Back to the drawing board

Concerns raised over Wellington subdivision

Aproposed new subdivision earmarked for the east end of Wellington, and recommended for approval by County staff, took an unexpected turn at last week’s council planning meeting where a number of troubling questions remain unanswered. The draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment did not receive council approval as expected, and instead saw Wellington councillor Mike Harper put forward an amending motion referring the draft plan—one he described as “lacking details”—back to staff to seek the developer’s further cooperation. This file is not expected to come back to council before July. “When you look at the schematic for this development, it doesn’t in any way reflect other parts of the village of Wellington; I don’t see a master plan that shows how this development is going to integrate with the community,” said Harper. “We have no sense of where the various roads are going to connect, we have no sense of active transport connecting to the Millennium Trail, there is very little in the way of other proper usable green space when you think about 400 people.”

In his motion, Harper cited five amendments to be addressed, including not permitting Block 157 which is listed as a private community centre. The other amendments included providing proper park space and linkages, providing details of buffering and landscaping surrounding the stormwater management pond, and providing conceptual drawings for the townhouse blocks, as well as making draft approval conditional upon the townhouses being a portion of the initial built-out phase. Known as Wellington Bay Estates (WBE), the proposed subdivision shares the same developer as the Wellington on the Lake community.

WBE is located at Wellington’s far eastern ward boundary and fronts Main Street, in part, to the south on a 35-acre parcel of land. Proposed are 204 homes, including townhomes, single detached and semi-detached dwellings, where the completed development is expected to accommodate 400 to 500 residents. Martin Mazierski with Wellington Bay Estates indicated if building were to begin today, starting prices would be below $400,000.

The bone of contention with the draft plan stems from the lack of any dedicated parkland within the proposed subdivision. In an agreement the municipality made several decades ago with the developer, the County allowed the developer to forgo including any green space in any future development on the lands in question in exchange for a parcel of land that was given to the County. The County subsequently built the Wellington and District Community Centre on the land. Staff seemed to know very little about the agreement and council was not in possession of any documentation surrounding the land exchange agreement. “On the draft plan, there is no parkland, so that’s not a mistake,” said planning consultant Spencer Hutchinson. “Parkland was dealt with prior to this planned subdivision, so legally or technically, this development has met the Planning Act requirement for parkland, and in fairness you can’t ask for another acre because your predecessors took land for park and you built an arena on it.” Also raised as a concern by several councillors, as well as some members of the public, was the publicprivate condominium, a recreational facility targeted to members only.

The Wellington councillor noted that this is the first phase of a potentially much larger project, one that will define the village for decades to come. “We are under a lot of pressure to try to limit growth and to slow the pace of change, and if we are going to entertain additional applications like this they have to be quality applications,” said Harper. He spoke to the fit for Wellington and what can be expected from development in the village residential area, quoting in part the Secondary Plan: ‘These areas are intended to preserve and enhance the quality of place by ensuring that new residential neighbourhoods are more like Wellington’s existing traditional neighbourhoods in terms of design and walkability and to ensure that neighbourhood development occurs as an extension of the surrounding existing village fabric and blends the build form and character of existing neighbourhoods in Wellington’. “We are being asked to take a leap of faith that things will get worked out in the conditions of the draft plan,” said Harper. “I need to see something on paper.”

Eight members of the public registered to speak, five of whom were in favour of the proposed development; notably all are residents of Wellington on the Lake. They highlighted the economic, health and social benefits, including bringing new jobs to the area, the diversity and affordability of the homes, as well as the significance of adding to the tax base. Derek Mendham, Wellington on the Lake Residents’ Association president representing 800 WOTL community members said the project is a “positive addition to the village” and was a “responsible and sensible decision”. He said it was not detracting from the village, but enhancing the village. “WBE will provide an important extension to the village, an important economic benefit to Wellington and Prince Edward County, and it will support the local economy through construction and will drive economic support to our village by adding to the overall tax base and helping to spread the high cost of water among more customers,” stated Mendham.

Wellington residents Kevin Scanlon, William Cobban and Paul Edmonds voiced strong opposition centred around the lack of any green space, the unaffordability of the units, the lack of mixed housing options, the isolation of the development and how the proposed development appears to be geared toward seniors with a private members- only club. “It totally lacks a neighbourhood feel and looks like a carbon copy of WOTL, a retirement sub-division that excludes young people,” said Scanlon, who noted the vast majority of houses in the planned development were aimed at retirees. “Where is the reasonable housing that will allow the young to get into the real estate market and build a future in this village?” he asked. Scanlon noted there is no green space in the plan, nowhere to walk a dog and nowhere for children to play. “We should never lose sight of the soul of the community, or in this case, the future of our village.”

William Cobban noted the units were close together, almost wall-like, facing inward and in the centre. “Where you might expect parkland, water features, benches, trees and walkways, you see three blocks of back-to-back townhouses,” said Cobban. He said it was isolated with no footpaths linking surrounding amenities, such as the Millennium Trail and called the plan “totally unremarkable” and a “bland series of boxes”. Cobban also noted concern about reference made to a ‘common element condominium corporation’, which he describes as a “relatively new type of shared ownership. Block 157 has been identified as the likely site, so instead of a public park, it’s possible that a private members-only enclave is being quietly embedded into this sub-division.”

Councillor Ernie Margetson said the sub-division needs to have a little closer examination in the context of the whole east end of Wellington. “We need to come up with a plan that we, as decision makers, can feel comfortable about what we are proposing for the future of Wellington,” said Margetson. Councillor Bill Roberts spoke to the housing crisis. “For a number of years, we have said we have a housing supply crisis and we need to act expeditiously to address that housing supply crisis,” said Roberts. “Now we seem to be having a discussion around providing housing supply in that crisis around quaintness and aesthetics, so that’s my puzzlement.” Harper said the development has to be something to be proud of. “It has to be inspiring: we are saying this is good enough, and we are saying we checked the boxes and therefore we recommend that it be approved, and good enough is not enough in this case, and we have to do better.”

That comment also brought a sharp retort from Councillor Margetson. “My concerns aren’t related to quaintness and aesthetics,” countered the Hillier council member. “Yes, we have a housing crisis. But I want to get it right. Let’s have a plan. What we approve tonight will have a long-term impact.”

Some wanted to why the project was before them for a decision with so many questions still unanswered. The County’s head planner, Michael Michaud, explained that they had negotiated in good faith. He agreed that a concept plan should be on the table. Michaud agrees, too, that a project like this should have dedicated parkland space throughout the development but that his hands are tied by the arena land deal. “We brought something forward to you that we thought was sellable,” said Michaud “Because our hands are tied, we don’t have parkland. We don’t know what the stormwater pond is going to look like. We don’t have building elevations, but everything has to go through site plan approval so we can ask for that at a later date.”

The developer’s point person, Mazierski, says the plan currently on the table more than meets their obligation under the Planning Act. “We have jumped through hoops to make staff happy,” said Mazierski. “We have met our requirements. We’ve surpassed the requirements.”

On the lack of greenspace, Mazierski says their parkland commitment was made “a long time ago.” He said the principle of fairness should guide council and the municipality to acknowledge the arrangement made by a previous council. He adds that a stormwater management pond has been enlarged to accommodate potential runoff from the entirety of its property and the property to the west. Mazierski added that this land concession was made to satisfy the County’s desire to create some greenspace—an aesthetic feature—to offset the fact that it had given up the right to demand it.

On the issue of the prospect of another seniors’ community in Wellington, Mazierski insists Wellington Bay Estates can sell homes to whomever wants to buy them. “The County can’t discriminate between age groups,” said Mazierski. He said the developer will sell homes to whoever picks them up the fastest “to allow us to get back all the development charges we have paid.”

Council sent the file back to staff seeking the applicant’s cooperation on required amendments to the proposed plan. The motion passed with 11 votes for and three against. It is targeted to return to council in July.