A proposal to put 47 townhouses on a one-hectare parcel of land has drawn the ire of neighbours near the 7th Line.
A public planning meeting was held during a special meeting of Innisfil council May 15 regarding an official plan (OP) and zoning bylaw amendment for 1065 7th Line.
The property is on the south side of the 7th, between Webster Boulevard and Quarry Drive, currently zoned as Residential Low Density 1 (R1) on the town’s OP. The OP amendment being requested would re-designate the lands as Residential Medium Density, with two zoning bylaw amendments required for site-specific provisions.
The current single-detached dwelling and accessory uses housed on the property are proposed to be torn down and 47 townhouses put up in its place.
Coun. Robert Saunders was perplexed.
“It’s one hectare, which is two-and-a-half acres,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong, but how are you going to jam 47 houses in two acres?”
The proposal calls for the development to be accessed by one entry onto 7th Line. The six-metre roads throughout the development would be privately owned and maintained by the condominium corporation and would not allow for on-street parking. Sidewalks would be on one side of the road.
Emergency access would be available through an existing entry near the stormwater management pond in the area. As well, the proponents own two adjacent properties to the east they are hoping to develop, and would connect to the proposal under consideration.
Nine townhouse blocks would be constructed, consisting of three-to-six units each. Twelve units fronting onto the 7th Line would have rear lane access, via the private condominium road.
The proposal largely fits under the Residential Medium Density designation, with the net hectare density of 54 units/ha (including roads) landing in the top end of the 25- to 60-unit range. However, the zoning itself will need to be amended to differentiate between the rear lane units and the interior units.
“The majority of the site-specific deficiencies including minimum lot area, minimum front yard, minimum rear yard, maximum lot coverage and minimum landscaped open space apply to the proposed rear lane townhouse units fronting on 7th Line and are a result of the unique siting of these units which do not include a typical rear yard or driveway,” staff stated in a report on the proposal. “This increases the lot coverage and decreases the amount of landscaped open space available on the lot.”
The interior lots are “closer to compliancy or compliant” to the current zoning provisions.
The proponents feel their proposal meets the standards of good planning, and should move forward. Other councillors raised concerns, including Deputy Mayor Kenneth Fowler, who was worried about pedestrian safety in light of the proposed widening of 7th Line to Lake Simcoe, and the naturalized trail at the north end of the development near the stormwater.
Coun. Alex Waters also quickly noted the lack of parkland in the proposal.
But it was the neighbours who took to the dais in the council chambers in a steady stream during the meeting to voice their displeasure with the proposal.
Several noted the irony of their position: living in a subdivision that was once farmland, and likely faced similar opposition from the community. Many were not opposed to further development in the area, but rather had questions along the same line as Saunders: how do you put 47 townhouses on that site?
And why?
“Why are we considering putting 47 townhouses on something that is currently zoned for residential single-family dwellings?” said Adrian Wedgewood, who lives behind the proposed development.
Wedgewood noted her neighbourhood has been under development since she and her family moved to Innisfil nearly 20 years ago, with plenty of parcels remaining vacant, despite various stages of pre-construction and even public meetings occurring.
“To change it to 47 is very substantial when we already have other areas that clearly have been zoned to accommodate housing that haven’t been developed,” she said.
Jay Estevez and Debbie Smith both looked at impacts outside the proposed development in their comments. Estevez wondered if the town was ready for the influx of cars parked on the 7th when it becomes apparent the owners of the new townhomes won’t have enough parking spaces for all their vehicles, while Smith voiced concerns the speed limits in the area are already too high.
Smith expressed safety concerns, particularly for the youngest residents of the proposed development.
“For the last twenty-one-and-a-half years that I’ve lived there, we’ve been told you’re supposed to be back there,” she said, referring to the stormwater management pond and the naturalized trail around it. “Now this is showing a development with a pathway and they’re saying this is where kids will walk through to access the school.”
Smith also mentioned that looking out at 47 townhouses is not what she and her neighbours paid for when they bought their properties, expecting either the naturalized area to remain or, at best, single dwelling homes to dot 7th Line.
Cheryl Birch agreed, arguing that number of townhouses do not belong on that stretch of road. She also said the council chambers should have been busier than they were.
“My biggest frustration with the whole process is I didn’t hear about this,” she said. “I let (the town) know that sign was not posted … until Monday of this week. So, the notice did not go out the way it should have gone out and I think that had it, there probably would have been a lot more people here to oppose this.”
Town staff confirmed during the meeting that the sign announcing the proposed changes and the public meeting was posted in April, however, it had come down. Staff did put up a temporary sign once they was made aware of the issue, and a new formal sign was installed May 13.
Staff committed to review the notice process to ensure statutory regulations were met and noted that lack of notice is grounds to appeal any decision made by council to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
Council received for information the staff report on the proposal. A staff recommendation on the proposed development will come before council at a later date.
