Headline News

Orangeville Council votes against town staff’s recommendation to approve York Street townhouses

June 12, 2025   ·   2 Comments

By JAMES MATTHEWS

A dozen new townhouse-style units would help fill the dearth of Orangeville’s housing options.

That is if town council approved a developer’s request to amend parts of the municipal Official Plan and zoning legislation to enable construction to proceed for townhouses on York Street.

A number of York Street residents lobbied against the proposal and outlined their reasons during council’s June 9 meeting.

In the end, council unanimously voted against the proposed development moving forward.

The proposed build at 11A York Street comprises a parcel of land located on the south side of York Street, about mid-block between John Street and Bythia Street. Kay Cee Gardens, which includes a piece of Mill Creek, is immediately south of the property.

Another consideration is that York Street contains several properties on the municipal heritage register.

The proposed development consists of two townhouse blocks flanking an internal private road, with seven units along the west side and five units on the east side. Each unit would have three bedrooms, a total floor area of about 150 square metres (1,614 square feet), two parking spaces, and an additional three visitor spaces to service the development.

An existing single-storey detached house that was built in the 1970s would have to be removed to accommodate the development. New access from York Street would allow a private road to the site.

Mark Hicks of D+H Architects Inc., the firm that represents the development’s proponents, said the plans for 11A York Street have been thoroughly studied with a multitude of technical reports to attest to the development’s suitability.

“We’ve completed a heritage impact assessment, a shadow study, and environmental impact statement at the request of council,” he said.

He said those documents were not required as a condition of approval. But they were provided anyway.

Hicks noted some of the positive impacts the development would have on the community.

“The proposed development will assist the town in achieving intensification and housing goals,” he said. “(It) will assist in providing housing options close to amenities and to achieve a complete community.”

It’s appropriate within the neighbourhood context, will connect to full municipal services, and will result in protected open space lands, according to Hicks.

He said the proposed development “thoughtfully increases” the use of underutilized land while having minimal impact on neighbouring properties.

D+H Architects submitted an Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw amendment application on behalf of the property owners Brenda and Terry Giles that will allow a proposed housing development at 11A York Street. With some minor revisions to the application, Orangeville accepted the submission in April 2024.

The proposed development includes a dozen housing units on a private road accessed via York Street, with shared common elements, and lay-by visitor parking.

Brandon Ward, the town’s planning manager, said the Official Plan Amendment (OPA) seeks to re-designate the property’s south portion from Residential to Open Space Conservation to reflect the limits of the floodplain area associated with Mill Creek. It also seeks to re-designate the property from Low Density Residential to Low Density Multiple.

The Zoning Bylaw Amendment (ZBLA) proposes to rezone the site from Residential Second Density (R2) Zone to Residential Fifth Density (R5) Zone, with site-specific regulations to permit the development as proposed. The site’s southern part will be rezoned from Residential Second Density (R2) Zone to Open Space Conservation (OS2) Zone.

Ward said there will also be some site-specific conditions and zone standards that will reflect the development’s details and reinforce the resolution of issues that have come forward during rounds of reviews.

“In a nutshell, our role through this process is to review the facts and details of an application that’s submitted and guide it through its legislated review process,” he said.

The proposal’s merits were measured against that process.

Staff’s role is to provide recommendations and advice to council based on how the application meets the planning framework. And consultation has been extensive for this application, he said.

“We’ve heard a lot of opposition to this application,” Ward said. “Quite frankly, it’s very clear residents do not want this in their neighbourhood and we appreciate the reasons why. But, again, our job is to review the facts and the merits of the application.”

The proposed development’s opposition is largely based on a perception of possible change and the potential impacts it will bring, he said.

One of the biggest concerns among York Street residents is how the development might affect nearby heritage-designated properties. But Ward said there will be no impacts to the heritage attributes.

“The property does not contain a heritage attribute,” Ward said. “It’s adjacent, certainly. It’s on a street that’s poised to be pursued for a (heritage district designation) and that’s something our consultant is working on.”

Ultimately, town staff recommends the proposal be approved by council.

“In our view, all of the concerns and issues have been addressed through the technical submissions and corresponding review,” Ward said.

However, council went against town staff’s recommendation and unanimously voted to deny the proposal.

The developer now has the option to appeal the decision with the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Orangeville Mayor Lisa Post said in a statement on social media, “It’s true we may not win. But that can’t stop us from standing up for what we believe is right for our town.”

She added, “We can build more housing and protect the unique character of our town –– we don’t have to choose one or the other. That’s the kind of leadership and community planning I believe in –– and that’s why I voted no.”


Readers Comments (2)

  1. Stephen White says:

    I sent your paper a comment a few minutes ago. Please send me a copy of it for my file. Thank you .
    steve white

     Reply
  2. Stephen White says:

    We are witnessing “the tyranny of the Minority “ and the abdication of Council’s responsibility to the entire community.
    Having read your reporting of Council’s unanimous rejection of the Staff report on the application ( I hope to obtain the Staff report tomorrow and read it) it’s difficult to accept what appears to be a complete capitulation of the NIMBY attitude of the neighborhood as opposed to to needs of the whole community.
    It is easy for me to say that the applicants ought to seriously consider appealing this decision.
    I recall that many years ago the Town spent the best part of $1 million dollars to unsuccessfully defend a pure political decision to restrict commercial development of lands that currently house NO FRILLS on C-Line. Are we heading down that road ?
    York Street is too narrow for the permitted two way traffic and parking in very large part because the resident(-) opposed it. Meanwhile McCarthy Street is wider and doesn’t have permitted on street parking. I suspect that a Staff report might disclose (and be rejected by Council) that there is more traffic on York Street than on McCarthy. How did / does this happen ? York Street should have been widened when reconstructed to make traffic fluid and safe for the users.
    Is the vocal representations of a few drowning out and confusing the judgment of Council who represents the broader community ?
    I think so!
    What do your readers think ?

    the broader community ?

     Reply




Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.