CAMBRIDGE — A draft subdivision plan on 96 acres of land was proposed to the city. The development would provide 752 residential units at the 65 Ripplewood Road site.
The City council rejected the proposal on January 30, 2024, due to a lack of a finalized draft subdivision plan with the Region of Waterloo.
Council members decided on issues that need to be addressed, including the provided buffers around heritage features, the location of proposed stormwater management blocks and the road network.
GSP Group Inc. was retained by the developer and owner of the project, Powerplay Equity Capital Inc. (Treasure Hill Home Corp.).
In Southeast Galt, the subject lands are currently connected to Vanier Drive and Attwater Drive.
These two roads then connect to Dundas Street South (Highway 8), which heads towards Hamilton and Burlington.
As stated in the Planning Justification Report, the site is made of two parcels of land that have merged on title and are unoccupied by any buildings or structures.
The developer proposed a zoning amendment to rezone the property, which is currently agricultural land. The land is proposed to be rezoned as several different residential zones and open space to allow for residential units and park/open space.
Along with the zoning are proposed site-specific provisions that were requested. Examples of the requested provisions include but are not limited to receiving relief from yard setbacks and increased density.
In the proposal, the subject lands were being requested for rezoning from the current “(H)R4” (“Low Density Residential”) and “M7” (“Industrial”) to a mix of residential zoning of RM4, R5, and R6.
The proposed residential zoning would permit mixed condo towns and single detached dwellings.
The proposal also included rezoning areas of the property to OS1 and OS4, which permits open space for parkland and will protect natural heritage features on the property.
The rezoning would have permitted the proposed subdivision development.
Five blocks of 82 street townhouses, four blocks of mixed townhouses consisting of 392 condo townhouse dwellings, which would be rear-lane and dual-frontage, and 278 single detached dwellings, totalling 752 proposed units were proposed.
A total of 1.95 hectares was proposed to be dedicated to parkland (two blocks), split into two park areas, with one location near the development centre.
The subject lands are primarily designated ‘low/medium density residential,’ and the rest are designated ‘natural open space system.’
The development proposal did not request to re-designate any part of the subject property but to keep the existing land designations.
A site-specific provision requested yard setbacks for each different requested zone area. These requested zoning areas included the proposed R5, R6, and RM4.
The requirements for the R5 and R6 zones are a 6.0m minimum for the front yard, a 1.2m minimum for the interior side yard, and a 6.0m minimum for the exterior side yard.
Both the R5 and R6 zones were requested to be decreased for all three yards (front, interior, and exterior).
The proposed requests include changing the requirements from a front yard minimum of 3.0m, an interior yard minimum of 0.6m, and an exterior yard minimum of 3.0m.
For the RM4 zone, the developer also proposed a request to decrease the minimum required yard size for the different types of townhouses.
Although the proposed towns would have been zoned the same, the variation of unit types required different regulations.
The proposed yard setbacks for the ‘linear row house dwellings in RM4
zones’ requested a decrease in the minimum requirement of 6.0m to 3.0m
for the front yard, 1.5m to 0.6m for the interior side yard, and 6.0m to
3.0m for the exterior side yard.
For ‘cluster row house dwellings in RM4 zones’, a proposal was requested to decrease the minimum front and exterior side yards from 6.0m to 3.0m for both.
The provisions for yard setbacks would have permitted the proposed development if it had been approved.
A request to increase the maximum number of attached units from six to eight was also proposed for the linear row dwellings and the cluster row dwellings in the RM4 zones.
As stated in the report, a provision to increase the density has also been
requested by the developer for the RM4 cluster row dwelling units to increase the maximum of 40 units per net residential hectare to 41.7 units.
Comment Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in the comments section of this blog are solely those of the individuals who submit them and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of the author or the website owner. We do not endorse or support any comments that may be offensive, discriminatory, or harmful in nature.
We encourage open and respectful discussions and welcome diverse perspectives. However, it is important to remember that comments are the personal opinions of the commenters and not official representations of our stance or values. We reserve the right to moderate or remove comments that violate our comment policy or that we deem inappropriate.
Please engage in discussions with courtesy and respect for one another, keeping in mind that differing opinions can coexist in a constructive manner. Thank you for being a part of our community and for helping to maintain a positive and inclusive environment.
