A 179-unit housing development in the Minnow Lake neighbourhood has been approved following a more than four-hour discussion dominating Monday’s planning committee meeting.
A few-dozen community members came out to oppose the project during the marathon meeting at council chambers, which chair and Ward 5 Coun. Robert Kirwan said aided in their decision.
“We have to start listening to the people,” he said, adding that the development as proposed made sense from a technical perspective, but that it would have affected the “character” of the neighbourhood.
In the end, the committee opted to increase the parking requirement from one spot per unit to 1.25 and restrict building heights to being within 11 metres – approximately three storeys. The plan presented to Monday’s committee was proposed to include three five-storey builds.
“This has definitely brought our neighbourhood closer together, as all of us are united against this proposal,” area resident Tim Lee said during Monday’s public hearing, citing a public petition totalling almost 300 names as evidence of this sentiment.
During her presentation to city council, area resident Gertie Kitts, who has lived in the community for 51 years, said she is concerned about the presence of rental units in the neighbourhood. In the event of a neglectful landlord, she said it could become a “slum.”
With the development carrying proposed stormwater retention ponds, she also said she is afraid standing water might result in more mosquitos and therefore mosquito-borne diseases.
Area resident Raymonde Martin-Venne led a petition opposing the development in June, which she said approximately 98 per cent of people she encountered signed.
People are afraid of the development bringing increased traffic, parking issues, crime and needles, and that it would reduce property values.
“I’m afraid of what that build will bring,” she said, describing the neighbourhood as “tight-knit.”
“Would you be able to welcome this development into the neighbourhood, or do you feel that there would be some type of animosity going on?” Ward 11 Coun. Bill Leduc asked Martin-Venne.
“Yeah, I believe that,” she answered. “I would not welcome that into our neighbourhood at all.”
“Thank you,” Leduc answered. “I think that’s important because we do want to create a healthy community.”
Other concerns expressed by neighbours centered around sightlines, tall apartment buildings eliminating area residents’ sense of privacy and the loss of greenspace. This, despite the land in question being privately owned.
The development is slated to be located at the former site of École élémentaire catholique Saint-Rémi, which is largely enclosed by a line of single-family residential houses running along Rheal Street to the north, Bancroft Drive to the south, Levesque Street to the west and Estelle Street to the east.
The 179 units were originally expected to include three five-storey buildings – two at the centre of the property and one at the southeastern corner. Per city direction, the southeastern build was to be limited to 11 metres in height – approximately three storeys – within 50 metres of the property line. With Monday’s amendment, this height restriction will now apply to the entire development.
An additional 13 two-storey buildings ranging in units from two to 12 are expected to fill out the balance of the property, including a “mix of multiple, row and semi dwelling units.”
The density along the 6.12-hectare property is planned to be limited to 30 units per hectare, which is less than the 36-unit limit placed on low-density residential developments.
In addition to the proposed development consisting of fewer units than a low-density residential build, apartments typically generate less traffic than what you’d see from a single-family detached build development.
So described the applicant’s agent, Kevin Jarus of Tulloch Engineering, during Monday’s meeting. He cited an estimate of 73 added peak-hour trips during the morning and 90 peak-hour trips in the afternoon, which a traffic study deemed would have “minimal” impact on local streets.
“The road network can support those peak hours,” city traffic and asset management supervisor Joe Rocca said, noting that traffic flow outside of these two peak hours is expected to be less.
The housing development is proposed to charge fair market rent, Jarus said, clarifying it is not considered “affordable housing,” which by definition is at least 20 per cent below market rates.
“Generally, the market that is interested in this kind of development … are generally baby boomers and empty nesters who are looking to downsize from their existing larger dwellings into smaller dwellings,” he added.
Although the committee voted in favour of limiting building heights to 11 metres and increasing the required parking to 1.25 spots per unit from the one spot proposed, these decisions were not unanimous.
Both Ward 6 Coun. René Lapierre and Ward 4 Coun. Geoff McCausland voted against the height restriction, and both McCausland and Kirwan voted against increasing the number of parking spots.
Other municipalities have lesser parking requirements than Greater Sudbury, McCausland said, and additional parking spaces create more impervious land that will affect the Ramsey Lake Watershed, for which the development site is within Intake Protection Zone 3.
When it came time for the final vote to approve the project as amended, McCausland urged his colleagues to approve it.
“We do need to support this application,” he said. “I feel like we may approve it here today and see nothing come of it because we have restricted it clean out of existence.”
McCausland noted that various restrictions have already been required by the city, including greenspace setbacks, installing a sidewalk along a stretch of Estelle Street, building storm management ponds, conducting various studies and preparing reports for city approval.
“There are so many flaming hoops for housing in the world right now, and we just added a bunch of them,” McCausland said. “We know that housing supply is low, and prices for houses and rentals have been soaring. There are so many people looking for homes and so many businesses looking for people, we desperately need to get more people moving to town.
“The restrictions imposed on this development “don’t show that Greater Sudbury is open for business,” McCausland added.
Ward 12 Coun. Joscelyne Landry-Altmann countered that the committee “listened to the people that came here today,” and that their amendments will make the area better for the people who already live in the neighbourhood.
“The developer’s choosing to develop there because of the people that have lived there and have maintained their properties,” she said. “It’s become a desirable place to live.”
In the end, both Leduc and Kirwan voted against the proposal as amended.*
Although already voted on by the planning committee, the current city council will still need to ratify the decision with the associated bylaw amendments required to make it official during their final meeting as a group on Nov. 8. This will follow the Oct. 24 civic election.*
Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.
Edits: These lines have been edited to represent an accurate vote and which incarnation of city council will be voting on the matter on Nov. 8.
