Going against a recommendation by City of Greater Sudbury planning staff, a unanimous planning committee of city council approved the development of seven new rural estate lots.
The committee’s unanimous decision was later ratified by a unanimous vote of city council.
During this week’s planning committee meeting, city senior planner Wendy Kaufman outlined various reasons to reject the proposal of seven rural residential lots on CKSO. Road, located east of Sudbury’s South End.
According to Kaufman’s report and comments during the meeting:
- There is no demonstrated need for rural lots, with a 2013 report indicating the city already had a 29-year supply of rural lots available under existing policies which the city has yet to expend.
- The use of partial water services for new rural development of this scale is not permitted within existing city policies (the lots are serviced with municipal water, but not sanitary sewers, meaning individual on-site septic systems will be used).
- Rural development is not cost-effective over the long term, with servicing costs to the municipality “typically higher in rural areas and less in urban areas.” As such, a broader pattern of rural development which this might set the precedent for “is not consistent with the need to sustain the financial well-being of the municipality over the long term.”
- Services are not available for residents of rural areas, with these lands not in close proximity to amenities or public services, reinforcing dependence on automobiles, which “does not foster the use of active transportation or transit.”
- Resources are used most wisely when development is directed to higher-density settlement areas. “Rural lot creation competes with development that could have occurred in the settlement area, weakening the urban structure, and reducing the cost-effectiveness of providing infrastructure and public services.”
Although “technically feasible,” Kaufman’s report advised against approval, as it does “not represent good planning.”
Following presentations, a public hearing at which no members of the public spoke up and a committee discussion, the city’s elected officials approved the development.
At the close of the meeting, chair (and Ward 10 Coun.) Fern Cormier concluded, “the application represents good planning.”
The motion to approve the application was championed by Ward 11 Coun. Bill Leduc and seconded by Ward 4 Coun. Pauline Fortin.
“I understand that we don’t want to continue the urban sprawl, but we’re already there,” Fortin said.
“There’s already homes there, we’re already cleaning the road, we’re already doing the garbage, and adding homes across the street seems to make sense to me. It does make it more feasible to clean the roads and upkeep if we have more homes there paying into the taxes.”
Following the vote, property owner Mario Simonato told Sudbury.com that “common sense prevailed.”
In addition to bringing in tax revenue and development charges, he credited the development with helping free up affordable housing within the city, which future residents will vacate to live in order to take residence in the new rural estate lots being created.
“Not everyone wants to live in a cookie-cutter side-by-side,” he said of smaller urban lots.
“It just doesn't make any sense to have one side of the road grow brush and trees, and one side of the road generate $60,000 per year in taxes,” said Dave Dorland, who served as a planning consultant for Simonato.
The seven new rural residential lots will be located on the east side of C.K.S.O. Road, east of Sudbury’s South End neighbourhood, stretching south from Goodview Road next to The Practice Tee driving range. The seven lots’ frontages will range from 40 to 50 metres, and they will be between 0.54 acres to 0.82 acres in size.
Simonato said he has two builders lined up who have expressed interest in developing the seven lots, including one who plans on breaking ground as quickly as possible.
Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.