Archive

Orangeville council weighs Broadway housing development

May 2, 2024   ·   0 Comments

By JAMES MATTHEWS, LOCAL JOURNALISM INITIATIVE REPORTER

Orangeville council is trying to balance the town’s need for housing and its desire to protect a tree canopy in the area of a Broadway housing development.

The subject property is 515 Broadway on the north side of Broadway, east of Veterans’ Way and south of the former Orangeville-Brampton Railway line. 

The owner has revised the proposed development to permit eight blocks of three-storey townhouse dwellings on a common elements condominium road. In November 2022, MHBC Planning submitted a zoning bylaw amendment and draft plan of subdivision applications on behalf of the property owner, 2857802 Ontario Inc.

It was deemed incomplete by the town in November 2022. Additional materials were received in December 2022 and the application was deemed complete by the town in January 2023. 

The plan is to build 57 townhouse dwellings on an internal private road. Each unit will have at least two parking spaces for a total of 130 spaces.

Vehicle access will be at the Broadway and C Line intersection. A 1,246 square metre private amenity feature is also proposed to serve the residents of the development.

Council voted when it met April 29 to approve the necessary bylaw and zoning amendments to allow the proponent to go ahead with the 57 townhouses on a private road.

Councillor Debbie Sherwood was disappointed by the lack of a long-term care facility as part of the development.

“I am very much a supporter of affordable housing, but I think that it was very critical that we have this 160-unit facility for our seniors and the long-term care home facility,” Sherwood said. “We need them here.”

Deputy Mayor Todd Taylor said his support for the development boils down to the need for housing.

“We need housing in our community,” he said.

But he isn’t without concern, he said. One of his worries is for the removal of trees in the area. Some of the trees have been marked to indicate that they will remain.

“We’ve been through it before where developers have said that they will leave the trees,” Taylor said. “And then the trees are gone.”

Another one of his concerns is for the nearby businesses and how the construction activity, without proper planning, will impact them.

“There will be lots of trucks and materials and whatnot,” he said. “And we just can’t have our residents disrupted and we can’t have the businesses disrupted.”

The parcel of land is owned by 714415 Ontario Limited. The numbered company is represented in the development by MHBC Planning Ltd.

The representative said there is a tree inventory and preservation plan that’s being respected. Further, the developer added another metre and a half buffer zone from nearby businesses to save as many trees as possible.

“Our commitment is to save as many trees,” he said. “It’s good for us too.”

The disruption to the area is going to happen, but the developer is willing to work with the town to devise a plan that will limit as much of that ruckus as possible.

“I think that progressing our community is a great thing,” Taylor said. “And that’s why I can hug you.”

But, he said, there are times when plans for construction projects don’t always go as planned, as spelled out in the initial stages.

“Then they cause inconvenience for our residents,” Taylor said. “And then the phone calls start and the emails start. And there’s he said, she said, and there’s problems.”

That needs to be avoided.

“We need a plan that’s not going to disrupt,” he said. “My encouragement would be is that we discuss that and arrange for it before we start to shovel.”

Meanwhile, Coun. Tess Prendergast shared some of her reservations about the proposed development. 

“What we really need in Orangeville is downsized housing for seniors and entry-level housing,” said Prendergast. “I’m not sure if this satisfies that, but it’s a little late in the game to change.”

She asked if there could be some form of compensation for trees that are removed, either monetarily or by way of trees planted elsewhere in the development.

“It’s not something that we explored admittedly for this development because it didn’t meet the policy criteria where offset compensation would be pursued,” said Brandon Ward, the town’s planning manager.

Prendergast said site grading can be used as a reason to remove trees from a development. She said there needs to be a way to ensure against grading being a “scapegoat” for tree removal.

“We look to the site plan process and that’s sort of the next stage of this,” Ward said. They’re currently evaluating the land use stage of the process.

“But, that said, tree protection is an important consideration,” he said.

Coun. Rick Stevens asked if the land earmarked for a proposed long-term care facility will remain empty or will the developer return in a few years to ask for more townhouses.

The developer’s representative said the project still has a licence for a long-term care facility. The early model for the facility could not be accommodated by the site, he said. And the developer doesn’t want to deviate from building the best facility for long-term care.

“That’s where we are today,” he said. “We will continue to work on providing or finding the appropriate location for that long-term care (facility).”

Readers Comments (0)