A 29-unit, three-storey apartment proposed for Four Mile Creek Road is moving ahead, even though its density is triple what the town’s planning rules normally allow.
At a committee of the whole planning meeting Tuesday night, Niagara-on-the-Lake councillors approved the zoning and official plan amendments for the planned building at 1839 Four Mile Creek Rd. near Virgil.
Final adoption will be decided at a future council meeting.
Town staff said the application, by developer Harvest Heights, has gone through three rounds of revisions in response to public, staff and council feedback.
The apartment plans include 29 units — because of the property’s size, that works out to a density of about 95 units per hectare.
“The request is for an increase,” said town planner Aimee Alderman of the density, which, for a medium-density residential development, would be a maximum of 30 units per hectare.
It includes 32 parking spaces — 29 in a partially underground structure and three at the front.
Max Fedchyshak, senior planner with NPG Planning Solutions, said consultants reviewed the staff report and agreed with its recommendation to approve the zoning and official plan amendments.
He highlighted changes made since engagements with the public and the town, including increasing the front-yard setback and reducing the height from 11.28 to 11 metres.
Patrick Walsh, who lives at 1831 Four Mile Creek Rd., submitted a response to the town about the plans in which he wrote that the application is “not in a state to proceed.”
In addressing councillors on Tuesday night, he said staff’s latest report indicates “a pattern of very site-specific adjustments” that show “the degree of customizations” being requested for the project.
“We just wanted to point out that while things are still evolving, I think there’s still some questions that we’re concerned about and that we can try and find some answers for.”
As a neighbour to the project, he expressed concerns about the apartment’s impacts on neighbourhood privacy and said updated drawings “help illustrate the effect of the reduced setbacks,” making for less privacy, he said.
“We definitely see more projection into the setbacks,” he said, from the seven-foot balconies, which use transparent guards.
Coun. Gary Burroughs asked whether revisions made to the apartment plans addressed the privacy concerns Walsh raised.
Fedchyshak said the building was shifted slightly north, creating more space along the south property line and that a 1.8-metre fence is proposed, which could be increased to two metres under the town’s bylaw at the site plan stage.
Coun. Sandra O’Connor, who voted against the report, pressed staff on the proposed density, saying it is “about three times our normal medium-density criteria.”
Coun. Andrew Niven asked how many units the property would have allowed under the official plan’s density limit if there were no request for an increase, but staff did not have that calculation available on hand.
O’Connor also raised concerns about the project’s stormwater management, noting the development would require capacity beyond the normal limit and would rely on the town’s safety buffer to meet its needs, which “leaves the town without the safety buffer.”
She also pointed to the lack of regional input — “I’m just surprised that the region’s comments regarding urban design were not mentioned anywhere,” said O’Connor.
O’Connor said the region’s comments do not explain why the apartment building is the right fit for the site or why it represents good planning. She also said they suggested the garage should be at the ground level, which it is not.
“Because of this concern about the design (and) about the increase in density — three times what our medium density is — I don’t feel that I can support this particular proposal,” she said.
For Lord Mayor Gary Zalepa, voting in favour was a no-brainer given how often he said he hears residents say they are looking for places to “age in place.”
“There’s lots of planning expertise and advice in here,” Zalepa said.
He said he was pleased with how staff worked with the applicant to make changes to what he called an example of a complex and difficult application.
“There’s anxiety around a change in neighbourhoods, but this is a really good change — and it’s needed for many reasons,” Zalepa said. “I’m ready to support this one.”
Coun. Erwin Wiens also backed the proposal: “If not here, where?”
He argues that the town needs more places where young people can afford to live and where older residents can move to and, like Zalepa said, age in place.
“There’s 100 reasons to support it and a couple reasons not to,” added Wiens.
If council adopts the amendments at its next meeting, the developer must secure a site plan agreement before construction can begin. Once submitted, the town will post the site plan online that residents can review.
