Stacked townhouses not approved: Carleton Place Council’s decision on Comrie Hills
LAURIE WEIR
Carleton Place council denied a request to amend the town’s planning policies to allow stacked townhouses in a new development during a committee of the whole meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 18.
The application sought to amend the Development Permit Areas of the lands that are part of Inverness Homes’ Comrie Hills subdivision.
The subdivision application is proposed to include 26 semi-detached dwellings, 42 three-unit townhomes, 20 four-unit townhomes, and 168 stacked townhomes, for a total of 256 residential units. The proposal also includes the dedication of a parkland block, two walkway blocks, five road widening blocks, two new municipal streets, a stormwater management pond and a utilities block. The subdivision would result in the construction of both new and existing Carleton and Lanark streets road allowances complete with sidewalks, water, sanitary and storm services. It would cover a total of 15.22 acres.
Mayor Toby Randell said the issue was not the type of housing being proposed but whether council should amend its guiding documents to permit a built form previously deemed unsuitable for the area.
“This is not about what comes next,” Randell said. “It’s about what’s on the agenda right now—whether we want to amend our current guiding documents to allow something that we don’t currently allow. Two councils have unanimously agreed on how we want Carleton Place to be built out.”
Robin Daigle, representing the developer, defended the proposal, stating that a stacked townhouse design met the definition of an apartment building when the application was first submitted. However, town staff did not share that interpretation, leading to the request for an amendment.
“We felt that a stacked townhome met the definition of an apartment building,” Daigle said. “The only difference is that stacked townhomes offer direct exterior access to the units, while apartment buildings have a common corridor. Is that a big enough difference to warrant this level of pushback?”
Randell questioned why the developer had not initially presented a plan that adhered to the town’s existing policies.
“You’re saying that 10 council members—some of whom were here when you worked for the town—who have gone through a process to determine what’s best for this community, are making the wrong decision?” Randell asked. “We have approved multiple high-density developments that meet our guiding documents, so why are you trying to go around that?”
Daigle cited positive feedback received in earlier stages of the planning process and argued that the new Official Plan lists stacked townhomes as an approved use for high-density areas.
“We’re not trying to slip anything under the rug,” Daigle said. “We’ve been very upfront about what we’re proposing, and we understood that it met the town’s goals.”
Deputy Mayor Andrew Tennant moved to deny the application, stating, “I hope Inverness comes back with something else, including high density. I really like Boyd Street. I’m hoping we can work with them. I don’t think this is a fit.”
The motion to deny the application was approved, with only Coun. Jeff Atkinson opposed.
