Skip to content

Sidewalks to nowhere hurting senior housing plan: Builder

While the city has reduced the amount he has to pay before construction begins, a developer in Sudbury still opposes a requirement that he upgrade two nearby roads to an urban standard.
190515_jesse_hamilton_school
A city developer says costs being imposed by the city could kill his plan to turn the former Jessie Hamilton Public School in Lively into seniors apartments. File photo.
While the city has reduced the amount he has to pay before construction begins, a developer in Sudbury still opposes a requirement that he upgrade two nearby roads to an urban standard.

Kevin Seeley, president of Seeley Homes, plans to redevelop the former Jessie Hamilton Public School in Lively to create a 29-unit seniors home. He also plans to build a separate 26-unit building, also for seniors, plus five single residential homes.

As part of the approval he received in 2013, Seeley had to upgrade nearby Jessie and Patricia streets, improving drainage and building sidewalks. That added $188,000 to the cost of his plan. Along with $547,000 the city was requiring as a deposit, the pre-construction tab was so high, the bank wouldn't extend the financing he needed to proceed.

When he appeared at planning committee May 11, he said it made no sense to force him to build sidewalks that wouldn't connect to anything. It will be decades before the surrounding area will be built up with other residential housing, he said. And by that time, the sidewalks would need to be rebuilt anyway.

A decision was deferred until the May 25 planning meeting. In a new report, city staff has substantially reduced the deposit Seeley must pay up front – $188,020.14, down from the original $547,366.29. But they still recommend he upgrade the streets, saying that other developers have had to do the same, and it's in keeping with the city's Pedestrian Charter and Official Plan.

They both call for a commitment to building sidewalks as part of a long-term plan to encourage walking and improve safety for pedestrians. Road upgrades are required at different scales, the report says, depending on the size of the development. In this case, road improvements are necessary because of the size of what Seeley has planned.

“The owner is proposing a major redevelopment of the former school site that comprises a 29-unit conversion of the school building, a new three-storey, 26-unit multiple dwelling and five lots for single residential use, for a total of 60 units,” the report says. “The total number of units is comparable to a small draft plan of subdivision, where an urban standard would be applied as a condition of approval.”

But Seeley argues that not only do sidewalks and the other upgrades not make sense in the area, it adds significant costs to a badly needed development. The city would benefit significantly from his project, he said in a letter to the planning committee, in terms of property taxes and the $583,000 in development charges imposed for the full project.

Over 20 years, property taxes would “total $2,660,000, and combined with development fees, would be in the region of $3,243,115,” Seeley said. “This is with limited upfront investment by the City of Greater Sudbury.”

Even with the reduced deposit requirement, Seeley said he will have to pay $376,040.28 in fees ($188,020.14 deposit, plus the costs for urbanizing the streets) before construction even begins.

“(This) is not acceptable or fair,” he wrote. “There needs to be a partnership in development.”

A decision is expected at the May 25 planning meeting.

Comments

Verified reader

If you would like to apply to become a verified commenter, please fill out this form.




Darren MacDonald

About the Author: Darren MacDonald

Read more