Nicholas St. development to bring affordable rental accommodation

UPDATE: Approved  at council’s Nov. 26 meeting.

By Sharon Harrison
A proposed medium-density rental housing project for Picton, with frontage on Nicholas Street, received approval from council at Wednesday’s planning and development committee meeting, in a 13-1 recorded vote (councillor Roy Pennell opposed). Final approval comes before council Tuesday, Nov. 26.

Approval came amid much objection by members of the public who once again voiced numerous concerns about the project, indicating why they felt it should not proceed.

A public information meeting was held in August, with comments received resulting in a revised application submission. Background story here:

Rental housing project with group homes proposed for Picton

Planning staff had recommended the revised application for official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment, submitted by Alan Hirschfield’s Homes First Development Corporation/Nicholas Homes Limited, be approved.

Homes First Nicholas Corporation is a developer specifically of affordable and attainable housing projects, with a number of projects across southern Ontario.

Spanning more than two hours, the lengthy agenda item included presentations by Matt Coffey (County planning department), Kelly Graham (planner for the applicant) and Pascal Monat (project civil engineer), along with a dozen or so comments voiced by members of the public (several with short presentations), with council discussion following.

The site is at the end of Nicholas Street, and is adjacent to Lalor Street, and the wastewater treatment plant to the south-east, with Delhi Park, Mount Olivet Cemetery and the community gardens situated to the west.

The residential development consists of a three-storey townhouse block (six units), two semi-detached units, and a tiered apartment building (three and five storeys) with 98 units, for a total of 106 residential units on lands 4.92 acres in size. Included in the apartment building is a two-level parking structure, for a total of 117 parking spaces.

Density for this project is 51 units per hectare, where it was also noted that 65 per cent of the site will remain as green space and will be protected as such.

Most of the residents who spoke at the meeting are neighbours to the site or live close by (on Nicholas, Richmond, Thomas and Cumberland streets), and all stated they would be adversely affected in some way or another if the proposed development proceeded.

Concerns ranged from a significant increase in traffic (in what is a quiet area), to destruction of the existing mature tree canopy, loss of green space, worsening street parking issues, where perhaps the overwhelming concern was the lack of sidewalks in the general area and relating safety issues.

Council members’ remarks covered affordability and funding opportunities, water pressure for the top floor of the apartment building, parking spaces and lack of sidewalks, among them.

Frustrated by the lack of sidewalks in new sub-divisions, councillor Phil Prinzen asked, “How can we start getting sidewalks designed and built into developments like this? It’s been said a couple of times, this is a walkable thing and you won’t need as many cars, but now we don’t have sidewalks.

“We’ve seen it before, I said I wouldn’t let it happen again, so you are going to hear it from me every sub-division or every approval that doesn’t have a sidewalk, where we say it’s walkable,” said Prinzen, “How do we get a sidewalk, and I’ve not got an answer.”

Approvals co-ordinator Matt Coffey confirmed, it is beyond the scope of the project.

“There are a number of families living here and it will be great to see sidewalks, but unfortunately that is not something that can be delivered as part of this development, it’s a little beyond the scope,” added Kelly Graham with SvN Architects and Planners.

She outlined a compilation of main themes received in comments from the public, which included land ownership, incompatibility with existing neighbourhood, loss of green space, lack of sidewalks, traffic concerns, and the relationship with the adjacent wastewater treatment plant (the proposed development is 70 metres from the plant).

Richmond/Nicholas Street resident Marie O’Neill was strongly opposed to the development, noting the adverse affects to lifestyle, citing the state of existing roads, the lack of sidewalks and the safety of the neighbourhood.

“Our safety will be greatly compromised. We do not have sidewalks now and that works because our quiet block is not a through route to anywhere,” said O’Neill. “If this re-zoning change is approved, and this development proceeds, we must have sidewalks, they must go in before construction for safety reasons.”

“I understand it is outside the scope of the project, but that is just simply not acceptable from a safety standpoint,” she said. “Understand that these are not wide roads; we must have sidewalks on Richmond, Cumberland, Nicholas and Pitt. The increase in vehicle and pedestrian traffic will be huge and the impact considerable: you are drastically increasing the density of the neighbourhood without any regard for supporting infrastructure that will be required.”

Also of concern were construction issues, such as traffic impacts, erosion and noise, to which Graham said a construction management plan will recommend mitigation measures.

Pascal Monat, a civil engineer for the project addressed grading and stormwater management issues raised, where he spoke to drainage as it relates to the cemetery, peak flows and slope stability for a steep slope.

Perhaps what has been lost among all the discussion, debate and objections is that, of the apartment building’s 98 units, 53 of them will be affordable units.

“Over half of units will be affordable which is quite remarkable given that under the current planning regime in Ontario, the maximum that municipalities can require, and only in specific areas being transit station areas, is capped at five percent or seven percent of the total residential gross floor area,” explained Graham.

“This is a very significant contribution of affordable housing, particularly in the County, but it is unprecedented in a lot of areas these days.”

She further noted the affordability at 80 per cent of median market rent (the benchmark being used) is $1,196 per month (one-bedroom), and $1,600 per month (two-bedroom).

She also remarked on the rental vacancy rate in Prince Edward County is 0.2 per cent, the fourth lowest in Ontario.

The project will be eligible for a number of funding streams through CMHC.

“That is going to be part of the way the developer is ensuring this affordability,” she said.

Speaking to the funding for the affordability component, indicating how affordability is contingent upon external funding, County mayor Steve Ferguson asked what happens if the funding doesn’t come through.

When asked if he was reasonably confident – very confident – that funding will come through, Hirschfield said, yes, noting they were already working with funding agencies (CMHC).

Cumberland Street resident Katy Harrington spoke to “an irreversible loss of green space”, saying the site is a natural extension of Delhi Park.

“Any development on this site will be visible, heard and felt across Delhi and on to Main Street, as well as by our neighbourhood,” Harrington said. “It would irrevocably change park users’ experience of Delhi, as well as Mount Olivet Cemetery, the community garden, the kids’ playground – and I question, why here?”.

She said building here is not practical, indicating roads are inadequate (and narrow) for the additional traffic, including construction traffic, with street parking already a problem, and lack of sidewalks (with none proposed).

Francine Landry lives on Cumberland Street and called the application “a very dangerous, precedent-setting zoning change on numerous points”.

“Just because you have a developer willing to build affordable housing, doesn’t mean you have to give him carte blanche as to where he can build it,” said Landry. “The infrastructure does not support it, the topography does not support it, and safety concerns abound.”

She said, she and her neighbours are averse to re-zoning the property to accommodate a 98-unit apartment building on a small parcel of land at the end of a dead-end street, perched on a steep hillside overlooking Delhi Park and Mount Olivet Cemetery.

Representing Mount Olivet Cemetery, a not-for-profit, volunteer-run cemetery that borders the majority of the development to the south and west, Pat Heffernan noted how the cemetery board has some concerns that may cause undue repair and maintenance costs if the development moves forward.

He especially spoke to service and stormwater management data, surface water run-off direction, and the outflow of swales toward the direction of the cemetery, saying, “Water and cemeteries don’t mix”.

He was also looking for a fence (preferably chain-link so it cannot be climbed) to be erected to the south, between the cemetery and the development, “so the cemetery does not become a playground area…the proposed 106 units will undoubtedly bring a lot of children to the neighbourhood”.

The proposed development will be accessed via Nicholas Street (which requires an extension for access and servicing), and the development will also include new public pedestrian connections through the property to Delhi Park.

The proposed pathway will run from Nicholas Street down to Lalor Street, which Coffey notes in its current form is a well-used dirt path, which will be formalized and made fully accessible.

He notes the surrounding area is an established neighbourhood consisting of mostly low-density residential, apart from the medium-density townhouse units along Richmond Street.

Landscape architect Victoria Taylor, who identified her company was contracted by the County last year on an upgraded pathways project for Delhi Park, said she was supportive of how the development benefits the entire community. She also founded the Friends of Delhi Park community group.

Taylor said the scale of the development is right.

“The architectural style of our neighbourhoods need to change: we need different types of housing to house different needs and income levels and this is a great location to add density,” said Taylor. “This is the location where people can walk to get groceries, walk to school, walk to work, this could be a car-free neighbourhood, and we need to embrace a good project that has the potential to be a great project.”

The site is currently designated open space and environmental protection in the Picton secondary plan, and Coffey explained that the site is split-zoned into three different zones (institutional, R3 and FD) – FD (future development) is a holding zone.

Graham said a portion of the site will be retained as EP area.

Coffey also noted that there is a proposal to swap lands involving a green space area to the south, as well as couple of corners of green space, and a pathway which the developer has agreed to construct.

Referring to land ownership, Graham noted a portion of the land is currently owned by the County.

“It is the un-opened Cumberland extension (west of Nicholas Street from the end of Cumberland) and is proposed to be closed, and a portion of it transferred to the developer,” explained Graham. “In exchange, the developer is proposing to dedicate a large swath of open space as lands to be added to Delhi Park.”

Coffey clarified the ownership of the property, indicating it is not owned by the County, it is privately owned land, and has always been privately owned.

“The lands are not part of Delhi Park, they are designated open space in the secondary plan, not part of the park, and are certainly not a public park,” he said. “There has always been a vision to be FD, and this has never been EP.

Speaking to the mapping, Graham said the designation may have been an over-sight or an error, given it is adjacent to publicly-owned parkland, as well as the wastewater treatment plant.

“Generally, the parks and open space designation doesn’t apply to privately-owned land, except for dedicated recreational facilities, including golf courses.”

The purpose of the application is to re-designate and re-zone the site from park and open space area to town residential area (the entire site to be re-zoned to R3-87) within the Picton urban centre secondary plan in order to permit the proposed development.

“The proposed zoning amendment would incorporate a series of appropriate provisions for a multi-building, multi-typology development within a special residential urban type three (R3) zone,” notes Coffey’s report.

All planning documentation and related studies for this application can be found on the County’s website. It was noted that the awaited environmental impact study was just received and will be made available soon.