Subdivisions propose 1,081 new units for Bond Head

By Miriam King Bradford Times November 4 2010
There was standing room only in Bradford West Gwillimbury Council on Tuesday night, for a Public Meeting, to hear proposed Plans of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications for the Hamlet of Bond Head.

There were 2 applications – one by Bond Head Properties Two Inc. and Bond Head Properties Three Inc., proposing 331 detached homes on 52 hectares of land straddling County Rd. 27 north of 88; and the other by Geranium Development (Bradford) Corp., Southherts Development Inc. and Featherie Developments Inc., for 750 detached, semi-detached, townhome and apartment units on 62 hectares south of 88.
Director of Planning & Development Geoff McKnight noted that the applications, by what he called the “Bond Head Development Group”, all stem from the Town’s 2001 Official Plan, which identified Bond Head as a Settlement Area – and from Official Plan Amendment 16. OPA 16, adopted by the Town in 2007, and approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in 2009, permits approximately 1,500 new residential units in the hamlet – increasing the population from the existing 500 people, to 4,400.
McKnight spelled out a number of conditions set by the OMB, including a “residential transition area” abutting existing homes on large lots, that will have frontages no less than 24 metres; a corridor of Open Space, parkland and stormwater management ponds that will provide trails and green space; and the preservation of downtown Bond Head, “the village core continuing to be the heart of the community, and that its character will be maintained.”
An Environmental Assessment has proposed looping the watermain along the 8th Line, with a Water Tower east of the hamlet; and a sewer main and pumping station on County Rd. 88. McKnight noted that “no residential development in Bond Head occurs” before there is servicing and construction underway at the Hwy. 400 employment lands.
He identified a number of concerns. Grading is “problematic”, especially in the North Plan, where a drumlin field creates hilly terrain. “We’re working further with the applicant on that,” McKnight said. The Town has also identified a need to work with adjoining landowners, to secure connections – and with the County, to ensure that a proposed Hwy. 27 Bypass, a key feature of OPA 16, is built. Although the County has approved the planning, there is no commitment to construction.
Another issue: Providing some kind of commemorative record of the Phillips-Stoddart house, destroyed by an “unfortunate fire.”
Residents queried the Planner on the timing of development, servicing – and the cost for existing residents to hook up to municipal sewers. McKnight noted that there is already capacity planned at an expanded Waste Water Treatment Plant to handle the existing homes; cost will depend on the design of a collection system, and “what the options might be to fund that.”
Duncan Page, former Town Councillor, said, “This whole Council room is full, and it’s always full when it’s something to do with Bond Head… The overwhelming number of residents of Bond Head are against this community plan.”
He questioned the “advantage of taking infrastructure all the way to the New Tecumseth border,” and suggested it would be more efficient, and less expensive, to accommodate all of the Town’s planned growth in Bradford alone.
“Why are we doing this?” Page suggested that the developers had an obvious motive: to eventually create a community of 85,000 in Bond Head, “at the taxpayers’ expense.”
McKnight replied that the Bond Head Secondary Plan is limited to 3,900 people – both by the Ontario Municipal Board, and Provincial Policy. “There are no other applications before Council, beyond what is presented (here),” he said; no document or legislation that would exceed that number, and “no path to deliver a population of 80,000.”
“Anybody can propose anything,” said Mayor Doug White. “80,000 – 125,000 – pick a number. It’s against the Official Plan of the Town, it’s against the Official Plan of the County, it’s against Provincial Policy.” White noted that the Bond Head Development Group had to withdraw its original large-scale proposal. “The province made it perfectly clear that they are opposed to that plan.”
Other concerns included drainage, the provision of Seniors’ housing, and a lack of buffering between proposed townhomes and existing industrial uses. Bert Clay, representing Durabody Industries, warned of “light, noise and vibration” impacts, unless a berm or other mitigation is undertaken.McKnight agreed. “We share the same concerns,” he said, adding that further noise studies are required, to ensure development “does not place any undue burden or threat on any industry.”
Councillor Del Crake raised the issue of housing for seniors.
Robert Cutler, Community Designer with Bousfields Inc., representing the proponents, noted that there are two apartment blocks in the plan. “It’s a good idea for us to consider,” he said; an apartment “could serve very nicely to that purpose.”
As for the Bond Head Bypass, there is a need for further talks with the County, McKnight said. “The planning approval for the Bypass is very much in place, but the delivery is not in the Town’s mandate.”
The comments will be considered in any final recommendation, but McKnight warned, “I don’t anticipate a final report will be before Council for quite some time… the latter half of 2011.”