Meaford council has deferred the approval of a heritage permit for a controversial condominium development to be located at 23 and 37 Trowbridge Street East, behind the library and alongside the Bighead River.
“The Municipality received a heritage permit application for a proposed development on Trowbridge Street East. This proposal is also known as Georgian Bay Harbour Ltd and full details about this proposal are found on Meaford’s website,” noted a report to council presented at their July 7 meeting. “The proposal includes a condominium building with 100 apartment-style units and one commercial unit. The condo building has frontage on Trowbridge Street East.”
The development has been the subject of much criticism since it was first presented to council in May of 2022.
“Council held a public meeting for the original proposal on May 16, 2022. Council related to the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications. Those applications were later appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). The OLT made a decision to approve the amended applications, after the Municipality engaged in a settlement with the applicant,” staff advised council in their report. “In November 2024, the Municipality received and began processing a Site Plan Application which includes a revised proposal for this development.”
The revised proposal reduced the number of residential units from 160 to 100, and the five-storey structure will now step down to three storeys on the west side of the building facing the library.
The Heritage Advisory Committee received Staff Report HAC2025-04 at their meeting on June 11. The staff report recommended the HAC recommend Council approve the application.
Staff’s report to council noted that comments from the committee were supportive of the proposal, including some of the architectural changes from the original proposal. The Heritage Advisory Committee made a recommendation to Council in support of the proposal.
During their July 7 meeting, council spent more than an hour discussing the heritage permit application as well as many of the issues that members of council and the community have expressed about the development proposal, which was first presented to the community in May 2022. Perhaps the most significant concern is that the five-storey building, which is to include underground parking, is to be constructed in a flood plain just metres from the river’s edge.
“We are well aware that this is not a popular project, and speaking from my own chair, I am not keen on the mass of this particular proposal,” Deputy Mayor Shirley Keaveney told council.
Councillor Harley Greenfield expressed several concerns with the proposed development.
“There’s just nothing about this building that is reasonable,” Greenfield told council. “There are absolutely no heritage features about it, it is huge. One of the things that really worries me is if this is built, it is a precedent-setting construction.”
Greenfield also expressed concern that if something were to go wrong, such as a flood, during the construction of the building or after it is built, that council might be deemed liable.
“Floods do happen, so if we approve this, are we on the hook for the liability there? Is Grey Sauble (Conservation Authority) on the hook for that, for approving it?” Greenfield asked.
Before the project can move forward, in addition to municipal and county approvals, a permit from the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority will be required.
While members of council have many concerns with the project, most of those concerns were not applicable to the heritage permit application, but will instead be addressed during the site plan application phase which is still underway.
“The applicant applied for a heritage permit and provided a Cultural Heritage Impact Statement (CHIS) as part of the submission. The permit application was deemed complete, and staff conducted a review of the materials,” staff’s report to council noted. “The Ontario Heritage Act requires that Council meet specified timelines for making decisions about Heritage Permit Applications. Council must make a decision on this application within 90 days of receipt (by the July 21, 2025 Council meeting).”
If Council fails to make a decision within the 90 days, the matter is deemed to be approved as outlined in Section 42(5) of the Ontario Heritage Act.
“Where a Municipal Heritage Committee exists, Council must also consult with the committee within the 90-day timeline. Based on the date of receipt of the application, Council must render a decision by August 3, 2025. The last meeting Council may consider this matter is July 21, 2025, based on set Council meeting schedules,” staff advised in their report.
Council was not comfortable with voting to approve the heritage permit during their June 7 meeting, and they instead developed a replacement motion, which defers a council vote until council’s July 21 meeting “to enable staff to review feedback from council and provide potential conditions for a provisional approval option.”
Council approved replacement motion with a 7-0 vote.
