Councillor ‘blown away’ by late changes to development
Tweaks caught elected official off guard at Tuesday meeting
Scott Hamilton believes a case of council overreach on the proposed development for the former Preston Springs site sets a dangerous precedent.
At Tuesday’s city council meeting, the Ward 7 representative was the lone councillor to vote against an amended recommendation for the project, reducing height levels, directing the architectural design of the building and direction to incorporate some of the existing architecture into the overall design, and changing the development’s footprint at 102 Fountain St. S., 134 and 144 Fountain St. N. and 199 Abraham St.
“The details of the revised motion just came out of the blue,” Hamilton said. “They weren’t discussed with all of council, and we didn’t, as far as I know, consult any engineers or architects about them. So, things like building height, design materials and appearance, that just came out of the blue from council at the 11th hour. We are not planners, we’re not engineers, we’re not architects, we’re not city builders. So, to put applicants, developers, and the public through years of costly work, doing the designs, doing the blueprints, attending and hosting meetings, going to different council sessions, and then at the very last second to suddenly revise the entire proposal, just literally transform it, according to completely subjective criteria that hasn’t been discussed with council. I think that’s pretty wild.”
Hamilton’s concerns came after Haastown Group’s plan for the former Preston Springs site development returned to council chambers, this time after developers massaged the original proposal at the direction of staff.
Originally, the development was to have three towers, on a five-storey podium, at heights of 22, 24 and 26 storeys, with 753 dwelling units. That was whittled down to three towers, still on the five-storey podium, of 18, 20 and 20 storeys. The new towers, which would gradually elevate at a 45-degree angle from the rear of the property to Fountain Street, would hold between 620 and 640 units.
Council, instead, amended the proposal during deliberations, calling for a maximum tower footprint of 2,000 square metres with a maximum of two towers that would be no taller than 15 storeys.
In addition, council directed the existing dry stone walls be incorporated into the Preston Historical Garden design, and the building design would be architecturally sympathetic to the original building and the designated heritage building at 138 Fountain St. S.
The amended bylaws will return to council April 16, without a staff report.
Hamilton believes the changes to the proposal will send the development to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT).
When questioned if Haastown Group intends to go that route, Kristen Barisdale, vice-president of planning for GSP Group, which is involved in the project, said in an email they have no comment at this time.
Hamilton felt it was important the city continued working with the developer while they still had a say in the final build.
“We can use change to our advantage or if we fight against it, it will be implemented against our will in a piecemeal fashion that ultimately damages the economic and social prospects of the city going forth,” he said, noting he wished he had spoken during the meeting. He said he was caught off guard, there was little discussion and he was still collecting his thoughts on the amended proposal when the vote was called.
“If it does go to the OLT, and we know that in 97 per cent of the cases
the OLT rules in favour of the developer, then the city loses all control and we spend many thousands of dollars from taxpayer dollars; paying to lose.”
Coun. Corey Kimpson countered, saying that as elected representatives council has to balance the growth of the city with the interests of the residents. She said that since it is an important development for the community, a holistic approach was needed that went beyond policy.
Holding provisions on the work will ensure the fulfilment of all technical studies, Kimpson added. She also said a cap wasn’t put on density, so the developer could modify the number of units within the parameters set out by council.
“It’s important to note that we did not refuse the development application, and by amending the motion it shows our willingness to work with the developer to bring this project to fruition,” Kimpson said. “We know that development will take place there and we encourage something that is compatible and recognizes the prominence of the location and the unique and complicated topography of the site.”
“More information was required to support the development as proposed and that was not available.”
Hamilton agreed the area is important, but said he recognizes progress is needed on a site that hasn’t seen activity for more than three decades.
“This is the exact area of the city that we need housing. We need density for the LRT, for the gateway to the 401, for the revitalization of Preston, and to take what is an emaciated corner and breathe life back into it again,” Hamilton said. “I just think this is a super dangerous precedent that council set by changing around such substantial plans at the very last second, without even bringing it to all council first, the planners or staff or anyone. I was blown away.”
‘‘ I just think this is a super dangerous precedent that council set by changing around such substantial plans at the very last second.
SCOTT HAMILTON CAMBRIDGE COUNCILLOR