New development wrinkle meets with mixed reaction

Posted Jan 26, 2012 By Craig Bakay

EMC News A proposal to create a road up to Township standards which would then be assumed by the Township met with mixed results at the regular South Frontenac Committee of the Whole meeting last week in Sydenham.

Under the proposal, submitted by Robert Bernard, a road would be created off Loughborough-Portland Boundary Road, which would then provide access for three new lots to be created.

An additional proposal would create a second road, which would service three additional lots on the other side of Loughborough-Portland Boundary Road. Both new roads would be just north of Rutledge Road.

"This road, if dedicated to and assumed by the Township, would enable the owner of the 32-acre land to create three new residential lots (2 acres in size each) that would front on the road," said Planner Lindsay Mills in a report to Council. "The road would be about 233 metres (764 feet) in length and would terminate in a cul-de-sac to allow maintenance vehicles to maneouvre.

"Mr. Bernard also proposes that, at some point in the future, the road would be extended through the retained portion to link with Rutledge Road and additional lots would be created along it through a plan of subdivision."

Coun. Cam Naish seemed in favour of the idea and suggested expanding the policy.

"Should we not come up with something that says if a lane is brought up to Township standards we will assume it?" he said.

But Coun. Ron Vandewal pointed out that South Frontenac already has a policy for assuming roads that involves subdivisions and he wasn't in favour of this new wrinkle.

"The original 'township standards' aspect comes up for subdivisions, not for three houses," Vandewal said. "I don't like this piecemeal approach.

"I'd rather see a subdivision."

However, in his report, Mills said that this sort of development "has some merit from a planning perspective" because it is not possible to create any new parcels that front onto Rutledge Road due to policies relating to former County roads which require a minimum spacing of driveways onto such highly-traveled roads.

"If the hamlet (Sydenham) boundary is extended in the future to include the subject land (and water service is also extended) then the future development scenario is feasible especially when considering that other lands in proximity along Rutledge Road have undergone commercial and residential development," he said.