On the evening of March 1, a fired-up group of neighbours faced SalDan Construction Group president Sam Biasucci, who attempted to cut through the tension by joking that he might not make it out in one piece.
At issue are three nine-storey residential buildings his company has proposed to take shape at the end of each of the cul-de-sacs which close off the streets at the end of Sunrise Ridge Drive.
Area residents had been expecting 66 single-unit dwellings in the development’s second phase, not three apartment buildings with 108 one- and two-bedroom units apiece.
“How can you justify moving forward with this?” one resident hollered at Biasucci, with others complaining that they felt duped. They expressed concern for their property values, traffic congestion, added noise and changes to the character of their neighbourhood.
Armed with print-outs of his company’s plans for the development, Biasucci presented project updates to Friday’s crowd, which was packed into a conference room at the Quality Inn downtown.
His company’s plan calls for 32 per cent of each building’s units to be classified as “affordable,” with rents paid for market units subsidizing their cost.
Affordable units would cost approximately $1,000 per month, and market units would rent for $3,000 to $3,500. Seventeen higher-end units would be in each building, which would be 1,375-square-feet in size and include two rooms and two bathrooms, one of which an en-suite.
Each building would include 50 underground parking spaces and a shared activities space on the roof for community gatherings, sheltered from the wind by five-foot-tall walls.
A shadow study was performed, which Biasucci said shows the buildings will not cast shadows on neighbouring residential properties, and a traffic study shows there’d be “basically, equal or less” traffic with the 324 units than there would be with the development of 66 residential lots.
This assertion at least partially hinges on the idea it will be a seniors building.
Although Biasucci said the building would be marketed toward seniors, and the buildings will not be “conducive to families,” he also did not rule out families living in the building, saying, “Everything is possible.”
The question of whether GOVA Transit would introduce bus service to the neighbourhood was also raised, since some of the conceptual drawings Biasucci presented included buses.
Plus, one resident pointed out, walking up and down the hill to get to the grocery store will be quite the challenge for seniors who no longer drive.
Biasucci said that adding GOVA Transit access wouldn’t be his call, adding, “If you live in a subdivision, you're probably not going to want that.”
The project as currently proposed is for rental units, with Biasucci clarifying that although condominiums are possible, he would “really doubt we will go to condominium” because it would change the business model.
Each building will cost approximately $45 million to build, and Biasucci said his goal would be to break ground “within months” of getting city council approval. Each building would take approximately 18 months to build, and he’s uncertain as to whether they’d take on more than one at a time.
As for the prospect of going back to developing 66 residential lots, he said the current economic climate makes it extremely unlikely.
“Do you think we stopped because we wanted to?” he asked of past development of residential lots. “We stopped because the houses got too expensive and it was taking a year to sell.
“I don’t see us having even an opportunity of success with the lots costing us $250,000 to $300,000.”
In conversation with Sudbury.com after the meeting, Biasucci said he has owned the property for more than 30 years, and that much has changed since lots were going for $40,000.
Friday’s meeting was part of a longstanding dialogue with area residents, he said, adding that he was pleased to see how many people showed up, even if it was to oppose his plans.
They’re all very passionate about their community, he said, adding, “that’s an accomplishment.”
Area residents provided some “very good” ideas he said, such as the construction of additional sidewalks, which Biasucci said he’d take to heart.
Ward 12 Coun. Joscelyne Landry-Altmann attended Friday’s public meeting, after which she told Sudbury.com she would remain in communication with area residents.
During Tuesday’s city council meeting, Landry-Altmann led a motion to retract a prior planning committee meeting decision to remove a requirement the developer meet conditions within the Endangered Species Act. With this condition back in, additional work to determine the presence of certain species, such as the threatened eastern whip-poor-will, will need to be undertaken prior to construction.
At this point, Landry-Altmann said she’s waiting for the project’s two public hearings, and what the municipal reports of the day will have to say about the proposal.
It remains to be determined when these public hearings will take place.
Sudbury.com attempted to speak to several area residents following the meeting. Most of them declined to comment on the record, but did reiterate concerns about traffic, property values and sightlines.
Area resident Tanya Anne Ball said that although the city has said they’ve resolved area flood concerns coming off the hill, some residents with flooded basements are skeptical. Some residents of the neighourhood are organizing a petition of area residents, including those in the surrounding neighbourhood, for city council consideration at the upcoming public hearings, alongside whatever written and verbal opposition comes.**
**Clarification: Resident Tanya Anne Ball was originally creditted as organizing or helping organize the petition. She denies leading the petition and so the sentence has been changed to reflect that.
Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.
