Letter to the Editor
Mr. Editor,
I feel I need to comment on some of the points raised in the letter written by Lesley Lewis and Jean-loup Dalle (July 16, 2020), particularly regarding the peopleCare Campus of Care.
First, let me say that I am in favour of an LTC facility, and I support Senior and Assistant Living in Meaford. I understand the convenience of senior accommodation here since my own mother is in a senior’s home in Collingwood.
However, I am opposed to any building of six storeys anywhere in our town.
The Municipality Official Plan states the importance of encouraging the building and development industry to develop innovative housing designs that stress flexibility in use, mix of compatible land uses, good environmental practices, and public safety to maintain a mix of housing by both type and tenure, which the proposed peopleCare development disregards.
Let’s begin by looking at how of the [Ontario] Planning Act applies to the peopleCare proposal, specifically referencing the ‘four tests’ as defined in Section 45(1). These exist so that healthy communities should never ignore forethought or intelligent planning practices.
Test 1: Is the proposal minor?
We absolutely must discuss the six storeys proposed by peopleCare, as well as other elements. In this case the proposed development on neighbouring properties is anything but ‘minor’. The mass and height of six storeys will cause significant issues for abutting property owners: loss of sunlight, privacy and views; the proposed density of the development is not in any way similar to the established norms of the neighbourhood – being an additional 400 people in a very small area; the proposed development would create negative impacts related to trees, parking, drainage, and traffic. The development is not compatible with or sympathetic to the established built form and character of the neighbourhood and will not improve the affected streetscapes.
Ms. Lewis and Mr. Dalle stated that, “the Climate Emergency should take absolute precedence over all other considerations”. We, therefore, cannot ignore the impact that this proposal will have on the climate in this very specific area.
Asphalt and concrete attract heat, retain heat, and emit heat. The proposal asks for ‘minimum’ grass and trees included in the project, meaning this acreage will see increased temperatures in the area.
Drainage is also a concern due to the lack of permeable land with the proposed concrete and asphalt. The higher the building goes, the more elderly people that are going to be ‘warehoused’, and the more parking spaces are going to be required for residents, staff, visitors, and deliveries – hence, more asphalt and concrete. We need to take note of some of the torrential rains that we have experienced lately – imagine those rains falling on a massive parking lot with all the associated concrete if this project were to go through.
The peopleCare proposed application does not include a basement because of the costs associated with addressing the high-water levels underground. Municipalities throughout the province struggle with drainage problems due to insufficient and/or rushed planning. So, in order to make this ‘economically viable’, peopleCare claims they must go higher. Translated – peopleCare wants to glean maximum financial rewards while sacrificing the least amount of investment dollars.
Meaford has a need for good quality health care for our elderly, and the suggested property could be ideal, but not at the cost of our environment, climate, local residents, or the elderly who will be living there.
Municipalities adopt Official Plans and are guided by the Planning Act to provide guidance on how land use may be controlled and ensuring that local planning decisions determine the futures of communities. Generally, new construction through intensification should occur in a manner that takes “into account the existing built and physical environment and be sympathetic in form.” The peopleCare Campus of Care proposal disregards this and should be reconsidered.
Bad Planning Should Never Set a Precedent!
One other point I take exception to is Ms. Lewis and Mr. Dalle’s notion that the future of Meaford consists of “permanent (year-round) occupancy in our homes”. All of our residents contribute to the welcoming character and local economy of Meaford – be they weekend visitors, snowbirds, or year-round residents.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda J. Thompson, Meaford
