56-unit sub-division proposed for Wellington outskirts called “premature”
Administrator | Jan 23, 2025 | Comments 0
By Sharon Harrison
On a vacant grassy field abutting Lake Ontario on the western fringes of Wellington, developer Wellington Lakeside Ltd. (owned by North York-based Kaitlin Corporation – the same developer of the proposed Cork and Vine development in Wellington), plans to build 56 dwelling units.
Wellington Lakeside has submitted applications (first-submission) for draft plan of sub-division and zoning bylaw amendment for a residential development consisting of 22 single detached homes and a condominium block containing 34 townhouses (for a total of 56 residential dwellings), plus a small public parkette.
Under a new process recently approved by council (effective Jan. 1), decision by council on planning applications forming part of planning and development committee meetings, will not be made at this time (as has been procedure). Decision and outcome made by council will happen at a future meeting.
In the new format two-part statutory meeting, the purpose of the first overview meeting (held Wednesday night) was to gather information and is largely intended to provide more opportunity for the public to participate, as well as hear from the developer/applicant. Members of council can make brief comment and ask basic questions, but anything substantial cannot be discussed or debated at this stage.
Planning staff will then formulate a report, taking into consideration comments and information received (while also working with the developer), and will then provide a recommendation to council to come at a second statutory planning meeting (in approximately 60 days). At that time, the public can provide further comment, and council will have the opportunity to discuss and debate in full, before coming to a decision.
Wednesday’s planning and development statutory committee meeting, lengthy at almost five hours, heard Ryan Guetter, a planner with Weston Consulting, provide a brief overview of the site proposal, also answering previously-submitted questions from the public.
Seven members of the public (mostly Skiff Cove Road residents) addressed the horseshoe voicing numerous concerns that included property value impacts, lack of affordable housing units, public access to waterfront, density concerns, and the tree preservation plan, among them.
Many noted how details were lacking and they wanted more information and clarity on the proposed development, most (along with some councillors) echoed the belief the proposal was “premature”, and some noted the lack of resident communication from the County and the developer.
Skiff Cove Road resident Doug Taylor spoke on behalf of 19 homeowners on Skiff Cove, summarizing a host of identified concerns, including Kaitlin’s past business experience where he indicated the County should take into account its experience with the developer.
“Can this company pass tests of reliability, honesty, risk adversity, and have a genuine regard for the needs of the community?” he asked, rhetorically.
Taylor also addressed the 8.5-metre possible connection to Skiff Cove Road, saying the rationale isn’t clear because it would need the severance of parts of two Skiff Cove residential properties, something he said they are concerned about, along with adding parking and traffic to Skiff Cove.
“Residents of Skiff Cove Road place a high value on the cul-de-sac nature of our street; the connection to a new development just doesn’t make sense to us,” he said.
Speaking to compliance with community standards, Taylor also said they would not support a project that sets any precedent for future housing developments in the County.
“We would like assurances that construction specifications, such as building height, area coverage, density, setback allowances, etc. meet County and Quinte Conservation standards.”
Addressing the issue of density as it refers to the block of 34 condominium townhouses, Taylor said they require more information on its configuration, and there is concern that a 34-unit condominium is “inconsistent with the existing single family dwellings along Loyalist Parkway”.
He also raised the issue of sewage and water connection to the proposed new sub-division, something that completely bypasses Skiff Cove Road. “If connecting Skiff Cove Road residences to the sewage pumping station is an option, we would like to hear about it”.
Another Skiff Cove resident, Sidney Rodaway, asked if the project is included in the current general freeze on development that will take place until Kaitlin’s Cork and Vine project is hooked-up appropriately to the new services. He also said, all water and sewage servicing costs have to be required to be paid up-front before they can start.
“Remember that Kaitlin stalled the $12 million initial payment to the County for a full year-and-a- half, always promising to pay up by a series of extended deadlines, only paying when the deadline was extended yet one more time with the threat from the County to cancel the project approval if the company failed to pay.”
He also asked why the re-zoning has to be so extreme in its increase in housing density.
“The 100-foot wide lake-front lots is fine, but the 36-foot and 37-foot widths of the 17 single family detached home lots (not located on the waterfront) seem comparatively too narrow,” said Rodaway. “Adding a block of 34 townhouses makes for a too-tightly packed neighbourhood.”
Known as the Loyalist Parkway sub-division, it is situated at 16880 Loyalist Parkway in Wellington, the rectangular parcel of land located along the south side of Loyalist Parkway/County Road 33 (with 162.97-metre frontage), with Lake Ontario adjacent to the southerly lot line.
A large block is contemplated for condominium townhouses, described as being completely self-contained from the other streets in the proposed development, three storeys (ranging in size from 1,700 to 2,500-square-feet). Guetter noted the size of the detached houses have not been determined.
Of the proposed 56 units, none are expected to fall under the “affordable housing” definition.
“We are seeing this as an enclave type of development unto itself and self-sustaining, and we know it can be serviced by extensions of the municipal service planned, and the engineers have indicated the capacity would be there as part of the master servicing plan,” said Guetter
“We understand that the timing of that will be when the next tranche of allocation units are available, not in the immediate term, but in the fullness of time.”
Presently vacant, the land is 3.98-hectares (9.8-acres) in size, and is currently zoned rural 1 (RU1) and is designated urban centre, and under the Wellington urban centre secondary plan is designated village residential area.
Several people confusingly noted however, including councillor Corey Engelsdorfer, the land is in Hillier ward, not Wellington.
Two zone categories would be utilized explained Guetter, an R4 category to allow the introduction of townhome format dwelling types along Loyalist frontage, and an R2 residential category with exceptions “that enable the form of development we are seeking”.
The property is sandwiched between the Lewisville Drive residential neighbourhood (to the west), and borders the western edge of Skiff Cove Road residences to the east.
An 18-metre public road connecting the proposed sub-division to Loyalist Parkway from the northeast quadrant is being contemplated, with a six-metre public walkway and outlook from the proposed 8.5-metre potential connection to facilitate access to Lake Ontario.
Further, an adjacent 8.5-metre potential public road connection to Skiff Cove Road has been proposed within the northeast quadrant of the site, on the advice of planning staff.
“The problem with that is there is intervening private lands, and so we didn’t feel that was appropriate, which is why we have not provided a public vehicular connection to Skiff Cove Road; we have maintained a potential pedestrian connection, but understand that still may represent some concerns,” explained Guetter.
Lot size frontages are expected to vary, ranging from 38-feet (11-metres), up to over 100-feet (31-metres) wide for those dwellings that front onto the shoreline – the largest lots located closest to the south (near the lake), with the smaller lots located to the north (near the road).
Speaking to access to the shoreline, Guetter explained how they did provide for a connection on the east side that was intended to be a lookout from the park.
“The intention is that lands directly facing the lake would be private lands (not publicly accessible), but the intention is not to have this as an area where the public would have access down to the shoreline as we want to respect the private interests.”
Councillor Kate MacNaughton noted how the lookout goes nowhere and is only going to a very narrow lookout at the end, where she asked about moving the parkland to provide a more substantial area.
“That would not just allow a lookout at the end of the walking path, but would also accommodate some benches, a nice public parkland area to enjoy access to the water’s edge, something more substantial.”
Councillor Engelsdorfer suggested the discussion of zoning changes and draft approval at this time was premature, noting a number of reasons, such as unserviced land with no capacity (no water/wastewater), where a pumping station is needed along with water line extensions
“Although it’s part of the secondary plan, it actually in Hillier ward, and you mentioned that it’s infill, but it’s as far from infill as you can actually get,” said Engelsdorfer. “The secondary plan gives priority to infill, but we have developers sitting waiting for projects in the village core, so I think priority should be given to them.”
He said, extending the services out beyond the boundary doesn’t make sense at this time.
“Especially when there’s enough development approved currently in Wellington (there’s 600 units for this developer alone in the first phase of another project to build-out).” he said. “Are we putting the cart before the horse in this scenario?”
“This is not orderly development,” added councillor Janice Maynard. “With good planning, I don’t think we should be looking at projects before we know if and when we can supply what’s stated,” added councillor Roy Pennell. “It’s premature to bring this forward at this time.”
Third-generation dairy farm owner and operator Scott Simpson’s 260-acre farm (the third largest farm in the County), located on Greer Road, said the proposed sub-division encroaches on the land he is farming.
”When they build it closer to my farm on my land, there are rules and regulations that limit what I can do with my farmland. We are a dairy farm, we spread a lot of manure (1.5-2 million gallons every year),” explained Simpson. “We spread manure, we make smell, we are not the most pleasant, we made odor, when you spread manure you are gonna stink for periods of time.”
“If they put the sub-division in, they take around another 15 of my acres I will not be allowed to spread manure on,” he said.
One Lewisville Drive resident said the current plan, “feels like it lacks a community feel; it is a design that favours five lake-side 100-feet homes that fill the shoreline, and the surrounding homes and the townhouses, they all feel like after thoughts”.
Planning documents related to this application can be found on the County’s website.
Filed Under: Local News
About the Author: