Councillors here listened politely to a litany of complaints about a subdivision to the northeast of Ronald Crescent in Elora – but are powerless to do anything about the objections.
Planner Brett Salmon told those at a public meeting on April 24 the subdivision was first proposed in 2000, and has gone through ownership changes. It includes 42 single family homes, a six-unit townhouse and semi-detached dwellings.
The subject lands are east of Bridge Street and the plan is to extend Murray Drive and Cutting Drive into it. The legal description of the land is Part Lots 4, 6, and 8 of Plan 181 of old Nichol township.
Planner Astrid Clos said the provincial policy statement and Places to Grow legislation call for diversity of housing and this subdivision meets those rules.
The townhouse block will provide access to a nearby trail and it will be six units, the maximum the municipality allows. Cloes also noted the developer has increased the width of single family homes from 10.6 to 12 metres and the semi-detached from 7.5-metre frontages to 9 metres. She noted the sideyards are reduced by one third of a metre to 1.5 metres.
She said the developer has received comments about the small lots but is simply trying to meet the provincial regulations.
Residents in the area for the most part were opposed to having such small lots abut their larger residences on Ronald Street, and other homeowners in the area agreed with them.
Liutsen Dewitt of Ronald Street in Elora said he is not opposed to the subdivision, but he will lose access to the back of his property the way Murray Drive will be extended. He said the surveyor removed his steel survey stake and replaced it with a wooden one.
As for the high density, “I really am not in favour of it. It’s going to devalue our homes.”
Jason Hein, also of Ronald Street, said he moved to Elora last January and was aware of the development proposal. He said it is “curious” how changes of zoning from farmland to residential affects property taxes.
He also sought a fence for privacy and a sound barrier between the development and Ronald Street.
Hein, too, did not like the density or the subdivision layout and said the lots should match better. He noted there are three proposed lots in the subdivision backing onto his back yard on Ronald Street, and “Maybe you could get it down to two.”
He added, “I’m not a fan of townhouses.”
John Lovell of Murray Drive said his concerns are similar.
He said since a development on Bridge Street his basement has been flooding when he never had water problems before. He now needs a sump pump.
He said his major concern was that he bought his lot and expected a similar development.
“Now, all of a sudden, I don’t see compatible types of homes,” Lovell said. He added there are other unfinished developments in the community, and why not finish them before building this one.
Frank Berardine of Dickinson Court told council he bought his home with the expectation that homes built around his would have consistent value.
He said he sees a lowering of his home’s value and the area has to watch how it uses its water because it runs best only at certain times of the week. Berardine said there were problems with a recent development in the area and now another is proposed. Meanwhile, “Our taxes are higher than Guelph.”
He said it will mean even more traffic in the area and more children having to cross the bridge at Bissell Park.
Gary Ratcliffe of Cutting Driver was concerned about traffic, noting three buses stop “within three doors of our house” already. He wanted the speed limit reduced as it was to 40km/h on the First Line.
Clos, in response to the complaints, again cited the provincial policy statement and the Ontario legislation that permits such housing.
Salmon said over the past ten years, every new development proposal for the area has offered smaller homes than what is abutting it. That is part of the provincial legislation for growth.
“Always the newer is higher density,” he said. “So we work with housing types.”
He said the provincial government’s Places to Grow legislation forces 16 housing units per acre, whether people want it or not. He said there is one way that can be alleviated. The council can allow lower density in one subdivision, but is forced to make up that by having another area with even higher density to average out the growth. “If you push it off on another it get’s harder” to meet the rules, Salmon told council.
Later during the council meeting, councillors were asked how they feel about having to listen to residents’ complaints when they have no choice in the matter because of the provincial laws.
Mayor Joanne Ross-Zuj agreed “It’s always been a difficult concept for small urban centres,” but she said the legislation encourages the housing diversity and “it’s difficult for people to understand.”
Salmon said since 2006 council has not approved any subdivisions that have not included town houses and semi-detached homes. He said the last one approved with only single family housing was in Fergus.
Councillor Walt Visser pointed out “On the other hand, we have lots in Fergus with 18 feet of frontage.
Councillor Fred Morris said it is “Queen’s Park philosophy. This is what happens. We are forced to live with their decision.”
