Fenelon Falls subdivision plan sent back for further review

DAN CEARNS The Standard

KAWARTHA LAKES: The City of Kawartha Lakes’ Planning Advisory Committee heard several community members comments on a proposed subdivision in Fenelon Falls and has referred the plan back to staff for further review.

At a meeting, on Wednesday, March 6th, the advisory committee had a presentation and public meeting on a proposed official plan amendment, from Digram Developments, on the lands known as 808 County Road 121.

“The Official Plan Amendment contemplates an expansion, of the Fenelon Falls Settlement Area Boundary, and a re-designation of the lands, from Rural to Urban Settlement Area which would permit the proposed mixed-use, residential, and open space uses,” read a report from Matt Alexander, of WSP Canada. “The Draft Plan of Subdivision seeks to create the proposed lot and street fabric, to develop 427 single detached dwellings, 242 street townhouse dwellings, one mixed use block, and three medium density residential blocks, for a total of 894 residential dwelling units.”

Mr. Alexander told committee members, the site is “currently occupied predominantly by agricultural lands, with a section of wooded lands located in the southern central portion of the site.”

Mr. Alexander also pointed out, a number of studies, and information from commenting agencies, on the development, either need further review or have not been submitted yet.

Ryan Windle of Digram said, his company is “very excited about this project,” and said, he believes this project is “a win-win-win for us, the City and the province.”

Members of the public were then able to speak about the development.

William Denby said, he feels this development is “not good for the community,” and “not good for the location it is being proposed in.”

Angel Godsoe said, she feels “there is no justification in turning this agricultural land, in close proximity to one of our valuable assets, our lakes, into a subdivision.”

The report noted, the committee has also received nine written comments from members of the community.

“Comments have expressed concern with the proposed development, including a concern regarding: the lack of infrastructure available to support the development, increased traffic flows, tax increases to local residents, disruption to wildlife and the natural environment, increased disrepair to the existing road network, negative impacts during the construction phase, [the] size of the public notice sign and timing of the meeting.”