Okay, welcome everyone. My name is Jim McBendham. I'm the deputy mayor. I'm sitting in for the mayor. She should be here in about 10 minutes.
She's swarmed right now by 20 or 30 beavers. That's five and six-year-old little cubs or whatever they call them.
So they're checking out the mayor's office and other things like that around the Minest Valley, so she should be here shortly.
So I will get started here. So I'm going to ask for approval of the agenda tonight. So I'll need a mover.
Okay, Councilor Barkley, am I going to assume,
okay, be resolved at the special committee
of the whole agenda.
For January 15, 2020, be approved as presented, all in favor.
Anyone against?
Okay, I'm going to ask for disclosure of interest, and everybody has any disclosure
of interest?
No, I see none.
Okay, carrying on.
So this is the public part of the meeting now.
I've got to read a specific item here which is mandatory I believe it's
provincially mandated by us. So public or this municipality of North
Grenville public meeting procedure January 15, 2020 council will now hold
concurrent public meetings to consider applications for the lands legally
described as part of lot 26 and part of road allowance between lots 25 and
Concession 1, former township of Oxford on Rideau, now the municipality of North
Grenville, to amend zoning from rule RU to residential third
party, a third density special exception, R3-19 to accommodate the
proposed residential subdivision phase. Consider the merits of the
application for the plan of submission to direct staff to prepare proposed
conditions of draft approval for consideration at the future committee
of the whole meetings and complete the required public meeting notification
under the Environmental Assessment Act in accordance with municipal class
environmental assessment section A-2.9. I must advise you that this
meeting is your opportunity to voice any objections or concerns that you may
have with respect to the above described applications. If an impeller does not provide
oral submissions at the public meeting or written submissions before Council adopts
the proposal and the local planning appeal tribunal may refuse to consider the objections.
Any person who wish further notice of Council's decisions concerning these matters should
give their full name, address and postal code to the planner following the adjournment
of the public meeting. Are there any people here for the public meeting? If so, please
acknowledge yourself.
Thank you. I will now pass the meeting over to David Nanton to provide
the staff presentation.
Thank you. Well, this evening I'll be providing a presentation
on the zoning bylaw and planning subdivision applications submitted to accommodate phase
5 of the Equinol subdivision.
To discuss some context about the site, the site area shown
here in red is approximately 11.26 hectares, or 27.8 acres, in size and is currently a vacant
parcel. As shown, it is irregular in shape and is situated at the northern boundary of
Kempville's urban service area.
The site itself is just situated to the west of
County Road 44, which runs north south and is to the south of River Road shown there.
The surrounding uses to the property include residential uses along River Road that front
on to the north and to the west of the site.
Immediately south is Phase 1 of the Equinole subdivision and there is the golf course
as well to the east of County Road 44.
The proposed Plan Phase 5 of the Equinole subdivision is slated to be developed for
total of 141 residential units.
The mix intended to be 93 single detached dwellings, and there are four residential blocks intended
for semi-attached and townhouse dwellings.
What's shown here on the draft plan are the single lots, and you can see the internal
road network here, and there are four blocks situated one, two, three, and the fourth
here, and those are intended for the multi-residential component of the project.
With respect to the public meeting, it is worth highlighting that the main purpose of
tonight's meeting is to receive comments from Council and the public and other agencies
on the development proposal.
The comments received this evening will be considered moving forward while drafting
conditions of draft approval and recommendations for conditions of draft approval are intended
to be brought back to Council for approval in the form of a resolution, which will
then be provided to the United Counties Leeds and Grenville, who are the approval
Authority for Plans of Subdivision to restate this meeting serves as the required public
meeting under the Environmental Assessment Act.
To go into the Planning Act applications, the requested zoning bylaw amendment seeks
to have the property rezoned from rule to residential third density special exception,
which is intended to keep with the zoning already in place for phases three and four
BC within the Equinol subdivision.
The effect of the rezoning would be permitting the residential development to be to comprise
part of me a mix of single family, semi-detached, and townhouse dwellings.
Moving to the application for approval of a plan of subdivision, submitted through
the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville, the application again is for 141 residential
units comprised of 93 singles and four residential blocks.
The recommendation brought forward for these files is that the Committee of the Whole
recommend that Council approve Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA-12-19 to amend the zoning from
rule to residential third density special exception to permit the proposed residential
subdivision and that the Committee of the Whole recommends staff to prepare a report
which further considers the merits of the application based on comments received and
which sets out proposed conditions of draft approval for the subdivision to be brought
back to a subsequent meeting for consideration by the Committee of the Whole.
David
maybe we'll pause just a second. Yeah, maybe we'll take a quick one there.
These are the North Granville Beavers. Say hi guys.
Yeah, we have the honor of
welcoming the Canfield Beavers. So before we proceed for concurrent public
meetings, Councilor Collings, do you just want to introduce yourself to the
Beavers, Councilor Sullivan?
Hello and welcome. My name is the Councilor
Doreen O'Sullivan and I'm happy to see you all here this evening.
And Councillor Barclay.
Hi guys and no girls, are there girls in there?
No.
OK.
My name is Councillor John Barclay.
Welcome.
I know some of your leaders and welcome to you too, Ben.
Good.
OK, so we'll resume the meeting.
David, we want to finish the presentation.
Thank you.
To move forward, it is important to note the comments that were received for these files, which stated some concerns.
Two letters submitted by residents within the subdivision stated concerns not over the scale or the proceeding of the development of Phase 5,
but for the increased traffic and related safety concerns for Royal Landing Gate and Equinol Drive.
Both letters stress that the health center existing residential traffic is currently problematic
and emphasize that the development should consider alternate access points to accommodate the additional 141 residential units.
An additional letter received by the municipality, which was provided through the United Counties,
referenced a desire to preserve large mature trees that are situated on the current property now
and for natural heritage features where possible.
An additional letter stated concerns over the proposed density being under the targeted
density of 18 units per gross hectare within the urban service area and for consideration
to be given towards affordable housing units within the development.
No concerns were raised by agencies circulated on these applications.
The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority had no objection to the Zoning Bylaw Amendment
application and comments regarding the proposed plan of subdivision are to be provided
directly to the United Counties of Leeson-Grenville.
That summarizes my presentation this evening.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Nanton, and thank you
for tolerating the interruption.
The beavers are here just for a short time,
but we wanted to ensure that they saw a meeting in action
and most to cancel in action.
We do have one other counselor who isn't with us
this evening.
So now that we've heard the staff report,
the committee will now hear from the applicant
followed by members of the public who wish to speak
either for or against the proposal, following any comments from the public, the applicant
will be offered an opportunity to respond to any questions raised.
Of course, any persons wishing to address the proposal should ask their questions through
the chair, and that is myself, and of course please state your name and residential address.
Community members may also wish to ask questions, that's us, to those who have
made presentations.
So does the applicant plan to speak this evening?
Yes?
Okay.
Welcome.
Or the applicant's representative.
Good evening.
Steve, would you like the...
I'm just here for a brief moment to say that I introduced myself as Steve
Pence from Novatech.
We filed the applications on behalf of the owners.
And we're here at the hold.
There's a team of us here.
there's myself and then another an engineer from Novotek as well as
representatives from regional group so if it's okay we'll turn it back to you
and allow you to take questions from the public and then we'll come back and
answer questions that were raised as well as any questions you guys you
might have in addition to those so does that work for sure okay okay thanks
while you're here though I will just ask council colleagues if they have any
questions of you in particular.
Councillor Sullivan, do you have a question of the applicant's representative?
Thank you, I do.
I would like to know, are there any of those higher density units designated as affordable housing?
Thank you for your question.
The development is not proposed as a development that would achieve affordability targets.
However, what is being proposed is a development that includes a combination of different types
of dwelling types, and that is a way to get out of affordability by providing a choice
for different types of homes.
But there's nothing in the development that is specifically designed for affordability
if you get the distinction.
Just to follow up on that question before we hear from other members of the public, Mr.
Nanton, are you able to speak to whether or not this proposal aligns with some of the
affordable housing or housing affordability objectives in the official plan?
I know there was some communication to that end and I think, obviously, as a council,
it matters to us and so we understand, given the number of homes that are proposed
that it would be reasonable for us to reflect on how this aligns with some of the state objectives and goals in the official plan.
Okay, and sorry, I was just asking Mr. Nanton, but I'd be happy to...
Erin O'Connor with the Regional Group.
Though we have not done a lot of analysis to, you know, how are we meeting the objectives of the affordable housing
in the Equinelle development, a quick read with your affordable housing action plan.
One of the elements is affordability in terms of purchase price.
And I noticed that, you know, the purchase price for affordability based on income and
to a low to moderate income as well as expenses was about four hundred and five thousand.
We're going to pause.
Thank you, Beavers, for coming.
Have a good evening.
Bye, Beavers.
Thanks.
Yeah.
That was the, in terms of a low to moderate income and affordable housing for purchase
price, the target for 2019 was $405,000.
In the Phase 5 Econel development, one of the things to contemplate is that we actually
are offering a variety of housing types, and one of the housing types that they're
considering is two-story townhomes.
That is, if that comes to market, that would be at that marker of the $405,000.
So, within there, we see it as that when you offer a variety of housing types, it allows
for
Offer of different housing prices at different times of life, you know, from someone who's just
a young couple, to family, to retirees. You know, we feel like we're starting to round
out that type of housing in the Equinell community, and that's our opportunity in phase five.
Appreciate that, and certainly the task force talked a lot about housing diversity, right,
which allows different kinds of people in different stages of their life to access
housing that is more accessible in ways that make sense,
especially if you're starting out at the beginning of your adult life
or if you're finishing as a senior.
So those things absolutely matter to us.
I'm just going to ask Mr. Nanton.
We did receive comments, not surprisingly,
from both the task force and members of the public.
Obviously given the work of our task force,
it has, I think, highlighted and created some momentum around affordability.
So I'm wondering if you could just speak to some of the other comments that you would
have received by email and that were shared with me in regards to density.
I know that was a major concern, so I'd be happy to hear a little bit about that.
Thank you.
When reviewing the merits of the application as submitted, we look at the parcel fabric
and the law area in terms of continuity with the existing scale and scope of the development,
what is proposed in terms of sidewalk, available land space, and some of those things
to see if it's rational in respect also to how it complies with the policies of the official plan.
Just to speak generally and then get into the specific questions that you're asking me,
the conclusion of the report was with respect to the official plan that the
development does make efficient use of the land and the available servicing for
the site itself being to the northern boundary of the urban serviced area.
There are limitations of how far the scope and scale can get to and the
mix with some medium density is compatible with the uses so kind of
into the area. As I understand the policies with respect to affordability there is a 25% target
that is sought at this time within the official plan but it's not specific that every development
will add into that 25% of the total units and as such that is my review of the official plan
with respect to this application. When it comes to the density there is a section within the
official plan that actually specifies a specific number at the total build-out that this subdivision
at the total completion of all phases is to reach, which is 1108 if I'm correct on that.
So there is some limitations that the developers, I understand, is working within in terms
of how dense they can go and also the pre-existing fabric of the road network, how many units
you can fit in accessibility and so forth. So I think there's two things to
tackle with that. For sure. And we have some appreciation for the character of
Equinial and how it initially developed and how it's evolving. So obviously
recognize some of that as a potential limitation but also see real
opportunity here, right? As I think the market shifts even from your
perspective. So that is something where we do hope to see some movement.
Okay. So Councillor Salam has asked a question. I've done some follow-up.
Council colleagues, before we go to members of the public,
is there anything you'd like to ask of Equinole's representatives?
Yeah, just a clarification on the access points.
I believe in a previous meeting that there's an opportunity for another access point,
or is, no, there's not. Okay.
What I understand, there's quite a history with the Equinell community.
I believe that there was a lot of analysis done of looking on River Road being another
access, but that River Road and connecting to County Road 44, that that's an intersection
is quite troublesome.
So it was designed that there was two accesses, Royal Landing Gate and Equinell Drive
onto County Road 44.
I know there's been a lot of comments about access and traffic.
We do have an engineer here that can speak to that there are going to be intersection improvements
that are planned for this summer, that's before the construction of this phase of development,
that will, I think, significantly improve how you get internet out of this community.
There's going to be lighting, turning lanes.
It will be much safer.
We're just waiting for the final approvals from the minister.
Yeah, I do recall that, but I'm just wondering if you've got access to the pointer, or maybe
Mr. Nanton can loan you the pointer.
Where are the access points to, that's Royal Landing.
Oh, okay.
So, do you have a, you're going to put it for me?
Great.
Yeah.
So, there are three accesses off of Royal Landing that are existing accesses.
There's the one right there that's next to, that leads you into the park that
actually adds a bit of extra space into the part just the way it's configured.
The second one is where the pointer is there, and then the third one was established right
there.
Good.
Okay.
So with that in mind, I will then, once again, invite members of the public who wish
to speak for or against the proposal to come forward with any concerns.
And then we'll do another round with the applicants' representatives.
Members of the public, anyone wishing to speak?
Okay, come on down please.
And we have a second person in the back as well?
Yeah, okay.
Take your time.
Sure.
Thank you.
Perfect.
Welcome.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you for coming.
I can be heard.
Yep.
You can be heard.
Just really lean in.
You have to get close to the mic.
Okay.
Richard Banks, 139 Royal Landing Gate.
Is that an ominous R?
I had contacted the
municipality because some of my neighbors and I have talked about this
development and it was the plan was shared to us, shared with us earlier in
the fall or late summer. I don't have a pointer if, is there a pointer?
There's an area in this subdivision that has, it's a smaller area, it's basically in this
area right about here.
It goes in a little bit into the road.
It's only about five lots wide.
There's five or six trees in there that are over 30 meters high.
They're beautiful, mature, growing trees.
And in this area, if you drive around, you will not find very many trees at 30 meters
high.
Now, this is a wetland, it's not been hampered by people for a long, long time, and they're
beautiful trees, and it would be very sad to see them disappear.
And the way this Novotek is written out, even though they do make some indication that they
might look at substantial trees in an area, there's no guarantee anywhere in
here that they would actually try to save them. There are some that are close
to a property line but there are some that are 35 meters into the new
development and of course these trees by themselves shouldn't stand
alone. There's also trees in there that help make this particular area a
very nice area. It was pointed out to us that they wanted to make a green space, I think,
in here, somewhere. I might be in the wrong part, but a green area in there anyway. And
it's basically a swamp. And to my way of thinking, I'd rather have people walking
around in a nice, lovely forest than a swamp.
And there's also in there, I know it's just a note in my submission,
there's a pond and turtles actually migrate into this pond
and there's all kinds of frogs and all that other stuff.
And it's a natural occurring thing in there.
And I don't know if it, I mean, if anybody cares if there's
something like that in this area but it also adds to the area. In the early the
earlier renditions of what Equinoa was going to be like they actually had an
area in here where they're going to put a skating rink and we all thought well
they're going to do the pond except the pond's too small for a skating rink.
But anyway that that was my concern that I wanted to bring up is that
there's an area in there that is very nice and it would be sad to see them cut
them down the trees. Now I'm not an expert on trees they could be maples but
they could also be northern sycamore and I don't know but I think northern
sycamore is a protected tree in Ontario and so I want someone to be able to
verify it one way or another. That was my submission thank you.
Thank you. How long have you been in the Equinol subdivision?
Since 19 – sorry, 2012.
Okay, okay. So you've seen lots of little changes and growth.
Yes, yes. Equinol is one of the nicest places to live.
I've ever lived in, and I've lived in a lot all the way from BC to the Maritimes.
It's very nice.
Good.
And everybody that lives there loves it.
Good. Glad to hear that.
Thank you.
Mr. Nanton, can you speak to how the municipality assesses older trees or, you know, obviously
natural assets that might be impacted by growth or maybe it's Ms. Martin.
Tell us what the process is like and would these trees have been on your radar as the
planning department did its due diligence?
So
with a submission is a package of supporting studies.
One of those would be an environmental impact statement that would assess the natural features,
and that would be conducted by a qualified professional, which would then be circulated
to the conservation authority who would also review that and the merits of that study
in identifying species at risk or important natural features for consideration.
So
what I hear you saying is these trees weren't assessed to having any particular value when it comes to natural heritage.
Were they part of the study that was shared?
I would have to look through the study to confirm that.
Okay. So there is some additional due diligence we can do just to see if those trees were identified as being particularly valuable.
Correct.
Okay.
Okay. Well, thank you because I think we'd like to better understand the fate of those trees, too.
And I'm sure equal now representatives, you may be also able to speak to that.
Why don't we do the round? Or actually, maybe it's practical that we just hear from you now.
Does that make sense? What do you prefer? Let's just deal with the subject matter at hand.
Let's talk about trees. You're here, so thank you. Welcome.
Hello.
Hello, I'm Evan Garfinkel with the Regional Group,
Melanie Riddell with NOVA Tech Engineering.
So with our package, we had submitted an environmental impact
statement and a tree conservation report.
And in the report, and we don't have a copy with us
right now,
I guess the phasing is
delineated into four sections in area A, in area B, in area C, in area D, and each of
the sections reference the species of the trees.
So we have had someone go and look at all the trees and determine their significance
and the county and the municipality have the opportunity to review that.
A majority of the trees will be cleared in the development area.
We will do our best to maintain where possible.
One of the areas that we are looking at specifically is, how are we working this here?
Is that working?
Is along the boundary, the rear yards of the existing royal and negate houses.
So where possible, we will do our best to maintain the trees along that boundary.
And if not, it will be a privacy fence.
And so there are engineering constraints within that area.
Melanie, if you're able to speak to that.
Hi. Yeah, the concern with maintaining trees along a boundary is always balancing the need
for fencing, the need for drainage and the need for grading. We need to do a significant, not
a significant, but we need to raise the ground in this area in order to drain it. So by raising
the ground, you can't cover the roots of a tree or it'll die. So a couple of those lots
in there are a little bit deeper than is absolutely required for the housing types that
So there are some opportunities, potentially some opportunities along that boundary to look at maintaining a few of the existing trees.
Further to Evan's discussion on the TCR and the areas of trees that we looked at, also as part of the EIS, the Environmental Impact Study,
Our biologists reviewed whether or not there's any species at risk in the area,
specifically while both flora and fauna, and he did not find any species at risk in the area.
But there are some recommendations, and that's the report that I didn't bring today with me,
to follow during construction and prior to construction to ensure that any species that just are regular species, I guess,
Our issues are mitigated during the construction time.
And to respond to the point about the park, this is a constrained phase.
And also having that great park where it is right now, the existing park with the splash pad,
it made sense and especially just with the phasing being constrained
to have that as more of a passive park, so the park location is right up here at the top.
So this is meant to be more of a passive park that offers a connection to River
Road and the, I guess we will be maintaining existing vegetation in
there just recognizing I guess what's going on with the rest of the phase and
the clearing that we would like to maintain vegetation there and keep that
as a more of a passive park with a connection to River Road.
And if Council
I also wanted to review the environmental impact assessment.
I don't think it was part of the package we received this evening.
You referred to that document.
Is that something that we could see?
Yes, absolutely.
Okay.
Yes, Councillor Barclay, thank you.
Just a question and based on the answer suggestion,
I'd address this to David because you might,
Mr. Nanton, you might,
what's the difference between the lot width and the road allowance?
And I'm looking at the most easternly access point right off of 44, that road allowance.
Is that wider than a lot?
It is.
So the suggestion would be to preserve some of the trees where Mr.
Banks, yes, thank
you, indicated.
Is there any utility to having that access further west?
West, in other words, to preserve some trees, but no, it has to be that far east as close
as possible to reed-o-landing and 40-core.
Just confirming that you're talking about this one here right here.
So no, this is lined up with an existing block that we left when we designed phase one.
So there's a home on either side of it.
So if we moved it west, we would have to take down a house.
Yes.
Okay.
That's probably not practical.
No, no, I was, I was...
So yeah, so in phase one we identified all, and dedicated blocks for future right-of-ways,
which is where all the road, all the road connections for phase five are tying into.
Yeah, I missed the lots along Rita Landing, yep, okay.
And just to answer your question, this is a 20 meter right-of-way, so 66 foot right-of-way.
internally are 18 meter right-of-ways. These lots generally are at 42 feet, which is 12, 13 meters.
Deputy Mayor.
Just a question for Melanie and Evan. You guys have been building there for quite some time.
Has the, and the environment of course is always changing, and I don't mean the natural environment.
I mean the environment with people of course concerned about the environment.
trees and whatnot. Has your building processes changed because of that since
phase one or early on? And I'm assuming in the early on of these phases there
was lots of trees in those lots as well which were probably long gone now
and we've moved on. But has anything changed over the years within
this municipality because we're a year in as council? We have some
concerns for trees and environment of course as well, but I'm just wondering if you can
tell me that has there been more, is it more conscious on you guys when you're looking at
these planning the builders, are they looking more seriously on trying to preserve?
Melanie might be able to speak more to the history, what she's thinking, but we've
We've always had our qualified environmental specialists and tree specialists looking into
these trees and making sure that things are done properly and that we're not removing
species at risk.
I am fairly new to the file, but I know that our consultants that we work with have
maintain a fairly consistent approach in evaluating the natural species and the environment.
Yeah, I mean, I guess the legislated requirements haven't changed much of the last 15 years in terms of,
I generally project so I don't usually need a microphone, but in terms of requirements for
for the professional studies, for submissions, for the application.
But our client is cognizant of the natural environment and wanting to preserve as much as can be done
and or augment after the fact.
You know, we've maintained existing sets of trees throughout the golf course, then we've
augmented them with native species, planting native species at various stages of growth,
which then fill in the gaps in terms of, you know, a number of mitigation factors
in terms of construction timing, construction practices,
reviewing existing species, what the impact is on those species.
So no, I wouldn't necessarily say that there's a change,
a significant change over the last 15 years,
but that's not to say that it hasn't been an ongoing issue
that we have been aware of and taken into account throughout the development process.
Does that answer your question?
Yeah, pretty much.
And from your experience, have developers changed their thought to then, you know, they've
got to take down a tree, do they have a policy, well, we take down a tree, we replace a tree,
do they put that type of investment or that thought behind it?
So I mean, can't speak for all developers and all developments are different, all developers
are different.
It depends a lot on the, you know, lot size existing area, you know, affordability
index.
I mean, there's a whole host of factors that come into that.
However, Equinell Developments is committed to and does appreciate the impact both on
their homeowners and the environment of natural spaces and dealing, managing environmental
issues appropriately.
We've built pathways and walkways and additional recreational facilities.
We've built some more passive walkways and pathways in different areas,
which is what the intent of this area here is.
This area couldn't be developed because it's within the flood plain.
We could just leave it as it is,
but the intent is to do some naturalized passive park so that it can be enjoyed by the residents
and the neighborhood while also saving parts of the trees to add to the environmental impact
on it.
Thank you, Melanie.
Thank you.
Kelser Sullivan.
Thank you.
I have a couple of questions, and when you said that EQ appreciates and is committed
to tree preservation or replacement, do you plant a tree on every lot for a single family
home and do you replace the number of trees that you cut down?
Yes, so the requirement is the one.
So if you cut down 10 trees, do you plant at least 10 more?
So I believe that the EQ branch actually does take part in a tree planting program.
I actually can't speak to the details with it and I'm happy to speak with each you and follow up
Okay, I know there is I see Aaron walking down and she'll be able to speak a little bit more
I mean trees are important for a lot of things for the whole environment drainage
oxygen
health
so I'd like to I'd like to see that done for sure and
Obviously, it's going to take many, many years to grow a 30-meter tree, so if you can save
as many, but I do understand that once you start backfilling, those trees are going to
be dead and gone.
I don't know what steps can be taken to preserve a tree like that, but I think they're important
and I think they're a health issue and a total environmental issue that needs to
addressed and you said 15 years there hasn't been a big change but there's
been a big change in the way things are people think about trees and the
environment and this council even in the last three years or two years or one
year over previous councils so that's really important. The second question I
have has to do with the affordability and if 20 is it 25 percent target of
affordability in any development, correct? Not a particular phase of the development.
Is that correct?
I would have to speak to David for the policies. I think that's a target.
We'll ensure confirmation of the wording in the official plan in a moment.
Okay. So if it's 25% of the whole development, not particularly this phase,
my question would be is 25% of equinell considered affordable and and is
according to the task force on affordable housing is four hundred and five
thousand dollars considered affordable for what population so those those are
the questions that I have thank you so
the I was just reading off of the the
Mayor's Task Force affordable housing in term recommendations that was brought
to council in September on the 17th and there was two elements that said the
housing with a purchase price which results in an annual accommodation cost
not exceeding 30% of the gross annual household income for low and moderate
income households and then the other one was housing for the purchase is at
least 10% below the average purchase price. We don't offer the below the
average purchase price but we do offer variety housings and so it does there
was an element in this that stated that in 2019,
the figure for the first calculation,
which is the first comment I made,
the first calculation works out to be $405,531.
So I'm not sure who calculated it,
but that generally is a fairly reasonable amount
that when you look at not just North Granville,
but who's coming to North Granville,
we're finding a lot of people moving
from Ottawa to North Granville,
because that is considered an affordable price
so that actually is very cheap compared to Ottawa.
So, but I haven't actually looked at Equinel as a whole
what that means, but what I can sort of say is that
as each phase has been developing,
the affordability starts to become more obvious
because we're starting to look at
the variety of housing types.
If you look at the earlier phases,
there was sort of more of the empty nesters lifestyle
type of homes. We've moved away from just offering that kind of home. It was a little
more luxurious, a little more expensive, to more of a variety of homes, bringing families
into the community, bringing choices. We've also, there was some medium-rise buildings,
the Foxwoods, I think, or I think they're called Foxwoods, that were apartment buildings
that were offered. And there are placeholders within the community that are opportunities
for more of those condos to be built or possibly partner up with someone who might do a rental housing.
So there is still lots of variety and options that we are looking at through the community and end in Phase 5.
Just to read the wording from the official plan with respect to that target.
It states in Section 11.3.1d, the municipality shall attempt to have 25% of only residential construction affordable
in a given year the residential development
Okay,
so do we know how much of EquinL is already considered affordable? Have we met 25% or is there
still a way to go? I would imagine there's a way to go because that changes in market conditions
And also, I don't know if you've noticed, but construction costs are skyrocketing right
now, which impacts on affordability.
And supply, too, we're finding that when the supply is tight, the affordability starts
to become more unaffordable, so.
He means supply of-
Supply and demand.
Supply of housing.
Thank you.
Because there are bidding wars, or sort of the market pushes the price up?
We're not experiencing bidding wars, but we're selling very fast right now.
I see.
Yeah.
Okay.
Catherine O'Sullivan, other questions?
Okay.
I think there may be someone here from the Housing Task Force who wishes to speak as
well, but in the meantime, we have another person who'd like to speak.
Okay.
Thank you.
We'll call you down again.
Stand by.
Stay close.
Yeah.
Unless you want your steps.
Thank you.
That's okay.
Okay. Thank you for coming. We appreciate it. These meetings are always better when there's public engagement. So thank you for being here.
Okay. Just lean right in.
Hello.
Yep.
My name is Ken Green. I live at 157 Royal Landing Gate.
Okay.
So I'm very familiar with this area.
Yeah.
The reason why I came is the park land that exists today with the splash pad, etc., which is bounded by part of this development.
and the original plans that were given to residents six years ago,
when they moved in ten years ago, showed parking facilities for that park
so people could come up and park there.
I don't see them there anymore.
So I went this fall to the Equinell sales office in the fall of this year
and asked them if it seemed to have disappeared.
They told me no, and they brought out their own drawings of the land
and they said no see here there's parking lot and that was just a couple of
months ago but on this drawing it doesn't seem to be there anymore so I
don't know why all of a sudden it's disappeared I wrote an email to the
planning department of the township I don't know what happened to my email
but I live there and this is gonna that little park is the only park in the
entire equinelle and it attracts more and more people and even people coming
out from North Grenville because it's actually a North Grenville park. It's not an Equinole
park. And all of a sudden the parking facilities for that park have disappeared. I don't know
why. So that was my only concern. And I know I live there. There's lots of cars.
So before you go to that end, by virtue of the fact that there is a municipal park
built certainly by Equinel, but now effectively the towns to manage.
Are you experiencing increasingly parking challenges in the street?
Oh, yeah.
The cars parked up and down the street.
Right.
And it's going to just increase with the development of Equinel.
Yeah.
And people need a place to park their car because not everybody walks there.
No.
Most people don't walk there.
Right?
Most people are driving because it's hard to get there on foot.
Yes.
Yeah.
Exactly.
So I don't know why it disappeared from the plan all of a sudden.
Okay, we can ask. We've got people here.
So Mr. Nanton, do you have any comments on that or should we go directly to the developer in terms of the parking spaces?
To your knowledge, and I know you're obviously a bit new here, do you have a recollection of parking being planned for what is obviously the municipality's only splash pad
and a park that was intended to serve not just the neighborhood but all of the community.
At this time I don't have the historical knowledge.
I do recall hearing or seeing of plans that had incorporated parking spaces.
Okay.
And Mr. Gerard sitting behind you, you might have a better recollection of that.
Is that right, Mr. Gerard?
No?
Okay.
We'll go to the representatives.
Mr. Gerard, if we needed to find that information, you could provide it.
Is that correct?
Okay. Certainly, it's been something that many of the community have flagged to us independently,
just given the fact that it is a park with a particular feature,
that being the splash pad, which is well utilized in the summer,
and we have had concerns about congestion,
and also people feeling welcome to come in, right?
Not everybody's comfortable parking in front of someone else's house and perhaps disrupting
other things that are going on.
So yes, let's hear from you.
So I can speak to that.
So there was at one point historically parking, I believe it was shown on this side of the
plan.
Do you recall from the plans that you?
Yeah.
It's always existed.
At early stages, the concept for that park and the plan and layout for that park has
changed a number of times since the beginning of time and then we did some construction
as what we called phase one of the park.
We added some additional stuff which is where the splash part of the park came in.
We were always working towards a budget with the park's department on what needed,
what wanted to go into the park and what didn't want to go into the park.
Park. There is still some land available that an onsite parking lot could be built, but
it would have to, there would have to be some discussion on how to do that. At this point,
the suggestion would be to put it over here in the slightly expanded section on, so on
the west side of the park as part of this construction phase. If that's something that
the municipality wanted to pursue, Equinoe would be open to looking at that with
However, I would like to say that at this point, the only parking dedicated to the park is our temporary,
but it ended up being in multiple years, gravel access road here along the east side of the park
with the intention that people would park parallel along that gravel access road and or at the end.
It's my understanding that that parking doesn't really happen as much as the intent was.
When both of these roads are built, there will be frontage all the way along both of the outsides of the park, which don't have houses fronting on them.
That would be available for parallel parking, for access, for use of the park.
So there should be, you know, we can have some discussion or from municipalities direction and some discussion on how much parking would make sense for this park.
And there's, like I said, there are different options on that.
And when you say it's a question of how, do you mean it's a question of money?
Because you'd be for fitting land or you'd want a partnership with the municipality?
No, because it's the land's not the issue.
It's the actual construction of the parking lot itself.
Oh, I see.
Okay, in terms of cost indeed and there are there is some money still available in that original park budget that could be allocated towards that
Okay, okay, so I think a legitimate concern with a possible path forward to respond to some of those considerations
It's absolutely true, especially with the demographic
I expect you're trying to
Partly attract for your next phase that the utilization of that perk both internally and then by the rest of the community as it grows
Will only increase and I know we have had concerns
and I've been concerned about disruption for sure.
Okay, good. I think that's very helpful. Thank you.
And sorry, if I could just respond. We did a quick Google search account for O'Sullivan.
So on the EQ Homes website, they do speak to donating to the Reforestation through Tree Canada for every home that's built.
So it is available on the EQ Homes website and we're happy to pass that information along to you.
And, of course, I guess the trees get planted anywhere in Canada, right?
Yeah, so it's not specific to the community.
Yeah, so it's not specific, but we do like to offset the wood that we use in our housing construction.
Oh, we'll see. Okay. Good. Thank you. Thank you.
You'll be ready for the next meeting now, when that comes up.
Sorry, Evan, you're saying the program is to offset the wood that you're using in the construction,
not the trees that were removed from the land or both?
Yeah. I did a quick Google.
So I think that's it, but I, that was the first thing I saw, again, quick Google,
but I know they are working to offset the works that they're doing as a whole.
Yes, Councilor Sullivan.
And those are trees for Canada, not necessarily trees for North Grenville?
So I believe it was initially tree Canada and now they're looking to kind of hone that into
Ontario because it's through a program. Okay, but our little part of Ontario like North
Grenville? Yes, we would like that. So would we. I have another question. So since
people don't really have a place to park at that park right now, I just want to
know are there sidewalks planned for all those streets in there so that
that children and families can get to that park safely?
So the intent is that there'll be a sidewalk on...
Oh, sorry.
The intent is that there'll be a sidewalk.
The proposal is that there'll be a sidewalk
on one side of the road for the entirety of street two
and the entirety of street one,
which will go along the side of the park on both sides
and tie into the sidewalks on Royal Ending Gate.
Along with connecting a walkway,
a multi-use pathway along this walkway block
to the existing pathway along the old closed road allowance
and a walkway pathway that would be around the pond
and connecting into the Passive Park.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, council colleagues over here
before we hear from the next person.
Are you okay?
Good, okay, okay, thanks so much.
Any other members of the public?
I see a few here. Okay, we've got two, so we're going to hear from our first speaker
and then we'll hear from someone at the back.
Sorry to make you walk. We apologize.
There was a comment about parking. I didn't realize there was a comment about parking.
I live very close to the park. My grandchildren enjoy it and then a whole bunch of people's
grandchildren enjoy it but the thing is on the top of the map is north the north
side of Royal Land and Gate there are no sidewalks. The north side of Royal Land
and Gate is where most people park to bring their children and so they have
one-year-olds two-year-olds three-year-olds very young children some
of them are even lucky to have more than one with them and they have to
get out of their vehicles on a road it has not just construction traffic
but residential traffic as well, and make their way to the park. The area on the
edge of sea where the road stops by the park, but there's an old gravel road
there, once they put the houses in, they'll be basically at the edge of the
park so you've got 100 feet probably whatever the lot depth is where people
might park. That old road that gets filled up almost every evening in the
summer and they're nice they actually put a there's a nice a little washroom
there, which is nice, but this park gets used a lot. And there's no safe place to park along
Royal Landing Gate when you're trying to get a bunch of kids out of a vehicle. And so if
they're going to put a parking lot in there, I hope it's going to be a big parking lot.
because a lot of people from outside of Equinel use that park.
Thank you.
Great.
I think you've added some real perspective there in terms of park usage and some of the risks
and frustrations I'm sure for parents and grandparents who are having to drive there.
So thank you very much for raising that.
It's an important point.
We appreciate it.
Okay.
We've got Mr. Kennan, I think, in the back.
Anyone else? I'm just making another call of members of the public. Okay.
Thank you. Welcome.
Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council. Carl Cannon, Affordable Housing Task Force, amongst
other capacities. I hadn't really planned to speak, so I hope my comments are somewhat
coherent. I did provide submission with respect to the application. I don't know
So procedurally whether council gets a copy of all correspondence received, so I did provide
some detail through David Natten, so I don't know if all the council got that, but maybe
I'll touch upon some of those comments.
Did you all receive the correspondence?
Ah, okay.
I just note procedurally in most municipalities when there's a public meeting and public
submits comments. Actual copies of the comments are received by council or the committee so
they have a full appreciation of the issues identified rather than a paraphrase. I would
suggest operationally. That's how we did it years ago and I would say to you that's what
many do. So I would suggest in the past was a practice that we have in the past.
That's for that.
I've forwarded it, and I think you're pointing to a new practice.
I'm just saying procedurally.
Indeed.
And moving forward, that might be a good thing to do.
That way you get appreciation.
But I'll note just generally here, the proposal notes there will be 93 single-detached dwelling units
and an unspecified number of semi-detached and townhouse units for a total of 141 units.
The proposal is, as I understand it, based on material submitted for 14 units per gross hectare as a density, which is under the minimum density for the urban service area.
This is within the urban service area. The minimum density in the official plan is 18 units per hectare.
As it was identified by the planner from the regional group that part of achieving affordable housing is by having a mix of housing types available.
Also associated with that is having a higher density.
And then thirdly associated with that is an actual commitment and delineation of units, a number of units or percentage of units of the development that will be affordable.
And that is achieved by, in essence, having not a lower standard, but not maybe all the amenities that other units may have within a development.
So the proponent or developer can develop maybe a marginally smaller unit and not have the same finishings within the unit,
and that basically through subdivision agreements or site plan control or through other measures,
it says X numbers of units within this development will meet the definition of affordable and
I do note that and I don't mean this to sound maybe as it does but being cheaper than Ottawa
doesn't mean that it is by definition affordable and being affordable does not by definition
mean that it's cheap.
There are well built affordable housing that can be achieved and that through the official
plan of the municipality has been identified as an objective of this community.
And I would say recognizing this is phase five of this particular development and that there
has been change through time, but really this isn't a slogan that the task force has taken,
but I would say that now is always the time to address affordable housing.
So you have an opportunity before you, through this proposal,
to try to work towards the objectives of your official plan.
You have to start sometime, and I think, as noted, that Equinell has not in the past
and nor has the standard been there for them, so I'm not being critical of them,
But the standard is being identified as an objective and you start working towards that.
So the density is under that, that is identified by the official plan of density as part of the way it means to achieve affordability.
Through the density you can also enhance the mixed type of accommodation within the development.
And as is noted, in this particular development, 93 single-family attached dwellings have been
identified, and that is about 66% of the development when your official plan says that 30% of the
development should be something other than semi-detached and single-detached.
So it does not define how many semi-detached units are going to be in this development,
Just, nor does it say how many townhouse units are going to be in this development.
So you don't know if you're achieving your objective of the mixed type in your,
in this development as identified in the official plan.
You know you're not achieving the density,
and you have no awareness of whether you're achieving the mixed type
that you're trying to achieve in your official plan based on what's identified.
Nor does it speak to all the rental component.
There is an objective in the official plan to work towards enhancing the rental percentage
in your municipality.
The official plan does not officially set a target.
It sets that as an objective, and it says that some date planning staff should be coming
back to you and saying, here's our target for rental, but I know they're busy.
But that's certainly something that they should be working to.
So the mix identified in the official plan is 69% low, 21% meeting, and 11% high density.
So again, you don't know if you're achieving that based on this proposal on the deficiency of information.
So it all leads to what I suggest you do about that moving forward.
I think as Mr. Natton identified, the second component of the resolution identified earlier in the presentation
was that obviously the comments received tonight be taken away,
and then when this matter reappears before council,
because it ultimately comes back for council for resolution and direction and bylaws,
that the resolution that Mr. Natt noted was that comments that you received tonight,
so they identify those and recognize how they may or may not have achieved those particular comments.
So I'm suggesting to that part of that matter that comes back to you at a later date specifically speaks to density,
the mix type, how many units are going to be affordable and whether there are opportunities or how they're looking at rental.
So I would say there needs to be a firm commitment in the subdivision agreement about the number of single detached units,
units, the number of semi-detached units, and the number of townhouse units, rather
than just blocks that may be semi and may be townhouse, and in that move towards increasing
the density to achieve the 18 units per hectare, which in turn will also, because you will
probably be bringing in more townhouse units, that will be increasing your dwelling mix
as well.
So that would be my suggestion to you is that you should be working towards the 18 units per hectare.
And no planner, I can assure you the planner that was here before is going to say that working towards the mix of more townhouses
and that 18 units per hectare is going to be problematic in this particular environment.
It is not inconsistent with the neighborhood and that they recognize themselves.
They have been transitioning their housing mix through time.
Achieving 18 units per hectare is not going to be problematic in that neighborhood
and will work towards the objectives.
So I would suggest to you that they should commit to the number of units by type,
working towards that higher density,
and that should be part of the staff report that comes back to you when this matter comes back to council.
Basically saying, in the interim period between now and bring it before a council,
this is how we work towards achieving those objectives.
And the resolution that Mr. Natten had identified would allow for that,
but I would just reinforce that hopefully the council would be expecting to understand those particular comments I just spoke to.
So how many are going to be single? How many are going to be semi?
me, how many are going to be townhouse and house out work towards the 18 units per hectare.
And I think there should still be a reference to what rental opportunities there will be.
And hopefully that will work towards, I can't resolve all historical issues, but hopefully
work towards meeting the objective.
I can certainly speak to that more now or another time.
Hopefully that helps.
So before you go up, I'll just want to give my council colleagues an opportunity.
Council colleagues, any questions for Mr. Kennedy at the stage?
No questions. I think your advice is falling on fertile ground here, at least.
And I would go further to say the definition of what kind of parking accommodations
you've already started to think about a number of different Fridays were mentioned by the developer this evening.
but if they'll be more specific because there seems to be an issue with parking and parking
on the street contributes to safety issues and we've already heard that there was a
traffic concern so I think given the use of the park some accommodation for parking would
be nice to see the next time we see this file.
In addition to the housing considerations, okay, Councillor Sullivan you had asked
the initial question around affordable housing, anything for Mr. Cannon?
Just I'm not sure what constitutes low to moderate income, but is $405,000 affordable
for lower moderate income?
So as I and I was not meaning to be glib, but being less expensive than Ottawa does
not make it affordable in the context of a definition.
So the province does identify through their policy how you calculate affordable.
And there is specific formula you have to use and that was part of the task force responsibility
was to bring to council a number that equates to the definition as identified by the province.
So through that process affordable is deemed to be with respect to home ownership
and it could be any type, it could be an apartment or a townhouse or a semi, is $346,946.
So I would suggest to you that there should be some onus placed on the proponent to say
X number units of this development are going to be within that defined amount of dollars
for affordable housing.
Now, by doing that, they do because counsel, I think, was quite good in identifying that
there are logically, it's appropriate to have an incentive to accommodate affordability.
So by providing X number of units that are affordable, they will then not have to pay
development charges and there are other recommendations relevant to various fees and other components
that would be associated with those units that meet the definition of affordable.
So there are some incentives that Council has made to say we recognize you could sell these units for a lot more money.
But that's not the objective of the municipality. I mean, I appreciate that's an objective of the developer.
So there has to be a reasonable balance of the developer getting their objective and the community getting their objective as well.
And you've identified a number of financial incentives to assist them.
So I'm saying the subdivision agreement should say X number of units shall meet the definition of affordable and that should be in the subdivision agreement.
And I think we've identified that Equinell is largely but not totally a community of seniors and there are seniors who are downsizing who may not have a whole lot of cash flow.
But they also can't take on a 25 or 30-year mortgage whereas someone starting out with their first home could do that.
I think we have to look at the municipalities a whole, not just particular neighborhoods.
And all neighborhoods have to be in a way that they can accommodate to the needs of the broader community.
Thank you.
Council Colleagues, we have someone else to speak.
Mr. Noseworthy is here.
Unless there's more for Mr. Cannon, we'll invite Mr. Noseworthy.
Thank you, Mr. Cannon.
Just stand by in case we need more.
Welcome, Mr. Noseworthy.
You've stepped up to the mic rather last minute.
Yes, thank you very much.
I'm sorry.
Robert Noseworthy, 134 Kempton Court.
I live in Campbell.
Well, I'm coming here officially as the chair of the North Grindel Home Billage Association.
Actually, I'm just getting over pneumonia, so you'll probably see me reach for water and cough a bit.
But I have an objection.
I totally understand about affordable housing, and I understand about the fertile ground,
and I understand about the need for it, and I understand the concerns that we have.
My concern or my objection as the chair of the Home Billage Association
is that Equinnell, who has invested over ten years ago into this particular project,
is being asked to make a change after they have committed resources,
they have committed to a world-class golf course, they've committed to a community,
and what you're saying is that, and what I'm hearing Mr. Cannon say,
or at least this is what I heard him say,
is that if those houses don't come in under $346,000,
then they might not be approved or that mix should not be approved.
My concern is that if we're going to impose this,
and the task force has been organized 13 months ago,
has come forth with its recommendations,
I totally understand the recommendations.
I understand the need for them.
But I'm saying that you need to impose them on subdivisions
and on lands that haven't been purchased up to now.
Because as a developer and as a home builder, we invest in a property, we invest with an opportunity that we see five years down the road.
It's never the next week or the next month or 13 months away when we make those investments in the land and then in the infrastructure and then in building the actual homes.
These things take years.
So my concern is that we're imposing on Equinel, and I'm defending them now somewhat,
is that you're imposing on them something that has come up in the last 13 months or three months
in terms of the final recommendations and on something that they've already committed over 10 years ago
and you can't ask them to change their plans this late in the game.
What you can do going forward is you can say we have a policy in the municipality,
The policy is that we're going to follow the recommendations of the task force and we're
going to impose this particular mix on any new lands and any new sub-division.
So we're going to do some of the decisions that are created from those lands so that the developer knows today what they're getting into for five years from now.
So to impose that on Equinell at this particular, I think at this late hour, I think is unreasonable. So proceed as you wish.
Okay, we're not imposing anything at this point.
Well I heard, we're discussing, exactly.
This is I understand that and that's why I'm here because I'm not prepared. I was not prepared for this
I came for another matter all together different, but I'm also
As the chair of the homebillers Association, I have to defend not only equinelle
But the other developers that would be imposed on in the same man
Excuse me the suggested imposition that is put on them
Which I think is at this late hour or this late in the game. It's
not reasonable. Yes sir. So I'm going to hear from Councillor Berkeley and Councillor
O'Sullivan and then I have my self on the list. Mr. Noseby, we are having a
dialogue with you at this moment. Yes, yes, thank you. Okay, thank you. So we'll
we'll have Councillor Berkley start.
The official plan calls for certain
goals in affordable housing and that's been those goals have been in the
official plan for how long?
About a year.
Just a single year.
We're now year one, and correct me if we're 13 months,
but give or take a month or two.
That official plan came in just over a year ago.
So it's not just in the last three months, it's been a year.
In the last three months, the recommendations
came from the task force.
And those recommendations come forward.
Well, yeah, they were tasked with coming up
with a made in North Grenville definition
of affordability.
They finally defined what affordable housing is.
official plan for a year, if not longer. I remember the Health and Wellness Council
back in 2014, I think it was, made some recommendations to have affordability into the official plan.
So the developers in this community have known for a long time that it's been a goal of
this community to have affordable housing. Okay, so I'll be very careful. I'm going
to interrupt you, Councillor Bartlett, and I apologize for this, but everybody
who buys a home from me today and buys a home from Equinel considers that home
to be affordable. And what you heard from the Equinel representatives is that sales
are brisk. When sales are brisk and we're in a period of where there's increasing
costs everywhere, it's very very difficult to change everything that you're
doing and to all of a sudden what sell the home at a loss? No. Right. So we need
to work with developers and vice versa. The developers need to work with the
communities. So last year we've been talking about affordability and we've
struggled and worked very hard to define what that means for this community. And
I'm glad we have that. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. It's not that I'm not
debating any of that. What I'm debating is the fact is that you're
imposing something on an existing subdivision and I hate to say it this
way but I'm going to say it this way. Birds of a feather flock together.
You've created a world-class golf course community. You've invested
millions of dollars to make it that way. They've created a community center, they've
put in a splash pad, a public park, they've invested in an infrastructure, and
it would be very very challenging to put in what I'll call or houses under
$346,000 on that particular property because it would devalue every home
that is in that property today. And I'm not sure that I don't know how many
people they have, let's say 800 homes, you'd have 800 to 1,000 people at this
meeting next time complaining about the devaluation of their home. So we want to
be careful to impose it on an existing subdivision or future ones. That's my
comment. Okay,
we're having a debate. No, we're getting very close to talking
about blockbusting and that kind of thing that you know which we're
getting we're getting dangerously close to an area that I don't think we
want to be. Okay, so I'm not going to comment any further. Okay, thank you. I'll go to
Councillor Sullivan and of course, Councillor Barker, I did need to cut
you off and if you want to make some additional comments after Councillor
Sullivan, please feel free to do so. I too feel somewhat uncomfortable with the
kind of argumentations being put forward. So not because I don't think
there's merit on both sides, but I actually think there's a really great
middle ground here and it is achievable by the municipality and by the developer.
But we'll go to Councillor Sullivan.
Thank you.
I can certainly appreciate what you're saying about someone who's made a plan to put so
many houses and sell so many houses on a parcel of land and then are asked to increase
the density.
However, Equinell has already said on several occasions that I've heard that they have changed their plan based on market demand.
And another subdivision that was the same way was the Tempo Subdivision.
it changed from being primarily an adult single-family home subdivision to
something that was a little more two-stories and family based on the
demand in the market. So I don't believe that there was a whole lot of townhouses
if ever planned in Equinelle and now they are and the same with the
apartment buildings. So Equinelle has changed based on market demand and so
So I don't think this is an unreasonable ask, and in fact, increasing density in the bottom
line probably increases their income for the number of houses that they can build.
And we're not talking about creating a slum, that's the last thing we want to have.
We're talking about integrating a variety of housing styles and costs within a community.
And some people may have a high paying job that may be related to high tech that might just disappear in a day.
And other people may have be very hard working at a moderate income job and will be stable and will be there.
You never know who the millionaire next door is.
So I think we have to be really careful that we are inclusive of everybody
and everybody has a right to live in the subdivision.
And I think we need to make affordable housing for not just seniors,
but new people starting out.
Of course we agree with you.
And of course, you know, as you say, you know, we are responding to market conditions
and that's why we are looking at housing choices at all walks of, you know,
at different times of life.
and that in this particular phase that first-ever we're going to look at two-story towns.
We are also exploring the market to make sure there is a market for that,
but we do believe I was texting my marketing manager making sure
and he's like, yeah, if we would like to look at two stories in this phase,
which is a first-ever for Equinol.
And we certainly are looking at the sort of medium four-story apartment blocks throughout Equinol,
But the reason why you haven't seen one in a while is because there isn't a market.
For whatever reason, we're not finding that there is, you know, a response for that in this particular community.
Maybe it's more best suited down in the downtown where there's more services, there's more transit.
But out in Equinoa, you know, there really is not good transit service for that kind of form of housing.
But, you know, we're not saying that we don't want to meet the targets.
We're just saying that because of the policies, we actually don't just fall under the targets
of the official plan.
We actually have a special section in your official plan for the Equinell community.
And we have a cap of a certain housing number of that 1,100 or something, if it was.
And so we couldn't build Equinell to have all these high-density, affordable housing.
We wouldn't meet that we'd be go past our target.
And so this community has been planned a long time ago in a certain mix, a certain type of form around, as you say,
is a luxurious sort of golf course world renowned.
And it has changed and people have wondered why, you know, they wanted to have a lifestyle community and the empty nesters
and they've kind of challenged us of, I can't believe you're bringing kids in here.
But, you know, that's what makes a complete community is to have all opportunities for everyone.
You know, we even explore there is a partner that we have in smaller communities and other places that we've partnered up to do rental housing.
And there is that opportunity where, you know, in these applications, they're not designed to say a commitment to that we're going to put rental housing here.
We're just creating the pattern for the street. And from there, we then start trying to respond to the market.
We have a general idea of where we want to put the towns.
We have a general idea of where we want to put the singles.
And the singles are a variety types of singles, by the way,
and that offers that affordability as well.
So if someone wants to live in a single,
they can't afford the 50-foot wide single.
They maybe could afford the 31-foot, you know.
So we're not objecting to wanting to meet affordability.
We're just saying that to say that we have to meet the 25%,
all of a sudden is very difficult but we are open to continuing to try to strive
for that and for those opportunities in the community.
Yes, you know, oh go ahead
so my calculation is that out of that out of this phase 25% would be 35 of
the 141 homes that would be classified as affordable in that phase. Is that
not reasonable? You can do the math that way but it also is just the unit types I
would want to figure out well how many towns are we actually fitting on these
blocks. Right now we have a general target of 141 units but when we get
our market when we go into detailed engineering design and we really want to
commit to the number of units we actually drill down on right now it's
been plotted for townhomes that are bungalows they take up a lot of space
but we want to look at two-story they're gonna actually tighten up and there
will be more units so to start saying that we're gonna commit to a number of
units in here is affordable I can't do that because we're talking about two
years from now when we're gonna start selling homes in this area and building
homes in this area I I don't know what two years from now is gonna look like
are we gonna have a hot market like we do this year or is it gonna cool down
Okay. I mean, you know, I certainly, Mr. Noseworthy, respect you immensely as a leader in the community and a very fine home-builder.
I think we know how game-changing Equinel has been as a developer here.
And having knocked on a lot of doors in Equinel, people are extremely happy who have chosen to purchase due to a high quality living experience, no doubt.
But I would also say that builders live in an evolving policy landscape, as we all do,
and that this community spoke pretty loud and clear that they wanted action on housing.
That doesn't come from four people at this table, that comes from the community.
And our establishment of a mayoral task force last January had over 40 applicants who wanted to serve on the task force.
We had a very rigorous process.
We felt it was substantive.
We felt it was reflective of the different needs
and the varying needs of people in the community.
And we also looked at past policy documents
that are the policy framework for the municipality.
So the official plan matters.
It's relevant.
We understand that maybe it hasn't had elements of it,
that haven't had the same degree of attention, and of course, I think our certainly planning
department and other staff are adjusting to new priorities within certainly the municipality
as the council seeks to deliver on a mandate that was given to us by overwhelmingly by
residents and business leaders here.
So my hope is that we can strike a balance, that there can be some additional work
done to better define where Equinell can achieve some of those targets.
I don't think anyone is looking to be unreasonable, but we are looking to see movement and Equinell
is a major, major player.
I don't think this is the only conversation we plan to have with builders in this community.
It's not just Equinell.
It's community-wide.
So I believe that there is a way forward.
I think some specificity is required.
The official plan is a document that is developed
with a lot of community consultation.
It doesn't come out of thin air.
It's an iterative document.
It is, you know, obviously written in a way
that is intended and mandated by the province
to reflect the priorities and preoccupations
of the community, and our community is changing.
And a lot of the people I heard from personally who might have reached out to me just because
of the task force itself are people who have been here for decades who are looking for
other options.
And we know that there will be some movement on rental and that's important because we
know that certainly at the beginning of your adult life or at the end, rental may
be your best option.
But there's a lot of people in the middle there that are looking for more affordable
housing options that I think would only enrich Equinal and create a really vibrant place.
So I think we need to do our part and some of what you spoke about in terms of transit
or accessibility and what's desirable in terms of the housing mix.
The municipality needs to do its part too and we need to think really proactively about
how do people move around this community and given different housing mixes and different
parts of the community are we just going to not assume that there isn't a need
for public transit or are we really going to be real about how people
We choose to live here, move within the community, and get their basic needs met.
So lots of thinking to do on our end. I think you're hearing that we'd like you to sit down with planning and do some additional reflection and strategizing about where you may be able to be more precise and align a little better with the official plan.
And I think at this stage, that's a fair ask.
I don't think we're defining what the threshold is now,
though the official plan is a pretty clear document.
So those are my thoughts.
But North Cranville is a tremendous community.
It is incredibly caring.
I don't know of a better community, certainly not
in Ontario.
And I think we can get here together.
And I think you can get your win.
And I think we can get ours.
So I don't want anyone to leave this meeting
with a bad taste in their mouth, but I do believe that we've got to regroup and do a little
more homework. I'm going to go over to Councillor Sullivan.
Thank you. And I think one of your comments about devaluing the existing homes in there,
I don't have any probably solid evidence that I, but my hunch is that that's not
the case that it would not happen. I believe that I live in a very well-built house and
in a wonderful community, but the true value of that community is the people that live
in there and what's around it, the rail trail, the creek, and the neighbors that I have.
I think that's what Equinell has going for it is a wonderful community. I have a lot
of friends who live in there and the golf course, the community center, the people.
That's what makes that community and I disagree that houses will be devalued.
We're not asking you to build shacks, you just don't have to put granite countertops
in every bathroom and every kitchen.
It's the interior things that really up the price because I know the upgrades cost
a lot of money.
and so those kinds of things are things that are important to people and I
think as Mayor Peckford said that it could be a win-win both ways that you
can accomplish the targets and still have quality homes in the
neighborhood that variety of people starting out or finishing their having
in their last home could afford.
So, may I make a comment?
Of course.
Thank you.
You've unleashed this tremendous dialogue,
so absolutely.
Absolutely, no, it's alive, it's energetic
and I appreciate the back and forth, that's good.
I'll just, I'm gonna try and assist
my Equinell friends again one more time.
The number that comes up for the affordable housing
is 346,000 for a single family home.
Is that our understanding?
I think I'm confirming that.
You got that, I got that.
I wrote it down, Mr. Cannon provided it.
My concern as the chair of the Home Builders Association
is that this number was derived from only resale homes.
It did not include new home sales in 2018.
New homes generally are more expensive than resale homes,
and the resale have an opportunity to catch up to the new homes that are being built.
I would believe that number might go up a little bit if you included new home sales
and then averaged or blended that out and that might help Equinel get closer to the 405,000
and close that gap a bit. That's all. Thank you.
Yeah. The Council report that went on September of 2019,
There was a number that was $405,000 that was related to based on the annual income
of the medium and sort of income and what seemed to be affordable for that medium to
low.
The 346 was based on setting a purchase price that was 10% below the average price.
What you know, the challenge that we have is new builders is that we're trying
to sell at a market rate price, but we also have to consider the construction cost
cost of building a home today, and that construction cost, I think we barely build a home, pay the
development charges, which there isn't a clearance of waiving development charges at the point,
and development charges are important, by the way, to build a home.
In Equinol, one of the things we had done, I think we spent, the internet will have
to correct me, I think it was $6 million to bring service all the way down to this
area down the street.
So those are, you know, our sunk costs that we're trying to recoup.
We're paying the construction costs for today.
So, you know, it's challenging as a new home builder, building these homes,
and making sure that, you know, they're at that market rate.
And then when you say, I got to go 10% below the average to meet the 346,
that's going to be very difficult.
I'm just looking over in Erin's notes, and in fact it does say
for a resale unit in the regional market area, 346.
So it was only resales that were considered.
If you considered new homes, I suspect that average would go up a bit.
Okay, that's all.
Thank you.
No, that's it.
Yeah.
Mr. Cannon, I don't know if it's fair to call on you again.
I know that you didn't plan to speak this evening, but can you speak
or do you recall the rationale in terms of the data that was used
to land on that affordable housing price point?
I know we had social policy experts who worked at the ADM level from the Federal Public Service
who helped to find a methodology so that we could come up with something that was credible.
And I think we just – we'd appreciate a revisit of what that conversation looked like.
And I would love to give you that.
Now, you may recall, Mr. Nutt knows where they did bring this matter up before previously
at a public forum we had with respect to affordable housing.
And there was a really good rationale given towards that by Mitch Bloom being our policy guru.
And I certainly had no hesitation to refer him to Mitch directly to hear that again or in some very informed.
I think I acknowledged at the meeting that I was not the person to talk to on that, but however it was quite legitimate.
So I think, really, I would just want to say, again,
certainly Econel has been progressing through time.
I don't think there is a want to create any particular hardship for them.
But, again, it is a development that is going before you for approval,
which as new development, it may be a phase, but it is a new development
and it needs to meet the criteria identified by council of which the official plan is one of the documents that it must meet.
Now, the document is not hard and fast. It says that these are the objectives of the targets that we think you should be working to.
So I think recognizing that they have been here for a while, that really is just how can you assist us in moving towards those objectives.
And I think, as you said, without being particularly hard on them moving forward.
So with respect to the plan of subdivision, there are a number of blocks that identify
that can be both semi-detached or townhouse or a combination.
So they've already accommodated, potentially, that all those units could be townhouse
or they could all be semi.
All that suggestion was to work towards getting the mix away from being predominantly
single detached and semi-detached that you identify a number of the units that would
be at least minimally townhouse so that you can say you're working towards the mix that
you've identified and that by increasing the density, which is also another objective
of the documentation towards achieving the maximization of the investments that have
already been made, and towards making units more cost effective.
So I think it's just simply saying it's working within the numbers they project
themselves because again, if they were all the Hound House, they'd have a higher number of units.
So it's really just how many in those blocks are going to be semi, how many are going to be townhouses,
and how does that help you achieve your density and mix?
So I think it's all achievable, and all I'm flagging as the co-chair of the Affordable Task Force
is that every opportunity there's approval before you is your opportunity towards
implementing your objectives of your documentation it's up to you to do what
you think is appropriate and I think you have to consider reasonably their time
and investment but you also have a community objective to meet so it's
just again the suggestion is between now and before coming at the council how
how is that how best can you achieve moving towards these objectives and then
you can deliberate at that time so thank you do
we have a representative
So just to facilitate the discussion, this is the concept plan that we're looking at.
Previously, we've been looking at the draft plan that has four blocks that we've identified
for towns and semis.
The concept plan to get to 141 units is this unit or is this plan here.
It's a little bit difficult to see.
However, they are, all of the blocks are three block townhouses except for one, two, three blocks.
So we are presenting, at this point, as a concept plan, the majority of those, whatever
the 141 minus 91, or whatever number we're at, 92, so 39 minus 6, we're at 33 townhouses
of the 141.
These are bungalow townhouses, so it is a very different price point than what we've been talking about in terms of a price point, but in terms of density and numbers calculations.
So I think that we have been talking around a number of different items. We've been talking density calculations, which I'm going to let Steve discuss the area-specific constraints that we have on equinelle.
We have breakdown of unit types, proposed unit types at this point as a concept plan between townhouses,
semis and singles, which this plan shows what our current concept plan is.
And then we have an affordability number.
I don't think we need to go back to the affordability number or I don't need to add anything more to that.
But what I did want to point out was this concept plan, and let Steve speak to the density calculations inherent to Aquino.
So we've heard tonight that the proposed development falls short on density as articulated in the official plan.
And that range of density at a minimum should be around 18 to a high of around 45 units per gross hectare.
While that's a general policy in the official plan for all residential development in the urban area,
the Equinell lands are subject to a site-specific policy section that was developed through an official plan amendment quite a number of years ago,
and that was carried through in recent years, including your current official plan.
And that special policy area puts a cap on the numbers of residential units within the Equinell community.
And that number is 1108.
So the 1108 total number of units, when you use that to calculate the density for the planned community back when now falls well short of the minimum target of 18 units per gross hectare.
In fact, it's under 10.
And while we'd like to get the density up for lots of good reasons, we're limited by that density or that number that's enthrined in the official plan policy for Equinel.
So that's one of the challenges we have in meeting those density targets.
But might I ask, should you have an appetite to exceed what's in the official plan specific to Equinel?
Would you make that request of us?
Do you feel bound by the official plan?
Is that what you're suggesting?
Yes, yes, we can't.
The full build out of Equinel cannot exceed 1108 residential units.
1100 units in totality.
That's right.
In totality.
That's right.
And that stipulation crosses several official plans,
because there would have been a number of official plans
since you were.
Sorry to interrupt you, but that number
was established through the Official Plan Amendment
for the Equinol community when it was first approved.
I see.
And so what I'm saying...
Was it Equinol's request or was it the municipality?
Does anyone remember?
Mr. Gerard, you are here.
You have massive corporate memory.
It was servicing.
It did tie back to servicing.
Okay.
But with changes, with upcoming, forthcoming changes
in servicing capacity, there surely is an argument
to be made for an adaptive policy and amended policy.
at some point in the future, what would suggest at this stage?
Not necessarily, because there are services in place.
Specifically, pump stations can be upgraded, water storage can be upgraded.
But there is, there's a
A kilometer and a half of piping down Canterbury 44 that can't be upgraded. Well, I guess it could
be upgraded at a significant cost. Millions and millions of dollars, significant
cost. Indeed. Great. And I just want to put on the table, this is so helpful. So obviously
thank you for this. But obviously, and I totally accept that Equinell up front did some significant
cost, but it was in lieu of development charges. It's taken a long time to recoup those
costs, but my understanding is that those costs were up fronted with the full expectation
that they would be recovered.
Not all of them.
So some of them were front-ended and cost-shared, or sorry, front-ended with recoveries on
development charges.
Some of them are just development costs.
Development costs.
Yeah.
So I mean, as Erin explained, there is a significant cost that's a development cost.
Some of it has been recouped by decreases in development charges and we're past that point.
We've recovered all of the allowable recoveries for servicing both sanitary and water to date.
But it wasn't all recouped.
It wasn't just a front-ending situation.
There are other significant costs for servicing, sunk costs for servicing in Equinoe.
Okay. Okay. Good. So, I interrupt it. Go ahead.
I just felt that it was important to express to you why we can't meet those minimum density targets that we heard about tonight.
We are bound by that number, and it's just important to understand that that's a site-specific policy specific to Equinel,
and that it's different than what would apply to the other urban areas within the community.
I'll
go to Councillor Barkley.
Without getting too specific, you say you can't meet the target of 18, the 18 minimum that
applies to the rest of the urban service area.
Can you move towards it?
I mean, with the build out of phase five, is that it?
You've reached your target of 1,108?
No.
So is there any, you're saying on average it's 10 units per hectare that you planned on and you're maxed out?
The 1108 units over the area of the Equinell community works out to about 7.2 units per gross hectare.
And that is far below the minimum that we would be required to meet if it weren't for
that site-specific policy.
Okay.
But it's not a constraint on your housing type, right?
You can have all sorts of diversity in terms of some of what you were showing us, right?
Bungalow townhouses, et cetera, that can all be well-accommodated.
The diversity can be accommodated as just a matter of the numbers of units that
we can accommodate.
Okay.
Perhaps another conversation is needed so that we sort of better understand some of the historical and current rationale for the constraints that are articulated in the official plan.
Can I just clarify? Sorry, I was shaking my head when I said we weren't done because we still have Phase 6 that's undeveloped and doesn't have an application in there.
And as we move towards Phase 6 is where we're moving towards our 1,108 potentially.
Okay. You would be just, Councillor Sullivan, once again, you would be moving towards your
1108 in totality with phases five and six. That sort of completes the development. Is
that what you're saying? That's all the land. That's all. Yes. Got it. Okay. Councillor
Sullivan. Okay. Thank you. I hope I can express this question clearly. So you're
We're saying for all of the land in Equinel, 1108 homes would equal 7.2 per hectare per
...
Correct.
So ...
Yeah, gross hectare.
Okay.
So, talking net then, if you take away all the land that's devoted to Gulf course,
What does that leave in terms of amount of land that's available for building on?
That then equates to 13 units per gross hectare.
Okay, so we're talking apples and apples here instead of apples and oranges,
so we're 13 houses, not 7.5.
Which is generally what the density that we're proposing for Phase 5.
I think Phase 5 was 14, if I recall.
Yes.
Do you have a proposed density for phase six, the final bill that?
At this point, no.
Deputy Mayor?
Okay, patiently listen to everyone.
Lots of great points going back and forth.
But a couple things, it's actually going to be a little bit.
But I would like, as a planning department liaison, I'd like Director Gerard to step
up for a moment to explain the official planning process that happened for this particular subdivision
and its uniqueness.
I'm going to start with that and then I'm going to give some of my points and thoughts
on the rest of this, okay?
Okay, I'm going to be relying on my memory now.
Not just your memory, Director Jarre, but also the premise of how this all works
and the procedures, and Paul, you understand all these plans and things that have gone
through over the years and what changes have been made, and just to give us an idea of how
they relate to it.
I don't need absolute specifics and dates at the time, but give us why this is unique,
this particular development.
Right.
So the original development concept for this development predates amalgamation of
of Kemphill and Oxford and Rideau, these lands were in Oxford and Rideau township.
At amalgamation, the urban service area was expanded to include this, so of course the
logical thing is to have these lands develop on full municipal services.
And at the time there were concerns expressed that, and again I'm relying on my memory
here, that the size of the land, we knew there was going to be a golf course there, so it
was going to reduce the amount of residential development on the site, but the size of the
area could suck up a substantial amount of capacity at the Kentville Wayswater Treatment
Plant, which had just been twinned, I believe, in 1990, if I'm not mistaken.
So this is post-emalgamation, this is eight years later, this comes online, which
is why there was a site-specific official plan amendment for this development that
capped their capacity allocation, basically, by saying you can't have more than 1,108 units
on this site.
So that was the rationale at the time.
They are two kilometers north of the closest service pipe to extend sewer and water
out there.
So at the time, they, at their expense, extended, I believe it's a 12-inch water mean.
12-inch.
12-inch water mean from counter of 43 all the way down to 44 to the site.
They also constructed a sanitary force mean with pumps from the site down to Veterans Way
and then turned on Veterans Way to get down to the back end of the wastewater treatment plant
and constructed the head works at the wastewater treatment plant to accommodate that
and in addition to that they twinned the force pane on Veterans Way which allowed
tempo subdivision decades later when they came along that there was a force
pane that they could apply into. So back in 19 whatever it was 95 96 dollars there
was over 3.5 million dollars worth of off-site infrastructure that I could
all put into this to extend those pipes and those services of which 1.1
million was credited back to them through development charges which has been recouped
as recouped several years ago so that that's off the books now.
So was there anything more specific to the question is about the special official plan
that they have or the segment that they have within our plan if you could explain
a little bit on that and are they beholden to that number or any of the causes within
that plan and or can council have the
program to override anything within that.
So the number is capped at 1108 units
for the site. That's an official plan
policy based on the site specific
official plan amendment for this
development. In order to change that
number they would have to go back and
have an official plan amendment and we
would then have to look at our
servicing capacity allocation and how
that ties into that whole overall servicing issue but at the present
time they're capped at 1108 and that council at this point can't say on the
plan of subdivision wow let's go with it doesn't work that way they have to
amend the official plan to increase that number indeed but official plans are
living documents they're meant to to they're not meant to be fixed in time
with no capacity for amendments or adjustments so there are processes in
place as there are every five years to update official plans and not to be we
don't need to be beholden necessarily to a number 20 years ago or 10 years ago
that may no longer be reflective of their needs or our needs. That then becomes
the balancing act. Indeed of course. The council has to make the decision on in
terms of are we going where we're going to put our complaint capacity is
going to be here or it's going to be somewhere else. It's going to be for
residential development will be for commercial and ICI development.
You're talking about sewage treatment capacity, correct?
And water.
Okay.
Obviously, those are bigger discussions that we're having as a municipality, right?
They're not about one developer or another, but we are talking about the constraints
that have been placed or the provisions, you know, that are stipulated for a specific
developer in this instance.
And I would, at this point, I might as well bring the matter up that capacity
for this subdivision for 191 units will be granted by council once you approve the draft plan of subdivision.
So if you increase the density here, then that will increase the amount of capacity allocation that you're providing to this particular development,
which could take it away from other developments.
Sure. And again, phase five, phases five and the prospective phase six are really foreseen over what, five to ten years, right?
So we want to take about radical changes or provisions in terms of sewage capacity if we were to at some point revisit
right, official plan stipulations. And at this point I think housing diversity may be as important as housing density.
So there are other pieces of this to consider. I've interrupted you, Deputy Mayor. Go ahead.
Yes, that was phase one. Okay.
Okay. Just my thinking on the rest of this, when I was
elected, now we're almost a year or 13 months ago or so, we came into the, you know, I understood
that the North Carolina vote was growing very quickly. There was, I wouldn't say
there was issues necessarily in the planning department, there was issues because of
just this extreme growth.
I didn't feel necessarily, and I thought of from my colleagues
as well, that we didn't necessarily
think development was going the way we thought it should.
And so early on,
and of course, you
got to remember that staff answers to counsel
and what their directors are.
And every four years, that can change.
So it can go all over the place.
But so when we first sat down with Director Gerard
to understand the planning process and what's been happening and what's what
happened in the past you know we talked about different subdivisions in a way
they were designed whether we like them or not and asked you know do we do we
have some controls over those things and of course we do so we early on started
talking this is a year ago so early on started talking about a subdivision
design plan and what can that look like and these are we're talking about not
very high-level things but very detailed things in some cases we're
talking about the canopies, the trees we're talking about,
making sure that there was proper sidewalks and safety
and not over too much density necessarily
and things like that.
Affordability is kind of coming later.
This is with affordable task force.
Most of that information toward the end of that committee
or task force started coming to fruition.
Didn't necessarily think about it early on.
We knew we wanted it but we didn't know
what that meant or looked like.
So with the planning department with staff coming and going and things from concerns,
it takes time to get some of these things done and I understand that,
but they're definitely to me extremely important.
I think that developers should have a very, very clear idea, way in advance,
what the municipality expects, that they could almost come to staff and say,
this is what we expect and it's a done deal and you don't have to come to us.
That's not the process.
But that's what I would like to see as a business person.
You need to know the rules when you're out there and playing these games,
especially some of these when they're a little long term.
And I get it, it's a risky market just like going into any business is risky.
I don't know what my business will look like in three years' necessary either,
but I do have a general idea.
So I don't like the idea of anybody necessarily changing the rules last minute.
I expect that rule should be very clear from the get-go
when people come in to do business with anybody, and in particular with municipality.
And so I don't necessarily agree with what I've heard tonight.
I do agree on the points and things that we do need, and we do need the affordability
to understand the density.
I agree on all those things.
It's just on the timing.
I've always felt that in certain cases with certain subdivisions, yeah, that planning has
been done and, you know, it'll pass. Maybe we can make some site plan division, certain
changes and make sure that they follow the rules that we've laid out. But to make anything
drastic changes in the last minute in the game, I don't agree with that. But I caution
my council colleagues and also encourage them that with our new CAO and discussions that we've had
with him that we do need some work to understand where the planning is going in this municipality
and what the planning department, what the tools they need, what direction they need from us.
And they need it clear right from the get-go. And like I said in the end, I think anybody
reasonable should be if you this is the rules those rules are followed staff
should be able to go check check check check they followed everything they don't
need to come and see me but that's not the way it works there and I get it and
I'm not need naive about it but anyways so I don't agree that that any
stringent stipulations should be put on any of this particular development
right now this particular one I think yes there's probably sort of a little
bit of room for movement to make both sides very, very happy or at least satisfied.
But I suggest that the planning department and council, we really need to sit down and
know where we're going when it comes to planning and vision of this particular municipality
and what these subdivisions look like going forward in the future so that there is no
question.
areas, and you guys comment and say, well, they've let it go every time we've come to
council in the past, and the time department said, yeah, you fit, you've checked off all
the boxes, all the other real conservation, everybody else is happy.
So I want to just kind of express that.
I don't like this gray area stuff.
I like things a little bit closer to that, and I understand that there's gray area
when there has come to developments and whatnot, but anyways.
So I think we've got some probably some room to maneuver and you guys probably see that
but again, I I would really
Suggest that the planning department and council really get serious about
What what does a subdivision design look like going forward and what changes do we make so that these six are solid not
I'll you know, there's no confusion
Thank you, Deputy Mayor, and I'm going to try and be brief and wrap it up.
Thank you, Robert, for coming down and really sparking a great conversation.
This has been very valuable.
When I came in tonight, I wasn't expecting to really engage quite the same way about
issues.
Just a couple of comments.
Here we've got two great developers, community-minded developers.
The community made a very bold statement a year ago, elected a brand new council.
You are constantly reading the market in terms of what's marketable, what the sale price is,
the cost of construction, you know, I wouldn't say your life's dependent on it,
but there's a lot of money writing on it.
And likewise, I think you were reading the tea leaves during the campaign,
the kind of response that this council got and the fact that we replaced the previous council.
So you would have known something was afoot. It's been a year now.
We've struck an affordable housing task force, so you knew that train was coming down the track.
I agree. So the policies of this council or the policies we're trying to develop and the ideas that we're trying to move forward are part of the market.
specifically this market. And I agree with the deputy mayor that you need
surety, you need some specifics and I think the goals that we have and that
we've been talking about are aspirational but you know when you go home
tonight that you're gonna have to move make some movement in that direction so
when we were talking about 346 versus 405 or we were negotiating right we're
I don't feel that we have to stick to a number.
It's aspirational.
So we're on the right road together.
We just don't know how we're gonna get to phase five,
how phase five is gonna finish.
And I think we'll find a happy place
when it comes back to council.
Thanks.
Castor Sullivan.
Thank you.
I just have a couple of questions.
When Equinell was first proposed
in the very initial stages, was 1108 houses the goal?
And how many houses or how many residential units are currently in phases 1 to 4?
So that's the second question.
Phase 5 has 141 proposed.
Is phase 6 larger or smaller than phase 5?
and does it all add up to 1,108 because Equinel has already changed their marketing and changed
the density along the way.
So are we really restricting the number of houses?
Is there a plan for 1,108 houses or residences?
Because now we have heard that there's a potential one or two apartment buildings.
So, my question is, by increasing the density, are we really hampering the total number that
Aquinel had hoped to see when it was all said and done?
So how many houses or how many residences are already there between phases one and four?
Because initially, I came and looked at houses in Aquinel 10 years ago when I first contemplated
building a kind of retirement home here and I didn't want to be three kilometers
out of town so I chose to be in the town and where I can walk and ride my bike
because that's how I get around and so I looked there and I chose to be in the
town. Initially, I thought it was all geared to be single homes or semi bungalows. It has
changed along the way quite a bit, so I'm suggesting that the density has already increased
from what the original plan was. Those are my questions. How many are already there?
was an original plan to be 1108 and what's the difference between phase 5 and phase 6
in the size and the number of proposed residences?
Lots of questions there, lots of answers, lots of history.
1108 was, there was a plan where
we had 1108 units on a plan with a concept plan when it was originally designed. There
have been a vast number of changes to that plan since then, obviously. A significant
change is that at the time we had an additional 10 hectares that is now designated as wetland
land to get to that 111.08.
We currently have concepts that get us with all of the lands developed close to 111.08.
The biggest variance in the number on our unit count comes down to some of our medium density
blocks that we need partners with to develop at a higher density rate and the market.
As Aaron said, the areas where we did the three-story townhouses, the first blocks sold
very quickly overnight essentially.
The third block took months and months and months and months and months.
So like I said, we do have a plan or we have a variety of plans.
I have 500 concept plans probably for Aquanel, and we track the numbers that gets us close
to that 1108 with the general layout that we have right now.
With the imminent registration of Phase 4 BC, we have approximately 650 units registered.
Again, that includes a couple of medium density blocks and a couple of small sections that
are not developed and are subject to future plans, plus our 141 units on phase five with
another 200-ish, I believe, if that math works out, plan for phase six.
So the intent of the discussion of the 1108 units cap wasn't necessarily to indicate that we have constraints on existing density and existing plans.
It was more intended to illustrate that the density for equinell overall was intended to be separate from the general OP density requirements.
So the 1108 over the gross area of 140 hectares, Steve correct me if I'm wrong,
or the gross sector less the golf course gets us somewhere between 7 units per
hectare and 10 or 11. I don't have my notes on the numbers and Steve can correct
me if I'm wrong on that one. The point being or that point being that the
density for equinole was always intended to be lower than the density
within closer to the town core.
Does that answer your question?
You have a lot of questions in there, and I think I answered them all.
Did I miss anything?
I think you did, thank you.
So I calculated about 991 out of the total max of 1108.
So had you not already increased the density, you would have been far below the 1108.
And our objective is to meet it, because that would be a good perspective is to be able to sell 1,100 homes.
Sure, for sure.
And I mean, that's all income for us in terms of tax revenue.
That's right.
So I'm not opposed to...
Yeah.
No, don't get me wrong.
And that opportunity, I've actually tasked Mal to just have a peek at where we stand when...
as a concept, we showed footprints that are bungalow towns that we currently are selling
in Equinol, but our marketing team is excited to explore in the next couple of years the
idea of a two-story town.
Where does that put us in the numbers of phase five if we were to switch out the footprint?
That's great is that the 1,100 we right now are not quite meeting it even in concepts
because that means we can respond to the market and that we can offer different
types of units that are smaller if there's you know condos or rentals that
there's an opportunity to to max out that size. We're not so constrained that we
can't explore those options and they are available to us. So I really
appreciate that you know you're I think willing to to work with the
the need for different houses and different types of housing in a mix because obviously
you've been doing that to meet market demand along the number of years that it's been
there because from original all single homes to what it is now, I don't think mixing
a little bit more affordability and higher density is a huge imposition and I really
don't think that home values are going to drop.
No, I don't agree either, but you did, you know, make a point even your own personal experiences.
It also does come down to services and the kind of community that we're building around
a golf course that is kilometers out from the core, you know, there isn't a safe way
to bike there necessarily unless you go into the back trail, which we've purposely
connected in through our own private lands.
But I know there's a muck that's supposed to come along County Road 44 that one
day will come.
There's some of those things that will help support that density when it is there, the transit, them up.
That's exactly the relationship. I think that for which both sides have some responsibility, right?
So as we ask more of you, I think the community needs to ask more of us, right?
So as we evolve as a community, but again, I guess I just don't want to lose the point that I don't think we should be fixated on 1100.
These are living documents.
They're meant to evolve and change and reflect the needs
of communities over time.
So I feel like there's some flexibility there on both sides.
There is, but keeping in mind the engineering.
Indeed.
Yes, except that.
I put a big caveat on that.
For sure.
Yeah.
That's a long road of a long pipe.
Totally understood.
And of course those other considerations matter a lot.
That being said, I think I just want to underscore that I think we can explore a lot of different facets, right, to this conversation in terms of what the municipality and the community is seeking to achieve and what's doable and viable for you.
And I think there's lots of ground to be gained on both sides there.
So, you know, I appreciate, of course, the deputy mayor and what he brings to the table.
I don't think we're seeking to be particularly rigid here, but we're seeking...
And that's as much about us as it is about you. And I think expectations are everything.
And this council is changing expectations, right, in terms of how we do planning and how we envision the future for our community.
And that has cascading effects for everybody. And that's our job, right?
That's our job as elected officials, carrying out a mandate that we were given.
And we, as you know, take that very seriously because we've been having this conversation for two and a half hours.
So with that in mind, I think there's lots of goodwill here, lots of appetite to have some conversations that maybe you didn't anticipate having, but really, really matter to us and matter to, I think, some people who live in Equinell and lots of people who don't but could,
whether they come from within our own community or region or from the far reaches of either coast.
So we look forward to that.
We really have a strong appetite to see what we can do together.
And I think we can do something that's kind of special, right?
And, you know, I think our commitment to you is that we'll do our part.
And I think we've been doing our best to look at some of the other issues of connectivity
that up to this point have really limited the kind of market you might see at Equinel, right?
And, you know, the good news is people love your neighborhood and love your community.
and it's really putting a scramble on the map and we take real pride in that and we
know you do too but I think we can we can both do more and do it a little bit
differently and and that'll just keep keep things moving. So thank you
for your time. I'll move over to the Deputy Mayor for his second
intervention of the evening and see what he has to say at this stage. Go ahead
Mr. McMahon. Mel, you spoke earlier about the changes to the entrance. So
So we're talking density here, and we have arguments on both sides of this density issue.
One for to make things affordable by putting more homes in there.
And of course, I suspect some of the residents don't necessarily want that many more homes
in there.
And that's where those arguments came up when we're talking about the entrance and
the concerns for safety.
Being able to get out on that highway turn left, I believe, is the concern or right
or whatever it was.
But anyways, it's difficult, and you guys have plans for change.
So there's investment going in there.
I'd like Mr. Nanton to speak just briefly on his initial conversation with us.
He mentioned some letters that came to us from residents' concerns.
And of course, one point in those letters was about the entrance and the safety there,
the traffic concerns, of course.
What else was it? The trees of course. But then density came up again as well.
So if David, if you could just speak briefly on that, that density and traffic was a concern for some residents from those, from those letters I understand.
Thank you.
Yes, so two letters both raised the concerns over the entranceway and the onto Royal Landing Gate and Equinol Drive,
specifically stating concerns of where the health center is located now and some of that internal and commercial traffic,
the health center servicing obviously residents that do not just specifically live in the Equinol Subdivision,
stating that the left turn was problematic.
Internal circulation for the residents, for pedestrians,
was already a bit of a congestion area,
and something they'd identified as something
that they live with, was something
that they stressed in the letters.
And then with respect to the density,
they were hoping that an alternative location
or an alternative route for the 141 additional units could be found.
It was clear that they believed that was going to further exasperate
the traffic issues within that development right now.
So nobody was looking for more density in there?
I'm being kidding. I'm just kidding.
Melanie, you talked about the design on...
I think people are looking for safety.
So density and safety are...
Absolutely, that's what I'm going to.
That's what I'm going to.
So we talked about the engineering plans that you have, and I believe your engineers
and or you, or whoever it was involved in this study, you brought this to us some time
ago and said this is the way we're going to, and you laid out the actual design.
It didn't include any lights stopping traffic per se yet.
The current design that you're talking about doesn't do that if we're talking
They're turning lanes, we're talking things.
So I see in the future we're talking 1,100 homes in here, that's a lot of traffic trying
to come in and go out of that potentially down the road.
We probably are going to be looking at either another roundabout, everybody wants those,
or end or traffic lights in that specific area.
So fill us a little bit in on that, because you did before, I remember that, I just
don't know all the details.
Thank you.
Yeah, so our traffic study that we did to accompany the phase five application, our traffic studies always go out to the full build out of what's anticipated for the intersections.
So our traffic studies and which helped us with the design for the County Road 44 works.
I'm just going to back up.
The County Road 44 Intersection Improvement Plan is, as follows, a southbound right-hand
turn lane with a southbound through lane at both Equinell and Royal Landing Gate, and
a northbound dedicated left turn lane at both Equinell and Royal Landing Gate.
Stop-controlled only eastbound from Equinell and from Royal Landing Gate.
with medians and street lighting.
There are no traffic warrants required for traffic lighting.
To that point, are the traffic warrants, the data that you provided
that allowed the traffic people to do their number crunching,
was it based upon current residency in the neighborhood
or the full build out?
So we start all of our traffic design and traffic counts based on current counts.
So we hired someone, I believe, as 2018 within a year of that.
We'd done previous ones.
Every couple of years we have traffic counts.
Again, don't quote me on those exact dates, but we have a number of them,
which tells us what the current traffic load is at those intersections,
AMNPM peak.
We correlate that to the existing number of occupied units in Equinel and assign a traffic
rate to each home at AMNPM.
We compare that to established guidelines for average traffic generated for each housing
type, single family, townhouse, semi-detached,
and both MTO, Ministry of Transportation and
Traffic Association of Canada have guidelines on those.
The traffic at Equinnel, traffic volume at Equinnel per unit is less than half of what
is anticipated in those general design guidelines, which is traffic volume, yes.
now or the traffic volumes at full build-out?
So the traffic volumes now.
So what we did, I'm getting there.
I think I'm getting to your question
or getting to answer your question.
I think it's both our questions, right?
We're asking the same question.
So when we do our traffic study,
we take existing counts based on existing units
and add projected counts based on projected units.
And we've done it all the way out to our 1108 units
plus background growth in Kentville overall to establish projected full build-out traffic volumes at each of those intersections at both A.M. and P.M. peak.
So based on those and based on this updated configuration, our calculations show that we'll have a level of service C,
which essentially means a, I believe it's a 22nd, and again, don't quote me on the exact second,
15 to 22nd timing for a card to go eastbound left from either Equinell or
Royal Landing Gate based on full buildout.
Okay. I mean, the only, and we've had this conversation before is,
I've always wondered if you consider the demographic, right?
The demographic of Royal Indiegates is a bit older.
I wear glasses now.
I didn't five years ago take off the glasses and try to turn left,
and I'm not sure I'm making the safest move either.
So is there any consideration for your own clientele?
I know that there are transportation advisory guidelines,
and we get all that, but is there any consideration for, you know,
who's actually driving the vehicles in that neighborhood?
And in addition, what the rest of Kenville and North Granville looks like, given what will be increasing volumes, regardless of what you do, but just because of the other growth that's happening in other parts of the community.
So I think we're asking more technical questions, and I'm not sure we can resolve them all here, but it's a fair point.
And I think we feel people's stress around being able to safely exit in and out of Equinol.
So we don't consider demographics. We consider that people are average drivers.
You know, you have to design roads for drivers who are licensed to drive.
And if they're licensed to drive with glasses, they wear their glasses while they're licensed to drive.
However, to your second point, the background growth in Kentville is accounted for in the traffic volumes at the intersections,
in addition to the projected numbers for Equinel itself.
And if we were in another area, any other anticipated development at that time, that's not this case.
But, you know, if, well, earlier on, we did increases for the school and for Tempo.
But since they are nearing their build-out, we do them as background calcs at this point.
Deputy Mayor, is there anything else there?
Okay.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
You mentioned several times based on the number of units in there, and you did a couple of times mention counts,
but so my question is, has this calculation been based on the number of units that are built in there,
or have you taken into account the number of people who come in and out going to or from the golf course
or the facility that's there, which
is used by other people from outside,
as well as to and from the park where the splash pad is
and to and from the medical center
and the pharmacy that's down there.
Each of the uses have their own counts
that we use if we don't have actual accounts.
They each have projected counts.
But when you do a traffic count at an intersection,
it counts for all traffic that goes
whether or not they live there, they don't live there,
whether they're going to the golf course,
whether they're going to the medical facility.
We do it on an average day.
There's a number of different requirements
when we do our traffic counts.
And then we compare them to previous counts
with knowledge of what the background growth rate is.
Does it make sense?
Has there been a spike?
What's going on?
We try not to do them on Mondays and Fridays.
We don't do them on...
We try not to do them in the summer.
We try not to do them on snow days.
We try not to do them on days that are out of the ordinary.
You try to find an ordinary day.
Sorry, why would you not do them in the summer?
That's when the golf course and the splash pads open.
That's when the people would be going in and out of there.
The school traffic has much more impact on traffic than the...
Even in that neighborhood, given the demographics of the people who live in there?
Yeah, on the county road they do, and golf course, you know, they're staggered.
There's golf course, there's golfers that start every 10 minutes.
They're not all coming in unlike everyone starts school at 8 o'clock.
Not all the golfers start at 8 o'clock.
I would presume you would be using a consultant, right, for the service.
Is this even all does its own traffic counts or would you be working in partnership with, or you are that person?
Nova Tech is that person.
So they're advising you on the correct technical considerations here.
Is that correct?
We have professional engineers who are traffic engineers.
I think the point is that we care a great deal about road safety.
You should be advised that the traffic calming and speed reduction policies
and our community are likely to change.
And I think we just want to give our best consideration to ensuring that
that's a safe intersection.
I think we're thrilled to see what's coming down the pipe.
But I think some of us are having a hard time not believing that a traffic light there would make a difference, but we're not the technical experts on that file.
A lot of lights are coming. We're excited about it.
A lot of lights are coming.
They're talking traffic lights versus street lights.
Oh, street lights. But street lights will help.
Street lights will help.
Yeah, street lighting at that intersection will help.
I'm curious to mel into yourselves, because it's the county's road, I don't know if they would even approve.
Indeed, and there are engineering considerations that may make that prohibitive or not.
I think it's a bigger conversation, but I'm glad we've asked the questions, because it's given us more time with you.
We're so grateful for that.
We know county, but we try to play nice with them, but we want our way, right?
And we're a big fish on that sea, so come on.
Give us something to do.
Council colleagues, here we are.
Anything else coming up?
Deputy Mayor, you introduced another element there, which was excellent.
I'm so glad you asked those questions.
Anything else from the public?
I think we're still in this public meeting where any member of the public is watching.
Welcome to speak at this juncture. Are there any final comments from individuals who have
been watching? Yes.
I'll repeat it for you. So you ask, I must repeat it for the record.
So direct it to me.
So the question is, I'm going to ask you for the record. The traffic
counts are capturing who's coming in and out of Equinell. That's your question. Both
where lay the gate and equinell drive on highway 44. The traffic
counselor, yeah, for all the all the traffic movement through those
intersections, through those major so both north south who are not turning it
turning it either way intersections all directions of all their all directions
and and all uses of vendor intersection pedestrian cyclists cars trucks
buses. Okay. And are you thinking about traffic counts within the neighborhood
itself? Is that why you asked that question?
Yes. There is a lot.
Yeah. So
certainly the dialogue we've had with them suggests that you're looking at
full movement regardless of whether or not they turn left or right into
Equinol, right? Okay. So and is that information available? Do you make that
information available in terms of those traffic counts? Is that something
residents of Equinall or the municipality could see?
Yes.
Mr. Nanton.
Okay.
So having spent a lot of time in Equinall, traffic was a big issue.
It comes up a lot.
It's not something that – I think it's not something that residents in that neighborhood
take lightly.
So if there's more information to share, it might be helpful at this stage.
I just sort of jump in as a planner and just someone who's been at a number of
public meetings.
though those reports are written and all that information is collected,
the experience is very different than what the report says, unfortunately.
And I think within the planning world and the traffic road safety world,
there's an increasing emphasis on the human experience versus the technical number counts.
So there's a global phenomenon of looking at roads not just from the perspective you should have your glasses on,
And we're going to assume a certain competency or astuteness when it comes to your driving capacity.
We are going to accommodate for human error.
So there's a whole shift, right, in the policy landscape when I think it comes to traffic planning around looking at different ways to accommodate people's actual experience.
So I think that may reflect some of the choice points that come down the road.
No pun intended.
Okay. Council colleagues, how are we doing now?
We've heard from that member of the public.
Are we good here?
I think we have a draft motion that I believe has come from Mr. Nanton.
Is that correct?
Oh, I'm closing my public meeting.
Okay. I'll close the meeting.
I am now then closing the public meeting at 9.05.
And Council will now look to the resolution for the committee's consideration.
I do just have to bring that resolution back up unless it's in printed form.
Mr. Palmanville has kindly printed it.
Thank you.
So this, so council colleagues, given the conversation,
I do want us to carefully consider whether or not this language can be amended slightly or not.
Committee of the Whole, so this is the draft resolution that's come to us from staff.
Committee, the whole recommends that Council approve zoning bylaw amendments NPA 1219 for the lands
described as part of lot 26 and part of road allowance between lots 25 and 26, concession 1,
geographic township of Oxford and Rideau, now the municipality of North Cranville to amend the
zoning of the property from rural to residential third density special exception 19 to accommodate
the proposed residential subdivision phase.
And further that committee, the whole direct staff to prepare a report setting out proposed conditions of draft approval for the subdivision phase to be brought back to a subsequent meeting for consideration by committee of the whole.
I'd like to propose that under that second bullet we say, and further that community of the whole direct staff to prepare reports setting out proposed conditions of draft approval and considerations for housing affordability.
For this subdivision phase to be brought back to a subsequent meeting for consideration by community of the whole.
That clearly stipulates and reflects I think the substance of the conversation we've had without any specificity.
Sure, that's great to be specific and more detailed, but I'd add parking as well, if possible.
Nice.
Be specific, parking around the park.
So this has not been moved.
This was just draft language that was provided to us.
So we were in the creative license phase of the meeting.
And further that, committee of the whole direct staff to prepare a report setting out,
further proposed draft, sorry, prepare a report setting out,
proposed conditions of draft approval including considerations for
housing,
for affordable housing,
and parking as it pertains to the park.
for this subdivision phase to be brought back to a subsequent meeting for consideration by committee of the whole.
Mr. Nett.
As a recommendation, it might be more encompassing to use the language of and review the merits of the application
based on comments received at the public meeting, in which case I can use the minutes taken tonight
and all of the comments received and package them into a new report for consideration to be brought forward.
So you're suggesting that we don't use this specific language?
It might be easier to encompass it in terms of the holistic merits of all the comments received tonight.
I think because they go beyond parking?
It will go beyond the parking and it will have to look at issues of lot fabric, the trees that were mentioned, park connectivity, natural species was brought up, some studies, information.
Okay, and what was your language specifically, so?
Something to the effect of the merits of the application and comments received at the public meeting.
So to that end, I mean, given that I agree, I think we want all elements and facets of the meeting to be considered.
I don't want to lose affordable housing.
It took up about 70% of the conversation this evening.
Are we confident that this motion will achieve that?
That is not something that will be lost in the additional report that is to be written.
I think we were talking about affordable housing and the affordability objectives in the official plan.
So I want to be very clear that that's the frame here, right, when we talk about housing.
So to that end, language for our consideration council colleagues is that further that community of the whole direct staff
to prepare a report on the merits of the application
and all comments received during the public meeting.
Is that correct?
So you're going to have to give me the language.
The portion of setting up proposed conditions
of draft approval based on the merits.
That's what I said, based on merits.
It sounded like you omitted the session
that setting up proposed conditions of draft approval.
That was the whole point of this evening's meetings to gather these comments, and then we'll come back.
Okay.
Setting up proposed conditions.
Here are the conditions that you want achieved before they're going to get draft approval.
Indeed.
I understand that.
So I think we're just looking at where we're placing these words.
Prepare a report, setting up proposed conditions of draft approval based upon the merits of the application,
and all comments received during the public meeting.
Is that correct?
Yes, that's correct.
Okay.
All right, for this subdivision phase to be brought back to a subsequent meeting for consideration by Committee of the Whole.
Are we good?
Okay.
With that in mind, unless there's further comment, do you have further comment?
I'm looking to the deputy mayor actually.
Okay.
The only thing is, again, I'd like to understand the process and maybe Mr. Danton can explain.
But here we're just giving staff direction, of course,
to put together or look at some of the ideas here,
the concerns we've had.
And I'm assuming they will continue
to consult with the engineers and the developers along the way
until we get to a reasonable negotiation on this.
Because to take it point blank to what I see,
I still don't totally agree.
It sounds like, you know, if you're going to say the affordable housing has to be in this one small phase, in a sense,
that can be a big challenge to, especially with the number we're talking about,
unless we downsize your townhouses dramatically and make them a little – or increase the density and more population,
more units in that place. I'm a little concerned there.
So I think, you know, I'm sure reasonable heads will prevail and will come with a reasonable number
and that we're not expecting, I'm not expecting 25% of everything in that one little phase would have to be in, fit into that number.
So anyways, I know there's negotiations to go forward here because I do have concerns with density and the initial design and concept of that specific living space
was designed in its particular way for a specific reason.
And so I don't want to go too far off that.
I think your comments will also hold as part of the dialogue this evening.
So I think reasonable heads will prevail.
And I think objectives can be met.
So I'm going to look for a mover and a seconder.
We have some language.
Okay.
I've got Barclay and O'Sullivan.
So I don't think I need to read the motion again.
We have some amended language, which includes that staff is directed to consider the merits of the application based upon all comments received during the public meeting,
so that this particular application can be brought back to a subsequent meeting for consideration by community of the whole.
Saf, are we good?
Good.
Okay.
Then I will call the question unless there are further comments by council colleagues.
No.
Okay.
All in favor, please.
Good.
Thank you. Motion passes. We are actually taking five minutes and then we're moving on to Pelton's
corners. Thank you.
Okay, welcome back to our meeting. This is special committee, the whole number one for Wednesday,
Jan. 15. We are now at 9.30. Agenda item number one, which is the Zoning By-law Amendment
application for Equinol subdivision phase five has just completed, and we've now resumed
our session to speak to the proposed plan of subdivision conditions of draft approval
approval for Peltin's Corners Subdivision Phase 2.
So I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Danche, please.
Thank you.
So to speak to the presentation this evening on the recommended conditions of draft approval
for the proposed plan of subdivision, Phase 2 of Peltin's Corner,
provide a quick brief review of the subject property for context.
The site area shown in red is the site area itself of approximately 37 acres.
That is located to the west of Phase 1, which is shown just right here.
The vacant lands predominantly surround the property to the northwest and south.
There are some residential properties that front onto Pelton Road,
and again, the Phase 1 is to the west there.
The proposed subdivision has been designed as an extension of Phase 1,
and it's slated to consist of 20 residential lots,
averaging in size of 1.7 acres with frontage of 50 meters which was
addressed through the Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA-11-19.
With respect to
the subdivision and circulation, there were a series of comments from agencies
in the public which included the following. There was a letter from South
Asia Conservation Authority which requested some inclusion of conditions
with respect to log grading and drainage, stormwater management, environmental impact
statement, and sediment and erosion control. There were letters from Hydro 1 and
Enbridge Gas stating no objection or comments or concerns for the proposed
application. A letter from Bell Canada requesting the inclusion of conditions
related to easements. There was one letter of concern circulated to
council regarding concerns over construction traffic and noise along
Peltin Road that was addressed in the draft conditions to be spoken to. As well
this morning we received one comment from a resident which reads as follows.
The subdivision proposal in the staff report do not reference or
address the official plan objectives of providing more affordable housing or
rental housing. The subdivision draft conditions agreement should be revised
to recognize a certain number of units that will be affordable and or
rental or alternatively, the subdivision owner acknowledges and agrees in the subdivision
agreement that a specified number, i.e., actually number included within the subdivision agreement
of single detached dwellings proposed will include a secondary dwelling unit.
This could and likely would assist with both affordable and rental accommodation objectives.
Subdivision securities could be used to ensure this is met within the agreement and
can recognize this.
This was received by Carl Cannon.
These comments were taken into consideration by staff with the drafting of the conditions to be presented this evening.
In addition to that, some of the topics heard at the public meeting held on November 13th were also taken into consideration with main topics and points of interest,
including concerns related to appropriate environmental and drainage studies being completed, concerns over change of character to the area,
Light pollution related to the subdivision expansion and privacy with
respect to pedestrian access and walking paths, construction traffic and noise,
stormwater management and drainage and tree conservation planning efforts.
Before we get into the draft conditions we will speak to the recommendation
brought forward by staff this evening is that the Committee of the Whole
recommend the Council approve that the staff prepared conditions of draft
approval be submitted to the United Counties of Leeds in Grenville,
approval authority by council.
So to dive into some of the details of the drafted
conditions, there were 31 draft conditions recommended by staff. Based on the
number of draft conditions this evening's presentation we'll just seek to
highlight and group some of the draft conditions for the meeting purposes. The
conditions number one through seven are more standard draft conditions
related to a subdivision that speak to the draft plan part of me that is approved and
then related development features such as lot numbers, blocks and et cetera.
The lapsing period in the extension process through the United Counties of Leeds and
Grenville as well as registration and parkland dedication requirements moving forward to
condition eight.
This condition addresses the requirement of a final stormwater management plan to be
submitted the municipality and to the satisfaction municipality stormwater is
further mentioned throughout the draft conditions in condition 10 and 13 which
outlined the items and requirements of such a plan condition 11 addresses the
requirement of a grading and drainage plan to be submitted to the municipality
prior to final approval which again speaks to concerns raised at the
public meeting condition 15 requires an erosion sediment control plan to be
prepared and implemented.
Condition 16 addresses the requirement
of a traffic impact statement to be prepared and followed.
Condition 17 and 19 speak to owner responsibilities
to be addressed through the subdivision agreement,
including financial securities and relationship
to infrastructure,
stormwater collection, street signs,
and the like.
Condition 21 addresses the requirement
for a tree preservation plan to be prepared and submitted
and to be due to the satisfaction of the municipality.
Condition 24 addresses that the subdivisions
will include restrictions for the permitted hours
of construction activity on the site
and the location of construction access.
This then speaks directly to some of the concerns
raised by residents along Pelton Road.
The remaining conditions relate to the clearing
of any outstanding items from Phase 1,
required amendments to the existing ECA for Phase 2
and confirmation that all conditions have been cleared
to the satisfaction of the municipality,
issued to the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville,
who again are the approval authority
for this plan of subdivision.
If you have any further questions, please advise
and that's the end of my presentation.
David, is this an unusual amount of conditions?
It seems awfully long.
It's a late night, sorry.
So being my first round, this is a little higher
than what I'd seen received at the county level.
However, the county does group conditions that are similar in nature for clarification and
transparency.
Some things with storm water, for instance, will be grouped into one condition when they
go to the counties for their consideration to be included.
Okay, council colleagues, I'm sure you're doing your due diligence this evening and
closely reviewing all the conditions.
Mr. Nansen, given the comment we received from member of the public who obviously has
some expertise and played a crucial role on the affordable housing task force, can we have
someone speak to affordability in particular in Pelton's Corners and whether or not there's
some ground to be gained here or some provisions already that are captured by the conditions
Are you in a position to do that or should we ask?
I'm asking Mr. Nant first, and then I'd like to hear from you, please.
Thank you.
In a similar regard to the review in the Equinel public meeting,
the interpretation that I took from the Official Plan was the target of all development to include 25%
and looking at the municipality as that all, as opposed to shaping to one development.
As a planned phase in a rural residential area, without access to servicing and being extension
of existing phase, it was my opinion in reviewing the merits of this application that it was
compatible with the existing uses for private servicing and the available infrastructure
And that affordable housing was not part of the application and was not further considered.
So your opinion to be clear, you believe that the official plan of stipulations shouldn't apply to this subdivision by virtue of location?
Is that what I'm hearing? I just want to be clear.
Without trying to put myself into a corner.
The interpretation was that the rural residential lots in the nature
of what was planned for this development originally being eight lots in total
on even larger lot fabric going down to 20, that process was intended
to accommodate a certain style of development in the rural area,
being the last rural residential subdivision, in which case it was viewed to be compatible
to carry forward the style of development from phase one to phase two.
So the initial character of the subdivision and its location?
Correct.
Are things that you've identified as limiting factors?
Is that correct?
This is correct.
Okay.
So, council colleagues, just because we've had that comment from a member of the public,
yes, he has expertise with the housing task force,
but nonetheless as a resident in our community and we want to give due consideration to that,
I think we should speak to that.
But apart from that, are there other things
that we'd like to ask about in the application?
Indeed.
OK.
Please go ahead.
Can you repeat what you said about secondary units?
You mentioned something about secondary units in these.
The potential.
Did you?
So this was from the comment received?
Oh, from the affordable housing unit.
OK.
Which is?
Task force.
Okay, because that would be my question is, I would see that's probably the only way to make any affordable housing in there.
And that would obviously be based upon the owner of the home, whether or not they wanted to have a secondary dwelling on the property, the purchaser.
unless there was an appetite to purpose build one or two homes
with secondary dwellings in them.
But I mean, it's possible on services, on private services.
Councillor Berkeley, please.
I have a question about the official plan.
Does it make no distinction between the urban service area
and the rural residential area in terms of affordable housing?
I would have to take a more detailed look at how the policies apply outside of the urban
service area and the rural area and get back to you on that.
Mr. Gerard, you might be able to answer that question.
The official plan is a global document, though there was a carve-out for Equinell.
There was specificity for Equinell.
Is that the only kind of carve-out when speaking to a particular neighborhood?
Otherwise, the official plan is intended to be a global document, and the expectation is,
is that development writ large is to be measured to some degree against the objectives in the plan.
Is that right?
Right.
Okay.
Yes, of course, Councillor Barclay.
Yeah, so your interpretation of the official plan as it relates to affordable housing took into account the number of units or the location of the units, correct?
Is that what I'm hearing?
Sorry, can you repeat?
Oh, well, in response to an answer, I guess it was from the mayor.
You said that applying the affordable housing section of the official plan, you didn't discount it.
That's putting words in your mouth, but you took into account that it was a rural residential area
and the style of the phase one and the size of the lots and the number of lots.
That was part of your answer, or maybe you could repeat.
Part of my review in assessing the holistic merits of this application, being a secondary
phase to the existing development, was looking at available servicing, constraints to the
sites in terms of development, as well as taking into consideration the official plan,
which as I read is for the holistic, if we build 100 units, we're targeting and trying
to achieve 25 of them to be affordable as a collective and that was part of my consideration
and my recommendation to move forward with these conditions.
Problem with that interpretation because we never get there because it's always somebody
else's problem to have affordable housing start.
Anyways, thank you.
Just to work clear, because obviously the subject is yours, is your concern is with asymmetry
in terms of policy applications, i.e., one-on-one.
Well, it's actually my impression that if we look at it holistically, like all the next
hundred homes built in North Granville, if it's another developer, if the onus falls
on the next developer to have 25% of the total amount that could exceed the number of units
that he's planning to build, you know, like if it was just-
So we're passing it down the line.
Yeah, we're just picking the problem down the road, so.
Right.
Okay.
So you've spoken to it, to representatives on the builder, wish to speak to it?
We'd like someone to speak to it.
Thank you.
And we do hope you're feeling better, Mr. Knowsworthy.
And I would like to personally state regret.
I wasn't involved in obviously the decision-making.
I think Pelton's Corners may have been the far shorter
of the two conversations, and I know you're not feeling well.
So apologies that we weren't able to put you first versus second.
So learning for next time.
We never know.
Thank you for your patience.
You never know.
Always fun being here.
The number of houses you're proposing to build are much lower
than the number that you've done, Alice.
I'm very cognizant of the fact that we need to create more affordable housing in North
Crennville.
In this particular situation, I reviewed a number of things, our price list to start
out.
Our homes in this particular subdivision started 460,000.
So I went, okay, we're not going to achieve the affordable number that way.
We, because of the nature of the rural subdivisions and the limitations of the number of units on a one-acre parcel, it is limited to a single-family home.
Recently, within the last year, we've had actually two homes on the current phase one of Pelton's
Corners that have approached us and asked us about in-law suites. So we've actually built one
out and sold it completely. We have another one under construction right now. And I've given
instructions to our engineers that for the 20 lots in phase two that they do
everything that they can that they can imagine to make them walk out basements
so that we can offer in-law suites in all of them. Now again I'm driven by the
market so people will come they'll look at a house they'll look at the
differential and they'll see that but we will be offering and aggressively
pushing to put in in-law suites or granny suites or apartments or whatever you
want to call it but they are secondary units and we're doing everything that we
can. Is it going to work on every house? No but we are we're doing everything we
can to make that happen because I'm also cognizant of the demands of the
municipality and the affordable housing task force but I also need to follow
of the market. So I don't know what else to say other than just, we're trying everything
we can to get there and we're working with it. We've got two in the first phase and now
we're moving to phase two and hopefully we can have more than two in phase two. But again,
that's a buyer's choice.
I don't have much to add to that other than to say that the zoning by-law allows
second units as of right so anywhere in the community where there's a single
dwelling the owners have the ability to add a second unit to for to achieve
affordability or to achieve you know housing for whether it's an elderly
parent or you know for for for the youth for any for anybody who needs it
So that has the right abilities already built into the zoning bylaw and I think what Mr.
knows where he's saying.
Is that he would like to take advantage of that, where possible, with this development
to try to advance those types of opportunities.
And I think the adjustments the municipality has made in the participation of provincial
legislation relieve some of that burden because you won't be charged DCs on a secondary dwelling
unit, correct?
Yes, and we appreciate that and that's exactly what we're able to sell those last two since
that change was made by the municipality.
Right. So, I think the working assumption by the province is that by not charging it
to you, you have a little bit of flexibility at price point.
Well, it's just that we don't charge it to the client.
At the end of the day, if it's $5,000 is the extra charge, we're going to add that
to the selling price. If that wasn't added, we didn't add it onto the price.
So, yes, it made a big difference in those last couple of months.
To what degree do you think, ensuring that the engineering or the conceptual designs
for those homes if they include the capacity to respond to a request for a secondary dwelling unit.
How significant is that when you're in negotiations with a prospective buyer?
Is that a big deal, a little deal?
That's the availability of being able to build a second unit?
Well, you said that you were planning to aggressively market the potential
or the ease with which someone could request a secondary dwelling unit by virtue of the
engineering plans that would be presented or on offer?
Is that what we're hearing?
I forgive me.
I don't have a reference.
There are no other conceptual plans that we present to them.
We present the existing plans of the current homes, the two homes that have the in-law
suites.
There are some limitations.
We have to augment the septic system.
We have to augment the fire protection between the two units.
There are two kitchens, so there's additional cost to it, but it's nothing like building two homes, right?
So you're taking advantage of the infrastructure that's in one house.
So aggressively is that I speak with all of the clients that come through the door that are more than kicking the tires.
So I get to meet them personally, and I get to talk to them about their wants and their needs and their future,
and this is a big deal.
For me, it's a big deal.
The in-law suites are, as far as I'm concerned,
a very good utilization of an existing single-family home
in the country.
So I'm pushing it.
I think we're pleased to see that.
Council colleagues?
Other things when it comes to housing?
Member of the public?
Okay.
Come on down, please.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Welcome back, Mr. Cannon.
Last man standing.
Thank you, Your Worship.
Of the public.
Really, the comment was to stimulate the discussion you just had. The official plan does not preclude the rural area from participating, having its share relevant to affordable housing, because there's also a need within that sector of the community.
So, you know, relevant to this particular application and the comments that were identified.
I mean, I think in this case, unlike other applications where I think there's opportunity for flexibility,
probably in this scenario, it's really that there's maybe not that opportunity at this time
and that they proponent's comments, you know, identify the thought process that we're all thinking
and that secondary dwelling units really are the predominant option within the rural sector,
so that he's identified that he's provided for that enhanced opportunity.
Maybe at this stage that's the best that we can expect and look forward,
if otherwise it's acceptable moving forward without any other proviso.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
I think given what we're looking at in this community,
which is a real shortage of reasonably built and reasonably priced high quality rental
units.
I don't mean the highest quality available, but just a reasonably built rental unit.
I think the addition of secondary units, which is where the province is recognized,
is key.
It's huge.
If 10 of 20 of the homes that you purchase, or 50 percent of the homes that you build
and sell have secondary units, you may have solved a housing problem for 10 couples, for 10 seniors, right?
So I think there is significance, you know, obviously doing everything you can to ensure that people give due consideration for that,
especially in the long term.
People are typically in these homes for the long term.
They take great care to choose a site, right, to choose a builder.
They spend quite a bit of money.
So I do think the secondary dwelling unit piece is notable and I think we would hope that you have some success.
Mr. Cannon, is there anything else at this stage?
Okay.
Good.
Okay.
So we've spoken to housing council colleagues.
Anything else on that?
No.
Okay.
We have an exhaustive list of conditions that Mr. Nanton has put forward.
Appreciate that they're all there.
Mr. Nanton, is there anything that isn't here that we should know about?
Is this the whole list and all the list?
This is the whole list and all of the list.
Okay.
Oh, okay.
Mr. Noseworthy.
Excellent.
Go.
Are you going to ask that something be added to the list?
No, I'm going to ask something.
This is the whole list and the whole list.
Nothing more.
I swear to God.
Robert?
So what do you need?
Ten minutes per point?
Yes.
No, sorry.
There's just two things.
In condition number six, it talks about 5% of the land included in the plan and it can
be for recreation purposes or cash in lieu of Parkland.
I have a very strong objective to create Parkland for our homeowners.
I'm on my fifth subdivision in North Granville and only one was able to twist the arm and
be able to get a park in there.
I want to get a park in there not pay the 5% because but that's just a personal objective
So I'm going to push hard on that
So you
That and then condition number 25
It talks about the owner agrees that a dry
Hydrant be installed into the existing stormwater management pond with connections for emergency fire services to the satisfaction of the municipality
I've never done that before I have no idea what that costs
I am a little concerned that we're adding a cost of a dry hydrant.
I mean, it could be $1,000 or it could be $20,000.
The number of the recommendation?
25.
Condition number 25.
And I'm just, I'm just coming to the council saying that I'm kind of looking for permission
that I may negotiate with the director of planning and development that the cost of
the dry hydrant might be credited on my development chart.
That's all.
Mr. Nang, can you speak on that, like if this has never come up before, is this a new thing or what's what's going on?
No problem. So this condition was recommended to be included by the fire chief, John Ocomb, who suggested that there was a outstanding need for infrastructure like this for fire protection services.
identified the existing storm pond as an opportunity to put in a dry hydrant for
firefighting purposes and requested that this be included for consideration.
Is this the first time we've requested that or has that happened before? Mr.
Jard?
I totally understand that. That's not my question. My question is have we
asked developers to do this before? Is this a new thing going forward? Where did
this come from.
Thank you.
So going back to Kashin Liu, of course, that's an area where
we've spent a lot of time talking in the past. That's number six. So if you have a stated
want, intention, capacity to in fact, now we're talking about a development where people
will have quite a bit of land at their disposal, right?
They're building one acre lots?
Yeah, at least, yes, 1.7.
But you still see merit in a shared green space.
Well, yes, I do.
Near the pond, the stormwater pond
that we have in question right now.
Actually, that was my intention originally
in that subdivision.
And we actually, I built a track around that,
not dissimilar from the Forest Creek pond, a little wider.
And once we built that, I was told,
told, oh, now you have to put a fence around it. And I was like, why? And of course it was
explained to me why we needed it for safety reasons. Okay, fine. But I wouldn't have put
in the circular track or the walking track, I call it a dog path, around that pond.
For this one.
Yes, for phase one.
For phase one.
For phase one. So we put a fence around it and now nobody can access it.
So I'm
public spaces for people to come together and just to say hello and just walk. We have a number of
senior people that are on our subdivisions and they like to walk and being walking within the
subdivision is a safe environment and then also they want to sit down sometimes. So we'll provide
two park benches and just provide it on the edge of a pathway which comes off of between lock 21
19 and 20, I'm sorry, and a little strip.
So we'll create a little pathway,
rough in a pathway, take it down,
and then put some park benches looking
across the frost fence into the pond.
But it is what it is.
So they'll just have to take their glasses off
and imagine there's no fence.
So to that end, that is your stated goal.
That's my stated goal.
At the same time, I've been in this
and I'm asking permission to negotiate
with the Director of Planning and Development say could we put in the park instead of our
Contribute Park Land instead of the 5% of the Lue Cache.
So do we really need the provision for Cache and Lue if your state and intention and want
is for green space and the subdivision?
I'm not necessarily saying that.
I've been told about the costs that are involved when a new park is created and
I appreciate that.
It's a maintenance if you will from the municipality and I was told that was not by anybody
in this room. But I was told that that was not a desired objective. To have the
shared green space. To have a park space in a subdivision. I forced it in
Kempton Creek. It was just a strip of land. Yes, this strip of land. But I want to
do it. I want to do it next to the pond. There's a space behind beside the
pond that will allow us to come to the edge of Pelton Road. And that could
be, as far as I'm concerned, can be a park if we're allowed to do that.
But I'll negotiate that.
And my interpretation of the language for Condition 6 is that up to 5% of the land is conveyed
of the land within the park to the municipality for the purposes of a park,
and that the option exists should that not be satisfied. The cash in lieu
an arrangement can be provided in lieu of.
So I think it's captured as is.
Right.
So we have a Parks, American Culture Plan, a draft plan,
where in fact there was a recommendation that the community,
the municipality needs to increase the amount of parkland
available to residents throughout the municipality.
So I guess I'm saying to staff, not to the developer,
that obviously it's important from our perspective that we seize
upon the opportunities, especially where we have a willing builder to give serious consideration
to the establishment of parks.
And I think they're equally relevant in rural areas.
I don't disagree with you.
People want to get out of their houses and move around.
So I guess I have a strong appetite, given the Parks, Rec, and Culture draft plan,
to see viability if viability exists here.
So I guess with that in mind, while I recognize there's a cash and lieu clause here,
I don't think it's our preferred option.
Councillor Bargley.
The way I read it is that it's up to the municipality to require cash.
So I don't think that we have an appetite for not having parks.
You don't have an appetite.
The way I read it, alternatively, the municipality may require cash and lieu of parking.
Yeah, it's an alternative.
I would be loath to exercise that.
Indeed.
Though I think in the state and our municipality,
just because we haven't had the benefit of a parks parking culture plan,
sometimes is to take the cash and not build the park, right?
So I think, I don't think they're equal options.
So from my perspective, just speaking as mayor at this moment,
I don't believe that they're equal options.
It's not 50-50 for me.
I think we should work really hard to get the green space,
and cash in lieu was your last resort,
not just the equal alternative, right?
And I understand that you didn't write the language
or the barely boilerplate language doesn't really reflect
the spirit of the dialogue that you've had with the developer.
So I'm making a larger point here, right?
No critique on the specificity of the words right here right now.
But I want to state on my behalf and I think on the behalf
of some other council members that we have a health
and wellness committee.
We have a Perks Rec and Culture Plan.
We recognize that two-thirds of our residents are rural,
but there are.
Their physical activity and the capacity to meet and convene with neighbors informally is
huge. It's all about social cohesion and health and wellness. So let's hope we can make it happen.
Okay. Anything else, council colleagues, in terms of the conditions? We've heard from
Builder. We've heard from staff. Is there anything else we want to address this evening?
Just put a word in for public art and murals.
Mr. Noseworthy, is that we
can dedicate the side of one house to a public mural?
There we go.
You can be cutting edge in your world development.
I want a statue of you and a horse.
Okay.
The only other question I have, and I know we've had this conversation over and over
and over again, is geothermal.
So we just have no capacity to accommodate geothermal in this municipality, even in rural
pockets.
The horizontal ones are viable.
Indeed, I understand that.
The horizontal ones are viable.
In this draft agreement, they're here as a viable option.
Is that correct?
And Mr. Nonesworthy, do you plan to use that?
No.
And that's because you'll have to come to the mic, sorry, I apologize.
You must be exhausted. This is the last question.
I need the exercise. My doctor says that's good.
So I understand we could not go vertically because of affecting the water and the possible aquifer, right?
So we don't want to touch that.
The horizontal, so we didn't explore. We use air source heat pumps.
So it's a different technology, but it's energy star rated, and it works quite well.
I will, it's more. It's more money, but so are my homes, I guess.
But the quality is built in.
So homeowners there have a fairly energy efficient heating option, heating and cooling option.
They actually, yes, it's a combined unit. It's a heating, a furnace, and the air conditioning unit are in one unit.
So you have a savings there, but it also has to do with the efficiency of the air source and the way that it circulates air
And it's actually energy efficient to minus 12 degrees after that. It's just the furnace. Good stuff. Okay
Okay, I know we do field questions around geothermal. So that's helpful. Okay
And a traffic impact statement is something that you're obviously prepared to do as part of the phase development. Don't get up
Indeed. Okay, good. Okay, council colleagues, I'm going to look for a mover.
Thank you. Soon we'll have to pass an extension to the curfew and no one wants that. A seconder, please.
That's good. We have to draw a hard line. I support you. I won't even look for a mover.
Okay, so as moved by Councillor O'Sullivan and seconded by Councillor McMahonaman,
we have the be it resolved that the Committee of the Whole recommends to council that the following conditions be
recommended to the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville as conditions of draft approval for the Pelton's Corners Plan of Subdivision,
file number 017-19001.
Council recommends approval of the proposed draft plan of subdivision
Pilton's Corners Phase 2 to the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville
subject to the following conditions and now I'll start reading.
I'm joking.
So we've got them before us council colleagues.
I think you've all looked at the stated 31 conditions and we trust that the
builder and the planning department will exercise their due diligence and
and ensure that the conditions are fulfilled and I look forward to a report on a PERC.
With that in mind, any final thoughts before I call the question?
Seeing none, I'll call the question. All in favor? Good. Any dissents? I see none.
That is carried. Thank you for your patience, Mr. Knowsworthy.
And do I have the pleasure of adjourning the meeting, Mr. Palmerville?
The meeting is adjourned.