Skip to content

Approval of four plexes rankles residents

Councillors weigh benefits of urban infill against residents' concerns as it approves zoning amendments for two North End neighbourhoods.

THUNDER BAY – City council weighed the benefits of urban infill against resident concerns as it approved the construction of four-plex apartments in two North End neighbourhoods Monday.

The decision didn’t sit well with a number of area residents, who fear it will change the character of their neighbourhoods and strain overburdened municipal infrastructure.

Most councillors were swayed, however, by arguments from the city’s planning department that the developments represented desirable urban infill, a goal touted in Thunder Bay’s official plan and provincial planning guidelines.

Amendments to municipal zoning by-laws approved by council Monday will allow developer Modstruct Inc. to build four-unit apartments on previously vacant interior lots on Andrew and Brent streets – something normally permitted only on corner lots under the properties’ R2 zoning.

Several residents argued that restriction was in place for good reason, saying the developments were too high-density to fit comfortably in their neighbourhoods.

Councillors sent a previous application from the developer back to administration for additional consultation in July, citing resident objections and shortcomings in the city’s public notice process. Some documents made available to the public contained errors and illegible information.

The developer since made several modifications intended to ease residents’ concerns. Those included adding another parking spot to accommodate five vehicles on site and increasing side yard setbacks to distance buildings from neighbours.

Brent Street resident Ian Dasti sharply criticized the city’s planning division Monday, saying emails had gone unanswered and information provided had at times proven incorrect.

“I have felt misled, and this has not been a transparent process,” he told councillors. “The whole thing has been a mess.”

Dasti bought a home next to the Brent Street property last year. Familiar with the city’s zoning by-laws, he hadn’t expected an apartment to spring up next door.

He supports the concept of urban infill, he said, but not at the expense of nearby residents.

“Infill in flood-prone areas where there is an existing flooding hazard… is a bad idea and dangerous to the public,” he argued, saying the four plex would cover far more of the lot with impermeable surfaces, thanks to its parking lot.

In a July interview, Dasti emphasized that his objections were with the city and its consultation process, not the developer.

Residents from four households spoke against the developments Monday, while the city previously received a petition letter signed by 14 Andrew Street residents.

A drop-in event hosted by the developer on Andrew Street in September attracted 11 residents. Of those, three were in favour of the project, but most remained opposed despite developer modifications – many because of chronic flooding near the property.

Staff from the planning and engineering departments acknowledged serious drainage issues on Andrew Street, but assured council the new development wouldn’t worsen them.

Project engineer Aaron Ward put the issue down to an aging, lower-capacity city pipe, a trend of increased precipitation, and a dip in the street where water accumulates. It’s one of a number of areas in the city facing similar problems, he said.

“I don’t think this development will make anything much worse than it is today,” he explained at the drop-in event. “When you look at the entire area that drains to this one pipe, it’s huge compared to this one, 600 square metre lot.”

The issue also shouldn’t bias council against the development, he said.

“It’s not up to the developer to solve the issue, it’s up to the city,” he told councillors Monday.

Administration said planned improvements to address the problem are likely several years away due to the volume of similar fixes needed in other locations.

The developers behind Modstruct Inc., John and Anthony McRae, say they did everything they could to address resident concerns, but that it's not uncommon to have some objections.

“Parking and drainage are issues all over the city, no matter where people develop," they said at the September drop-in event.

Anthony, who lives in one of two other four-plexes they've built in the city, said the buildings tend to draw a mix of students, young professionals, and semi-retirees, and believes they're a positive form of development for the city.

Still, some residents see them as an undesirable change to the fabric of their street.

“It’s disappointing when by-laws are disregarded when they’ve been put in place to protect the neighbourhood,” one Andrew Street resident said Monday. “Urban infill doesn’t mean you need to squeeze large buildings onto every lot. My concern is if we allow this four-unit building, then every time an old house goes up for sale, we’re going to have a four-unit apartment springing up.”

Coun. Mark Bentz found merit in that concern.

“I do have concerns over where this is leading,” he said. “I think there’s some expectation when you buy a property in single detached zoning, you’re not going to end up with four-plexes on either side of you.”

Mark Smith, the city’s general manager of development services, said there was nothing stopping similar applications from gaining administration’s support in the future.

Some other councillors pointed out council had approved only 12 four-plexes on interior R2 lots over the past decade.

“There’s been some commentary of, ‘this is going to open the floodgates for mid-block four plexes,’” said Coun. Andrew Foulds. “Some perspective needs to be realized here.”

He also pointed out there were several detached homes and duplexes in the neighbourhood larger than the proposed apartment.

Mayor Bill Mauro said promoting urban infill was imperative, pointing to constituent concerns over municipal tax rates.

“A lot of that is absolutely driven by the footprint of our municipality,” he said. “We all know that when you stretch from Current River to South Neebing, up Broadway Avenue… we’re an extremely large city geographically, for a relatively small population base.”

Administration framed resident concerns as a fear of change, telling councillors the proposed developments represented good planning. They emphasized the benefits of infill for resident walkability, lower costs to provide city services, and environmental impact.

Bentz cast a lone vote against the Andrew Street development, while he was joined by Coun. Brian McKinnon on the Brent Street vote. All other councillors, and the mayor, voted to approve the zoning amendments.

The amendments allowed for the following zoning reductions for the Andrew Street property: minimum lot frontage reduced to 20 metres, minimum driveway width reduced to 4.5 metres, minimum front yard setback reduced to 4.7 metres, and minimum interior side yard setback increased to 2.5 metres.

Also allowed were the following reductions for the Brent Street property: minimum lot frontage reduced to 20 metres, minimum lot area reduced to 643 square metres, minimum front yard setback reduced to 4.2 metres, minimum driveway width reduced to 4.5 metres, and minimum interior yard setback increased to 2.6 metres.

Both properties will be subject to Site Plan Control.



Ian Kaufman

About the Author: Ian Kaufman

Read more


Comments

push icon
Be the first to read breaking stories. Enable push notifications on your device. Disable anytime.
No thanks