and the loss of the trees.

 

Bonnie Phillips of Fraser Drive, objected mainly to the apartment building which has been squeezed into that lot and requires a lot of relief from the zoning bylaw.

 

Also speaking against the project, were Terry Brown of Murray Boulevard, Mark Dunsbier of St. Clair Court, Jennifer Hunsburger of Murray Boulevard, and Rick Adams of Murray Boulevard.



A crowd of concerned Willow West subdivision residents attends the Kincardine planning advisory council meeting last night (Jan. 20)

 

Councillor Laura Haight said she is concerned that the parking spots for the apartment building are not even on the residents' own property. There would be easements to allow use of the parking spaces, she said, but in 30-40 years, who is on the hook for repairs?

 

Kuchma said the easements would be registered on title for each property.

 

“I'm telling you, it will be a problem,” said Haight. “I'm stunned that the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority (SVCA) made no comments about the pile of snow that would be created from snow removal. Once it melts, all of that material will go right into the fish habitat, unless the snow is trucked out daily.”
 

She said there is a lot of relief required in this proposal, and that, plus many other concerns, means she would not support the rezoning application.
 

Councillor Randy Roppel also rejected the proposal, based on his concerns that the developer has not finished a project in Tiverton which has been sitting there for the past three years.

 

Councillor Maureen Couture, who was chairing the meeting, noted discussion about the Tiverton project was not appropriate at that time.

 

“We are all in favour of development in Kincardine,” said Roppel, “but I am not in favour of this proposal. I think we can do better. There is a lot of relief for this development and I can't agree to that.”

 

Deputy mayor Jacqueline Faubert said that good planning thresholds have been violated with this proposal.

 

“We have to be consistent with the zoning bylaw and Official Plans, but we also have to be consistent with the original intent of that subdivision,” she said. “When Willow West was developed in 1991, it was for single family dwellings. With this project, 60 per cent of that subdivision would no longer be single family dwellings. I can't support this.”

 

Mayor Anne Eadie agreed. “When there is relief requested for the front yard, side yard and rear yard, that tells me that the project is too dense for this piece of land. I also have concerns about the driveway onto Fraser Drive.”

 

Councillor Andrew White asked how the residential mix percentages worked out for the Willow West subdivision, but was told those figures weren't available. The numbers used in the planning report were for the whole municipality. “Perhaps we should look at that in the future,” he said. “I don't support this project.”

 

Leah Barrie, senior Bruce County planner, outlined the options available to the planning committee: approve the proposal, defeat it, or defer it. She recommended deferral if council has concerns, allowing the developer to work with county and municipal staff to improve the proposal.

 

If the project is approved or defeated, the opposite side has 15 days in which to appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), at a cost of $125. This triggers a 20-day appeal period.

 

Barrie recommended deferral, as did Haight, saying that significant changes would be required, such as removing one of the larger units (the townhouses or the apartment).

 

A motion was put forward to amend the original motion, in favour of deferral rather than approval, which was approved. However, the motion for deferral was defeated.

 

The original motion, to amend the zoning bylaw, was also defeated.

Council later endorsed that decision.