Editor,
The floodplain condominium development to be constructed directly behind the Meaford Library and alongside the Bighead River has been a hot topic in your newspaper. A recent letter to The Independent indicated that the original proposal was for a massive structure that would be almost 3 times larger than any other building in Meaford. It now appears that one of the property owners has been successful in litigation to nullify his involvement in the floodplain deal. This may also nullify the development as the proposal no longer corresponds to what was approved. A legal judgment is needed.
The July 3 letter to The Independent from Mr. Sullivan indicates that the building is being described as a “singular massive structure”. As such, its approval may set a dangerous precedent for future development proposals. A picture of the proposed building in the July 10 edition is misleading. It shows the building on an unobstructed and level surface. In fact, the NW corner of the building will be below the Trowbridge St. hill and create an eyepatch effect. Trees shown at ground level are unlikely because the proposed building is built to the property limits.
What is particularly misleading is the suggestion that the building is 5 stories high. It exceeds the upper limit for 5 storeys because the height is not being measured from the level of Bayfield St. The height is based on a floodlevel measure approximately halfway up the Trowbridge St. hill. Also misleading is that access to the proposed 2 levels of underground parking will involve a hillside entry ramp across the Trowbridge St. sidewalk.
The building’s design was approved by the Heritage Advisory Committee as conforming with Meaford’s Heritage District. It would be interesting to know how the Committee members would answer the following questions. How many Heritage Buildings feature a large garage door in their frontage? Require a protective wall? Also a reinforcement wall? Use rounded balconies? Have underground parking? Are subdivided into 5 sections? Risk pedestrian safety by vehicle entry and exit across a sidewalk? Use a variety of building materials? Are partially sunk below a hill? Create a 4.6m perpendicular drop between 2 adjacent buildings? Also a drop between an adjacent sidewalk? Exceed 5 storeys? Have a stepped staircase roof design?
Congratulations are due to Councillor Harley Greenfield who questioned approving the floodplain Heritage Permit. Councillor Greenfield is also aware that the proposed development is apparently in violation of Provincial and Federal Regulations. Again, a legal judgment is needed.
What follows are a few more concerns about the impending Site Plan Approval.
1. It appears that the developer is again using the tactics of missing information and misinformation in order to involve the Land Tribunal. For example, the development was approved on the basis of 3 possible foundation options. The geotechnical engineers now say that a decision cannot be made unless more borehole and building data are provided. The foundation required to support a 7+ storey building on a “silty sand” footing is unknown at this time.
2. The Insurance Bureau Of Canada has advised that it is reluctant to insure floodplain buildings. If the foundation is not sufficient to support a 2+5 storey building, then liability for construction mishaps or any subsequent damage will shift to the Municipality that approved the construction.
3. The developer now indicates that blasting will be used to excavate the floodplain for underground parking. There is no acknowledgement that this will occur less than a stone’s throw from 2 major sewage siphons that pass under the Bighead River to reach the sewage pumping station on Denmark St. Should the siphons be damaged by soil vibrations from blasting or using a pile driver, then raw sewage will seep downstream into Meaford Harbour. Shortly thereafter, it will reach a public bathing beach used by children. The proposed construction is also within the Intake Protection Zone for Meaford’s water supply. The developer does not identify any safeguards. The potential liability is enormous.
4. A suggestion has been made that the Site Plan Agreement include Municipal indemnity against future liability. This is likely to be opposed by the developer. Again, a legal judgment is needed.
5. Excavation of the property to the level of the floodplain creates an estimated 4.6m perpendicular drop between the Meaford Library and the proposed condo. The estimate is based on the height of a retaining wall currently located at the SW corner of the subject property. Prior to blasting and excavation, an extended reinforcement wall is needed to protect the Library and for pedestrian safety on the nearby Trowbridge St. Sidewalk. This requirement is conspicuous by its absence in the Site Plan Application.
6. A brief visit to beautiful Lake SkyDev will illustrate the consequences of hydrostatic pressure from adjoining bodies of water on excavations for 2 levels of underground parking. Hydrostatic pressure from the Bighead River may also force water to seep through the surrounding soil and create beautiful Lake Meaford on Trowbridge Street East.
7. To anticipate a future event, it will be suggested that the floodplain development is sufficiently harebrained so as not to proceed. However, this suggestion is at best an unsubstantiated opinion and not a guarantee.
The Heritage and Waterfront Districts are Meaford’s defining characteristics. They should be preserved rather than exploited by profiteers. The proposed non-conforming building is an obvious mismatch and its overbearing presence will reflect on every building and house in Meaford. Proposals that benefit the community should be welcomed. Unfortunately, some proposals need to be reined in.
The previous letter from Mr. Sullivan recommended that Meaford Council members be contacted to register concerns about the proposed floodplain building. To contact all Council members use council@meaford.ca or to contact your favourite councillor, scroll down to obtain an individual email address or telephone number. A groundswell from Meaford citizens will help Council stand tall to reduce the proposed building into a more reasonable development.
Jim Molineux, Meaford
