More apartment buildings being reviewed for approval

0

At the recent Saugeen Shores planning meeting, a presentation was made regarding the construction of two more apartment buildings in the community.

The two four-story buildings will house 124 rental units on vacant land adjacent to Country Road 25 (CAW Rd.). According to developer JK Construction, ten percent of the units, or 12 to 13, will be considered affordable because the developer has worked with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), which sets the formula that determines the income of the household to which is considered “affordable” housing.

The developer has requested parking relief, however, and wants to reduce the number of visitor spaces from 31 to 12. Under the bylaw, one visitor space is required for every four units, meaning that 25% of the units could have visitors at the same time, which is unlikely. Therefore, according to the planner, a reduced parking standard for visitors should be adequate. “To meet the parking standard, the number of units would have to be reduced, which would mean that the number of affordable rental units would also have to be reduced.”

According to urban planner Ron Davidson representing the developer, “if we are going to solve the housing crisis, it will have to be through higher density than only apartment buildings can provide”.

For a larger view, click on the image

According to Knifton, rents for two-bedroom units will be $1,800 to $2,200 per month with one-bedroom units slightly below and three-bedroom units above.

He also explained that there would be 24 three-bedroom units for families. “There may be cases where there might be two cars per unit, but also others may have no cars and that balances out. There will be a lot of Bruce Power employees who will rent and may want to sharing their car, so I’m sure parking won’t be a problem with one space per unit.”

Two residents whose homes front onto the proposed project property, however, expressed concerns about the proposed project.

John Ens, has publicly represented his mother who lives immediately south of the proposed development, and said the development will only be 1.7 meters from the residential property line. He also expressed concern that there were balconies and a loss of privacy.

Developer John Knifton said there would be balconies but given the height of the buildings there would be no shadow effect and parking would be at the front of the buildings.

Knifton also said he would be willing to meet with Ens and would be happy to build an eight-foot buffer berm or privacy fence. Deputy Vice Mayor Mike Myatt said he would also like to see a row of cedar trees in front of the fence as an additional buffer.

According to Knifton, the project will be developed in two phases, with the first building to the north of the property being the first phase to “test marketability”.

Councilor Mini Jacques, who questioned the accessibility factor of the units, was assured that there would be units designed for accessibility with wider doors for wheelchairs, grab bars in the bathrooms, refrigerators with lower freezer compartments and space for medical scooters.

Councilor Cheryl Grace also asked if there would be EV charging infrastructure and while the developer said there would be, the number of charging stations is still unknown. “Charging stations are the way of the future,” said Knifton, “and we are now integrating them into our developments in Exeter and Peterborough.”

Deputy Vice Mayor Mike Myatt expressed concern that visitor parking relief from the 31st to the 12th was being requested.

Mayor Luke Charbonneau said that regardless of the proposed application, any zoning decision stretches forever. “Our key consideration must be whether it is appropriate to have parking density and relief not just for this development, but for all future developments on site.”

He also questioned the fact that the zoning requires 90 units/gross hectare in a Zone 4 (high density) but that the parcel in question for the proposed development limits the use to 36 housing units. “Why is this restriction here?” »

It appeared that no one could answer the question. The developer’s planning consultant, Ron Davidson, said he inquired with city staff, but no one seemed to know why the restriction was in place.

Jay Pausner, economic development supervisor, confirmed that he also did not know why the restriction was in place, but that it was probably the previous owner who drafted it.

“This restriction is notable and was intentionally made for some reason,” said Mayor Charbonneau. I want the staff to find out if there is a reason for the restriction.

To read the full presentation to the Planning Committee, CLICK HERE.

For more information or for a decision, contact [email protected]@on.ca or call the county.

Share.

Comments are closed.