The following is the presentation by ACO Collingwood president Margaret Mooy made to the December 5th public meeting. As discussed in an earlier post, the meeting was called to amend “the Heritage Conservation District Plan to permit the construction of the proposed six (6) storey mixed-use building at the north-east corner of Hume Street and Hurontario Street and to permit the construction of the proposed four (4) storey mixed-use building at the north-west corner of Hume Street and Ste. Marie Street.”
I would like to reiterate, that everyone wants something developed on the two sites under discussion tonight. Some say just build anything. “Get it done!” The Architectural Conservancy wants the development to be the very best it could possibly be. So, I stand before you once again. I am beginning to feel like we are on an ever-turning merry-go-round. This council seems bound and determined to promote and to facilitate this project regardless of Official Plans, Zoning By-laws, Heritage By-laws and Provincial Policy. This council is also using our tax dollars to act as the developer’s agent, incurring mounting legal fees, not to mention staff time and effort. An important note to remember is that, because the town is acting on behalf of the developer, we, the tax payers will pay for defending a potential Ontario Municipal Board appeal.
Today, we are discussing site specific amendments to circumvent what is clearly outlined and clearly defined in our Heritage By-law. Now keep in mind, that we have had an initial public meeting in October. This was held to increase permitted density and to waive Section 37 payments. These official plan and zoning amendments were not passed. Also keep in mind, this same council initiated notices of motions to remove the site from the Heritage District. A petition that opposed this move garnered wide support of our Heritage District and was recognized locally, provincially, nationally and internationally and thereby discouraged that method of facilitating the developer. Notices of motion were withdrawn. Now, in an attempt to try yet another tactic of making this development fit, we are having another public meeting. This public meeting seems to be a very rushed affair. Yes, the required notice was posted in the paper immediately after withdrawing the aforementioned notices of motions; however, the planning staff’s work on preparing a list of this development’s deficiencies according to general principles for new construction within the Heritage District, was only made available to the public upon request during the past week. A Heritage Consultant was recently hired, not to give an opinion on whether the proposed amendments should even be considered, but only to list site specific exemptions required to make the developments comply with the Heritage Act. This list was only made available this past Friday afternoon, only one business day ago. Talk about the 11th hour! The number of unacceptable architectural items stands at 14. The peer review, done by yet another Heritage Consultant will not be initiated until after this Public Meeting. This makes it very difficult for the public to weigh all the facts needed.
Some of the site specific amendments entail window and door treatments, appropriate building materials, store fronts and recessed entrances. In particular though, I would like to comment on the height and the massing amendments of the development. It is clearly stated in the Heritage By-law, that “height must be established based on surrounding context and streetscape analysis”. It also states “the massing within the determined height must reflect the traditional composition of two or three storeys, with
each storey aligned with, or complimentary to, the neighbouring buildings”.
Take a look at the image on the screen. 
Although this image does not yet show tonight’s proposal of Admiral’s Village, you can clearly see that even part of the proposed development is not complimentary to the neighboring buildings within the Heritage District. Contrary to what has been stated regarding no significantly heritage buildings south of Fourth Street and contrary to what has been stated tonight by the developer’s architect regarding no heritage context, I would like to point out the restored Ditson house that won a Heritage Recognition award from this council. There is also Elaine Dickinson’s building circa 1900 and two other brick houses, one, circa 1880 and the other circa 1900, next to the Dairy Queen which has also been renovated according to Heritage guidelines. There are also a large number of century two and three storey homes along Humes Street and along Ste. Marie Street.
The next image shows the town hall in perspective with the proposed 6 ½ storey building. 
You can easily see how our historically significant town hall loses all of its status in comparison to this immense mass. You can also envision the abutting proposed development, which has been presented tonight, about the same height as the roof line of the town hall.
Thirdly, we can see a perspective view of the proposed 6 ½ storey building in contrast to the height of the Federal Building, Loblaws, and several other Collingwood buildings. This proposed development dwarfs all of the other buildings in our Heritage District.
We have been told that these amendments are necessary for the developer to have a feasible, financially successful project. I argue that a 6 ½ storey building simply is a ways and means of increasing profit. You have seen tonight that a 3 storey building, with the set back of a fourth storey, is proposed on the neighbouring site. Would this developer be proposing a building of this height if it weren’t financially prudent to do so? Would Larry Dunn have built only a 3 storey office building? Previously, our mayor voted not to support the proposed Palmer Apartment building on St. Paul Street. This was planned as a 3 storey building. The reason given for not supporting this development was that it did not fit within the context of the neighborhood. Why now, does a 6 and ½ storey building fit within a 2 and 3 storey neighbourhood? Where is the equity?
As far as the massing of this complex, the large “L” shaped buildings occupy at least half of the street frontage on the block. What is acceptable in our heritage district is relatively narrow, two to three storey buildings occupying a fraction of the street frontage on a block. There seems to be no collaboration on the part of the developer of Admiral Collingwood, to lower the height of the building, nor to use “step backs” to a greater extent.
One argument for these massive, tall buildings from the point of view of the council is satisfying intensification, not sprawl. What isn’t explained with this argument is that intensification is meant to increase our urban green space. Where is the green space for the town that is provided by this development? There seems to be just poured concrete and brick.
Finally, I would like to suggest that our economy has not fully recovered. Will the increased number of proposed units even be sold? The first 6 storey proposal for this site did not sell well and all deposit moneys had to be returned. The Shipyards has stopped building and modified the height of their condominium building. Many stores on the main street are vacant, yet the developers are proposing more commercial space on his ground floor. Are we going through all this controversy simply to sit with a “brownfield” for another five years?
In conclusion, I would like the council to prove to be equitable to all builders in our town. I would like council to respect the Heritage Bylaws that were put in place to protect and to promote our Heritage District and designated properties. I would also like the council to be cognizant that you are using our tax dollars to facilitate this development.
