More than a dozen neighbours of 180 Ontario St. turned up at a public meeting about a four-storey apartment building proposed for the site.
In order for the 60-unit building to go ahead, the town would have to change the zoning on the site, which is why there was a public meeting during the council meeting on Sept. 23.
The neighbours have major concerns about the possibility of allowing a higher-density option into an existing historic neighbourhood and how it could impact them.
Dr. Matthew Weisbrod was one of 14 different speakers who raised concerns on multiple issues including traffic, parking, and environmental impact. He said that the vast majority of the homes in the area are single detached residences.
“You can put a square peg in a round hole, but it will never look right or feel right,” said Weisbrod.
The land is owned by a Toronto-based Ontario numbered company in the care of Pino Scarfo, with the application being handled by KLM Planning Partnership.
Currently, a single-storey building with a daycare centre (Mouse and Ru) sits on the land, which is across the street from the Collingwood OPP detachment and runs alongside the Train Trail.
According to tentative plans, if a zoning bylaw amendment is approved, the developer intends to demolish the existing building, and replace it with a new four-storey apartment building containing 60 units. Sixty parking spaces and amenity space are included in the preliminary plans.
Weisbrod specifically raised concerns about the environmental study, bringing up the history of the site as being a vehicle maintenance facility for the Collingwood Public Utility from 1966 to 1998.
“There’s the potential it generated oil waste,” he said. “There should be a phase two environmental study before consideration of the zoning of the site.”
He also raised concerns that the 60 parking spaces proposed would be shorter than a typical parking space.
“Pick-up trucks and large vehicles will not fit in these spots. Where are they going to park?” asked Weisbrod.
According to a presentation to kick off the public meeting by senior planner with the town Justin Teakle, concerns received by the town on the proposal to date include the potential loss of the existing day-care on site, concern about parking impacts to the surrounding neighbourhoods and increased traffic, there being only 60 shortened parking spaces proposed for 60 units, how a new building would impact stormwater management in the surrounding neighbourhoods and the protection of trees that currently stand on the property.
While the developer did provide a parking study and a traffic study that both determined that the apartment building and the 60 parking spaces would be appropriate for the site, neighbours questioned that finding during the meeting.
Daryl Banks, who lives on Callary Crescent, said the neighbourhood is already overrun with cars parked on their street daily, which he believes comes from people who are working at or frequenting downtown businesses.
“We have a significant amount of non-resident cars on the street already. I have real concerns about the reduction to 60 parking spaces for 60 units. We’ll see evening, weekend and overnight guests parking on our street,” said Banks. “I just moved to this street in May and it’s been an eye-opening experience for me.”
“This seems like an awful big stretch from what the zoning is now,” he added.
The developer is seeking a zoning bylaw amendment because the land is currently zoned as deferred residential, and the land requires the zoning be changed to a (holding) residential fourth-density exception in order for the apartment building to be in compliance with the bylaw.
Travis Jeffery, who lives on Minnesota St., raised concerns about the loss of the day care.
“As the dad of a young girl, it’s very tough to find day care. I partly moved to that location because Mouse and Ru is just around the corner,” he said. “There’s a lack of day care in the east end.”
“As the owner of a heritage house, it’s frustrating to put the effort in to maintain a heritage house while Collingwood builds itself up with generic grey boxes,” said Jeffery.
Regarding the loss of the day care on-site, Courtney Fish of KLM Planning Partnership said during the meeting that the developer did investigate opportunities to retain the existing daycare on the main floor of the apartment building.
“Unfortunately, due to the size of the property and requirements...and the town’s own bylaw, it was impossible to accommodate those uses on the property,” said Fish, adding that a day care is still a permitted use under the new zoning so if anything changes in the future, it could be accommodated.
Grant Thompson and Dun Hawkins both raised concerns about how the development would impact stormwater drainage in the surrounding homes.
“The water runs all the time. The sump pumps – there’s a constant water flow. It has to be addressed,” said Thompson.
Richard Young, who is an architect by trade, said he believes there’s a lot of work to do on the plans for the site before any zoning changes should be approved.
“It lacks a vision. The disconnect between the architecture you saw on the screen and the buildings around is quite upsetting as a neighbour,” said Young. “This will be way over-developed.”
Beverly Schafer said her issue with the plans was one of mental health.
“For me, I will look out onto a four-storey apartment building. It will block my sky, it will block my view, it will block my light,” she said. “I find it mentally unsettling.”
Shelley Reeson said she understands the need for more housing in Collingwood, but not this proposal at 180 Ontario St.
“If this was a proposal that was going to go into the backyard of any of your homes, you might feel the same way,” she said. “It’s a misuse of the property.”
Following public comments, councillors also raised questions regarding placement of garbage bins, stormwater improvements, the size of apartments, e-vehicle charging, whether the day care could be moved and the existing trees on the site.
“Putting an infill building into an existing neighbourhood is always a challenge,” said Mayor Yvonne Hamlin. “I’m surprised we haven’t seen a site plan application along with this zoning bylaw amendment, because a lot of the issues raised today are addressed through a site plan application.”
Teakle explained that due to changes to the planning act from the provincial government and the tight timelines associated with site plan control (they must be addressed within 60 days of the town receiving them), that the town won’t be dealing with both at the same time moving forward to make sure they can adhere to those timelines.
The town’s planning director Summer Valentine also noted that the holding provision on the zoning is kept in place to make sure site plan approval is given before a shovel can go in the ground.
“That being said, the province of Ontario has removed the ability for municipalities to control architecture or building materials, but we have had lots of luck with our proponents in voluntary compliance,” she said.
In response to some of the concerns, town staff said that the units will be rented at market value and won't be considered affordable housing (below market value). When asked about the split of types of units (bachelor, one or two-bedroom apartments), Fish said those details had not been determined yet.
While no decisions are made during a public meeting, the town will collect feedback provided, as well as do their own technical review of everything the developer has submitted, which will inform their decision on how the proposal will proceed and if changes to the proposal are necessary.
For more information on the proposal or to reach out to the town regarding the application, click here.
