Town staff will meet with the developers of the former Harriston Senior School property to discuss concerns raised in a June 7 public meeting over planned changes to the development.
Developers Jeremy and Jeff Metzger are seeking to rezone a portion of the former school land, currently owned by the town and designated Open Space, to Residential Exception Zone (R2-46) to allow the development of townhouses. On another portion of the property a proposed amendment would allow relief from the required rear yard setback and distance between buildings.
The first amendment would facilitate the sale of the land by the town to the Metzgers for the purpose of constructing an additional fourplex as part of a planned “seniors” community. The change would add four units to the development, bringing the total to 23, but would reduce by about one-third the area of a proposed park/stormwater management pond retained by the town in the original sale of the property.
When the property was originally re-zoned to allow the development, Wellington County planner Linda Redmond noted at the time the proposed park area exceeds the Planning Act minimum requirements of five per cent.
However, some residents who purchased homes fronting on George Street in the first stage of construction were upset to learn they may have a building, rather than a park behind their homes.
“At no time during our many conversations prior to signing the building contracts and my closing date (Dec. 2014), was it ever suggested that the original four units of ‘senior’s condos’ would become a ‘housing projects type community’ with seven units,” wrote resident Tracy Crispin. “Moving from a rural location I felt this lot location would provide myself and my three children the perfect solution of being close to the school with green space to enjoy. I did not expect to look off my back deck, across one lot width into the back of a brick wall.”
Crispin stated at the public meeting that her family’s decision to purchase in the development was based heavily on the original concept plan, which showed the larger park area.
“There were other opportunities in Harriston where we could have built that didn’t provide green space,” she noted.
Resident Peggy Newman stated she found it “disheartening” to learn after her home was built that the original concept would be changed.
“You know what you signed up for, what you planned on,” she stated.
“I do sympathize,” said Jeff Metzger, “To us it was always a concept design … it’s taken three years to come up with this design to make it actually work. That’s it in a nutshell – to make this project work in every which way possible this is what we had to come up with.”
Harriston resident Ross Wilkie supported the development in a letter, noting local retirees are in “desperate need” of retirement condos.
“Numerous seniors have moved away from Harriston as a result of a lack of retirement condos,” Wilkie stated.
Local senior Neil Murray stated at the meeting that he and his wife are awaiting completion of the proposed development in order to move in.
“My wife and I have a problem … We now have sold our house. The work has stopped and we’re out in the street here … why all this hold up? This is the third change … why all this fooling around? We need it done,” said Murray.
Ken Porter, a longtime resident of the neighbourhood, said he watched the property become poorly maintained after the school closed and is now looking forward to the day when construction ends.
“I got to live in a dump for three years and now I get to live in a construction zone,” said Porter. “These developers work seven days a week sometimes.”
Porter said he was disappointed to learn of a plan to market the apartment complexes as rental units, rather than condos.
“I was hoping for condominiums so the developers would build their condominiums, it would go into a condominium corporation and then they’d be gone.”
Jeremy Metzger said, “Speaking about why it’s not a condominium anymore (development) – we had some issues lining people up for that. It wasn’t actually as popular as we first thought. No one wanted to commit to a property like that. They’d rather be in a rental where all their lawn’s taken care of, their snow’s taken care of.”
On concerns the “seniors” units would end up being rented out to non-seniors, Metzger commented seniors “are the only demographic” that would want to live in a facility providing the type of property maintenance that will come with the proposed units.
“I can’t say it’s for seniors only, but no younger person’s going to pay the expense to have that, to be catered to. There’s no way it’s going to be row housing. We do not want row housing in there,” he stated.
As the public meeting ended, Minto CAO Bill White explained a proposed bylaw approving the requested amendments would be brought forward at a future meeting, after concerns have been discussed with the developer.
“Based on what I’ve heard here we will be talking to the developer and our people as to whether there are changes that they want to put forward to council, because obviously there are some significant concerns from the neighbourhood,” said White.
However, noted Mayor George Bridge, “We have to do this sooner than later … as was pointed out tonight we have people desperately needed to get into the place. I would think it would be on the next docket in two weeks.”
