Despite some pushback from neighbourhood residents, the municipality is moving forward with plans for an apartment development project in Chatham.
The proposed project is set to be located at 550-570 Park Ave. W between Wedgewood Avenue and Keil Drive South. It will feature two six-story apartment buildings, with 122 units in each building.
On Monday night, council approved some amendments to the bylaw that would be needed to proceed with the development. Current zoning bylaws only allow residential buildings to have three stories maximum, and administration successfully requested that the bylaw be changed to allow for six-story structures at the site.
The project would be built on what is currently a vacant 6.5 acre lot. Developer Rob Piroli, who has worked on similar structures in Leamington and Windsor, is behind the development.
According to Bruce McAllister, director of planning services, the apartments would be 80 per cent one-bedroom units and 20 per cent two-bedroom units.
However, the idea didn't sit well with many residents who live in the neighbourhood. Council heard several deputations from people who opposed the project.
Concerns ranged from a decrease in property values to increased traffic in the area, and on-street parking.
McCallister assured the public that the apartments would come with 306 parking spaces, leaving 62 extra spaces for visitors and apartment residents. McAllister said, in his opinion, there wouldn't be a need for overflow parking on nearby streets.
Photo via the Municipality of Chatham-Kent
McCallister also clarified that the development would be market rent, not geared to income or low-income housing, which was a concern that many residents brought up in addition to worries that the apartments would bring an increase of crime to the neighbourhood.
"I explicitly didn't speak to the crime issue because I can't say a whole lot about that," said McAllister. "Frankly, I don't think it's a valid argument in terms of supporting or denying this kind of proposal."
Council also heard worries from residents that the project would be an eyesore and not fit in with the aesthetic of the neighbourhood, which is mainly residential. However, according to the report that went to council, the developer is taking those concerns into account.
"The proposed apartment buildings will be designed to be pleasing to the eye of the general public who pass by, as well as to the residents of the building and to the residents of the adjacent neighbourhoods. It is noted that a large church exists immediately to the east with an office building and apartment building just beyond the church... It is felt that the proposed apartment buildings will respect the existing characteristics of the area," stated the report. "The proposed buildings are sited on the property in such a manner that they will not cause any major shadowing issues or block the sky views for abutting and/or adjacent properties."
During the virtual meeting, Councillor Michael Bondy put forward an unsuccessful motion to defer the decision until council returned to its regular chambers. Bondy argued that he had heard from many residents that the process wasn't following typical procedures due to COVID-19 restrictions.
A representative for the developer explained to council on Monday that the project would most likely be shelved if the decision was pushed back to another date.
"Time is very important for the project. When the applications were made, the whole atmosphere of the world was not what we are experiencing today. That being said, we do have an agreement of offer and purchase with the church to purchase the property. That agreement expires shortly," said David French, of Storey Samways Planning.
The development would also be eligible for financial incentives under the Community Improvement Plan. McAllister also cited the need for housing in the municipality.
"We identified that our vacancy rate has definitely been under three per cent. Three per cent is kind of considered the minimal healthy rate in a community and we've been hovering well below that rate," explained McAllister.
Ultimately, the amendment of the bylaw was approved 15-1. Councillor Bondy voted against it, while one councillor could not vote due to a conflict of interest and another councillor was absent from the vote.