PALMERSTON – Some local residents remain concerned about a proposal to increase the density of a planned subdivision here despite the addition of an additional access road and a park area.
An update to a proposed draft plan of subdivision redline revision and zoning bylaw amendment for the Clair Ridge subdivision in Palmerston was the subject of a Town of Minto public meeting on April 19.
Developer Galaxy Homes is now seeking to increase the density of the subdivision from 27 to 39 units by adding a mix of semi-detached homes into a plan that originally called for 27 single-family residences.
The Guelph-based company is now proposing to build 23 single detached homes and 16 semi-detached units on the 7.93-acre property.
An earlier proposal, the subject of a public meeting on Sept. 7, would have seen the subdivision contain a total of 40, units, including 24 semi-detached dwellings.
Planning technician Ashley Sawyer explained that one single-detached dwelling was dropped from the plan to create space for an extension of Derby Street, connecting the subdivision to Toronto Street in order to address traffic concerns.
“The overall layout of the subject property is proposed to remain the same, with an addition of a park block that will be conveyed to the town, the extension of Derby Street to the subject property as a second access, a decrease in the proposed units from 40 to 39, the removal of a reserve block and servicing walkway,” and the revision of frontages on three properties to accommodate the Derby St. extension, Sawyer explained in a staff report.
The report explains the original draft plan of subdivision was approved in 1994 and has been revised over the years, most recently in 2017.
The 2017 revision initially proposed 28 single-detached dwelling units, a stormwater management block and a future development block.
However, at the time the developer decided to build one single-detached dwelling and sever it off the draft plan, resulting in draft plan approval for 27 units.
The developer is requesting a zoning amendment, to change the designation from R1D to R2, which is required to facilitate the addition of semi-detached units to an earlier proposal.
Public concerns, ranging from increased traffic to impact on neighbouring property values were expressed at the Sept. 7 meeting
As a result of public concern, Wellington County requested a traffic study.
A report from County of Wellington planner Matthieu Daoust notes a traffic impact study dated Dec. 17, recommended the development be approved with no conditions related to off-site transportation improvements and the Town of Minto prepare a feasibility study of secondary access to serve the needs of all homes in the neighbourhood.
“The County of Wellington Engineering Services has reviewed the traffic impact study and revised draft plan and has no further concerns,” the report states.
Some local residents were unconvinced.
“Growth should enhance our community, not degrade what already exists,” said Paul Frayne.
“My main concern about this development is the lack of a two-way street connecting the new development directly to Toronto Street. Even with the addition of a single lane exit from the development I feel that the amount of traffic that will be funnelling in and out of Prospect (Street) will dramatically alter the quiet and safe neighbourhood that we currently have.”
He added, “I would ask town council to consider all options on how a two-lane street would be possible for entry and exit out of this development onto Toronto Street,” Frayne added.
Jennifer Frayne said a one-way street “does little to make Prospect Street safer.
“Most cars will be driving into the subdivision after work between 3 and 7pm. A one-way road out will not reduce traffic during this time or make the roads safer for the many children who live in play on Prospect Street.”
She added, “Realistically, Prospect Street would be least safe when my five-year-old son would be walking home from school, playing basketball in the driveway, or riding his bike.”
Adam Sinclair told council he is “highly affected by the street coming through Derby Street.
“I live on Toronto Street and the new proposed Derby Street makes my lawn into a corner lot and brings the setbacks back for building availability.”
Sinclair also expressed concerns about traffic speed and loss of privacy.
Local resident Paul Brown was concerned with the proposal to reduce the size of some lots.
“The immediate neighbourhood, and the existing subdivision plan consists of single-family dwellings, mostly located on 66 feet or greater lots,” said Brown.
“If the zone change requested is approved, you will see single-family dwellings on lot sizes averaging 41 feet. That’s 66 feet down to 41 feet, a reduction of 38% in lot size and an increase in density of 69%.
“That’s a sharp contrast between the character of the existing neighbourhood and the compact, sterile subdivision from Guelph, which is proposed.”
Brown added, “I can only assume the county, as well as the Town of Minto, deemed such sharp contrasts were not a good thing in rural communities, so they introduced into their official plans … vision, strategies, and objectives to make new development more compatible and retain the character of rural urban centres.”
Brown pointed out the current configuration of the new subdivision would result in two Prospect Street properties having “three new houses in their backyard.
“Where is the consideration for their privacy?” he asked.
“This is a stated compact subdivision, plucked from the City of Guelph and deposited into a traditional small-town neighbourhood in Palmerston to maximize financial gain from the smallest blocks possible under our to zoning and ignoring the intent of the municipal official plan.”
Evan Whittmann, a planner with GSP group, noted there are 66-foot lots in the area, but also smaller ones.
“So, there is a mix. And it’s not one lot frontage size that dictates the entire character of the town,” he explained
“We feel like a mix is appropriate in describing the character of the town. The uses we’re proposing are single-detached houses as well as semi-detached, both of which do exist in Palmerston and are seen across the town.
“So, both in terms of use and build form, in our opinion, it is following the policies of the official plan.”
Whittmann added, “Regarding privacy and the backyards, for example, having three backyards touching one existing backyard, there will be fences of course built to help with privacy, and having backyards facing one another is a condition that exists in Palmerston now.”
Councillor Jean Anderson said she understands the concerns of the existing residents.
“I must say, I’m of like mind. You know, our small-town flavour, when do we get to the point where we’ve lost that entirely?” asked Anderson.
“You know people come to a small county or small town to live a certain way.”
Councillor Judy Dirksen pointed out the current plan has changed little from the one presented at the previous public meeting.
“And everyone has almost the same points as they did back in September. And really there haven’t been any changes made to the plan except let’s extend a street … Take out one house and and extend Derby Street,” said Dirksen.
“It seems like that’s all that has been done about all the concerns that were talked about last September.”
Anderson asked what the impact would be if council turned down the requested change to R2 zoning.
“If we turn that down, and it stays as R1 zoning, what would happen to the subdivision? Would it be a no go?” she asked.
“Clearly the neighbours are not in favour, but they seldom are.”
“We need to have this type of diversity. And we need more density,” said Mayor George Bridge.
“If a developer comes with this kind of density for us, and we say ‘No, we’re going to turn it down,’ I guess I’d have to look at it and say the developer is not going to come back.”
“If the R2 doesn’t go ahead, I’m not sure, to be honest, what will happen,” said Whittmann.
However, he noted that under the official plan the density target for the town is 16 units per hectare, while the revised proposal comes in at 14.5.
“It’s trying to strike that balance between getting single detached houses to try to continue the small-town character, with trying to meet that 16 unit per hectare density, which we are a little bit short of,” said Whittmann.
Sawyer pointed out no decisions were being made at the meeting, which was for information-gathering purposes.
Sawyer’s report explains staff will proceed to finalize the technical review of the draft plan of subdivision and the application to amend the zoning bylaw, then report back to council for local consideration of the draft plan and council endorsement.
Following the approval of the revised draft plan by the county, an amending zoning bylaw will be provided for town council consideration.
