138 letters received objecting to affordable housing development plans in Mississauga

Residents came out to oppose and praise plans for an affordable housing development in Mississauga.

Indwell, a Christian charity that builds affordable housing, announced it had purchased the vacant lot at 1639 Lakeshore Rd. W. in Clarkson in late October last year. The project has received federal funding.

The proposal is to build a four-storey, 50-unit affordable apartment building. Area residents launched a petition, concerned about the location and the lack of community consultation on the project. They also mentioned safety risks and other potential negative impacts to Clarkson Village and the surrounding community.

The project has come into the spotlight again as the planner requested 14 minor variances at the Committee of Adjustment on July 25. The committee received 138 letters objecting to the variances and 10 letters of support. Twenty-five members of the public pre-registered to speak at the meeting.

Josh Neubauer, a planner with Urban Strategies who is working on the project for Indwell, said he is aware of the public opposition to the development but argued it is needed in the community.

“This development, we believe, is going to bring really significant benefit to the site, the area and the city,” said Neubauer. “It’s going to be a four-storey building replacing a long-standing vacant lot…and it is delivering housing at an affordability level that’s urgently needed in a current housing crisis.”

The Committee of Adjustment deals with minor changes to zoning and grants permission to alter or change a lawful non-conforming use of land, buildings or structures.

The variance requests for the Indwell project related to the heights, setbacks and parking — most of which have been approved by other developments in the neighbourhood, Neubauer said.

Committee vice chair John Page said while residents oppose the building, it is an allowed use for the property.

“We are not council, we are not here to overturn any zoning or allowed use,” Page said. “Nor are we here to judge the content of the buildings, who is living there and what that might or might not represent.”

Page said the building is consistent with the neighbourhood. Residents had concerns with the heights but Page said they conform to the zoning.

The height of the building would be two metres higher than what is allowed for this property, but the requested height is similar to the area and lower than a neighbouring building, Neubauer said.

Indwell also requested a first-storey height of 3.1 metres where a minimum first-storey height of 4.5 metres is required.

“I don’t have any problems at all with this project except for the parking,” said Page.

The plan included 17 parking spaces on the site and 10 spots in the community.

“There’s not going to be enough parking on this site,” Page said. “I don’t see how that is going to work.”

Neubauer said generally residents in these developments don’t use parking spaces. Staff indicated that as a rental building, the owners can restrict number of cars.

Photo: Google Maps

The conversation got heated with the first community speaker, Kara Breem exchanged words with chair Sebastian Patrizio and asked him “to be quiet.”

She said the variances are not minor, in particular, the request for a minimum commercial use of 25 per cent on the first storey where a minimum commercial use of 75 per cent is required.

Breem said the property was essentially going from commercial to residential.

“You guys ought to be ashamed of yourselves,” Breem said.

But Patrizio indicated the commercial space would front Lakeshore Road and the plan falls within the spirit of the zoning.

Breem also suggested a diagram of the property topography was manipulated and wanted more information from Credit Valley Conservation. Staff indicated a slope on the property will be addressed in the site plan process.

Residents also echoed Page’s concerns about parking.

Robert Brown, a planner who had been asked to review application, suggested 14 minor variances were too many.

Brown said he understood issues will be addressed at the site plan process but this is not a public process.

He had problems with the three variances — removing rear yard landscaped buffer, removing the bike lane and parking. Brown said there is no guarantee the building would remain an apartment building.

Rendering: Indwell

Sue Shanly, president of the Meadow Wood Rattray Ratepayers Association, said many residents had come forward with concerns about the variances and it wasn’t about NIMBYism. Shanly said residents were concerned about sufficient parking and the building fitting in with the character of the neighbourhood.

She also noted fly ash contamination in the area.

After listening to the comments, Neubauer suggested many outstanding issues would be addressed in the site planning process.

He said the building is designed for people on social assistance and therefore residents won’t likely have vehicles. And this building, as it is in partnership with the Region of Peel, will remain affordable for at least 40 years.

While most people spoke against the project, Jamie Bay, the minister at Clarkson Community Church, and a few others spoke out in support. Bay said they have many parking spaces available the development residents can use.

Bay said the development fits within the community and the variances are acceptable.

“Our city has a need for this building,” he said.

In the end, the committee approved the minor variance application with amendments recommended by staff, and they rejected the parking variance.

The amendments include a maximum height of four-storeys/13.73 metres where the zoning permits a maximum height of three storeys/12.5 metres; and a minimum commercial use of 28.26 per cent where 75 per cent is required.

For more information on the meeting discussion, see the agenda and video here. For more on the Indwell project, see the website here.

Editor’s note: This story was updated on July 29 to correct an error. The committee rejected the parking variance. INsauga.com apologizes for the error. 

Lead image: Indwell