A development application about to go into the legal appeal process was approved by council in a recent decision overturning a previous decision to deny the proposal.
The development at 580 through 590 Sixth Street was first proposed to council's standing committee on Feb. 25, 2019 and was supported by town staff. It went to full council March 11, 2019, where it was turned down.
After being denied by council, the developer appealed the decision to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). The case had not yet been accepted to the tribunal when council reversed its decision.
The application before council was to build 104 dwelling units (64 apartments and 40 street townhouses) on the site. Council turned down the application citing concerns about parkland, a road network for the entire block, access to public transit, and stormwater management. The vote was tied with Councillors Tina Comi, Yvonne Hamlin, Mariane McLeod, and Deb Doherty voting against the proposal. A tied motion is a defeated one, so the application was denied.
At the May 13 meeting, the motion was approved with Councillors Comi, Doherty, and Hamlin still opposed.
Deputy Mayor Keith Hull brought the application back to council on May 13, and asked Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Fareed Amin to estimate how much an LPAT appeal would cost the town.
Amin said the upfront preparation work would cost the town about $50,000 and the town would have to hire a lawyer to represent them at the tribunal. The town would also have to hire an outside planner, since the town’s planners all supported the application, and therefore would likely be served with a subpoena, according to Amin.
Since council voted to approve the draft plan of subdivision, the LPAT appeal is redundant, according to consultants Krystin Rennie of Georgian Planning Solutions and Paul Husson of Husson Engineering and Management, both hired by the developer of the Sixth Street site.
They said they worked with staff to come up with a draft plan application that conformed with the town’s planning rules and philosophies. Both said they were glad to see the town agrant site plan approval.
The properties at 580 and 590 Sixth Street (eight acres) are part of a larger 18 acre block of undeveloped land. There are no other development applications before the town for the rest of the block.
At the initial review and denial of the draft plan, the councillors and residents opposed to the plan brought up several concerns including no designated parkland, the road network seemingly not accommodating a future neighbourhood, pedestrian access to transit, no stormwater management pond, and parking for the high density apartment block.
In a letter sent to council May 13, Rennie addresses those five concerns.
Regarding Parkland, Rennie and Husson said they were following staff direction.
“The town’s preference was not to have a bunch of small parks, but rather one large one,” said Husson following the May 13 meeting.
Town staff confirmed it was “generally agreed” during the technical review process that creating a small park for this subdivision made less sense than waiting to create a potentially larger park to serve this subdivision and the lands adjacent to it.
The land in question backs onto Black Ash Creek, so staff also recommended the town acquire a 15-metre-wide development setback abutting the creek in addition to parkland dedication cash-in-lieu for the 580 to 590 Sixth Street development.
When it comes to pedestrian access and transit, Husson said that’s also the town’s call.
“It should be noted that this site will generate approximately $1.75 million in development charge revenue for the town, of which 30 per cent is allocated to roads and related transit,” said Rennie in her letter to council. “Sidewalks are identified as service provided by these funds.”
Husson confirmed the interior of the subdivision will have sidewalks built by the proponent.
But pedestrian access to and from the development was also a concern raised by council.
The nearest transit stop is approximately one-kilometre away on High Street. Town staff confirm they will be asking the applicant to install a new transit stop at the entrance to their development, and that request will be part of the detailed engineering review. The stop will be part of the Collingwood/Blue Mountain Link route.
As for sidewalks, the town confirms they didn’t ask for sidewalks on Sixth Street.
Adam Ferguson, communications officer for the town confirmed the engineering department did not ask for road improvements on Sixth Street for the application because the improvements are identified in the town’s development charges bylaw.
The current plan is to use development charges for both road improvements and a 1.5 metre sidewalk on both sides of Sixth Street.
The road network inside the development does take into account the adjacent land and inevitability of surrounding developments through connections to Sixth Street and Holden Street, and a possible future connection to the self-storage land on the east side.
As for parking, Rennie’s letter indicates the underground parking and surface parking included in the plan are in line with the town’s parking requirements.
Finally, on the issue of a stormwater management pond, Rennie said Black Ash Creek will act as a stormwater outfall, as it does naturally.
Quality control of the stormwater will be done using an oil grit separator, which is already in use in other areas of Collingwood.
The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority has approved the stormwater management plan and confirmed there is no need for a pond.
According to Rennie and Husson, there is still technical work to be done before the developer is ready to move to construction phase.
Rennie said there could be grading done later this year, however, they will not be able to clear any trees from the property until after nesting season ends in September as per the town’s bylaws.
