No go

Talbot on the Trail subdivision dead in the water

One of possibly the last affordable housing projects in Prince Edward County was not approved at last Wednesday’s planning meeting. The draft plan for developer David Cleave’s Talbot on the Trail, which was to be located on Picton’s northwestern edge, lost by an 8 to 6 vote after concerns were raised regarding density, affordability and community benefit.

The development plan, which started out at 290 units, and has since been revised multiple times to feature 238 units, including two-storey freehold townhouses, three to four-storey stacked townhouses and single detached dwellings, has been fraught with pushback since the initial plans were revealed. Wendy Leblanc, who was representing over 50 County residents, believes that the subdivision does not meet the requirements set out in the Secondary Plan regarding density, massing and compatibility. “If you approve this precedent-setting highdensity proposal, you will leave us with a development partially built on formerly designated environmentally protected land that looks more like the big city than the rural small town charm of Prince Edward County,” said Leblanc. “And we will be left with an unfilled need for affordable homes.” Jasper Avenue resident Bruce Laidlaw told Council that the elephant in the room was the high density that the subdivision proposed. “This is a high-risk proposal that is contrary to many areas of the Official and Secondary Plans. It features 238 units, which is 107 per cent above the targeted density and 40 per cent above the maximum density. This is not acceptable for the vision of the County, and respect for the current character of Picton,” said Laidlaw, who then asked if Picton really needs more housing.

Councillor Kate MacNaughton agreed that the subdivision didn’t fit the vision for Picton. “I am in favour of using density to create affordability, but only when you are looking at true affordability. I would always prefer, instead of seeing stacked townhouses, to see an actual building where people can access flats all on one floor,” said Mac- Naughton, who also asked about the community benefits that would be offered by the development. County Planner James Griffin explained that the community benefit portion of the development is calculated once the density is established, and becomes a condition to be completed prior to subdivision approval. “In this instance, it is a condition of draft approval that the proponent enters into a community benefits agreement,” said Griffin. “It will determine value, placement, type and how the community benefits will roll out.”

Councillor Jamie Forrester was blunt with his thoughts on the development. Forrester noted that there was no true affordable housing being offered, the density is way too high and it is planned to be built close to an environmentally sensitive area. “I’ve been trying to figure out what this does for our community, and I can’t find anything positive about this,” said Forrester. “It would be really nice to see one of these developers come forth, who’s got multiple projects being built in the County, meaning large dollars are being made, and say at one point I’m willing to be a partner in this community and build some affordable housing.” Forrester told his colleagues that he would like to see his children and his children’s friends be able to afford to live in the County. “We have to ask ourselves, what do we want our community to be down the road? This is not the community I moved here for and I am sure it is not the community a lot of other people would care for.”

Forrester’s comments opened up the floodgates to a rash of other comments. Janice Maynard stated she wanted a community benefits agreement completed before even offering draft approval. “The proponent gets the bonus of building more units but what is the benefit that is returned to the community?” asked Maynard. “This is a significant deviation from our Secondary Plan and unless I can see that there is a true meaningful benefit to the community for the bonus that will go to the proponent then I cannot support it at this time.”

Maynard echoed Forrester’s thoughts on future generations not being able to live in the County. “This is not the vision that I have for this community, and I don’t think that this is the vision that is shared by many of our community members. I have a daughter, early twenties, with a good paying job, and they will not be able to afford to purchase a property in the County if ever or certainly not for many many years,” said Maynard, who also noted that Council should be able to leverage cash out of the developer as a bonus to provide affordable housing elsewhere. Councillor Stewart Bailey agreed. “If we let any one developer away with this much of an increase in density, then others are going to say ‘I want the same thing.’ We are going to end up looking like Don Mills,” he added.

Councillor Phil St-Jean believed that although the plan wasn’t perfect, it had come a long way to being what the community needs at this time. “I see a plan that has been brought forward and has progressively addressed concerns of not just the residents in the immediate vicinity, but others in the general area as well. I see this as future planning. We need more housing that is more attainable. More affordable. Compared to single-family dwelling bungalows on large lots. That is something from the ’90s and early 2000s,” said St-Jean, who explained that when density rules were created, single-family detached bungalows on larger lots were the norm. “In the end, we need that higher density, because density is the only way we are currently going to be able to address any form of affordability and attainability of housing in this community.” St-Jean then explained that the County desperately needs more customers to help pay for costly infrastructure. “This is how our community is going to grow. The other factor about density is the fact that we get more customers to help with the overburdening cost of our infrastructure,” he said.

Councillor Mike Harper told his colleagues that he was used to living amongst higher density, and that the County might be headed down the same path that Toronto did, by not having any housing in the middle of the density scope. “Having come from a bigger city, I’m used to something much greater in density. I look at this and I don’t see it as a crazy amount of density,” said Harper.

Councillor Bill Roberts tried to be the voice of reason. Roberts explained that the County real estate market is tracking at double the average of Toronto right now. “I think we need to look at the numbers. We are looking at the average price of a home within the next twelve months being $650,000. We have had a price increase of the average house of 41 per cent year over year for last year,” said Roberts. “We have no inventory here in the County. That is also driving prices up. As are STA acquisitions. We need inventory for people within that $275,000 to $375,000 bracket, and it may very well be the last time we see market forces delivering it. We need more supply and I think that this is the right decision.”

Councillor Bill McMahon thought that Council was being subservient to developer’s rule. “This will be a heavy cross to bear for this council or any council in the future. If we allow this to go ahead, this is going to open the door to any developer to presume we are going to authorize this kind of density overage,” he said.

Councillor Forrester suggested that his colleagues take a drive to see the urban sprawl outside of Toronto. “For some of you people who have come from outside of the County. From Scarborough, Brooklyn, Whitby, Ajax. Drive through those towns now. They were nice little towns 20 or 25 years ago. You could not pay me to live there now. I was lucky enough to leave a long time ago. We are slowly heading the same direction. Is this what we want Prince Edward County to look like in another 10 years?” he asked.

Mayor Steve Ferguson, who sat silent for most of the meeting, said that this was a real tough one for him. “Something to keep in mind is the stress we have because there is no inventory. There are no choices. The inventory issue is something that has been brought forward for over four years. We have an awful long way to go before we make a dent in the housing situation,” said Ferguson.

The developer’s planner, Jennifer Wood of Fotenn Planning + Design shared that the developer is finding himself in a tough place. “Where we are struggling on the applicant side is we have policy in place that permits increase in density through bonusing through a community benefits agreement. Where the challenge is, is that the County doesn’t have a protocol in place for implementing community benefits. We are now getting to the point where proposals and applications are coming forward, exceeding density targets and triggering the community benefits and density requirements. We are sort of figuring it out as we go and integrating it through a draft condition,” explained Wood, who suggested that it might be best for the community benefits to be done through a public process to come back to Council. “I can tell you that the applicant did just purchase the Rollins draft approved subdivision. There are two apartment blocks with 100 unit rental units. Potentially there is a way to take advantage of that project to achieve some subsidy program,” suggested Wood.

Roberts, again, explained that although it might not be affordable to all, it is better than what is currently offered. “It might not meet everybody’s definition of affordable housing, but a project with this density, that delivers a 40 per cent lower price point than the median housing point in the County is a lot more affordable than $650,000 a unit,” said Roberts.

Councillor Andreas Bolik ended the meeting with an abrupt statement. “This is a bad deal for the County. It’s going to make Picton unlivable. All we have been doing here is going in circles trying to make it go,” he said.

The vote lost 8 to 6, with councillors Hirsch, Roberts, Harper, St-Jean and Margetson as well as Mayor Ferguson voting in favour and councillors Forrester, MacNaughton, Bailey, McMahon, Maynard, Prinzen, Nieman and Bolik opposed.