CARA Public Meeting January 20, 2007

1. CARA Public MeetingJanuary 20, 2007

2. Agenda • Background on the MacIntosh development • Overview of the OMB process • Outline of CARA’s stance

3. Background on MacIntosh Development • Doug MacIntosh has appealed Council’s refusal: • to rezone an amendment to the Zoning Bylaw 751 of the Township of Clearview to rezone lands on 80 Edward Street from Residential and Residential (H) zones to Multiple Residential zones • To approve a proposed plan of subdivision (SD-2005-005) of lot 33 north side of Edward Street • The proposed rezoning would permit the development of 12 townhouse units and four multiple unit buildings with a total of 84 apartment units • Above proposal became amended during the OMB process

4. Original Application Elizabeth Street Mary Stret Edward Street

5. Amended Application

6. MacIntosh Development Concept Overview • 92 units referred to as the Meadows • 1.92 ha (4.8 acres) • Includes both freehold and condominium tenure • Stormwater management facility now proposed on Block 1 • 24 unit apartment building with covered parking fronting onto Edward and Mary intersection • Two 18 unit apartment buildings and a 24 unit building located adjacent to the unopened road allowance. Surface parking for these buildings proposed. • Buildings are three stories, concept that will be compatible with architecture of Creemore • Choice of ownership venue and prices • Property bordered with evergreens, plantings • Internal access road to Mary and Edward Street • Townhouses direct access to Edward Street • Full municipal services proposed

7. The OMB Process

8. The OMB Process • Hearing begins Monday, January 22 at 10:30 am, Council Chambers, Municipal Building, Stayner - 10 days set aside • There will be an evening session in Creemore, date and time to be established by the sitting panel • Persons participate in the OMB hearings as Parties or Participants • Parties are individuals or corporations who participate fully. They can exchange documents, present evidence, call witnesses, cross-examine, etc. Typically, they have legal representation, expert witnesses. • Participants are individuals, groups or corporations, who may attend only part of the hearing, but can make a statement on all or some of the issues. They may have legal representation. Oral submissions are given more weight than written submissions, since Parties can ask them further questions. • A list of Issues sets out the questions that the Board will address.

9. Parties Doug MacIntosh - Roger Beaman, Thomson, Rogers Township of Clearview - Ian Rowe, Burgar Rowe County of Simcoe - Graham, Wilson and Green Hasketon Ventures - Noel Bates, Landplan Participants CARA Earl Brownfield David Kennedy Patrick Taylor Alliance Homes John Crispo Art McIlwain

10. OMB Process - 2 • Parties and Participants were required to submit Witness Statements prior to November 20, 2006 - CARA has filed its statement • Responses to witness statements were filed prior to December 21, 2006 • CARA has supported the Planning Committee’s position with respect to the MacIntosh development: • in correspondence February 22, 2006 to the Township • In articles in the Creemore Echo • In a position paper submitted to the Township, April 6, 2006 • CARA’s witness statement is consistent with its historical position

12. CARA’s Overall Stance • Has always advocated the need for comprehensive, secondary planning as a priority, extensive community input, not first come, first served style planning • Has always advocated the need for a mix of housing types, including affordable housing • Overall growth rates should be consistent with the Official Plan • The proposal is not consistent with village character • The proposal is generally premature • Groundwater and stormwater solutions are likely to be most achievable on completion of a master drainage plan for the full settlement area • CARA believes the appeal should be dismissed on the grounds that is (a) premature in the absence of sufficient information on the site specific application and (b) a secondary plan that studies and sets out how Creemore’s character

13. Density/Character of the Community • Does the proposed density of development maintain the character of the neighbourhood in keeping with the small town atmosphere and historical character of Creemore? • Proposed development is 48 units per hectare for the entire subdivision • Aspects of the development have higher densities - block 4 (56); block 5 (60); block 6 (54) • Compares with existing densities from 4 to 10 units per ha for rest of Creemore • There are no three storey buildings in Creemore • Clearly incompatible with the community and neighbouring development to north • No logical reason why all this development should be accommodated on a small piece of land • There is no consideration for project demographics or impact on demand for various services • Single-handedly absorbs all Creemore’s projected growth for next five years • CARA would like growth at a pace envisioned in the Official Plan

14. Stormwater and Drainage • Does the proposed lotting pattern on the plan for subdivision recognize the need for storm water management facilities? • Should there be a condition of draft plan approval requiring appropriate recognition of ground water conditions with respect to building design? • While we have not conducted technical studies, we note that the Quanbury subdivision has unusual and serious groundwater issues • Clearview Township is currently engaged in a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for the East Creemore Drainage Study. (Completion August 2007) It would make sense to wait until this is complete and can be integrated with the results of the secondary planning process • The Township notes that the stormwater analysis conducted by Tatham & Associates is for a proposal with substantially less coverage than what is being sought in the zoning bylaw.

15. Prematurity of Application • Is it appropriate to rezone the property prior to finalization of the draft plan (or potential condominium plan applications)? • The Township’s planning and engineering staff have commented on the prematurity of the application • The development has changed since the original appeal • Once a zoning amendment is achieved, there is no requirement that concept drawings, architectural detailing, landscaping, etc. necessarily would be followed • The draft plan will be reliant on a subsequent plan of condominium and site plan approval for the actual development - there is no public input necessarily at that time • It is not possible to evaluate the development without these plans in order to assess their impacts, compatibility and suitability

16. Design Issues • Is the creation of a “land-locked” lot within the plan of subdivision good planning? (Block 5) • Typically not, particularly since no application has been made demonstrating alternative access can be arranged • Is the creation of a “flag lot” appropriate given its relation to the other lots with the proposed plan of subdivision? (Block 6) • Dumps traffic onto a local road, rather than an arterial or collector • Has the appellant dealt adequately with the internal traffic movement within the plan of subdivision? • Creates considerable traffic that is unfair to the residents of the immediate neighbourhood, particularly Quanbury.

17. Design • Does the design of the subdivision and the entitlements created in the zoning by-law satisfy the design criteria of the Official Plan? • Shall be of character is at heart of Official Plan - nothing said about it (McIlwain) • CARA particularly concerned the development is not consistent with the adjacent develoopment • There is no provision for public greenspace or pedestrian linkages to the community • Predominant image is multi storey buildings and parking lots

18. Servicing 9. Has the appellant dealt adequately with the relationship of the subject site to an adjacent closed landfill? In particular, has the appellant submitted a satisfactory study … • Clearly, there needs to be an adequate study of this issue before the development can be approved. Trychlorethylene has been found on the adjacent site. 10. Has the appellant established appropriate conditions of draft plan approval to deal with the servicing of the site with respect to water and sewage services? • there are environmental concerns regarding possible ground water contamination with leachate from the adjacent waste disposal site. The County of Simcoe has commented that studies submitted by the applicant are not sufficient.

19. Adequacy of Studies 11. Do the studies filed by the appellant in support of the proposed subdivision and zoning by-law sufficiently reflect the entitlements proposed in the said zoning bylaw? • The proposed amendment provides for more development than what is substantiated in the supporting studies (Township) • The bylaw is speculative in nature • The unapplied for development proposal the zoning bylaw purportedly implements does not meet the policy test of the OP, nor can it be adequately serviced • New studies supplied by the appellant, clearly demonstrate the original development was inadequate