Despite resident concerns about the potential impact on thier neighbourhood, city council has given the green light to a variety of developer requests to help pave the way for a planned 20-townhome development in Ward 1.
Proposed for an oblong property at 406 and 410 Gill St. and 152 Oxford St., plans are to build 20 townhomes in four blocks across the property, with 48 parking spaces on site — including eight for visitors.
Each townhome will have a driveway and garage, private backyard space, and a private condominium road travelling through the development, with primary access on Gill Street and additional access on Oxford Street for units in that area.
The project was considered at a public planning meeting on Monday, with property owner, Paul Orchard, represented by Innovative Planning Solutions.
“The concept proposes a compact, walkable and transit supportive development in an appropriate location with existing day-to-day amenities nearby,” said Kyle Glavin of Innovative Planning Solutions.
“The development contributes to the achievement of a complete community, including a range of housing options in the area.”
Galvin argued the development provides “functional and appropriate” housing stock in the neighbourhood, and provides more “attainable” housing options than single-detached homes.
He said the development includes plans for an outdoor amenity area, and trees will be retained on the property where possible – with plans to plant new trees, as well.
Subject to meeting conditions for final approval, council granted draft plan of approval for its subdivision application, approval of its draft plan of common elements condominium application, and approval of its draft zoning bylaw amendment requests.
Galvin laid out several zoning bylaw amendment requests to permit townhomes on the property, as well as slight reductions in side yard and rear yard setbacks, and landscape buffer areas.
The development will not exceed the maximum permitted height of three storeys in the area.
“It should be noted that the majority of the units meet the zoning standards and the special provisions are mostly for pinch points throughout the development because of the irregularly shaped lot,” he said. “No provisions are being sought for parking or for building height.”
Although city staff spoke in favour of the development, a handful of residents raised concerns following the presentation.
Resident Jen Jackson expressed concern that some traffic data in the development’s supporting studies are from 2014 and 2015, that there are no sidewalks on the nearby Millard Street, and that the building height would cast shade across much of her property.
“This shadow study shows that we will lose a significant amount of sunlight, never mind privacy, which is also a big concern,” she said.
Jackson also raised concerns about the development’s setbacks from neighbouring properties, and the height of the townhouses — calling for the developer to find a common solution with residents.
“I think that the developer should just be a good corporate citizen and do the right thing, and that would be lowering the townhouses, reshifting the placement of the townhouses,” she said. “We can work together. I'm open for that.”
Senior city planner, Jill Lewis, responded that the neighbourhood’s traffic is currently at 30 per cent of its potential capacity, with no “further improvements” needed in the area.
She also said the development meets required setbacks from neighbouring properties, while conceding there will be some shadow impacts nearby.
“There will be shadowing impact in spring and in winter on the lots that are on Millard,” Lewis said. “However, this application, with respect to height and rear yard setback, meets the zoning bylaw minimums. They are not asking for further reductions at this point. As a result, planning staff is supportive of the application.”
Another resident raised concerns about increased traffic volume in the neighbourhood, as well, given the schools in the area, and argued the development will compromise community safety and direct traffic down Millard Street.
“In fairness, this isn't on Millard Street, and I know that that's not the point,” said Galvin. “Your point is that it's a kind of combination of all the developments in the neighbourhood as a whole, and to that, our traffic study does include those projections … and would have included any proposed or approved developments that were in the works in our traffic study.”
Another resident raised concerns about where garbage would be stored on site, with Galvin responding that bins “are underground for the majority of the time, and then they would be raised up for collection,” he said.
During discussion, Coun. Jay Fallis said he lives nearby a similar project and has experienced “pretty minimal impact” from the development, but he did say he is “very critical” of the common elements condominium system, and asked whether the property would include gates.
“Currently, there is no gate proposed … the design of the buildings and landscape design hasn't fully been completed; we're just at the zoning stage right now, so it can be obviously refined further along,” Galvin said.
As the issue was set for ratification on Monday, and a later agenda item proposed re-instituting a two-week “cooling down” period following public meetings, Coun. Tim Lauer questioned whether the issue should be deferred for two weeks.
“Would it not be appropriate that this one also be deferred two weeks down the line?” he said.
City staff, however, argued to approve the developer’s request that day, as the application has been on file since 2022.
“Planning staff is before you today recommending approval of the application today,” said Lewis. “This application has been in process with the city for a long time, and beyond the (required) 90 days, so the applicant does have the right now, currently, to appeal a non-decision.”
“I think based on the time we've had this in front of us, we should just go ahead with it today,” added Mayor Don McIsaac.
Ultimately, council voted down Lauer’s request and approved the developer’s requests later in Monday’s council meeting.
