Editor,
When I moved to Meaford two years ago I had no idea that I would live down the street from a development proposal for the Stanley Knight waterfront property, the likes of which could be found in downtown Toronto, or Chicago. Yes, there was an empty lot nearby that was destined to be developed, but I thought, perhaps naively, that the new development would be compatible with the existing town. I did not foresee SkyDev Co marching in with what I see as a hostile takeover.
“We love it here!’ is the motto of Meaford. Yes, it is true, I do love it here. The small town atmosphere is the opposite of the congested city that I left. I said goodbye to traffic jams, crammed subdivisions and hello to trees, trails and open space. I am not alone in this thinking, people who have lived here all their life, as well as newbies like me, all treasure the qualities of this Ontario town.
These treasured qualities are enshrined in Meaford’s Official Plan, a document intended to safeguard all that residents hold dear. On the Municipality of Meaford website the Official Plan “contains the goals and objectives of the community”. Further, it states that the Official Plan has legal status and is the guide for all planning decisions.
Which brings me to the aggressive development proposal from SkyDev. It seems that an Official Plan is official, until it is not. Meaford’s Official Plan calls for a maximum density of 20 units per hectare. Amazingly, SkyDev’s proposal calls for 80 units per hectare. Our Plan limits the heights of buildings to three stories, whereas SkyDev proposes five stories, plus rooftop living space. Our Plan is clear; new development “should be compatible with adjacent residential areas”. SkyDev’s proposal is compatible with areas of downtown Toronto intensification, but in no way is compatible with Meaford’s residential neighbourhoods. The list goes on, and disruption of the Official Plan is rampant in these examples and more.
But, first things first. The proposed site has been identified in a SkyDev report completed by Golder Associates to contain “among other things, former oil and other petroleum storage within the site, unknown quality of fill material, former solvent manufacturing, processing and bulk storage within the site, former use as a garage or vehicle maintenance, former PCB storage, waste disposal, proximity to former rail lines and spurs and observed exceedances of contaminants of concern within soil”. Meaford’s Waterfront Strategy & Master Plan (April 2014) concludes that “appropriate risk management measures for the site will require further investigation into the extent and source of the metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon impacts”. Before any design proposal is to proceed we need to recognize that this site requires more study and to be cleaned-up, however possible.
A hostile takeover? Or an ambitious proposal that needs to be toned down? What is your opinion? We have one opportunity on Monday, May 17 at the public meeting to put on record our views about this proposal. Let your Council know that positive, liveable design is needed for good growth in Meaford. Tell Council that the Official Plan is a sacred trust, and is there for good reason. Tell them that we want to continue to love it here!
Susan Johnston, Meaford
