Neighbours to the site of proposed future apartment buildings claim the lofty ideas for the tall buildings amounted to pie in the sky.
Collingwood resident Ian Cartwright called the plan for developing three Sixth Street properties a "fairy tale" and went so far as to accuse the developers of "misrepresenting" their intentions for buildings.
He said while the plans submitted to the town indicate two apartment buildings for the site, the artistic renderings of the buildings appear to show four, or two pairs of buildings with each pair joined in the middle by a square structure described in the submission documents as shared entry and amenity spaces.
“I don't know how putting a little box between two big buildings magically makes them one building,” he said. “The fairy tale that is being pushed down our throats is totally unacceptable and it's dishonest.”
The Collingwood council chamber gallery was full this week for the public meeting on the proposed Sixth St. development.
About 15 different residents, including Cartwright, spoke at Monday’s (Jan. 30) public meeting with many others attending to support the criticisms of a proposed six-hectare development at 580, 590 and 560 Sixth Street, which will be two four-storey apartment buildings consisting of 272 units and 75 townhouse units. A park is also included as part of the draft plan of subdivision.
A requested official plan amendment would change the zoning on a portion of the property from medium-density residential to high-density residential to allow for the apartment buildings. The zoning bylaw amendment would be to change the zoning on the remaining part of the property to allow for the townhouse developments, as well as the park and public roadways.
The last formal submission made on behalf of the developer was received by the town on Aug. 25, 2022.
Attendees at Monday’s meeting raised concerns such as drainage, traffic volumes, parking, whether the new development would be complimentary to the existing neighbourhood and how the new development would impact the values of the adjacent homes.
George Marron, one of many residents who attended from the Creekside development to the south, raised concerns about the ownership of the land. The owners are currently listed as two Ontario numbered companies and were represented on Monday night by agent Krystin Rennie of Georgian Planning Solutions.
“The thing that concerns me is the fact that the applicants here are not identified. We're dealing with two shell companies,” he said. “Do we have any idea what they've done? What's their track record? What's their reputation?”
A previous submission from the developer on the land was last considered by council in 2019, and was struck down by council at that time. Under that submission, the 560-Sixth-Street parcel was not included in the plans, and the plan at that time was for 64 apartment units and 40 townhouse units.
The developer at that time appealed the decision at the Ontario Land Tribunal (then the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal), and was given approval in 2019, however the draft plan approval expired on Nov. 7, 2022.
Michael Olejnik questioned the 179-page traffic study that was submitted by the developer. That study suggested the new development would create 149 a.m. and 150 p.m. peak-hour trips, and concluded it would not add significant delay to the local roadway network.
Olejnik shared concerns that many of the residents who would live in the new development would use the Creekside neighbourhood as a bypass to travel south, rather than use Sixth and High Street, which could add to existing neighbourhood traffic woes as the population increases.
“I'm very concerned about using old data to call what is existing traffic flow because that's not accurate at all. It doesn't doesn't really take into consideration the population growth,” he said. “It will significantly increase.”
Cartwright brought forward concerns about the way the developer awarded their own points for the town's merit-based process to approve servicing capacity (ie water and wastewater, etc) for developments.
Back in March 2022, council passed a new merit-based points system for developments called the Servicing Capacity Allocation Policy (SCAP). Under the policy, new development proposals would be graded using a points system based on the inclusion of elements such as green technology, affordable housing, mixed uses, water conservation measures and employment generation. The policy is used to assist staff in allocating the town’s limited water and wastewater capacity to new developments.
While a developer can submit how they think they should be graded under the SCAP, the final grading is completed by town staff.
Cartwright opined the developer was too generous to themselves for their SCAP submission.
For example, he said the chart notes a mix of land uses (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) are eligible for five points and the developer gave themselves the full five points despite the entire development being residential uses with one park space, which is mandatory. The developer also gave themselves full points for using local consultants, engineers and planners.
However, Cartwright noted the only person on the developer’s team that is local is their agent from Georgian Planning Solutions, while the architects, engineers and other consultants are from Toronto, Guelph, Markham and Whitby.
“They're misrepresentations at the best. They're out-and-out lies at worst,” said Cartwright. “That chart is the greatest evidence of self-serving fantasy of this development and this blatant misrepresentation...both calls for concern for the persons who compiled it and is evidence the developer will say whatever is needed to get approval.”
Elisha Marshall asked whether the development would include any affordable housing. While the town’s Director of Planning Summer Valentine said the apartments would be rentals, she said there is no current plan to include affordable housing in the development.
Valentine also said that the planning documents submitted by the developer and referenced during some resident presentations had not yet been peer-reviewed by the town.
The developer's agent thanked the public for their feedback and promised the proposal team would look into the concerns raised.
Following the public meeting, Valentine said the next steps for the town will be to peer review the application documents, compile all the public and council feedback and prepare a staff report with a recommendation to council on the merits of whether they should approve the zoning amendments to the property to come forward at a future meeting.
