The purpose of the application is to permit 48-unit townhouse development.
If approved, the application would facilitate the development of townhouse buildings for a total of 48 units on the subject lands at 24 Park Street.
The Planner Benito Russo explained the report and recommendation.
Presentations from the Applicant
The applicant, Jamie Shephard was in attendance with Travis Burnside from Cobide Engineering firm, and Ron Davidson, planning consultant for the applicant.
Davidson provided comments. The development is expected to be a condominium corporation, and indicated that the development would be mixed use designed with a senior population in mind.
Presentations from the Public
Melissa Baumgaertner resident on Gladstone Crescent questioned whether this development would be exclusively for seniors. The applicant noted that it is expected to be slab on grade housing, which has been desirable to senior populations, but the site plan process has not been completed at this time and plans may change during the site plan process.
Baumgaertner expressed concerns about the increase in population in such a small area, but is supportive of seniors housing. Baumgaertner described the area as quiet and expressed concern about the densification of the area, and the number of new residents in Ripley and perceived impacts to the culture of the community.
Davidson responded to the concerns by noting that the official plan, and provincial policies supported this type of growth through in-fill densification. Council noted that they do not have jurisdiction to limit the development to support Seniors only.
Chris McLennan had inquiries about whether fencing to neighbors had been considered. Burnside noted that these types of specific issues regarding development are considered at the site plan stage, and not during the zoning consideration. Burnside also noted to McLennan's question, that currently the rear yard would meet setback provisions as they are considered side yards, however when a vacant land condo process takes place, this become the back yard as a new street would be created. Preemptively the developer is requesting these setbacks are being addressed in advance of that process. McLennan noted that he has a legal non-conforming shed is one foot from property line, that he would like the developer to take into consideration when designing the proposal.
McLennan expressed concerns about the area indicated on the proposal to be snow storage run off area. Burnside noted that exact location and requirements for snow storage would be considered in Site plan and a drainage engineer would be required to authorize the arrangements. Burnside also suggested that the site plan agreement would require snow to be trucked away if it reached a certain quantity.
McLennan inquired about whether the site plan proposed is accurate to what would actually be constructed, and inquired about the minimal visitor parking areas. The current proposal meets the requirements for parking in the zoning by-law as each unit would have one parking space in the garage and one in the driveway.
The County Planner noted that the planning staff could encourage the developer to install fencing and landscaping to address resident concerns and provided an overview of the Site Plan Control Process that would take place if the zoning amendment was approved.
Cynthia Kruse of Huron street requested that the notice circulated provide a clearer or larger version of the proposed development to allow residents to fully consider what comments they may have. Kruse expressed concerns related to lighting of streets, fencing and landscaping, and acknowledged that these would be addressed at the site plan approval stage. The Planner noted that they could provide a digital copy to interested individuals at their request, which could be printed larger.
Kruse also inquired as to whether a survey had been conducted on the subject lands recently. The Planner confirmed that the existing configuration of the lot is on file with the registry office, but as part of the Condo process this survey may be required to be updated.
Wade Armstrong of Huron street inquired if the proposed roads would be municipal roadways. Russo noted that this is designed to be a private road within the condo corporation. The location of the storm water pond was also questioned. Burnside noted that there is an existing stormwater sewer which would have to be connected to, and which has impacted the proposed location of the pond. Council noted that a drainage plan would have to be supplied as part of the site plan process . The Plan would need to support the proposed location of the pond and ensure that stormwater runoff did not adversely impact neighboring property.
The Applicant confirmed that the existing south side fence, if damaged would be replaced at no cost to the property owner if impacted by construction of the development.
Amy Armstrong inquired about the existing driveway use. Burnside noted that this is proposed to be a garbage area, when developed and would be a fenced area which did not provide through access.
The Applicant noted that they would like to develop as soon as possible, but will depend on the timing of the approval process. Ground is expected to break in Summer of 2025.
Sean Farrell inquired about the Park Street drain currently under construction and whether there is expected to be additional costs associated with drainage in this development. Township staff confirmed that this property has already been considered in the assessments for that drain, and would not impact the current assessment schedule. The Developer would be responsible for obtaining an engineers report to amend assessments if the lands are subdivided. Staff additionally confirmed that this development would not directly influence the Township's tax rate.
Johanna Baumgaertner inquired about transparency in what lands are available for development and how the public is notified. In response, Russo explained that the Bruce County Official Plan is being updated and includes areas in the county that may require expansion of their urban boundaries and settlement needs. The Planner noted that this information is published in the newspapers and on the website and social media.
Council noted that municipal staff could also provide this information if an inquiry was received.
Kruse requested that mature cedars should be retained if possible.
Questions and Clarifications from Council
Members of Council inquired about setbacks, and the storm water management pond. The planner noted that a grading and drainage plan would be required. Permeable driveways were suggested for consideration. The planner noted that salt and sand would likely be used to prevent slippage in the winter, and this could have impacts on landscaping. Russo also suggested that low impact development could be considered by the developer, but is not a requirement.
Council inquired about whether arrangements had been made for shared usage with the neighboring property. At this time they have not, and Burnside noted that it would depend on the drainage plan, and other considerations such as easements.
Council confirmed with the Planner that the draft by-law does not restrict the development to:
- a bungalow form of housing,
- to 48 units maximum,
- max/min 4 or 5 units in a row, and
- only allows for four visitor spaces for 48 units.
Russo acknowledged that the By-law could be refined by Council to provide more confidence that what is currently proposed is what will be constructed.
The draft by-law does permit two stories, and the developer is seeking to keep this flexibility. The applicant did not have an objection to indicating 48 units maximum. The developer also suggested that leaving in two stories as an option would permit some units to have lofts.
Council inquired whether the intention was to sell or rent these properties. It is expected that this would be a condominium corporation as the ownership fabric. The Applicant's planner provided an overview of the Condominium ownership fabric for the public present.
Council was informed that sidewalks are not proposed at this time, as it will be a private road. Council requested more information on how waste would be picked up in the development, and Staff noted this would be at the discretion of the Condo Corporation to be formed. Council referred to Staff to determine if municipal waste collection could be done on a private road.