Some Collingwood residents are pushing back against a proposed development connecting to their backyards that will replace a treed lot with 64 homes.
The residents of Garbutt Crescent voiced their opposition to the development plan for a new subdivision of Saunders Street (south of St. Mary’s Catholic School) during a virtual public meeting tonight (July 27).
The property – 50 Saunders Street – is bordered by Saunders Street to the east, Poplar Sideroad to the south, and the rear yards of 16 single-detached lots on Garbutt Crescent. It is the latter border that drew criticism from members of the public.
Mark Does said he paid a premium for an estate lot and considers the proposed development a betrayal. He said the developer should plan a buffer running the length of the property where it is adjacent to the rear yards of Garbutt Street residents. In fact, a survey signed by 23 people advocates for a 100-foot wide buffer running the length of the property as a linear green space. The proposed development does include park space
The developer has not yet submitted detailed landscaping design, but has promised to plant trees on the property once the homes are built.
Colin Travis of Travis and Associates consulting firm was representing the developer during tonight’s public meeting, and said studies of the trees on the property revealed some ash trees, which will be susceptible to the Emerald Ash Borer and will have to be taken down. Other trees in the area include Scott’s Pine and Manitoba Maple, as well as Aspen trees. The aspen trees, noted Travis, are not well-suited to an urban subdivision environment due to the root system.
He said the landscape plan would include native species.
Jay Bouwkamp also lives on Garbutt Crescent. He is concerned about the density of the development proposed since there will be two homes in the new subdivision backing onto his rear yard.
There are 18 single detached lots proposed in the Saunders Street subdivision that back onto 16 existing lots on Garbutt Crescent.
The density of the development at 64 units is on the lower end of the range allowed for the zoning (R2). The town’s official plan allows 15 to 20 units per hectare for a property zoned R2. The proposal of 64 units on the property is 15.9 units per hectare. There will also be 3,705 square metres of parklands and a stormwater management pond. The entire property is 4.04 hectares (9.98 acres).
According to Adam Farr, the town’s director of planning, the property has had the R2 zoning since 2010, and the provisions for an R2 property have been the same in the official plan since 2004.
Bouwkamp also said more consideration should be given to the wetland in the area, and suggested it’s bigger in the summer than it appears in the winter.
The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority did comment on the wetland located on the property where the development is proposed. The conservation authority said it could be removed because it was smaller than half a hectare and had “no clear ecological or hydrological connection to a broader wetland system.”
Local residents, however, noted they have sump pumps running every day due to the amount of water in the area.
They were also concerned about contamination from what was formerly a rail line on the property. Residents wanted the testing done in the area to be scrutinized, suggesting it was done “the farthest point possible” from the old rail line.
Kandas Bondarchuck, development and heritage planner with the town of Collingwood said the town engineers had reviewed the developer’s environmental site assessment and were satisfied.
However, due to concerns raised by the public, the town is now having the assessments peer-reviewed by a third-party.
The town is also asking the developer to revise the submitted design to be in line with the town’s urban design and architectural guidelines.
More than one resident commented during the meeting about the compatibility, or lack thereof, between the proposed development and existing subdivisions in the area.
Travis noted the developer has had meetings with area residents and has made changes to the proposal as a result of comments received.
He said the design submitted was intended to be similar to the Mountaincroft development to the west (Garbutt Crescent) and with existing Saunders Street homes.
“We appreciate the materials submitted need to be refined and revisited,” he said.
Councillor Deb Doherty raised the town’s Urban Design Guidelines document, which state that developments on either side of a street should have similar lot frontages and setbacks.
The developer is asking for reduced lot frontages from 15 metres to 12.2 metres. The application from the developer for this exception indicates there will be 57 lots with the reduced 12.2 metre frontage, and the remaining seven would be corner lots with a frontage ranging from 13.4 metres to 20.3 metres.
Deputy Mayor Keith Hull suggested staff should look at the entire area where he said “pocket developments have developed over an extended period of time.”
One of the other issues facing the development is the difference in grading from the Garbutt Crescent rear yards to the 18 lots that will be built in the Saunders subdivision. Based on a meeting with residents in February, the developer is proposing to extend the rear yards for Garbutt residents by moving the transition slope from their property to the Saunders subdivision property.
“We believe this solution is a win-win in the sense it achieves the maximum rear lot for those on Garbutt and we can still achieve the engineering requirements on 50 Saunders,” noted Michael Cullip, a consultant from Tatham Engineering hired by the developer.
The developer has not, however, gone as far as moving the greenspace to the west property boundary to serve as a buffer zone between backyards.
Council made no decisions on the proposed development tonight. The next step is for the developer to make changes or add information based on public input and comments and submit to town staff. Staff will follow up with a report to council along with its recommendation on the developer's request for an exception on the lot frontage distance. Council will make a decision on the application following that report.
