City council heard overwhelming opposition to a proposed condo development on Laclie Street during a public meeting Monday.
Saytar Development Corporation is seeking a zoning bylaw amendment — to go from mixed-use intensification to a residential 5 exception zone — so it can build a seven-storey, 70-unit building at 570 Laclie St.
Saytar’s initial plan was for eight storeys. The application was deferred in 2015 because council wanted the developer to hold more consultation with the public and consider a building with fewer storeys.
Going from eight to seven storeys “doesn't seem like a lot, but considering that we're trying to maximize the units on the site, we felt that was the most we could do in that situation,” said Kent Randall, principal planner with EcoVue Consulting Services, representing the developer.
He also noted Orillia’s Official Plan allows for up to eight storeys in that area, which is designated for intensification.
That might be the case, but a large building on the 1.3-acre site is “in a sea of stable neighbourhoods” that have homes with no more than three storeys, said nearby resident Anne Waggoner.
There aren’t many businesses in the area, but the ones that are there are “tasteful, low-rise commercial buildings.”
“No matter how you cut it, a 70-unit apartment building on 1.3 acres is not that,” Waggoner said.
She raised concerns shared by many who spoke during Monday’s meeting, including increased traffic and no outdoor gathering areas on the property.
While the development is permitted under the Official Plan, she asked council, “is it really maintaining the spirit and intent of the policy?”
Because there is no room on the site for an outdoor “amenity space,” the developer will pay cash in lieu, which will go toward the city’s parkland dedication reserve.
Regarding the look of the building, Orillia senior planner Jeff Duggan said, “Not everyone has the same opinion of what is attractive and what is not.”
He said the Official Plan has strict guidelines and staff will take a look at the architectural features during the site plan approval process.
Cathie Lamb has lived in that area for 35 years. It was the “mature, country-style neighbourhood” with large lots that drew her there.
It’s an area that has seen a lot of growth in recent years, with the North Lake Village development, the new Green Haven Shelter for Women and the Sundial Lakeview Retirement Residence.
“I’m not sure how much more intensification … our neighbourhood should have to endure,” Lamb said.
She also took issue with the developer’s plan to pay cash in lieu of creating an outdoor gathering space for condo owners, leaving them with “nowhere to go outside in a COVID era.”
Also, there isn’t a park in the area, so “giving us cash into the city’s coffers for parkland somewhere else does nothing to keep our neighbourhood green,” Lamb said.
The developer is seeking approval to reduce the minimum landscaped open space from 40 per cent to 25.8 per cent.
Courtney-Kay Lamb was also concerned about the lack of greenspace, saying the city needs to act locally to preserve it, especially amid a “climate crisis.”
She said the opposition to the development is not a case of NIMBY (not in my backyard), and she pointed to recent growth in the area as an example.
“This neighbourhood has already given so much,” she said.
Duggan noted the city’s parks needs analysis is regularly updated and said if and when opportunities arise to acquire new park space, the money in the parkland reserve can be used for that purpose.
Jenn Munro joined others in saying she would welcome a four-storey building if it was done in an environmentally friendly way, but she said the reduction in greenspace is not acceptable, especially during a pandemic.
“We need greenspace. If you live in an apartment building, you should be allowed to go outside and sit, have your coffee, chat with your neighbours — hopefully, soon,” she said.
The safety of children was on the mind of Sonja Patterson.
“Many of these people who will be living in this building certainly will have school children and the health and safety of these school children going to and from school is a huge concern to me,” she said.
Some will go to the nearby Couchiching Heights Public School, but others, including those attending high school, will need to be bused, she said.
“In my view, that would create such a backup for traffic, and the children running to these buses — their safety is an issue with the increased traffic on Laclie Street,” Patterson said.
Randall said he didn’t see it as a safety issue for children.
Duggan added he didn’t know what the busing situation would look like and that it would be up to school boards to figure that out.
Saytar is also seeking a reduction in the number of required parking spots, from 1.5 per suite (105 parking spaces) to 1.3 (91 spaces).
With no retail outlets in the immediate area, people will need vehicles, said nearby resident Mike Stahls.
“Being that we’re not in the downtown core area, letting that slide with them would be a mistake,” he said.
Duggan noted there would be at least one parking space available for each unit and that buyers would be made aware of that prior to purchasing.
”If they require two parking spaces, they would have to look at somewhere else to purchase,” he said.
The height of the proposed building will mean some people living there will have a new view of others’ properties.
“They’re going to have patios out there, watching me in my backyard,” said Stewart Thompson, who owns property “directly across from the skyscraper we’re about to put in.”
Coun. Ted Emond knows the feeling.
He lived in the Cedar Island area when the Elgin Bay Club development was being proposed. He and his neighbours opposed it for reasons similar to those heard at Monday’s meeting.
About a decade later, Emond and his wife downsized and moved to an area near the Leacock Museum. Then, Panoramic Point popped up, and some people living there can see into his backyard.
Residents who live in both the Elgin Bay Club and Panoramic Point condos “are nice people,” Emond said.
“They are good people and they have worked very hard to fit into the community that surrounds them.”
He pointed out the city needs to plan for an increase of 1,539 residential units in built-up areas to meet provincial growth guidelines and said the 70-unit Saytar condo development “would make a contribution to that demand over the next 20 years.”
Coun. Ralph Cipolla asked if Saytar could request a ministerial zoning order (MZO), should council turn down the proposal.
Staff are not aware of any current MZO requests in Orillia right now, said Ian Sugden, director of development services and engineering.
However, any decision on the zoning bylaw amendment could lead to an appeal at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. It’s similar to an MZO in that it takes the decision out of city council’s hands, “but it’s done through a much more judicial context,” Sugden said.
With some of the participants in Monday’s meeting indicating they’d be OK with a four-storey building, Coun. Mason Ainsworth asked if that was on Saytar’s radar.
“It’s probably a nonstarter,” Randall said, adding it would require a “significant cut” to the number of planned units. “I don’t think there’s a way to go below what we’re presenting now.”
While no members of the public spoke in favour of the development during the meeting, there were some written submissions supporting the proposal.
“You have, no doubt, been hearing from some of my neighbours that this is not a good idea. Balderdash,” Gord Heidman wrote in a letter to Mayor Steve Clarke.
He said the view of the lake is already minimal and that the proposed building won’t make much of a difference.
“Most importantly, the city needs this housing and this development. We certainly need the tax revenue,” he wrote.
“In summary, I would implore you and city council not to be dissuaded by a small group of citizens who have no claim on the land, no claim on the view, and seem just too (dare I say it) selfish to stop development of badly needed housing. Please proceed with building permits post-haste.”
Councillors passed a motion to send the draft zoning bylaw amendment to council for consideration at the next available meeting, which is April 19. Council must wait at least 14 days after the public meeting to make a decision on the request.
Regardless of the decision, it will be subject to a 20-day appeal period.
