KENILWORTH – Wilson Developments hopes to build four townhouses at 345 Durham St. E. in Mount Forest, but neighbours and councillors have concerns.
The developers came to council on Aug. 25 for a public meeting for the necessary rezoning to permit the townhouses, as well as a severance to transfer ownership of the back of the lot to an adjacent property.
The land is currently zoned low-density residential, which only permits single detached homes, and the developer is applying to rezone it as medium-density residential to allow the townhouses.
According to the developer, the townhouses will comply with all requirements once rezoned.
Wilson Developments plans to demolish an existing home on the lot, and to sever about two thirds of the 0.3 hectare lot and merge it with 119 Byland Drive.
County planning staff reviewed the application and did not have comments.
Wellington Source Water Protection requested the owners submit plans about how they will mitigate risks to water systems during construction.
Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority officials had no concerns or objections.
Township planners requested “a building footprint sketch … showing the proposed setbacks to ensure that the proposed dwellings align with the existing dwellings on either side of the property, as well as the streets, to provide a consistent streetscape.”
Neighbour Mark Dorigo is concerned the townhouses will affect the neighbourhood’s character.
“Wilson’s built beside me and that certainly affected the character of the neighbourhood,” he said. “They’re all rentals and they’re all occupied by partiers.”
Neighbours Annette and Bob Fox asked council to reject the zoning change.
They wrote a letter to council that lamented the Mount Forest neighbourhood they moved to 13 years ago when it was “a lovely neighbourhood of similar aged homes and well-sized and well-cared for properties.
“Now, in the last few years, we have had a lovely forest ripped out and a multitude of semis and townhouses built in its place,” they stated.
“We already have apartment buildings, townhouses, semi-detached homes and even a seniors home in our immediate area. We feel we have enough urban diversity in our neighbourhood.”
The Foxes quoted Advertiser reporting in their letter, with statements from Mayor Andy Lennox and councillor Steve McCabe talking about the importance of zoning bylaws and protecting the rural style of living in Wellington North.
During the meeting, Annette Fox asked if council could “say no to the townhouses,” and instead allow two detached single family homes.
If the townhouses are approved, the Foxes want assurance that:
- the grading of the land does not affect their property or cause flooding;
- there is enough off-street parking for the new homes;
- there is sufficient space for snow storage; and
- the cedar trees between the properties are not removed, but if they are a privacy fence should be erected.
Dorigo also requested that the cedar trees on the subject property remain, as well as the mature trees along the street.
Wilson director of developments Matt Rapke said final decisions about trees have not yet been made, but he expects the cedar trees on the retained portion of the lot to be removed, as well as the trees along the front of the property.
“If the zoning bylaw requires a fence, we will build one. If it doesn’t, we will see,” he said. “That’s not something we do unless it’s required.”
He said concerns about changing character come up “every time someone goes to change something.”
He noted policies and provincial and municipal plans “encourage intensification within built up areas,” and this intensification improves the municipality’s financial position, the walkability of communities and other “good planning outcomes.
“These are going to be townhouses. They are going to be pretty consistent with what was developed on Wellington Street East, on the east side of Newfoundland (Street), those kinds of townhouses – they are going to be a similar vibe. So I don’t think they’re that out of character for this general neighbourhood of Mount Forest,” Rapke said.
Annette Fox said she is also concerned about the back portion of the property that the developer plans to sever. She asked if the new owners planned to build another set of townhouses there.
Rapke said while there is a potential for “some long-term future densification process there, [the buyers] have no intent to do that. They are just going to purchase this portion and attach it to their backyard.”
From the developer’s perspective, the severance makes sense because without it, each townhouses’ backyard would be a long, narrow “bowling alley lot” with too much “wasted” space.
Councillor Sherry Burke said she doesn’t see the problem with long, skinny lots, as they would give the owners lots of greenspace, and she’s concerned about what could come forward for the back plot of land, if it merges with the adjacent property.
Councillor Penny Renken also does not consider the long lots a waste of space, noting they could be places for children to play, for large vegetable gardens or swimming pools.
“It has lots of uses that somebody coming into our rural area might enjoy having that extra greenspace, so I’m afraid I’m not in favour of having the lot severed,” she said.
“Our lot is 220 feet deep and it’s beautiful – it’s fenced off, it’s gorgeous gardens, 30 foot cedar trees – it’s not a useless lot,” Fox added.
Rapke replied, “It makes a lot more long-term planning sense to take that one big unused piece and stick it to any of these abutting properties that could be developed long term into something different. Once you cut it up into these long narrow pieces that density is pretty much limited permanently.” He noted the developers have sold many similar properties and there is not much desire for such deep lots.
If the severance is approved as requested, the lots would have nine to 12 metre long backyards, whereas without it the yards would go back 60 metres, he said, which “just becomes a lot of grass.”
Renken asked if the developers could reduce the size of the severed portion, “so these people have a chance to get a good-sized backyard in a rural area.”
Rapke said, “That could be done,” but insisted the proposed backyards are already a “decent size,” and consistent with zoning bylaws and with “lots of other townhouses in town.”
The developer’s intent, he said, is to “not take more than was needed to give someone a necessary rear yard and to keep that big piece as large as possible for future options.”
Councilor Lisa Hern said she’s supportive of efficient use of space and providing homes for young families and retirees, as it’s “proven that we do have a deficit of those.”
She asked if the developer could provide assurance the homes would “meet or come close to the affordability index.” He did not.
Hern, Renken and Burke all stressed the importance of avoiding the removal of trees from the property. If the cedars must be removed, Hern said she’d want to see a privacy fence replacing them.
Lennox said he wants to see a more detailed sketch of the developer’s plan, including the amount of “livable space … to understand how the market may be for their use.
“I know that in other situations I’ve been supportive of townhomes that I later discovered were much larger than what I expected and made them less affordable.”
Rapke agreed to bring forward that sketch, but noted “when you pass the bylaw, that does not tie us to that … we are tied to the zoning provisions that are in the zoning bylaw so it could be changed.
“We’re not going to change it, because we know exactly what we’re going to do already, but I just want council to be aware of what is and isn’t in your control in the scope of a zoning amendment – which is why I didn’t provide that super specific detail in the first place.”
Lennox said he understands Rapke’s perspective but “council doesn’t have very many opportunities to make the point of what the housing we believe we need in our community is and this is an opportunity to do that.”
“Absolutely,” Rapke said. “These are going to be two bed, two bath on the main floor with an unfinished basement – a fairly straightforward simple bungalow townhouse.”
“You are coming into an area that has huge beautiful properties and you’re building four townhouses that probably won’t have enough parking, probably will have nowhere to put their snow – it’s just not right,” Fox said to Rapke.
“Please reconsider.”
