KENILWORTH – Despite push back from neighbours and councillors, a new single storey townhouse building with four units is coming to Mount Forest.
Wellington North Mayor Andy Lennox said while he’s sensitive to neighbours’ concerns about intensification, he feels the proposed development strikes a good balance between providing needed housing and maintaining the neighbourhood’s character.
Council unanimously approved a zoning bylaw amendment permitting the development on Oct. 6.
The amendment rezones the property, located at 345 Durham St. E., from low-density residential to site-specific medium density residential.
An existing house on the 0.31-hectare (0.76-acre) property is set to be demolished.
Wilson Developments has also proposed a severance to merge the rear portion of the lot with the property behind it (119 Byeland Dr.).
The lot with the townhouses is set to be divided in four so each unit can be sold individually, for roughly $500,000 to $530,000, for the two-bedroom, two-bathroom single-storey townhouses.
Wilson Developments’ director of developments Matt Rapke said these are “attainable” prices.
Owner Brad Wilson said tentative closing dates for the townhouses are in February and March and three of the four units already have buyers lined up.
During the Oct. 6 meeting Lennox told stories about Mount Forest residents who are grateful for attainable housing prices, including a senior woman concerned about where she could afford to live if her husband died, and a newcomer who was “delighted” to be able to afford to live in Mount Forest.
A public meeting about the proposal was held on Aug. 24, during which three neighbours voiced concerns about how the townhouses would change the community’s character and rural feel, about if there’s enough space for parking and snow storage, and about whether trees on the lot would remain.
Neighbours also asked for assurance they would not be impacted by lot grading and for a privacy fence to be erected if needed.
Councillors expressed concerns about the removal of trees, as well as the affordability of the units and what might happen with the severed piece of land.
Councillors asked to see a site plan for the development and township planners asked for a building footprint sketch showing front yard setbacks of at least nine metres so the townhouses align with neighbouring houses.
A site plan provided by the developer shows 40m deep lots with 9m front yard setbacks, 20m homes and 11m backyards.
These setbacks exceed minimums set by township bylaws.
Each unit has two parking spots (one in a garage and one in a driveway).
It also identifies trees to be removed, including a row of cedar trees on the northeast side of the property, seven trees at the front of the property, and another two on the southwest side.
The township’s building permit process requires that three new trees be planted and Wilson said he expects this to happen in the spring.
Councillor Sherry Burke said “if we could save more and plant some extras that would be greatly appreciated.”
Developers also provided proposed floor plans and a letter responding to concerns.
The letter, from Rapke, describes the four-unit townhouse as “an ideal form of gentle density that has a similar massing to the existing single detached dwellings in the neighbourhood.
“The proposal intensifies development and efficiently uses existing municipal infrastructure in accordance with provincial and county planning policies.”
The letter states “snow will be blown off the driveway and stored on the front lawn in the same manner as other townhouses throughout Ontario.”
The letter also provides rationale for severing the back portion of the lot.
“Dividing the property into four deep parcels is not an effective long-term use of this land,” Rapke states.
This map shows the location of the proposed development on Durham Street. Images from the Oct. 6 Wellington North council meeting agenda
“The proposed lot adjustment enables the lot on Byeland Drive to possibly be redeveloped into a higher density use in the future [and] allows Wilson Developments to recover some of the cost of the land purchase and therefore keep the purchase price of the homes lower.”
Rapke notes in the letter that to their knowledge the buyers of the severed lot have no plans to develop it.
Wilson added the developer plans to use it as greenspace, as “they don’t have a backyard basically right now, so it worked out nice for them. And it’s not wasted. Because it would kind of be wasted space back there right now,” if the portion to be severed remained with the townhouses instead.
“Nobody wants to cut that much lawn,” Wilson said, to which councillor Penny Renken responded, “I do.”
During the public meeting, Renken disagreed with the developers that long backyards for the townhouses would be wasted space, as she said they could be used for children to play, vegetable gardens or swimming pools.
Burke asked if a restriction could be put on the severed portion of the property to prevent it from being developed.
Development planning manager Curtis Marshall said, “A holding provision could be placed on those lands that would restrict any further development,” and suggested that if this is done, an exception be made for accessory buildings, “in case they want to put in a garage or a pool shed or something like that.”
Chief building official Darren Jones added zoning bylaws would already prohibit development on the lot, as it is set to merge with the Byeland Drive property that already has a house.
“To further develop they’re going to have to come back to council or through land division anyway through either rezoning or severance applications,” said Jones.
Renken asked if the owners could come to council proposing to tear down the existing building to construct something new, and Jones said “absolutely they can do that. Whether there’s a holding provision or not, they can come back and ask for the holding provision to be removed.”
Lennox added, “Rezoning is always an option for any property owner at any time.”
