Widely opposed by its neighbours, a six-storey, 150-unit retirement complex has been greenlit for the southeast corner of Algonquin Road and Rockwood Drive in Sudbury’s South End.
The planning committee of city council made the approval at the close of a more than four-hour meeting on Sept. 25, which more than 50 residents attended in a show of opposition.
City administration had recommended a motion to pare the building down to four storeys, which Ward 11 Coun. Bill Leduc quashed with an amendment.
Soon after Leduc introduced his amendment to approve a six-storey build, refrains of frustration and exasperation could be heard murmuring in the gallery at Tom Davies Square.
After Ward 6 Coun. René Lapierre and Ward 4 Coun. Pauline Fortin joined Leduc in passing the amendment, opponents lit into the three elected officials.
“I’m disgusted,” one gallery member yelled, alongside mutterings of “as*hole” and other expressions of disappointment.
“What is the purpose of the meeting?” asked another resident, between chants of “shame.”
Meeting chair and Ward 10 Coun. Fern Cormier called a brief recess to clear the room before concluding the meeting.
The committee’s decision still needs to receive final approval from city council as a whole, Cormier said, noting that any member of city council will be able to flag the decision for review.
“That may happen in this case,” he said.
The next city council meeting is on Sept. 26, and the agenda includes ratifying the planning committee’s Sept. 25 resolutions.
Cormier voted against Leduc’s amendment, while fellow planning committee member Ward 12 Coun. Joscelyne Landry-Altmann was unable to vote after becoming ineligible for arriving late. She also left the room before the vote took place, citing a family engagement.
The retirement complex up for debate is not to be confused with the nearby 258-bed Extendicare complex, the construction of which is well underway on Algonquin Road to the north and was expected, at latest update, to open this year.
On the table during the Sept. 25 planning committee meeting was a recommendation from city senior planner Mauro Manzon that city council approve a four-storey building at the southeast corner of Algonquin Road and Rockwood Drive.
Bawa Hospitality Group had applied for a 150-unit, six-storey building. Their representative, Tulloch Engineering senior planner Kevin Jarus, clarified that shaving off two storeys would eliminate 60 units.
That said, the floodplain the property is partially within is up for review this year, which Manzon said might free up more land for the developer to reconfigure the build to accommodate additional units within four storeys, depending on the results.
“It is the opinion of staff that a six-storey build form with a building height of 21 metres does not address compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood as a form of infill development,” Manzon told the committee.
In his report to city council, Manzon noted a six-storey building “would appear fairly imposing and dominate the street line at this location.”
Although Manzon cited residential intensification as an important objective, “a balance must be struck between the need for intensification projects and their integration into stable low-density neighbourhoods.”
By reducing the building to 15 metres in height from its proposed 21 metres by cutting it down to four storeys, the structure would also cast less of a shadow on neighbouring properties, which has been an ongoing concern among area property owners.
Of the approximately 50 area residents who attended Tom Davies Square to oppose the development during the Sept. 25 planning committee meeting, 14 spoke during a public hearing. The meeting’s agenda also included more than 100 letters of opposition, while a petition objecting to the project included 848 signatures.
Area residents’ chief concerns related to the building’s height, traffic impacts, flood zone implications and the potential clear-cutting of trees, including those in a vegetative buffer required along the easterly lot line, which Jarus could not guarantee would remain in place.
“I’ll be living in that retirement home by the time the trees reach the height they are now,” area resident Craig Maki said of the possibility they’re cut down for new trees to grow in their place.
As outlined in a report by Tulloch Engineering, the proposed building would cast a shadow on some neighbouring properties, and at six storeys would be the tallest in the area.
Included in the letters of opposition was one by Canadian Association of Retired Persons Sudbury chapter president John Lindsay, who criticized the project's location as being “far from any amenities.”
“CARP firmly believes that those in retirement homes should not be isolated and be part of the general community and not be required to utilize transit or special provisions for out of residence visits.”
The development, area resident Julie Brennan said during the public hearing portion of the Sept. 25 meeting, will “ghettoize seniors in the area”
As for building height, Maki said that while four storeys is more appropriate than six, “more appropriate is still inappropriate. It doesn’t fit.”
The Sept. 25 meeting was the second public hearing related to the proposed retirement complex.
The first public hearing took place earlier this year, when a dozen residents came out to voice their concerns and more than 40 letters of opposition were submitted to the city’s elected officials for consideration.
Similar concerns came up during the first public hearing as the second, including the proposed building being too tall, it being partially within a floodplain, and the potential increase in traffic it might bring.
New to the Sept. 25 public hearing was a traffic impact brief, which noted that the development as proposed at 150 units would generate 27 trips during the weekday morning peak hour and 36 trips during the weekday afternoon peak hour.
A city report summarized the findings as demonstrating that “the existing road network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed development.”
As for floodplain concerns, the resolution passed on Sept. 25 mandates a minimum 17-metre natural vegetative buffer along the easterly lot line and a 1.3-metre planting strip and opaque fence on the southerly yard. The development cannot proceed until a stormwater management report has been submitted and approved by both the city and Conservation Sudbury.
While introducing his amendment to approve a retirement complex of six storeys, Leduc defended it as doable on the property, and warranted given the city’s established need for housing.
“They’re looking to build 150 guest rooms,” he said. “That’s also allowing us to free up 150 homes in the city to expand our housing market.”
Although not a member of the planning committee, Ward 9 Coun. Deb McIntosh attended the Sept. 25 meeting to join the community she represents in opposing the six-storey build.
“I’m adamantly opposed to this amendment,” she said of Leduc’s push to approve the development at six storeys.
A six-storey build in this neighbourhood goes against the city’s Official Plan, she said, which labels the property as part of Living Area 1, in which, “New residential development must be compatible with the existing physical character of existing neighbourhoods.”
The property in question is “smack dab in the middle of a residential neighbourhood, and the transition from single-family homes to a six-storey building is far too harsh,” McIntosh said.
Although McIntosh’s plea for her colleagues to vote down Leduc’s amendment was unsuccessful on Sept. 25, it’s likely to come up for review during the Sept. 26 city council meeting. At the Sept. 26 meeting, all 13 members of city council are expected to attend, versus the five voting members who make up the planning committee.
The city council meeting begins at 6 p.m. and can be viewed in-person at Tom Davies Square or livestreamed online by clicking here.
Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.