The Town of Braford West Gwillimbury has been falling behind when it comes to achieving its intensification targets – the higher housing densities mandated by provincial policy.
If the proposed plan of subdivision presented by Pantheon Group for a 2.49 hectare property at the southeast corner of Line 6 and Simcoe Road is approved, it will help the town reach those targets.
In a public meeting under the Planning Act on Tuesday night, council received an application for zoning by-law amendments that would permit the construction of 76 units on the property - 66 Townhomes and 10 semi-detached homes.
A portion of the property, currently within the floodplain, would be rezoned Environmental Protection and natural buffer area – leaving 62 percent of the property available for development.
Ryan Windle, Manager of Community Planning, described the two-part proposal – for six semi-detached units with access from Line 6 to be built on one block, and the remainder of the townhomes and semis to be built as part of a plan of condominium with common elements that include visitor parking, an internal road/walkway, underground stormwater management tanks, and a “tot lot” parkette.
The townhomes – 22 with rear-lane access, 26 back-to-back townhouses, and 18 with standard front access – would require site-specific zoning by-law amendments, reducing minimum lot areas, frontages and setbacks to accommodate the number of units on the property.
The existing by-law, Windle noted, requires a minimum lot area of 170 sq. m. for standard townhomes; the applicant is proposing minimum lot areas of 140 sq. m. for the block townhomes, 120 sq. m. for the rear lane towns, and 95 sq. m. for the back-to-backs – a new ‘product’' for Bradford. Back-to-backs have no backyard.
The four semi-detached homes within the plan of condominium would have a minimum lot area of 110 sq. m.; the current by-law requires 230 sq. m.
And KLM Planning Partners, which represented Pantheon at the meeting, is proposing 19 visitor parking spaces – half the number of spaces required by the current zoning by-law.
Marshall Smith of KLM Planning explained that although only 19 visitor spaces are proposed, a number of the townhomes have four parking spaces per unit, “two in the garage, two in the driveway,” which could make up the difference.
There were no questions from the public but plenty from council.
Coun. Peter Dykie Jr. asked about the “tot lot” – the only greenspace provided for some of the townhomes with minimal front and rear lots. Dykie noted that the usual parkland allocation within a plan of subdivision is five percent of the land.
“A tot lot, that’s not five percent of 6.17 acres,” he said, asking if the developer would make up the difference with a cash-in-lieu payment to the town.
Dykie acknowledged that there is a demand for smaller, potentially more affordable homes. “I can see this selling out,” he said, “but I’m just concerned with the quality of lifestyle when it comes to children.”
He added, “We have great parks in our community, but I’m still wondering what you are contributing.”
Smith acknowledged that the tot lot represented only 4.1 percent of the area of the condominium lands. “That’s aside from the cash-in-lieu that would be provided,” he said. “The town would be collecting the equivalent cash value.”
He also suggested that the designated Environmental Protection lands could be used for passive recreation.
While Dykie praised the developer for providing 19 visitor parking spaces, Deputy Mayor James Leduc said he had “some concerns” with the number. “19 spaces for that whole area is not enough,” he said.
Leduc also questioned the proposed small lot sizes for the semi-detached homes. “I’m not sure what we’re doing there,” he said. “If we’re going to have quality of life… these families need more green space than in their own homes.”
He added, “I have some concerns with the design. I love it, but we’re too cramped.”
Leduc also echoed the concerns of the town’s community services department, regarding access from Line 6 for the six townhome units that are not part of the condominium plan. He suggested that they should be accessed through the internal roadway, instead.
Smith said that wasn’t possible: a sliver of land, owned by Enbridge Gas, sits between the semis and the condominium lands; access is further blocked by the Environmental Protection hazard lands.
Coun. Peter Ferragine also worried about the reduction in visitor parking spaces. “You’ve got no parking on the private road. There’s no parking on Simcoe Road or Line 6,” Ferragine said. “You’re asking for half. It’s nowhere near what the town is requesting and (parking) is one of our biggest issues.”
Ferragine questioned the plans to reshape the floodplain, through cut-and-fill. “I’m completely familiar with this land,” he said. “Every spring it is completely flooding.”
With the basements proposed, and an underground stormwater storage tank, “you’re looking at potential major flooding issues,” he warned.
Coun. Gary Baynes agreed. “You’ve got to prove to me you’ve covered the stormwater aspect,” he said, not convinced that the cut-and-fill operation would prevent flooding.
“We’re getting 100 year storms every 10 years,” added Coun. Ron Orr. “We’re running into a lot of problems with this type of development, with the land mass being too low.”
Several outside agencies also expressed concerns – Hydro One over the proximity to its high voltage transmission line and a hydro substation, and the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA), with drainage issues.
The LSRCA received an enhanced floodplain analysis on July 18, proposing a cut-and-fill operation to modify the floodplain, and is still analysing the information.
Noting that there is a high groundwater level and that the area is a “significant groundwater recharge area,” the conservation authority identified plans for full basements and the use of sump pumps as areas of concern. Noting that the town does not permit sump pumps, the LSRCA called on the developer to “incorporate a passive drainage system” into its plans.
“I think a number of the comments will be worked out through the review process,” said Smith – including solutions to the concerns expressed by the LSRCA and Hydro One.
He acknowledged that the lot sizes are a first for the town in terms of size. “What we’re doing is taking zoning categories out of the zoning by-law, and suiting them for the product,” Smith said – with porches and decks taking the place of rear yards for some of townhomes.
The lot areas for the standard townhouse blocks are “close to the town standard,” he said.
Modelling has indicated that the cut-and-fill operation would provide “a net gain in flood storage,” improving flood control in the area, Smith noted.
As for maintenance of the parkette, snow clearance and garbage collection – those would be part of the condominium agreement, covered by the owners.
“I look forward to seeing all your solutions,” said Coun. Gary Lamb, noting that intensification is needed. “We want to save Class A farmland. 50 and 60 foot lots are a thing of the past.”
The application was referred to staff for review and recommendations to council at a future date.
