Innisfil council wants some refinements made before it approves a development proposal in Stroud.
At its June 26 meeting, council sent the proposal for 78 residential condominium units at 7958 Yonge St. in Stroud back to staff for further discussions with the developer.
The move wasn’t without complications. While sitting as committee of the whole, councillors initially voted down the staff recommendation, which called for the town to move forward with the zoning application. That would place staff in an awkward situation.
“(If) we refuse this as recommended by town staff and we go to the (Ontario Land Tribunal), our planners are witnesses for the proponent and we have to hire outside planners to defend our position,” Mayor Lynn Dollin explained to her colleagues.
Town staff ultimately found the project adhered to several planning principles as required by the province, conforming to the Provincial Policy Statement, Golden Horseshoe Growth Plan and Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, among others.
“The proposed development will utilize underdeveloped vacant lands within the Stroud Settlement Area,” staff stated in the report, adding the potential influx of residents and commercial business “will be within walking distance to the Downtown Commercial Area of Stroud as well as the Stroud Innisfil Community Centre Arena.”
The vacant lands encompass about five hectares in total, with 216 metres of frontage on Yonge Street. The site is currently not serviced by municipal sanitary sewers and the municipal water system does not have the capacity for the development as proposed.
The development would not proceed before that infrastructure is addressed, which would be 2026 for water and 2028 for sewer, at the earliest.
A public meeting on the development last year saw residents call out a bevy of issues that could mean a sudden shift in the character of Stroud. Councillors continued with the line of questioning raised by their constituents as they debated how to move forward.
Coun. Kevin Eisses wasn’t happy with the lack of parkland being proposed as part of the development.
“This being the centre of Stroud, I think this is a good opportunity to try and incorporate a little more green space into that, especially dealing with the density that we’re seeing in that development,” he said.
He was hoping for a greater mix of dedicated parkland and cash-in-lieu of parkland, rather than having the parkland requirement be entirely compensated for in cash. And while town staff will always encourage the dedication of appropriate parkland, planning manager Brandon Correia indicated it really hasn’t been an option with this development.
“In this particular site, what’s important to note is that there is existing zoning in place which did not include a parkland block and always contemplated cash-in-lieu,” he said. “Totally appreciate where the residents are coming from, but there are parks and community facilities within a three- to five-minute walk, so it’s not necessarily underserviced with available parkland.”
Eisses and Coun. Alex Waters also reiterated the concerns residents shared regarding the proposed heights of the townhouses. Among the most common comments raised at the public meeting on the matter last fall were the concerns about density and how townhouses will clash with the existing neighbourhood.
The zoning bylaw amendment calls for a maximum height of 10.5 metres, which was a compromise. The developer wanted 11 metres; Waters wondered why the height wasn’t capped at nine.
That height is the starting point for the zoning bylaw, Correia said.
“Although they’re requesting 10.5 (metres), there’s a slight buffer at least on some of the lots or blocks because there are changes in grade,” he explained. “Based on how building height is measured … they left just a little bit of flexibility. In actually, I would understand it would be slightly less, in some cases, than 10.5 (metres).”
Waters still wasn’t impressed, as he thought getting creative with grading could allow developers to get the full 11 metres it wanted in the first place. He also echoed Eisses' concerns about greenspace, but with an eye to future stages of the development, versus what was being considered at the meeting.
The commercial block fronting onto Yonge, which is part of a longer-term plan for the site, is only proposed for commercial development at this point. Waters doesn’t see it unfolding like that, however, which gives him pause in moving forward.
“I can’t imagine them just having a commercial zone on Yonge. That just seems to open itself to mixed-use,” he said. “My concern is that we’ve passed something with density and no greenspace, and they can turn around and come back on the commercial space and ask for a zoning change to mixed-use.”
It was an “annoyance,” he said, of not being able to look at the full picture while making planning decisions.
“I understand council concerns that they don’t believe that’s how it will end up in the future, but that would be subject to a future application,” planning and growth director Andria Leigh said. “This application is for a commercial block, so we need to take that at face value.”
The second resolution passed on the issue during committee called for additional consultation on parkland and greenspace and drainage issues related to elevation and the retaining wall.
