Skip to content

New town homes to be built behind Bradford Canadian Tire plaza

The plan includes 38 townhomes, with 18 off-street parking spaces
A416EFDD-7EF0-44CD-B2C1-E6569B6B00C8
New development plan on West Park.

A new townhome development is proposed for Bradford, on West Park Avenue. 

The town has received an application for a zoning by-law amendment from Michael Smith Planning Consultants on behalf of Michael Orsi for the development of 38 townhouse units on a property behind the Bradford Canadian Tire plaza, known as 391 West Park Avenue, Block 106, Plan 51M-1133. 

In Tuesday night's special meeting of council, a public meeting was held under the Planning Act to review the application.

The town's Manager of Community Planning Alan Wiebe described the project, which includes a new municipal cul-de-sac road extending east off of West Park Avenue; and six residential blocks fronting onto the new road with a total of 38 residential townhouse units.

The plan originally proposed 10 on-street parking spaces, a 7-space visitor parking area, and a block for an amenity area; however, during the meeting Gord Mahoney of Michael Smith Planning presented a revised version that eliminated the amenity area and visitor parking, expanded the cul-de-sac to allow a greater turning radius for fire vehicles, and proposed 17 or 18 on-street parking spaces. 

The lands are 1.8 hectares in size with a frontage of 58 metres along West Park Avenue. To the north is commercial development; to the south, residential that includes townhouses and semi-detached homes. There is a stormwater management pond and Environmental Protection (EP) lands to the west.. 

The property is within the “Bradford Urban Area” and was designated “Medium Density Residential (MDR)" in the town's Official Plan. The MDR designation permits townhouses, developed at a density of 40 units per net residential hectare. The subject lands have a total of 0.82 net residential developable hectares, giving the proposal a net density of 46 units per developable hectare.

In the newest Official Plan, the lands were redesignated "community uses," which would permit apartments and institutional uses - matching the current zoning of the lands.

However, the current zoning does not permit townhomes.

The developer is looking to rezone the lands from the dual zoning of Institutional Exception Holding (I*1(H1)) and Residential Three Exception 3 Holding (R3*4(H1)), to the Residential Two Holding (R2-2(H1)) and Residential Two Exception Holding (R2- 2*1(H1)) Zones to accommodate the proposed subdivision. 

The zoning by-law amendment includes site-specific provisions such as a minimum front yard setback for the front of the garage of six metres, a minimum front yard setback for all other portions of the dwelling of three metres, a minimum exterior side yard setback of three metres, and driveways no wider than 3.5 metres for six metre lots.

Wiebe noted that the exceptions have already been applied in other townhome developments, notably on Line 8.

The "Exceptions" would also allow unenclosed porches to encroach into a sight triangle, and "non-interior building elements" such as porches, steps, railings and roof elements to encroach into the front and rear yard by a maximum of two metres, into the interior side yard by up to 0.6 metres, and into the exterior yard side yard to within 0.3 metres of the side lot line. All encroachments would have to be at least 0.3 metres from any lot line. 

Upon review of the application by the Town and outside agencies, comments included the need for an easement for Alectra, as well as construction of an accessible walkway to provide a "safe transition" throughout the site for residents. 

The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority deemed the application incomplete, and asked for an updated Hydrogeological study from the developer.

Coun. Raj Sandhu wondered why the applicant switched from his original proposal of an apartment complex, which had been presented to council just last year, to townhomes. 

"Have they done any study that there is no need for that now, or is it a business decision to go to townhouses based on the real estate market?" he asked. 

Mahoney, speaking on behalf of the applicant, agreed that the change from apartments to townhouses was a business decision, as the applicant was unable to sell the land for apartments. 

"The intent was to sell it as an apartment building. They couldn't sell it," he confirmed. 

Sandhu asked Wiebe whether the parking proposal meets town requirements. 

"I am a bit concerned about the parking," said Sandhu, noting there have already been parking-related complaints in the area, on nearby streets like Veterans.  "It would be good to have this done properly so we could limit those issues." 

Wiebe said the supply of 17 on-street parking spaces is "slightly under the on-street parking ratios" currently accepted, and is still under review by staff and engineering. 

Coun. Peter Ferragine shared similar concerns, expressing scepticism over the developer's efforts to sell an apartment building.

"Originally, when this came to us it was supposed to be an old age home," Ferragine said. "We definitely need more affordable housing types in our town. Constantly slapping in more and more townhouses, I mean we need more housing styles."

He added, "This location was right beside our main transit and commercial lines. it just seemed like an ideal location for that type of building."

In regards to parking, Ferragine said the town needs to make sure there are enough spaces for the units. 

"We can't be undercutting that," he said. "If you've got a family of four, five or six, living in one house with four or five vehicles, you've got no room...so we need to make sure we are hitting our parking minimums in those areas."

Coun. Gary Lamb said he was concerned about providing visitor parking, wondering if the town would then be on the hook for improvements and maintenance. He also raised concerns about the potential for townhome residents to be "hogging" visitor spaces. 

"Will we have something to buy a permit?" he asked. "If somebody dumps a vehicle there, you're going to have neighbour problems."

He suggested moving the on-street parking to the south side of the property to gain three or four more spots.

"Nothing against this particular development but I also would have liked to see the apartment building because I thought it was the perfect spot," Lamb added. 

Deputy Mayor James Leduc supported the development. "It's actually not bad," Leduc said, noting that some area residents had opposed the apartment building originally proposed.

He asked how many parking spots would be available for each unit. 

Wiebe confirmed the townhomes would have one parking space in the driveway and one parking space within a garage; for a total of two off-street parking spaces per townhouse. 

Leduc asked if it was possible to use the snow storage area as space for additional parking in the summer months. 

Mahoney noted there were concerns from town staff about the visitor parking area, which is why it was removed from the original plan. "There are actually 18 parking spaces" provided on-street, he said, noting that the addition of a visitor parking area could result in loss of on-street spaces.  

"We hear council loud and clear that they have a concern with parking," said Mahoney. "We can go back and look at it."

"I think if you buy a home like this, you have to understand you aren't buying a home for four or five parking spots," said Leduc. "Parking has always been an issue but we need to get people focused on the transit system."

Coun. Peter Dykie praised the location of the development, in the middle of town next to amenities and transit. 

"It is a busy corridor but as long as we have some visitor parking, it is going to work out," he said. 

Coun. Ron Orr noted that a visitor parking area could be a problem, especially in winter - with snowplows potentially piling snow and blocking in any vehicles parked in the lot overnight. However, he questioned the proposed on-street parking in the bulb of the cul-de-sac.

"Is there still the proper turning radius, with the cars in that cul-de-sac?" Orr asked. 

Wiebe noted that the revised plan had just been received by the town. "We've not yet had the opportunity to circulate that," or review the impact, he noted. 

The information and comments were referred back to staff for further review, and a future report and recommendation to Council. Comments from the public are still being accepted. 

A copy of the presentation can be viewed here


Natasha Philpott

About the Author: Natasha Philpott

Natasha is the Editor for BradfordToday and InnisfilToday. She graduated from the Media Studies program at The University of Guelph-Humber. She lives in Bradford with her husband, two boys and two cats.
Read more

Reader Feedback