Contentious Ontario Street development back on track
A proposed high-density development on Ontario Street that’s drawn the ire of residents in the surrounding neighbourhood is likely to move forward after revised building plans received support from a majority of city councillors this week.
Article content
A proposed high-density development on Ontario Street that’s drawn the ire of residents in the surrounding neighbourhood is likely to move forward after revised building plans received support from a majority of city councillors this week.
After another lengthy meeting that included comments from more than a dozen residents strongly opposed to the project, councillors sitting as the planning and heritage committee Monday voted in favour of a pair of 15-unit, three-and-a-half storey townhouses pitched for 380-396 Ontario St.
The decision, which will still need approval at an upcoming regular council meeting, comes after months of contentious debate.
Surrounded by a long-established neighbourhood, the short stretch on Ontario Street between Queen Street and Trow Avenue is part of a heritage corridor near the downtown core that includes several homes and an empty former restaurant.
Southwestern Ontario planning consultants MHBC, on behalf of real estate developers Chancery Developments, have been seeking official plan and zoning bylaw amendments needed to move the project forward. Since the area is currently designated for low- and medium-density uses, Chancery had asked city councillors to increase building height and density limits, as well as rezone the land to a site-specific designation vetted by city planners.
Planning staff have recommended moving forward with the development.
Reports from Alyssa Bridge, the city’s manager of planning, and Taylor Crinklaw, the city’s director of infrastructure and development services, have said the official plan and bylaw amendments fall within provincial guidelines and are consistent with the city’s strategic priorities, which include intensification and housing mix targets.
The 30 new units are expected to bring in nearly $320,000 in development charges and, “despite the removal of a commercial building and two single detached dwellings, it is expected that there will be an increase to taxation revenues,” the most recent staff report said.
Public opinion, however, has been less favourable, at least among those closest to the potential development.
Neighbours first raised concerns about the project at a public meeting earlier this year. They’re worried about the development’s fit in the neighbourhood, including its height and impact on shadows, traffic and parking.
One informal residents group is so opposed, they’ve hired a lawyer and a planning expert to assist their opposition to the project.
A taller 34-unit, four-storey apartment building pitched by the developer narrowly failed to gain approval from the committee last month. Chancery’s latest proposal, councillors heard Monday, includes a number of compromises meant to make the project’s footprint smaller.
According to the new pitch, the dual townhouse concept reduces the total height of the development from 17.5 to 14 metres, reduces the total number of units from 34 to 30, and saves from demolition an existing structure at 380 Ontario St. originally included in the plans.
The project’s opponents told councillors Monday those changes don’t go far enough.
“Everyone buying a home in this area trusted the official plan would be adhered to,” one resident said. “This section of Ontario Street provides a vibrant heritage entrance to our much advertised historic downtown core. To intensify this tiny, vital area to high density is, I believe, reckless and destructive to the residents of this area, to our many visitors, and to our tourism industry now and for years to come.”
Councillors were more receptive to the townhouse idea on Monday.
After some residents questioned whether amendments to the official plan could undercut an upcoming review, Coun. Danielle Ingram pushed back against the idea.
“The reason that people have the ability to make an official plan amendment application is because, when you have a very broad and general planning document that is policy based, you can’t possibly consider or anticipate every potential development that is going to come through,” she said. “You can’t possibly consider every potential lot configuration that you have within your municipality because they are all different.”
She also highlighted the importance of adding more types of housing to Stratford’s inventory, particularly options for young families priced out of traditional single family homes.
“Stacked townhouses are traditionally on the lower end of the housing market,” she said. “Yes, having single detached dwellings is really lovely and lots of people can afford them, but there are a lot of people that can’t … and they need to have other housing types available to them.”
Ingram voted in favour, along with councillors Graham Bunting, Kathy Vassilakos, Jo-Dee Burbach, Bonnie Henderson, Brad Beatty and Mayor Dan Mathieson.
Others remained uncomfortable with the amendments Chancery has asked for.
“The existing (official) plan, I think it allows for adequate intensification and I don’t support a change,” said Sebben, adding that a three-storey building that fits within the current guidelines would be more appropriate.
Councillors Martin Ritsma, Tom Clifford, and Dave Gaffney were also opposed.
Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion. Please keep comments relevant and respectful. Comments may take up to an hour to appear on the site. You will receive an email if there is a reply to your comment, an update to a thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.