The Community Development Coordinator opened the floor for questions or comments;
In Favour: No comments.
In Opposition:
Mr. Daniel Adams referred to the initial zoning bylaw amendment meeting he attended in 2017. He noted that there was some discussion regarding the increase of vehicle traffic on roads, highlighting the increased risk to pedestrians with no sidewalks present. Mr. Adams inquired about the increased water demand and if a pumping station would be required. He inquired if the services had not changed, how do you expect to add more houses than the initial 2017 application.
Ms. Tammy Britskey noted that she is not necessarily in opposition to the development, she simply had some questions. Ms. Britskey noted that the traffic report indicated an approximation of 89 vehicles/hour in the morning, and 116/hour during peak times. She commented that Cardinal never experiences that much traffic and would notice a large influx. She noted her biggest concern is the children's safety near the public park on St. Lawrence St. Ms. Britskey inquired why the proposed single-family dwellings on lots 59 & 60 were changed to townhouses. She noted her concerns that the townhouses positioned on the exterior of the subdivision may cause traffic congestion. Ms. Britskey inquired if an open space and walkway were considered the same. She noted her concern with the possible influx of pedestrian traffic due to the proposed walkways into the parkland.
Mr. Daniel Tucker inquired if a pump house would be required as initially anticipated and if the taxpayer would be responsible for financing the improvements. Mr. Tucker inquired about the proximity of the proposed development to Saw Mill creek, noting that some fish species spawn in the creek. He inquired if the South Nation Conservation had been consulted. He inquired about who will be cleaning up Gill St. which has been improperly used over the years as a dumping location and is a part of the proposed development.
Ms. Ann Menard-Crites noted that she was not sure that she was opposed. She inquired about the proposed route for water drainage to the wastewater treatment facility, the proposed storm drain and dry pond locations and noted the existing Mill Creek mentioned by Mr. Tucker.
Ms. Margaret-Ann Gaylord noted that when she initially moved to her current residence there were few children in the area, however over the past 7 years, the number of kids playing in the area has grown substantially. She noted her concerns to pedestrians with an increased flow in traffic and no existing or planned sidewalks in the area.
General Comments:
Mr. Daniel Adams inquired of the CAO if the current water and sewer systems will accommodate the influx of 146 houses.
The CAO noted that the serviceability report indicated that it could accommodate the increased number of proposed units.
Mr. Robin Crawford noted the need for sidewalks in the existing area. He noted that the area needs more housing, however current issues like the need for safety barriers and the absence of sidewalks or the excessive speed of traffic in the area should be addressed first.
Ms. Yvonne Thompson noted that she was in attendance to better inform herself of the proposed development. She noted her concern with a single entranceway into the subdivision, highlighting the fact that this would contribute to congestion. She commented that her concern is for the safety of the children in the area.
Ms. Tammy Britskey noted that she is not opposed to developmental growth however, the proposed revision is substantial from the original application. She pointed out that the proximity of the open space to lots 59 and 60. Ms. Britskey noted originally 49 houses were proposed as zoned R1, while the current revision proposed special zoning of R3-x for all 146 dwellings. She suggested a mix of R1, R2 and R3 zoning across the subdivision. Ms. Britskey noted that Cardinal has a mandate for 20% growth intensification, indicating that she is concerned that this proposal is a 100% intensification of growth.
Mr. Daniel Tucker commented that a zone change to an R3 would result in development similar to an urban centre such as Barrhaven or Stittsville. He felt that this type of development takes away from the beauty of Cardinal, noting that increasing the housing only increases problems. Mr. Tucker noted that he believed the bottom line to this project is money in someone else's pocket and increased taxes for the Township.
Applicant/Planners Comments:
Mr. Corey Lockwood introduced himself and addressed first the question of why he wants to intensify the plan for development. He noted that over the last 2 years there has been a substantial increase in development costs. Mr. Lockwood pointed out that the cost to deliver services to the site remains the same whether there are 100 or 140 homes built. He noted that the increase in the number of dwellings allows the cost of $8000.00-$10,000.00 per unit to be reduced for potential buyers. Mr. Lockwood highlighted his 20 years of experience as a contractor, noting that affordable housing issues have been an ongoing problem he has had to address. He noted that the townhouses and semi-detached dwellings offer a more affordable option for seniors or first time home buyers.
Mr. Lockwood addressed the concerns raised with the stormwater drainage and clarified how the grass swales would aid with drainage. He noted that the swales aid in directing water in a controlled manner to the storm pond where it will slowly drain to the creek, which he noted already drains naturally in this manner. He noted that due to the elevation of the proposed development an additional pumping station would not be required as it will be gravity fed. He noted that any further expansion to the proposed development would require the installation of a pump station. Mr. Lockwood noted that any expense incurred due to the construction of the subdivision would not fall to taxpayers but instead would be the responsibility of Lockwood Bros Construction development.
Mr. Daniel Adams noted that the proposed open space used to be 150 feet, noting the outlined 100 feet in the proposed plan for open space and highlighting that the area is being reduced.
Mr. Lockwood noted that the original draft plan approval had 30m, noting that the proposed size of the open space has not changed. He noted the 100 feet by 600 feet proposed park space, highlighting the ample available area for children to play.
Mr. Lockwood addressed concerns about the use of the grass swales in stormwater drainage. He noted that the swales are consistent with the current storm drain system in the area. He pointed out the use of grass swales as opposed to a storm sewer system decreases the costs significantly, which directly affects the future sale price of each dwelling.
Mr. Lockwood commented on the current state of the Gill St. site, noting that they would have that area cleaned up in anticipation of development.
Ms. Tracey Zander noted that she did not feel comfortable commenting on the engineer's traffic report, but noted that the engineer that prepared the report has determined that the proposal is in accordance with provincial guidelines and deemed to be able to accommodate the proposed influx in traffic. She noted that the intention is to have 2 access points to the completed subdivision, one on St. Lawrence St. and one on Gill St.
There was some confusion that there was a claim of no watercourses on the proposed site. Ms. Zander clarified that she had noted no natural heritage features and noted a natural watercourse on the site, highlighting that it is outside of the area to be developed.