“One of the things we’ve always tried to fight for is … to keep Rockwood relatively rural, if there is such a thing in this day and age.”
Guelph-Eramosa Mayor Chris White made that comment on March 20 while council considered a proposed lot severance at 160 Clara Street in Rockwood.
Much of the discussion revolved around maintaining the look and feel of the current neighbourhood.
“The proposal is for three severance applications, which … will create four lots on the property,” said township planning consultant Mitchell Avis.
Developer Ayodeji Olu-Ayeni is proposing the removal of a single detached house to build two semi-detached houses.
“That will … create a total of four units on the property,” Avis said. “So each unit will have its own parcel of land.”
The current lot is about 40 metres (120 feet) wide, which is close to double the surrounding lots in the neighbourhood (20m or 66 feet). The severance application is proposing lots that would be approximately 10m (33 feet) wide.
“Now you’ve got urban … higher density provincial policy statement lots, which is where this is kind of going,” White said.
By adding the four new units White said the development will essentially be adding eight new cars.
“It’s busier, it’s denser, it’s more urban, it’s what you want to see frankly in a new subdivision when they’re trying to prevent sprawl,” he said.
“But in an old, established neighbourhood, I think it’s reasonable to maintain what they have done everywhere else.”
However, councillor Corey Woods said visually there would be no difference between a single detached home and a semi-detached house.
“If you’re driving in a helicopter you’re going to see two footprints of two houses that look the exact same as everywhere else in the neighbourhood,” he said.
Avis said the severance proposal conforms to the Wellington County official plan as well as to the township zoning bylaw.
“I’m a little confused why we’re having this little presentation,” Woods said. “You’re telling me that the lot size conforms to our bylaw and in our bylaw they can do semi-detached.”
Avis explained Wellington County holds the authority to approve or deny the severance application and the presentation is to allow council to provide comments to the county committee.
Woods said he didn’t think anyone could prevent a single lot severance because the created lots will conform with all the other lots in the neighbourhood.
White said, “They’re meeting all the legal planning requirements. If you’ve got an empty lot, it’s zoned residential, it’s in the town … you’re allowed to build on it.
“I’m suggesting you sever the lot once so you have two 66-foot lots and he gets a single home on each.”
Resident Ken Mercer said he was worried about the removal of an “architecturally significant house.”
White said “knocking down an old home, there’s nothing you can do about that they own it, it’s a private home.”
Mercer was also focused on maintaining the integrity of the neighbourhood.
“The current neighbourhood is all single-family homes … this development is not in keeping with that design,” he said.
Both White and Woods said they thought the discussion would be around allowing semi-detached homes or single family homes.
“If we casually sit by and say ‘do the highest density you can on every single lot you find in Rockwood’ now you’re tying it into Milton, Mississauga … it’s not what we want,” White said.
“That’s the reason people are in Rockwood; they’re 30-year-old lots and it’s an old neighbourhood.
White noted the township is doing a good job meeting provincial density targets and added, “I don’t think it’s our job to completely do the province’s job for them.”
Township planning consultant Dan Currie said the township’s comments should only be aimed at the severance application itself. He noted the land is currently zoned R1, which permits both detached and semi-detached homes.
“I’m suggesting a little bit of caution in terms of how you characterize your comments to the (land division) committee,” Currie said. “Focus on the land division question … you’re not supportive of the severance into four lots.”
Woods said this issue is actually one of fairness. Current landowners of 66-foot lots in the neighbourhood are able to demolish their houses and build semi-detached homes without coming to council for approval.
“When we make zoning bylaws we have to make them suitable for everybody … and the way we’ve done our zoning bylaw is everybody gets semis; whether they like it or not, they’re allowed to do it,” said Woods.
Councillor David Wolk said council needs to be aware of the doors this severance application could be opening.
“If we are resolved to increase the density in Rockwood, well then nothing is sacred,” Wolk said.
But, he continued, “I think in order to maintain some kind of a blend, a mix so that you’ve got something for everybody I think we need, to the extent we can, to put that stake in the ground and say this is not right here … because if you let one go, we’ll be back here soon with more of the same.”
Councillor Mark Bouwmeester said it appears the developer needs to go through a lot to build two houses.
“That leaves more questions in my mind that need answers,” he said.
Council accepted the planner’s recommendations to support the development at the county planning and land division department – but added a stipulation that the application be limited to two detached homes on two 66-foot lots, “to maintain the design, character and integrity of the neighbourhood.”
The resolution passed with just Woods opposed.
Water and wastewater
Mercer and resident Ken Cornelisse were also concerned about the proposal to run pipes through Lloyd Dyer Park so the new houses have municipal water and sewage access.
“We the neighbours question the validity of the severance when the requirement for services under the township bylaw requires that services be readily available to the site,” Mercer said.
“The easement through Lloyd Dyer Park would be for the benefit of connecting the water and sewer laterals from the main on Balaclava Street to accommodate the private developer.”
He added the deed from 1931 says “the property is to be used for a park” and “not otherwise.”
Cornelisse agreed.
“I disagree with the servicing through the park based on the deed and discussion that has gone on,” he said.
“I think it does have some impacts on the park … You wouldn’t be able to build other things in those locations so it’s a fairly long track and it would encumber what could be done there.”
Avis said the township solicitor has reviewed the deed and said the easement does not affect the use or appearance of the park.
