Breaking News
Important update: Chancery Queen Trow Development
Council approves Chancery development proposal in spite of impassioned community opposition and compromise to Stratford’s official plan.
On November 8th, City Council approved the developer’s plan for the parcel of land located between Queen and Trow on Ontario Street in spite of imposing community opposition. In its first meeting on October 25th during which Council (through its Planning and Heritage Committee) discussed this proposal, they heard from no fewer than 17 members of the community who objected to the development as well and received a great number of letters and emails opposing it. None of the letters that formed part of the public record were in favor of the development. The Planning and Heritage Committee voted to support it. During the most recent meeting, which was a meeting of the full Council, an additional 13 members of the community spoke out against the project and numbers more letters of objection were filed opposing it and became part of the official record. As an aside, getting an accurate account of the numbers of letters, emails, and phone calls council received with respect to the Chancery development has been problematic, despite persistent request from a member of our group, Gary Annandale.
After voting approval, council’s next step was a vote to rezone the land and change the official plan designation from a low density to a high density residential area. This vote failed due to a lack of the 2/3 majority vote required. On November 22, another vote was taken and, with the absence of the mayor, the zoning and high density changes could be approved with a simple majority of 6 to 4. The approval was final.
What redeeming qualities would recommend this development to city council?
This is a project that does not satisfy concerns about accessibility, affordability, or the environment. It also imposes a level of intensification dramatically at odds with the much more modest intensification target the province has identified for its municipalities to meet.
Furthermore, approval was given even though the elevations depicted on the developer’s drawings are only tentative (meaning that the developer is not committed to producing buildings that look anything like the two buildings it’s proposing). Moreover, should the developer decide to flip the property, a new developer would have the opportunity to file a site plan that suited its interests.
Council has granted the developer the opportunity to build two buildings 4.5 m higher than any of the adjacent single family homes that define the neighborhood. It will also include a large 47 car parking lot behind it that presumably would be lit all night. During the daytime, the height of the building would create significant winter shadowing for the homes behind it. Throughout the year the homes adjacent to it would have to contend with light from the parking lot impinging on sleeping hours. Arguments about the heritage quality of the neighborhood and sense of place fell on deaf ears.
Why, then, did a majority of councillors, including the mayor, give the Chancery development the go ahead?
In the absence of concern for accessibility, affordability, environmental protection, the heritage quality of the surrounding neighborhood, and the well-being of immediately proximate neighbors, what redeeming qualities did the developer present city Councillors that compelled them to vote in favor of it? Intensification? This single project all by itself would exceed the city’s yearly intensification targets for the entire city by at least 40%. The city’s yearly intensification target is satisfied with the addition of only 37.5 more people added within Stratford’s built boundaries. This project would, all by itself, add over 50 more people.
Here’s what some of the Councillors who supported this project had to say:
Councillor Ingram maintained during the discussion which proceeded the first vote that this project would likely provide relatively affordable housing for young people who are now struggling with the housing market. During the discussion which proceeded the second vote, Councillor Burbach suggested that the units to be built would probably serve young families pressed by rising real estate prices, telling her listeners that she thought the proposed development might encourage people like her children to establish themselves in Stratford.
Now consider that both of these councillors had been told by architect Robert Ritz (one of the opposition presenters) that the cost of the new units, depending upon the developer’s interest in profits, would be, at a minimum, $550,000-$650,000 per unit. He based his estimates on the average square footage costs of building such units in Stratford. Clearly, affordability was not a builder priority. The builder’s planner admitted as much during questioning. Several other presenters made the same point about affordability to these councillors, but apparently without effect. One had the sense that they had already made up their minds and were willing to bend the facts to suit the case that they were making.
Councillor Henderson seemed to express great concern about the issue of accessibility for disabled people. The drawings which the builder provided of the proposed two buildings were drawings of stacked townhouses with stairs leading either up or down to individual units. There were no elevators planned for the buildings nor was there even a depiction of a back door in the drawings which might have offered ground level egress to units had elevators been present. After presenting a flurry of questions about accessibility, Councillor Henderson announced that she would be content for the developer to defer planning for accessibility to the actual site plan, which would be filed after approval for the project had been given! Being told that the developer was under no statutory obligation to submit the site plan for council review seemed to be of little concern to Councillor Henderson. Her decision making process was baffling, but again one was left with the sense that she had already made up her mind to support the project.
At another point during the proceedings, Councillor Henderson mentioned that she had to be sensitive to the opinion of everyone in her constituency, mentioning that she had received letters both opposing and supporting the project. No citizen letters supporting the project, other than submissions from the developer’s planner, were in evidence.
Councillor Vassilakos jumped into the intensification discussion, telling her listeners that urban “sprawl” in Stratford must be avoided at all costs and that she didn’t want more cars driving in from outside Stratford’s built boundaries than was absolutely necessary. She seemed to presume that people living in the new buildings wouldn’t have to drive to remote locations to get to their own work, nor did she consider that most of the places people would want to get to in Stratford are only a five or, at most, a 10 minute drive away. She appeared prepared to dismiss the province’s intensification policies, which of course have been designed for the express purpose of dealing with issues like urban sprawl, so that she could supply her listeners with policies of her own that she conceived in the midst of council discussion.
She seemed to utterly ignore the arguments that Robert Ritz and other presenters had made noting that the city’s intensification, affordability, accessibility, and environmental concerns could have been met with a lower intensification development than the one being proposed. No change in the city’s official plan from low density residential to high density would have been necessary. Robert had prepared site drawings that the developer could accommodate which would have made room for heritage-friendly buildings incorporating some affordable housing units that would produce a far lower carbon footprint than the new buildings would. His plan included repurposing three or four existing buildings already on the site as well as erecting three new buildings similar in size to the repurposed buildings. Presenter Hayden Bulbrook and others (myself included) provided literature and data supporting these claims.
Notwithstanding substantial concerns about the carbon footprint that the developer’s demolition of existing buildings and construction of new buildings would create, Councillor Burbach made up her own environmental science on the spot, telling council that repurposing existing old buildings and building two significantly smaller units would require new materials after all and, well, wouldn’t they have a carbon footprint, too, that would probably approximate the carbon footprint of the two large buildings that the developer wanted to erect? No, councillor, they would not. Clearly, you weren’t listening. The carbon footprint of the two large buildings you just endorsed will be dramatically, significantly larger than repurposing existing old buildings on site and erecting the three new small buildings that Robert Ritz proposed. Again, one had the uncomfortable sensation that Councillor Burbach was looking for justification for a decision she had already made.
And, finally, Councillor Clifford, who opposed the Chancery development, asked Stratford’s new city planner, Alyssa Bridge, the question that I think many of us wanted to ask her: Are all of these people who have given us substantial reasons to oppose this project wrong while you see yourself as being right in supporting it? Ms. Bridge did not change her position, which was at odds with the position of two architects, a city planner, and a highly respected heritage consultant as well as substantial numbers of citizens opposing her decision.
Even curiouser – to borrow a phrase from Alice in Wonderland – numbers of city counsellors appeared to be turning a blind eye to the impact of precedent. Councillors supporting the plan appeared to want to believe that approving it would not expose Stratford’s residents and neighbourhoods to repeated future violations of their streetscapes and their heritage by other hungry developers. Paradoxically, we are being told, on the one hand, that this is a one off project that would not create precedent while on the other, reference is being made to other parts of the city where, supposedly, similar projects have been approved, like the John Street site, that justify the new proposal. So, if this project isn’t going to be president setting, why use precedence to try to justify it? Obviously, precedence matters, but we are being told that it doesn’t.
What was particularly striking for me was the absence of any empathy for the outcry that people not only in the affected neighborhood, but in the city at large, were presenting council. We found Councillors Ingram, Vassilakos, Burbach, and Henderson to be glib in the responses that they offered, indifferent to citizens’ concerns about their neighborhood and their city. Councillors Bunting and Beatty, who also supported the project, had little to say. For us, as we have noted throughout this piece, the process felt a lot like a done deal that meant that some councillors had already made up their minds and were tone deaf to community opposition. It felt a lot like the Xinyi affair – an undemocratic process determinedly resistant to community participation and community voice. With respect to Xinyi, by the way, the city has advised us that if we really want the Xinyi related documents we requested through the freedom of information act, it will cost us – $8,850! Mike Sullivan is attempting to negotiate a better price for us….
In the absence of any redeeming qualities (accessibility, affordability, environment, intensification, preservation of the official plan) and in the face of articulate, passionate community opposition, we are left with the impression that the only thing to recommend this project is developer profit.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
The only option left for citizens is to appeal Council’s decision. A Notice of Appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal was filed with the City on 15th December, 2021. This process could take 12 -18 months if it goes to full hearing. Mediation has been suggested, but can only take place if the City and developer are willing to co-operate. If the appeal goes to full hearing, the cost to citizens will be substantial - approximately $60,000! This “cost” does not include the stress that this decision has caused so many of us. The monetary cost of a full hearing will require significant fundraising. Citizens from all over Stratford have expressed strong support. We are determined to see this through.
We would argue that much of the expense and the stress of city council’s decision is unnecessary, that it primarily serves developer interest, that it potentially compromises Stratford’s official plan, that it poses significant risk to a non-renewable resource (heritage), and that it sets dangerous precedent for future developer exploitation of our neighborhoods.
We will keep you updated on the appeals process as it unfolds….