Residents concerned over proposed Fraserville subdivision

A proposed new subdivision that could create hundreds of new homes just east of the Fraserville subdivision saw numerous concerns outlined by residents.

There was no decision made by town council, with that vote to be done by the new council after a second public meeting, but residents still voiced concerns with the plan that would call for 312 residential dwellings, including 168 street townhouse units and 144 apartment dwellings within two six-storey buildings.

It was the second proposal, albeit from a separate developer on separate lands, that has caused concern from Fraserville residents in recent months.

A report co-authored by manager of planning service Chris Aspila and consultant Juliane von Westerholt from the planning firm MHBC noted a proposed zoning bylaw is intended to rezone the lands from the FD Zone to a Residential Multiple First Density (‘RM1’) Zone and a Residential Multiple Second Density (‘RM2’) Zone.” Aspila told town council five storey apartments are currently permitted but an amendment would be required for six storeys.

Both Mayor Michael Prue and von Westerholt both pointed out council was not going to be making a decision Monday night on the proposal from the Caster Custom Homes group.

“This meeting has been scheduled at the request of the developer,” said Prue. “All we can do is hold the meeting.”

Prue noted the application is not yet final, something von Westerholt confirmed.

“The subject application has not been deemed complete,” she said.

A zoning bylaw amendment is necessary to establish zones for the land and the subdivision, von Westerholt noted.

Bill Petruniak, a resident of the Fraserville subdivision, said he was opposing the rezoning as were many of his neighbours, the latter whom signed a petition.

“If this rezoning is approved, it will triple the residential density of our neighbourhood, tripling the number of people, vehicles, sewage waste, stormwater runoff and wear on existing streets and infrastructure,” he said. “Nothing in the application demonstrates that our aging systems can safely or reliably absorb that load.”

Petruniak contended that the traffic study cited in the report was from 2021, prior to the River’s Edge apartment buildings being constructed. He feared the traffic situation would become “unmanageable” if hundreds more vehicles were added to the area.

An administrative report identifies “multiple inconsistencies” in supporting studies, Petruniak added. He also questioned the impact on sanitary sewers, storm sewers, waterlines and associated infrastructure. Sanitary sewers are at least 50-years-old and weren’t designed to accommodate the volume of waste the development could bring, he believed.

“In simple terms, you cannot put three pounds of waste into a one-pound pipe,” he said. 

Brenda Kokko-Pare, another resident, said she has lived with her husband in the area for over 20 years, adding her husband has been in Fraserville for “95 per cent of his life.” The area consists of “modest, single-detached family homes” and didn’t think the proposed development would fit in with the existing neighbourhood.

Kokko-Pare outlined the wildlife her family enjoys watching from their home and questioned what would happen to it. She also voiced concerns with species at risk that could be in the area.

The neighbourhood also has traffic issues related to the River’s Edge building and nearby Stella Maris School.

“There are times when the streets are actually gridlocked,” said Kokko-Pare.

There are “havoc and safety” issues already due to traffic, she said.

“Safety should be the first priority,” she added.

Gary Bowerman noted that town council also has to be aware of parking issues in that neighbourhood.

“Street parking is not a developer issue. It is a government issue,” he said.

Terry Beaudoin added her opposition as well, noting they are not pleased with the Piroli Group developing the apartments and proposing another phase to their development, and now another developer is wanting more homes.

“I’m saying no to this,” she said. “To hear I’m going to get 300 homes at the end of my street, it’s like a slap in my face.”

Beaudoin added “the infrastructure in town is terrible. That’s what needs to be looked at.”

Nicole French pointed out she has young children and existing traffic issues has seen them almost get hit by vehicles already. She wanted to see new access points to the area, hoping that either Balaclava St. or Victoria St. could be extended.

French pointed out a lack of sidewalks and stated school traffic has increased in the years that St. Bernard School was closed. 

“There will be a higher level of gridlock,” she said, if the development proceeds.

“My concern is the safety of the children in this neighbourhood,” she said.

Councillor Diane Pouget praised the delegates for coming out and voicing their issues.

“It’s very, very difficult for you to come before us,” said Pouget. “Your concerns are my concerns.”

In answering a question from Pouget, Aspila said the Planning Act allows for a developer to request a public meeting but Pouget questioned the timing as she said all studies are not yet completed.

Councillor Peter Courtney believed the meeting was “premature” and believed the town was under pressure due to the Ontario government pushing for more homes.

“Before you start yelling at us, a lot of our rights have been taken away,” Courtney told the packed council chambers. 

Courtney said the traffic study was “pre-Piroli” and outlined issues and questions relating to traffic, stop lights, drainage and intensification. The town needs to look at its new Official Plan, he added. 

Courtney later raised issues of additional access points, with Pouget stating the town is still awaiting word on what the $500,000 from Diageo can be used for and whether the request for the Balaclava St. stretch could re-open.

Councillor Molly Allaire agreed that a new traffic study is needed.

Councillor Linden Crain asked several questions and wondered what would be allowable under the Official Plan and zoning bylaw if it were scaled back.

“I have a lot of concerns with this development, many of which have been raised,” said Crain.

Town planning officials stated they want the five per cent parkland as an actual park, rather than accepting cash in lieu. Crain wondered where that would be, but Prue said that is usually negotiated during the site plan stage.

Deputy Mayor Chris Gibb said the concerns of the residents echoed what his were, but questioned whether information on Monday night’s proposal could also encompass the proposed third phase of the Piroli development and be tackled at once. He believed getting information separately may not have the same results, and said while they are separate proposals, both impact the Fraserville neighbourhood.

Councillor Don McArthur questioned why the proponents were not online or in attendance, something Pouget had also pointed out earlier, and that led to some back-and-forth when Dan Caster of Caster Custom Homes and his planner Hal Kersey joined the meeting later on. 

McArthur also believed the meeting was “premature” and believed the residents raised valid points. He encouraged the proponents to watch the meeting and get an idea of the level of concern the residents have.

Caster joined the meeting virtually with Kersey, stating they did not know the meeting was occurring. He noted he received an e-mail from Aspila shortly after 5 p.m. (the meeting began at 4:30 p.m.) asking if he was participating.

“I always want to hear neighbours’ concerns,” said Caster. “We did not receive notification of the meeting. We had no idea.”

Caster said he wanted to address neighbourhood concerns, even volunteering to pay for a future meeting. He added the lands have always been designated for residential use in the Official Plan.

“That’s why I purchased the property,” he said.

Aspila said written notification was sent out Aug. 19. Crain questioned how Caster didn’t know of the meeting when he requested it, with Caster agreeing that a meeting was requested but he wasn’t given a date or time.

The issue of parkland also saw conflicting stories, with the town stating they want parkland with Caster stating the talk always has been cash in lieu.

As for why they wanted the meeting, Caster said they are trying to gather input from the residents, claiming they have been “stonewalled” in trying to get information.

“We’re trying to get answers somewhere and somehow on this,” he said. 

At the main council meeting later in the night, Crain made a motion – which was passed – that notification go out to a broader area including the entire Fraserville area about the next public meeting.

Residents concerned over proposed Fraserville subdivision 

By Ron Giofu