Sunrise Ridge residents came prepared to oppose the proposed next phase of their neighbourhood’s development during Monday’s planning committee meeting of city council.
It was an unusual meeting, with area residents spending a couple of hours taking turns reading from a 120-page PowerPoint presentation, maximizing each of their 10-minute time limits.
At issue is developer SalDan Construction Group’s proposal to build three nine-storey residential buildings with 108 one- and two-bedroom units each.
The buildings would be located at the ends of North Field Crescent, Fieldstone Drive and Kingsview Drive, which stem from Sunrise Ridge Drive at the top of a hill to the northeast of Downtown Sudbury.
Residents’ opposition centred on traffic concerns, the buildings’ height and the potential impacts on water pressure.
There was also some frustration over the fact the next phase of the draft-approved subdivision consists of 66 residential lots, which area residents said they were led to believe would be built, and not three mid-rise apartment buildings.
Neighbours planned Monday’s extensive presentation during a closed meeting preceding a presentation by SalDal Construction Group president Sam Biasucci on March 1.
On Monday, Biasucci described his meeting with area residents as a constructive one.
“Some good comments came from it,” he said. “We’ll be working and probably implementing some of those suggestions that will enhance our plans.”
One of these ideas, he said, is to flip the proposed location of buildings with parking lots, so parking lots are in front of the buildings and next to existing homes, which would mitigate some of area residents’ concerns regarding the tall structures, including shadows and privacy.
Another idea is to loop an interior service road between the three buildings so people delivering services have easier access and don’t need to drive down as many area residential roads.
Biasucci said his goal would be to build all three mid-rise buildings at the same time, and for 36 units in each building to be classified as “affordable.”
As for concerns regarding flood impacts downstream, such as the 2009 flood incident for which a previous phase of the Sunrise Ridge Estates development played a role, Biasucci said stormwater controls have improved.
“There’s no question there, we’ll work with engineering and our engineers. We don’t intend to skimp on any of that,” he said.
These details will come out during the second of two public hearings.
A date has not been set for the second hearing, with city senior planner Bailey Chabot clarifying it will depend on how fast the developer is in sharing information with the city.
City staff made no recommendations during Monday’s meeting, with its corresponding successful motion calling on staff to further investigate the proposal in preparation for the second public hearing, at which a decision is expected.
While many of the residents who presented as part of the 120-page PowerPoint document spoke in opposition to the development, local biologist Dr. Peter Beckett provided broader comments.
He highlighted the city’s regreening efforts, which have included the hill on which Sunrise Ridge Estates now stands. In that area, approximately 10,000 white pine and 5,000 white spruce trees have been planted alongside grasses and legumes.
“In terms of the development, it would seem to me that whatever happened, as much vegetation as possible should be retained in that area to minimize the effect of the loss of the regreening program on the surrounding areas,” Beckett said.
During their extensive presentation which lasted almost two hours, area residents expressed various points of concern.
In addition to concerns regarding impacts to their own properties and neighbourhood, some residents questioned whether this is the right location for so many residential units.
There’s one road in and out of the neighbourhood, with Biasucci stating that the development of another access point would be difficult if not impossible to build due to the landscape.
Although Chabot’s report notes the area is serviced by transit approximately 975 to 1,100 metres from the proposed mid-rises (or 425 metres during certain times of the year), residents would have to walk up Sunrise Ridge Drive’s steep incline to get to their residential units.
“It’s not appropriate for a senior,” area resident Meghan Forestell told the committee.
Biasucci said his intention is to market the units toward older adults, and the inclusion of affordable units would make the development eligible for a 10-per-cent parking reduction in parking requirements.
“We aren’t here to block development,” 10-year area resident Steve McNeil told the committee. “We are actually the opposite of that. We want to see development. We bought and built in that community ... on the plan, and the plan has always been to grow a very, very prosperous community up there.”
The 66 lots of residential land already included in the draft plan is “a pretty significant objective to be met to meet a lot of significant goals,” he said.
For his part, Biasucci said developing the land following the original plan is no longer financially viable, with skyrocketing costs to development pricing out too many people.
Although Chabot said the timeline for a second public hearing will depend on the developer, the report she tabled Monday indicates that if all goes according to schedule a hearing should take place this summer. At this meeting, staff will provide a recommendation and committee members will make a decision, to be ratified by city council as a whole.
Written submissions from the public will continue to be accepted, and Cormier assured Monday’s audience that adequate notice will be given, assisted by Ward 12 Coun. Joscelyne Landry-Altmann.
Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.
