Despite changes, residents are still teed off about plans to convert the Bradford Highlands Golf Club into a new subdivision.
More than 150 people packed into the Don Harrison Auditorium at the Bradford and District Memorial Community Centre Tuesday night for a public planning meeting about three different proposals, including an update to ongoing efforts to redevelop the local golf course, which closed in 2021.
Multiple residents voiced concerns about drainage, the environment, traffic, impacts on existing homeowners and the potential loss of green space. Bob Adams pointed to the importance of New York City’s Central Park and stressed the difficulty of adding green space once it’s gone.
“The golf course is the jewel of Bradford,” Franco Palleschi added.
He acknowledged the desire for more affordable housing but questioned the cost and usefulness of homes he said couldn’t even be compared to “chicken coops,” because the proposed density is more like “pigeon coops,” and called it “disgusting” that he thinks the town is letting builders “run rampant,” with plans that could make Bradford feel more like Vaughan.
According to a report and presentation from Thomas Dysart, senior planner for the town, ICG Golf Inc., Bayview-Wellington (Highlands) Inc. and 2523951 Ontario Limited — collectively known as Bradford Highlands Joint Venture Inc. (BHJV) — made an updated proposal to redevelop the old Bradford Highlands Golf Club at 23 Brownlee Dr., (plus 2820, 2824 and 2848 Line 5) into a new subdivision with 938 homes.
Based on a presentation and plans from Don Given of Malone Given Parson, that’s now set to include 308 detached houses, 208 semi-detached houses, 266 street townhouses and 156 back-to-back townhouses, plus 0.23 hectares for commercial units, 2.25 hectares for an elementary school, 3.3 hectares for parks and trails, 3.12 hectares for stormwater management and 8.78 hectares for environmental protection.
Multiple residents raised concerns about the accuracy of the developer’s studies and the impact the development would have on the environment and the nearby canal that feeds into the West Holland River, especially in light of the town’s ongoing efforts to protect the river and Lake Simcoe watershed.
That included Candace Smith, who said she was encouraged by the revised plan, but remained “seriously disturbed” by what she called “glaring errors” in “flawed” environmental reports and remained particularly worried about potential impacts to nearby well and septic systems as well as the groundwater — issues she said had not been addressed from the last version of the plan.
Those “excellent” concerns were echoed by Ward 5 Coun. Peter Ferragine who called the revised plan a “Band-Aid solution” which is “way too dense,” and as a member of the board of directors for the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, acknowledged they have “major” concerns which have not yet been addressed.
“It’s a recipe for disaster,” Ferragine said of various aspects of the plan.
Traffic also remained top of mind for many, including James Gregory, who questioned whether only two access points would be enough for the development, and wanted to know if the developer would be held accountable for the costs to improve existing roads to handle more vehicles.
The updated plan adds new connections to Brownlee Drive and Inverness Way to help other proposed roads provide access from Line 6 east of Brownlee Drive and from Line 5 near the top of the hill, west of the intersection with Canal Road.
That last connection was of particular concern to Gregory, who lives near that part of Line 5 and noted both the bend and the curve cause poor sightlines.
In addition to reducing the proposed number of homes by 60, the new plan also makes room for an elementary school, six-metre-wide walkways and trails to act as a buffer between proposed and existing homes, while also including a revised stormwater pond for better drainage.
Those buffers came in response to prior requests from residents, but Adams felt they weren’t large enough to be safe or effective, and claimed the “hidden” and “inaccessible” paths would pose challenges for first responders and become a “mecca” for litter, vandalism or worse.
“Putting in this concealed walkway all around the subdivision is just inviting crime,” he said.
Many residents were also upset after claiming they sent questions or suggestions to staff and the developer, but never received any response.
Even Ward 7 Coun. Peter Dykie, who represents the area, said he hadn’t been able to get a meeting with BHJV, was “very concerned” about issues raised by residents, and as someone who has been in town his whole life, felt Bradford had better examples of how to develop properly.
“It’s a very sad day for me to see this golf course chewed up,” he said. “It breaks my heart.”
Other councillors were similarly unconvinced, and Ward 4 Coun. Joseph Giordano asked the developer to continue working with residents and council to make the plan better match the existing “vibe” of the town.
“I think there’s still opportunity to make this a great place to live,” he said.
Ward 3 Coun. Ben Verkaik rejected the proposal outright.
“I don’t think we should even entertain rezoning the land. It should be a golf course,” he said to a roar of applause from the audience.
In order to make the development possible, BHJV is asking for approval of draft plan of subdivision and an official plan amendment to have the property included in the town’s urban area and converted from rural and agricultural to a mix of residential, commercial and community uses.
More specifically, they are also requesting a zoning bylaw amendment to rezone the property from a mix of open space recreation (OSR), estate residential (ER), agricultural (A), marsh agricultural (AM), and natural heritage systems two (NHS2), to a combination of residential one with exceptions (R1-2 and R1-4), residential two with exceptions (R2-2), neighbourhood commercial (C2), institutional with exceptions (I), open space (OS) and environmental protection (EP).
Located between lines 5 and 6, the roughly-60-hectare property borders 20 existing homes along Brownlee and wraps around a group of 14 more at the end of the street.
The previous proposal for 998 units faced backlash on June 11, when more than 70 people packed council chambers for the public meeting, eager to share their concerns including: impacts on property values, too much density, issues with nearby septic systems, not enough parks or commercial space, an increase in traffic, not enough walking options, impacts on privacy, the proposed maximum heights of 13 metres and the need for affordable units and apartments.
At the time, Given spoke on behalf BHJV — as he had in 2022 — to explain their plan, but residents felt the developer hadn’t considered prior feedback, and several councillors opposed the plan for similar reasons.
The developer submitted an updated plan in November 2024 and a further update in December, which led to the proposed development’s third planning meeting, following a rocky past.
Council is not expected to make a decision until after staff provide a future report based on both the public feedback and the developer’s response.
Until council does make a decision, residents can still request information or provide feedback about planning files D09-17-01 (official plan amendment) D14-25-04 (zoning bylaw amendment), D12-24-05 (draft plan of subdivision) by contacting the Office of Community Planning at 905-778-2055 x 1403, [email protected] or visiting townofbwg.com/bradfordhighlands.