Neighbour says OLT decision on project will destroy Cambridge neighbourhood
Joe Goias said he’ll soon be looking out onto his heavily treed, quiet backyard and see a clear cluster of 30 townhomes on a 0.539-hectare plot of land at 15 Clover Ave.
The build, which saw council vote down an application to amend the city’s Official Plan and a zoning bylaw, will now go ahead after the developer’s appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) was approved on Feb. 15.
“Yes, we do need housing, but there’s a proper place for everything. That quantity of townhomes over there is ridiculous. On a quiet street like that, that does no justice to those residents who have been there for years,” said Goias, who lives on Santo Cristo Place, which backs onto a hill descending to the Clover Avenue property.
“I think that our city should step up and come to the defence of those people, whether it’s an Ontario issue or municipal, somebody’s got to step up and put a stop to that.”
The development was a contentious one from the outset, as the short street, off Myers Road, contains only nine homes, including the vacant residence set to be razed for the development.
The original proposal was for 44 stacked townhouse units and 62 parking spaces, including 12 visitor spots, with a private condominium road. The residential density was 82 units per hectare. At a community meeting, it was stated the development was knocked down to 36 units due to concerns from residents. When the proposed build was brought back to council, it was revised to the latest plan, with 24 stacked townhouses, six, street-fronting townhomes and 45 parking spaces. The residential density is 56 units per hectare.
That was the concept the developer brought forward to the OLT.
Council had voted down that application 5-4 in an emotional meeting on March 28, 2023. That decision was backed by residents, who not only rallied together in council chambers to hear the vote, but also hired planner Allan Ramsay to speak on their behalf as to why the development shouldn’t go ahead.
Coun. Scott Hamilton was visibly choked up when he voted in favour of the application, against appeals from his constituents for help. He said he feared if the application, which was recommended by city staff, was voted down and went to the OLT, the developer might expand his plan.
Goias said while he feels for the residents of Clover Avenue, he and neighbours will also feel the effects of the development.
He noted his family picked their lot to build their home back in 1991, with special consideration given to the fact there is a ravine behind them, and it is a quiet area. He said what is being built is just too much.
“They have enough room to build four or five homes, nice homes to match the neighbourhood,” Goias said. “If they built (the current plan), they’re going to have a parking issue, a noise issue and it’s going to affect me too, because I back on to it and we’re going to have construction right in our backyard. We pay high taxes to have this lot and it’s all going to go.”
Goias also added there is a lot of wildlife in the ravine, which has a pond, and he fears that will be gone as well.
In the decision by the tribunal, it was noted some of the land, including the ravine at the end of the street, was zoned open space so it couldn’t be touched by developers. As well, sidewalks will be added to the street — there currently are none — and there will be a “turnaround” at the end of the street for public safety and pedestrian orientation, the tribunal stated.
The size and density of the build is what had Goias disturbed, and that’s exactly what the city zeroed in on when fighting the appeal.
The city’s contention, as stated in the decision report, was the stacked townhouses aren’t compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood character “as the elements inherent in their design do not respect the character of the neighbourhood as required by the city OP (Official Plan).”
It was added in the report the city only used residences located on Clover Avenue as a comparable from a capability standpoint, and not the surrounding area beyond the street. The developer contended stacked townhouses fit into the greater surrounding neighbourhood, which includes higher stacked townhouses.
The tribunal found the city’s submissions suggested applications will fail at the city if a proposal does not rigidly conform to the city’s compatibility polices despite conforming to all other policies of the Official Plan.
“This is akin to saying that one bad apple spoils the bunch, which is not how a balancing exercise works in a planning policy analysis,” the tribunal stated.
Hamilton said his words after public consultation meetings about the project, back in 2021, have come back to roost: the three certainties in life are death, taxes and change. The latter is the news he delivered to residents.
“I’m sure that wasn’t the news they were hoping for, but I’m hopeful that it will at least bring some closure,” Hamilton said.
Hamilton still contends voting for the developer application was the most difficult decision he’s made since joining council in 2020.
“You always want to vote in ways that your constituents are asking, and that your neighbours and your friends are asking for. But ultimately, the job doesn’t boil down to making friends.
“It boils down to thinking very critically and carefully and rationally about things like policy, about what the region has approved, what the city has approved, what staff have approved, what will happen at the next level of government if it goes there.”