Cambridge rejects large housing development proposal

CTV’s Jeff Pickel learns why Cambridge councillors are raising concerns with plans for a large area of farmland.

An application for a large housing development in Cambridge has been rejected by city council.

The proposal by Cachet Homes, Greybrook Realty and Mattamy Homes centred on roughly 500 acres between Hespeler Road and Chilligo Road. Most of that land is farmland. The plan was to built up to 3,800 homes for 11,000 people.

However, city staff recommended council turn down the application because it was missing several key studies and other important information, such as a demonstration of transportation requirements, water and wastewater capacity requirements and a subwatershed study.

A representative for the developers said city staff were unwilling to consider their application.

“We’ve attempted to meet with staff on numerous occasions, both before and after submitting our application,” Matthew Cory, a principal with Malone Givin Parsons, said during a Cambridge Council meeting on Tuesday.

Cory said much of the consultation and detailed planning work would only be done if the project was given approval.

“If you’re cut off from being able to do the consultation, it’s pretty much a fait accompli that you’re not going to be able to achieve all the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act,” he said.

City staff denied the allegation, and said they requested the application be pulled and resubmitted when the city has completed its land use assessment.

Meanwhile, Mayor Jan Liggett appeared offended by the accusation leveled at city staff.

“I believe our staff because we have worked with them, we know they don’t lie. I think it’s terrible that our staff have to sit there and listen to that,” she said.

Ontario Land Tribunal

Despite council’s rejection, the developers may not yet be out of options.

If a proposal is rejected by a municipal government, developers may appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT).

The developers said they hope to work with the city and the community before further considering that option.

City staff have asked the developers to pull their application to remove the OLT option, but the applicant said doing so would be expensive, and they do not intend to do so.

Liggett said, despite the developer’s assertions that they don’t want to approach the OLT, she doesn’t believe them.

“The only way that it could not go to the OLT is if they removed their application and they collaborated properly, the way we have been expecting them to do. They are saying they are not willing to do that, so that tells you the mindset already.”