We are pleased to announce that due to an increased interest in participation from Chelsea residents, we have launched a new, more comprehensive website and blog. This new site has been designed to allow for discussions of the various aspects of our project in more specific detail while offering an overview of the progress of the project as a whole. You will also find links to relevant documents and updates on the approval process.
We will be keeping this older site operational for the time being to allow visitors to refer back to materials not present on the new site, but there will be no further updates to this blog. All future discussion will take place on the new site.
Please visit the new site at www.thecommonground.ca and participate in this important discussion about the future of our community.
Sincerely,
Sean, Maurice, Carrie
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Amendment filed with Municipality
On October 20, 2008 we filed an application with the Municipality to provide the village of Old Chelsea with an organic teaching farm, housing for seniors and a variety of income levels, small-scale retail/commercial outlets, a comprehensive network of parks and trails, more than 50 acres of green space and the preservation of the rural/agricultural gateway to Chelsea.
As more than a year has now passed without an official response from the Municipality we have begun looking at other options to allow us to stay true to our business plan. This past week we opted to sell development rights to the field south of the Chelsea Creek bordering on Link Rd. For the time being, this will allow us to focus our efforts on gaining municipal approval for our plans on the main portion of the Hendrick Farm and retain all of the elements of our initial application.
We have received every indication that the newly-elected Council is keen to consider your/our proposals and now that the referenda and elections are over Municipal staff are in a much better position to focus on a positive vision for the future of Old Chelsea.
Below is a copy of our latest application and the cover letter from our lawyer informing the Municipality of our amended plans.
As usual, we look forward to your comments and suggestions.
As more than a year has now passed without an official response from the Municipality we have begun looking at other options to allow us to stay true to our business plan. This past week we opted to sell development rights to the field south of the Chelsea Creek bordering on Link Rd. For the time being, this will allow us to focus our efforts on gaining municipal approval for our plans on the main portion of the Hendrick Farm and retain all of the elements of our initial application.
We have received every indication that the newly-elected Council is keen to consider your/our proposals and now that the referenda and elections are over Municipal staff are in a much better position to focus on a positive vision for the future of Old Chelsea.
Below is a copy of our latest application and the cover letter from our lawyer informing the Municipality of our amended plans.
As usual, we look forward to your comments and suggestions.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Comments from a Neighbour
"Mr. McAdam:
Questions have been asked for at least the past year and a half about reported water shortages in Old Chelsea and the admitted fact that the Spa and its adjoining restaurant have to use trucked water. My house is on the acquifer that serves Vince Hendrick's farm.
Chelsea's Director General has advised us that the Muncipality has no role in assuring that residents continue to have sufficient water, and has advised that we would have to hire lawyers to challenge a developer if our wells run dry. If our wells run dry our houses will be practically worthless, and I wonder where we would find a couple of hundred thousand dollars to hire lawyers.
So there is evidence that the Old Chelsea section of the acquifer that serves Vince Hendrick's farm is already over-subscribed.
You previously proposed drawing water from Chelsea Creek to supply houses. This indicates that you also are not confident there is sufficient water in the acquifer to supply your proposed development.
The Golder report, on which Chelsea's current zoning is based, recommends minimum lots sizes of 1 to 1.5 acres per dwelling in the area of Vince Hendrick's farm, subject to an independent professionaL hydrogeological study FOR each area where development is proposed. This has not been done for the Hendrick farm. The acquifer is very uneven, and neither you nor anyone else knows for sure how much water is available under Vince's farm.
Bringing in municipal water, as the business-oriented Chelsea Centre study group proposes, would be a catastrophe for residents but a bonanza for you, because 40-foot lots would become inevitable. I am one of those crazy radical people who believes that the interests of one developer and a few businesses should not take precedence over the interests of hundreds or thousands of residents. You may call that unfair. We call it democracy.
The outgoing Council did not hesitate to vote unanimously for Chelsea Creek, although the proposed density was almost three times what the underground water will support. This shows us the the previous Council was completely detached from reality.
We agree that as a businessman, you have a right to exploit a business opportunity. All we are saying is that you have no right to do it at huge expense to existing residents, as the previous Council was prepared to let happen.
The previous Council left a terrible legacy of mistrust. Water is of such hugely great importance that guessing about how much there is will not do. We need a lot more independent verificable information before we can be sure that our homes are safe. Then we will be interested to see how good your design is.
Doug Griffin
15 Birch
819-827-0193"
Dear Mr. Griffin:
Thank you for taking the time to write. With the exception of the need for the clarification of some facts, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. You are absolutely right that we “have no right to... [develop] at huge expense to existing residents...” and that, “the interests of one developer and a few businesses should not... take precedence over the interests of hundreds or thousands of residents”.
As you know, my partners and I have spent more than two years talking to Chelsea residents about our plans for the Hendrick Farm and have arrived at the conclusions we have as a result. One of these conclusions is on the question of how we provide water to our project. You correctly point out that we propose to draw water from the Chelsea Creek that runs through the farm. You incorrectly state, however, that “(t)his indicates that [we] are not confident there is sufficient water in the acquifer to supply your proposed development.” We do not know any more than you do whether the acquifer under the Hendrick Farm is plentiful enough to supply our project. We simply looked at the resources readily available to us and concluded that drawing and treating the available surface water will more than easily supply the water requirements of our project without in any way affecting neighbouring wells.
Environment Quebec has given us permission to draw 1.7 per cent of the "drought flow" - a measurement taken when water levels are low - for drinking and household water. The province allows up to 20 per cent of drought flow to be taken from rivers and creeks. 1.7% of drought flow would be enough to supply more than 150 households yet we are proposing only 110.
We are not now and have never proposed that Municipal water be drawn from the Gatineau River to supply our project or anyone else’s. And we are most certainly not suggesting that we have concerns about the acquifer under the Hendrick farm. We are simply proposing a solution that would cost the Municipality and tax payers nothing and would not in any way impact neighbouring wells.
You raise another point that I think is worthy of wider discussion. We are able to propose 110 units on 110 acres for two reasons: First we are assuming that the Municipality will not impose a litany of expensive hurdles during the approval process and, second, we are assuming that our project will get a green light in a reasonable period of time.
Our first assumption is contingent on NOT having to provide unnecessary studies like the hydro-geological engineering work that you propose (and is not required when drawing surface water). Studies of this sort cost in the vicinity of $300,000 and obviously have to be off-set by the addition of units to the project. The nearby Chelsea Creek development - by virtue of what is being proposed - has likely had to spend more than a million dollars on studies justifying their project. We hope to keep the number of units low by keeping costs low. All aspects of our conservation development have been conceived with a view to promoting long-term sustainability and minimizing environmental impact not only because we believe that this is the right thing to do but because it also allows us to keep our costs low.
While we remain hopeful, our second assumption is seeming increasingly foolhardy. By coincidence today marks the 1 year anniversary of us filing our project plans with the Municipality of Chelsea. We have yet to have received much more than fleeting consideration by the Municipality. Our hope is that the new Council and Mayor will quickly seize our file as an opportunity to appropriately define the gateway to Chelsea (an agricultural, rural village setting) before the passage of time makes it next to impossible for us to maintain our current plans.
We would certainly appreciate your intervention in ensuring that we are able to keep the number of units low by convincing the powers that be that unnecessary studies and long delays are the biggest threat to preventing unbridled development and density.
All the best,
Sean
Questions have been asked for at least the past year and a half about reported water shortages in Old Chelsea and the admitted fact that the Spa and its adjoining restaurant have to use trucked water. My house is on the acquifer that serves Vince Hendrick's farm.
Chelsea's Director General has advised us that the Muncipality has no role in assuring that residents continue to have sufficient water, and has advised that we would have to hire lawyers to challenge a developer if our wells run dry. If our wells run dry our houses will be practically worthless, and I wonder where we would find a couple of hundred thousand dollars to hire lawyers.
So there is evidence that the Old Chelsea section of the acquifer that serves Vince Hendrick's farm is already over-subscribed.
You previously proposed drawing water from Chelsea Creek to supply houses. This indicates that you also are not confident there is sufficient water in the acquifer to supply your proposed development.
The Golder report, on which Chelsea's current zoning is based, recommends minimum lots sizes of 1 to 1.5 acres per dwelling in the area of Vince Hendrick's farm, subject to an independent professionaL hydrogeological study FOR each area where development is proposed. This has not been done for the Hendrick farm. The acquifer is very uneven, and neither you nor anyone else knows for sure how much water is available under Vince's farm.
Bringing in municipal water, as the business-oriented Chelsea Centre study group proposes, would be a catastrophe for residents but a bonanza for you, because 40-foot lots would become inevitable. I am one of those crazy radical people who believes that the interests of one developer and a few businesses should not take precedence over the interests of hundreds or thousands of residents. You may call that unfair. We call it democracy.
The outgoing Council did not hesitate to vote unanimously for Chelsea Creek, although the proposed density was almost three times what the underground water will support. This shows us the the previous Council was completely detached from reality.
We agree that as a businessman, you have a right to exploit a business opportunity. All we are saying is that you have no right to do it at huge expense to existing residents, as the previous Council was prepared to let happen.
The previous Council left a terrible legacy of mistrust. Water is of such hugely great importance that guessing about how much there is will not do. We need a lot more independent verificable information before we can be sure that our homes are safe. Then we will be interested to see how good your design is.
Doug Griffin
15 Birch
819-827-0193"
Dear Mr. Griffin:
Thank you for taking the time to write. With the exception of the need for the clarification of some facts, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. You are absolutely right that we “have no right to... [develop] at huge expense to existing residents...” and that, “the interests of one developer and a few businesses should not... take precedence over the interests of hundreds or thousands of residents”.
As you know, my partners and I have spent more than two years talking to Chelsea residents about our plans for the Hendrick Farm and have arrived at the conclusions we have as a result. One of these conclusions is on the question of how we provide water to our project. You correctly point out that we propose to draw water from the Chelsea Creek that runs through the farm. You incorrectly state, however, that “(t)his indicates that [we] are not confident there is sufficient water in the acquifer to supply your proposed development.” We do not know any more than you do whether the acquifer under the Hendrick Farm is plentiful enough to supply our project. We simply looked at the resources readily available to us and concluded that drawing and treating the available surface water will more than easily supply the water requirements of our project without in any way affecting neighbouring wells.
Environment Quebec has given us permission to draw 1.7 per cent of the "drought flow" - a measurement taken when water levels are low - for drinking and household water. The province allows up to 20 per cent of drought flow to be taken from rivers and creeks. 1.7% of drought flow would be enough to supply more than 150 households yet we are proposing only 110.
We are not now and have never proposed that Municipal water be drawn from the Gatineau River to supply our project or anyone else’s. And we are most certainly not suggesting that we have concerns about the acquifer under the Hendrick farm. We are simply proposing a solution that would cost the Municipality and tax payers nothing and would not in any way impact neighbouring wells.
You raise another point that I think is worthy of wider discussion. We are able to propose 110 units on 110 acres for two reasons: First we are assuming that the Municipality will not impose a litany of expensive hurdles during the approval process and, second, we are assuming that our project will get a green light in a reasonable period of time.
Our first assumption is contingent on NOT having to provide unnecessary studies like the hydro-geological engineering work that you propose (and is not required when drawing surface water). Studies of this sort cost in the vicinity of $300,000 and obviously have to be off-set by the addition of units to the project. The nearby Chelsea Creek development - by virtue of what is being proposed - has likely had to spend more than a million dollars on studies justifying their project. We hope to keep the number of units low by keeping costs low. All aspects of our conservation development have been conceived with a view to promoting long-term sustainability and minimizing environmental impact not only because we believe that this is the right thing to do but because it also allows us to keep our costs low.
While we remain hopeful, our second assumption is seeming increasingly foolhardy. By coincidence today marks the 1 year anniversary of us filing our project plans with the Municipality of Chelsea. We have yet to have received much more than fleeting consideration by the Municipality. Our hope is that the new Council and Mayor will quickly seize our file as an opportunity to appropriately define the gateway to Chelsea (an agricultural, rural village setting) before the passage of time makes it next to impossible for us to maintain our current plans.
We would certainly appreciate your intervention in ensuring that we are able to keep the number of units low by convincing the powers that be that unnecessary studies and long delays are the biggest threat to preventing unbridled development and density.
All the best,
Sean
Anniversary of filing with Municipality
Today marks the one year anniversary of us filing our project plans with the Municipality of Chelsea. We look forward to the upcoming Municipal election and hope that we will be given the green light in time for the planting season this spring.
Sean
Here is a reminder of what we said one year ago:
"Plans now officially filed" http://chelseamatters.blogspot.com/2008/10/plans-now-officially-filed.html
As you know, for nearly a year now we have been consulting Chelsea residents about our plans to develop the Hendrick Farm west of Hwy 5, south of Old Chelsea Rd. We have held numerous public meetings and have been fortunate to have gained a significant amount of input through the meetings as well as this blog. As a result of these consultations, We are pleased to announce that on October 20, 2008 we submitted the official development application to the Municipality of Chelsea
In summary we are proposing the following:
•110 units on 110 acres.
•Approximately 56 acres of green/agricultural space.
•An extension of the commercial enterprises in the current village of Old Chelsea that would include outlets such as a wellness centre, restaurants and fitness related retail.
•An open air market with ample parking.
•An organic farm/community garden.
•Community ski/walking trails.
•A potential connection to the Gatineau Park.
•Mixed residential housing.
•Co-operative housing for seniors, farmers and young families.
•An innovative water purification and distribution system using surface water gathered from the creek that runs through the farm.
We are also still actively pursuing the possibility of a horse farm on site.
We strongly believe that this development will greatly enhance the character of Old Chelsea Village, preserve the rural heritage and character of Chelsea, and fortify the distinction between our village and the City of Gatineau. Furthermore, our plan is entirely consistent with the spirit and letter of the Master Plan.
We are still very interested in gathering as much input as possible about these plans. There is still lots of opportunity to make changes to our proposals, so please stay engaged and let us know what you think.
Thanks,
Sean, Maurice, Carrie
Sean
Here is a reminder of what we said one year ago:
"Plans now officially filed" http://chelseamatters.blogspot.com/2008/10/plans-now-officially-filed.html
As you know, for nearly a year now we have been consulting Chelsea residents about our plans to develop the Hendrick Farm west of Hwy 5, south of Old Chelsea Rd. We have held numerous public meetings and have been fortunate to have gained a significant amount of input through the meetings as well as this blog. As a result of these consultations, We are pleased to announce that on October 20, 2008 we submitted the official development application to the Municipality of Chelsea
In summary we are proposing the following:
•110 units on 110 acres.
•Approximately 56 acres of green/agricultural space.
•An extension of the commercial enterprises in the current village of Old Chelsea that would include outlets such as a wellness centre, restaurants and fitness related retail.
•An open air market with ample parking.
•An organic farm/community garden.
•Community ski/walking trails.
•A potential connection to the Gatineau Park.
•Mixed residential housing.
•Co-operative housing for seniors, farmers and young families.
•An innovative water purification and distribution system using surface water gathered from the creek that runs through the farm.
We are also still actively pursuing the possibility of a horse farm on site.
We strongly believe that this development will greatly enhance the character of Old Chelsea Village, preserve the rural heritage and character of Chelsea, and fortify the distinction between our village and the City of Gatineau. Furthermore, our plan is entirely consistent with the spirit and letter of the Master Plan.
We are still very interested in gathering as much input as possible about these plans. There is still lots of opportunity to make changes to our proposals, so please stay engaged and let us know what you think.
Thanks,
Sean, Maurice, Carrie
Monday, October 19, 2009
Municipal Election - Get Involved
Dear Neighbour,
I am writing to encourage you to participate in an important community forum. This week, as part of the Municipal election process, the Chelsea Chamber of Commerce is hosting a public discussion and question period with all of our candidates for Mayor and Council. This event will offer an excellent opportunity for Chelsea residents to meet, question and hear from our local candidates about their vision for Chelsea. (Click on PDF for more details.)
Cher voisin,
Je vous invite à participer à un forum communautaire important. Cette semaine, dans le cadre des élections municipales, la Chambre de Commerce de Chelsea invite tous nos candidats pour la Mairie et le Conseil Municipal à une discussion publique, suivi d’une période de questions. Cet évènement constitue une excellente opportunité pour tous les résidents de Chelsea d’échanger avec nos candidats locaux et mieux connaître leur vision pour notre communauté. (Voyez attaché)
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Thoughts From a Chelsea Based Architect
"Thanks for taking this pro-active approach in seeking comments, suggestions from the local community for your next great development plan. I hope the Chelsea takes advantage of this opportunity during the planning stages of the project to allow you to create a truly “Common Ground” development proposal. I have been meaning for sometime to offer you my thoughts.
1. I fully support the idea of a mixed use development which incorporates housing (in various types), retail/commercial, and agricultural operations. Developing the Hendrick property with only “estate housing” would be a great loss to Chelsea’s future potential.
2. You should resist the “suburban” plan of spreading housing over the entire site or plotting single homes strung along a series of roads across the open landscape. I would strongly suggest higher density housing in selective areas of the site. By grouping a series of single family homes, into a neighborhood, possibly centered on the idea of common organic gardens or park areas you would expand the area which could be left untouched and open for commercial farming, recreation, etc. I have travelled to several “planned communities” where homes are oriented towards common elements such as parks, playing fields, gardens, skating rinks, and walking trails, apposed to fronting onto car oriented streets. The grouping of homes into these blocks reinforces the idea of “community”. People use the comment elements because they take ownership for it, its right outside their front door.
3. The open nature of the Hendrick land will require strict controls on the architecture. The success of your development will be shaped by the initial planning, but also by what is actually built. The typical “front design elevation” house will look lost on this pasture landscape. Buildings and Houses will be viewed from all sides in this development. Equal thought needs to be applied to all views of the buildings, there is no rear elevation. There should be controls on the style of housing permitted and the practice of repeating the same house design over and over banned.(see Chelsea Park!!) Rural style architecture should be promoted both in architectural character, materials, and size. Quality over Quantity
4. Your development has an opportunity to create an “urban” edge along Old Chelsea road in keeping with a country town. Stores or shops with fronts along a landscaped pedestrian corridor not backed off the road behind a parking lot.
5. Your plan for trails and pathways should be put in place as part of the development, in Chelsea Park we are still waiting for the Municipality to construct the network of paths indicated in your development plan. It would be great if these ideas are actually acted upon.
I trust you will find these comments helpful
Regards,
Doug Brooks, D.A.T., LEED AP, Associate Barry Hobin Architects
(Chelsea Park Resident)"
1. I fully support the idea of a mixed use development which incorporates housing (in various types), retail/commercial, and agricultural operations. Developing the Hendrick property with only “estate housing” would be a great loss to Chelsea’s future potential.
2. You should resist the “suburban” plan of spreading housing over the entire site or plotting single homes strung along a series of roads across the open landscape. I would strongly suggest higher density housing in selective areas of the site. By grouping a series of single family homes, into a neighborhood, possibly centered on the idea of common organic gardens or park areas you would expand the area which could be left untouched and open for commercial farming, recreation, etc. I have travelled to several “planned communities” where homes are oriented towards common elements such as parks, playing fields, gardens, skating rinks, and walking trails, apposed to fronting onto car oriented streets. The grouping of homes into these blocks reinforces the idea of “community”. People use the comment elements because they take ownership for it, its right outside their front door.
3. The open nature of the Hendrick land will require strict controls on the architecture. The success of your development will be shaped by the initial planning, but also by what is actually built. The typical “front design elevation” house will look lost on this pasture landscape. Buildings and Houses will be viewed from all sides in this development. Equal thought needs to be applied to all views of the buildings, there is no rear elevation. There should be controls on the style of housing permitted and the practice of repeating the same house design over and over banned.(see Chelsea Park!!) Rural style architecture should be promoted both in architectural character, materials, and size. Quality over Quantity
4. Your development has an opportunity to create an “urban” edge along Old Chelsea road in keeping with a country town. Stores or shops with fronts along a landscaped pedestrian corridor not backed off the road behind a parking lot.
5. Your plan for trails and pathways should be put in place as part of the development, in Chelsea Park we are still waiting for the Municipality to construct the network of paths indicated in your development plan. It would be great if these ideas are actually acted upon.
I trust you will find these comments helpful
Regards,
Doug Brooks, D.A.T., LEED AP, Associate Barry Hobin Architects
(Chelsea Park Resident)"
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Canadian Organic Growers finds 'Common Ground' in Chelsea
For immediate release December 23, 2008
Project wins initial support from Agriculture Canada
Chelsea – Local community developer Sean McAdam and Canadian Organic Growers (COG) announced today that they are joining forces with local farmers to explore ways to develop an organic farm as the centerpiece of the newly minted ‘Common Ground’ project in the heart of historic Old Chelsea village. McAdam and COG also announced that the project has garnered initial support from Agriculture Canada’s ‘Agricultural Co-operative Development Initiative’. Preliminary plans are under way for a 25-acre organic farm with an adjacent farmers’ market to be established on Common Ground – the site of the current Hendrick Farm on Old Chelsea Rd., west of Highway 5.
“Maintaining the agricultural heritage of the farm has been central to our project. We are extremely happy to acknowledge the support of COG and the Agricultural Co-operative Development Initiative in allowing to help make organic farming and locally grown food available in Chelsea,” said McAdam.
“This project is generating a lot of excitement in the community: people love the idea of seeing young farmers working the land, being able to buy fresh organic produce in their community and being part of growing the local organic food movement,” added McAdam.
Canadian Organic Growers is a national charitable organization with members in all regions of Canada. COG's membership is diverse and includes farmers, educators, policy-makers, and consumers. Their members believe that organic food production is the best choice for the health of consumers and producers, for the protection and enhancement of the environment, as well as the sustainability of the food production system.
“We are very excited about our role in the Common Ground project in Chelsea and look forward to developing the full educational and agricultural potential of this land. We hope this project can be the catalyst for growing a new generation of organic farmers,” said Laura Telford, Executive Director of Canadian Organic Growers.
The Common Ground project is in the process of seeking approval from the Municipality of Chelsea for its plans for mixed-use agricultural/commercial activities, as well as rural residential and co-op housing for seniors and young families. The project is 110 acres in total - 36 acres of which will be preserved for green space and 25 acres for farming. Of the 110 planned units, 27 are slated for co-operative housing. The project is still actively seeking community input. If successful, the farm initiative would be led by a newly formed co-op: the Coopérative de Solidarité des Produits Agricoles Biologiques de la Vallée de la Gatineau.
-30-
Project wins initial support from Agriculture Canada
Chelsea – Local community developer Sean McAdam and Canadian Organic Growers (COG) announced today that they are joining forces with local farmers to explore ways to develop an organic farm as the centerpiece of the newly minted ‘Common Ground’ project in the heart of historic Old Chelsea village. McAdam and COG also announced that the project has garnered initial support from Agriculture Canada’s ‘Agricultural Co-operative Development Initiative’. Preliminary plans are under way for a 25-acre organic farm with an adjacent farmers’ market to be established on Common Ground – the site of the current Hendrick Farm on Old Chelsea Rd., west of Highway 5.
“Maintaining the agricultural heritage of the farm has been central to our project. We are extremely happy to acknowledge the support of COG and the Agricultural Co-operative Development Initiative in allowing to help make organic farming and locally grown food available in Chelsea,” said McAdam.
“This project is generating a lot of excitement in the community: people love the idea of seeing young farmers working the land, being able to buy fresh organic produce in their community and being part of growing the local organic food movement,” added McAdam.
Canadian Organic Growers is a national charitable organization with members in all regions of Canada. COG's membership is diverse and includes farmers, educators, policy-makers, and consumers. Their members believe that organic food production is the best choice for the health of consumers and producers, for the protection and enhancement of the environment, as well as the sustainability of the food production system.
“We are very excited about our role in the Common Ground project in Chelsea and look forward to developing the full educational and agricultural potential of this land. We hope this project can be the catalyst for growing a new generation of organic farmers,” said Laura Telford, Executive Director of Canadian Organic Growers.
The Common Ground project is in the process of seeking approval from the Municipality of Chelsea for its plans for mixed-use agricultural/commercial activities, as well as rural residential and co-op housing for seniors and young families. The project is 110 acres in total - 36 acres of which will be preserved for green space and 25 acres for farming. Of the 110 planned units, 27 are slated for co-operative housing. The project is still actively seeking community input. If successful, the farm initiative would be led by a newly formed co-op: the Coopérative de Solidarité des Produits Agricoles Biologiques de la Vallée de la Gatineau.
-30-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
