It was a packed house at last night’s town council meeting, filled with passionate residents of the Bond Head community expressing their opposition to the latest proposal for the redevelopment for 4240 County Rd. 88, the 154-year-old 'Quaint House.'
It was a public meeting under the Planning Act, to hear the details of owner Frank Buda's Zoning By-law Amendment application, and revised submission that would permit a large mixed-use development on the site..
“No decision will be made tonight,” said Katie Pandey, Senior Planner with the Town of BWG advised at the start of the meeting, as she went over the proposed revisions.
The original proposal called for demolition of the Quaint House, and incorporation of some of its features into a new four-storey block, with commercial on the main floor and residential apartments above.
The revisions, made after a public meeting held in Bond Head this spring, included a reduction in the original planned number of units from 41 to 35, a height reduction from 16.5 m to 10.55 m, an increase in the number of parking spaces from 134 to 145, an increased side yard setbacks, a reduction in the amount of commercial space, and preservation of the Quaint House, which is listed on the municipality's Heritage Registry.
“Most importantly, the Quaint House is moved as a structure… to be used as an amenity space and a lobby for the residents on the second and third floors,” said Pandey.
Angela Sciberras, speaking on behalf of owner Frank Buda, noted that the current application before the town was for a Zoning By-law amendment only. The current C5 commercial zoning does not permit residential development; the proposal calls for mixed use of the 0.4967 hectare (1.23 acre) site.
“Our site plan will only be submitted… when servicing is available,” Sciberras said.
“We would work with the town and our heritage consultant to create a restoration plan, that would be acceptable to the Town,” Sciberras said of the Quaint house. She noted that the architect had modified the façade, basing his design on significant heritage homes in Bond Head. “He thought that was an appropriate way of paying homage to the history of the town,” and creating a main street feel.
Neighbour David Wigglesworth, a 20 year Bond Head resident, told the meeting: “I dread the impact something like this would have, not only on my property but on Bond Head.”
He called it the “wrong location” for a project that would only add to noise pollution, light pollution, traffic congestion and parking issues – and pointed out that even with the increase in side yard setbacks, “the building would stand effectively 50’ – that’s 16 metres – overlording my backyard…. This should not be allowed to happen like this.”
Wigglesworth, who concerned about overshadowing, and the impact of excavation on his home’s “ancient foundation,” called the proposal a “monstrous, sprawling residential and commercial development.”
He added, “We decided to move to Bond Head because of its small town ambiance and large lots.” Surrounded by heritage residences, the development “will absolutely have significant impact on its neighbours. The proposal is not in keeping with the feel of the immediate area.”
Wigglesworth quoted from Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 16, which opened the door to growth in the Bond Head settlement area, as stating that “new buildings shall be harmonious in respect to building mass, setback and expression,” while infill within the heritage precinct or village core “shall be sensitive to the existing scale and pattern of neighbouring areas.”
He suggested, “It makes no sense to consider this proposal at this time,” since there is no servicing as yet, the town is in the midst of a Heritage Conservation District study, and a new infill policy is in the works. “There’s no need to rush forward at this time,” he said.
Wigglesworth concluded, “This proposal does not fit with previously defined guidelines,” and warned council that if they approve it, “You will have an entire hamlet angry with you. Do you want that to be your legacy?”
Lynda Usher complimented the developer on the changes, the preservation of the Quaint House, and the improvements to the size and design, “but considering what I see is a four-storey size development… It would be much better placed at the north border, at the 8th Line, or the south border, at the 6th Line.” Within the heritage core, buildings should be “no more than two storeys… It needs to be a thoughtful design, and not swallow up the Quaint House.”
She also quoted from the 2007 report, that “new buildings should create a harmonious relationship,” and that development should “protect cultural and heritage assets.”
Calling for further revisions to the design, Usher concluded, “Please, council members, listen to the concerns of residents.”
Sarah Lough told council, “Destroy all the heritage homes around it and then it will fit in;” otherwise, she said, “This will be a blight on the entry to Bond Head.”
“It’s very nice-looking, but very out of character for the hamlet of Bond Head,” said Al Muma, who has lived in the hamlet for 33 years. He suggested that existing homes will be “very much dwarfed. I fear it will be an out-of-place eyesore… Even the revised design is a massive structure.”
Muma noted that the design standards in Bradford “don’t necessarily align with the ‘standards’ in Bond Head… Once we open the door to one monster development like this, we won’t be able to close it again.”
Milt Calder was most concerned about increased traffic on Highway 88, noting that he already has trouble getting out of his driveway at certain times of day. He called the proposal “completely out of character” for the hamlet. “It’s a Toronto building,” he said, urging council to consider an infill by-law that would prevent the equivalent of ‘monster homes’.
White Eagle (Doug Gray) told the meeting, “I think tonight is something more than the Quaint House. If this goes through, you know what it means for Bond Head. There will be no Bond Head.”
He warned councillors, “Down the road you will wear this. The outcome from these meetings will determine the future of Bond Head. Each of you has a responsibility…. Shame on you if you allow this to go through.”
He said councillors had a choice – “thirty pieces of silver,” or making the right decision.
David Chambers said that he moved to Bond Head 47 years ago, to restore a circa 1845 country inn, and has a “great reverence for its collection of 19th century buildings.”
Chambers noted that committees and OPA 16 repeatedly determined that the priority should be to minimize the impact of new development “when it comes, as it surely will” on cultural and heritage assets - to “marry the new and the old in a sympathetic and respectful way.”
The proposed development, he said, “does not adequately address the height and setback.”
Also quoting from OPA 16, Chambers noted that new development “should be compatible with the architectural character on adjacent lots… This includes scale, massing, architectural character, setbacks…” and that buffering is recommended to create a transition between old and new.
And while OPA 16 does permit three-storey buildings, Chambers said, “We don’t have any three-storey buildings in Bond Head. OPA 16… should be amended,” to restrict the height to two storeys.
While supporting the reuse and repurposing of heritage buildings, he suggested that the scope of development should either be in the commercial core of Bond Head or within a “residential precinct” – not in a heritage area.
“This application presents a complete about-face in the commercial development. Do we want another Holland St. West in Bond Head,” Chambers demanded. He concluded that while council may have to make unpopular decisions, those “should be for the benefit of the community and not just individual property owners.”
“I got one thing to say, if this council allows this to go, you’ll be forever known as the people who destroyed Bond Head,” said resident Art Luke who has lived in Bond Head since 1967.
“Don’t threaten me,” said an angry Councillor Gary Lamb. “I don’t appreciate the ’30 pieces of silver’ comment (made by White Eagle),” he added.
“It is a public process, Councillor Lamb,” he was reminded by the Mayor.
“People are passionate,we can tell that. Please don't take it out on council," urged Mayor Keffer.
"This is part of a process. No decision has been made,”he said, noting that as a landowner, Buda was entitled to bring forward a proposal and argue his case.
Jenny and Mark Poirer, residents of Bond Head for 25 years, took their turn to speak. “When I see this tonight it’s just mind blowing. Mind boggling and unacceptable,” said Jenny.
“I hope everyone in this room takes this into careful consideration. It is not an addition. This is absolutely something that is more of greed and certainly not need,” she said.
By the time the public’s comments were all heard, it was just over 9 p.m, at which point it was council’s turn to respond.
“I can understand everyone’s passion,” said Coun. Mark Contois, but he suggested that, being a settlement area, the village of Bond Head is governed by the provincial policies that require intensification and higher densities for infilling.
“When this first came forward it was about saving the Quaint House,” Contois said – which the developer has done.
“The province has put restrictions on this council. I have to abide by the rules, so we have to figure out what is a happy medium,” he said.
Coun. Gary Lamb noted that things were starting to get too personal in the meeting and urged residents to give council a chance.
“I want to be able to make a decision that will allow something to work in Bond Head," he said. “Give us a chance...let’s see what we can do to work together and move along with this."
“I understand that the passion you have and I know how dear this is to you,” said Coun. Raj Sandhu.
“There are some valid issues raised tonight. I have an open mind, I haven't decided on this. I will decide based on the facts that I have, not an emotion.”
Coun. Peter Dykie Jr. noted the plan was “too aggressive for Bond Head” and at this point in time it wasn’t the right place for the development.
"I know the province says you have to take existing land and maximize it, but you have to have a balance," he said.
“I can't see this today fitting into the downtown core of Bond Head,” he said.
Coun. Ron Orr thanked the members of the public for coming out to speak and noted it would be a decision not taken lightly.
“I hope you at least give us a little bit of credit, trust me we are on your side, but we have a process to follow. We’ve heard all your concerns and trust me it will be a decision won't be taken lightly at all.”
Mayor Rob Keffer closed to the public forum portion of the meeting on a positive note, thanking everyone for attending and confirming that council would not be making any decisions right away.
"We’ve learned things tonight,” Keffer said, especially information on the language within OPA 16, information on the elevation, soil conditions and artesian springs within Bond Head, and the presence of a culvert at the west end of the property.
“You’ve all brought forward issues and items we weren’t aware of," he said.
The application was received for information, and referred to staff for review and recommendations at a later date.
