By Jenna Cocullo, Local Journalism Initiative
Chatham-Kent’s chief administrative officer is worried that council’s decision to turn down an application for a multiple family residence will send the wrong message to housing investors.
At a recent council meeting, councillors were presented with an application to rezone 875 Charing Cross Road, a three acre residential lot located, which would convert the building to five rental units.
“Am I concerned about a negative impact? Absolutely, yes,” said CAO Don Shropshire “And, you know, we spent a long number of years trying to promote Chatham Kent as a community that is open for business.”
Council’s made the ultimate decision after an outcry from the neighbourhood.
“We feel strongly that this will affect our property value and change the dynamics of our safe neighbourhood,” read one deputation. “With this rezoning and potential to change the dynamics of our family home, we feel our property value will be diminished. If this sets the precedent of other rules, low density first estate properties can be changed on quick notice and completely change dynamics of other communities.”
Other residents expressed concern that the investors, who hail from Toronto, would keep the profits out of the municipality.
The new property owner had a chance to clear up some concerns with his own deputation read to council. They clarified that the home’s exterior and attached garage would remain intact with a few minor repairs to “restore the property to its former grandeur.” The four units would each have their own separate entrances with one parking space available per unit.
“Their vested interest in Chatham-Kent, is a direct reflection of council’s and administration’s recent efforts to walk the talk that Chatham-Kent is open for business,” said South Kent Coun. Mary Clare Latimer. “I’m happy to support the recommendation for postponement with the provision of additional time for this developer to have meaningful constructive conversations with neighbouring property owners to mutually resolve privacy, parking and lighting issues, especially along the abutting property lines.”
Both the motion to postpone and the motion to approve the plan failed. Shropshire said it is still unknown if the property owners plan to challenge the decision.
Latimer said if council is to reach Chatham-Kent’s growth targets, the municipality will require 4,777 new dwelling units to be built over the course of the next 10 years, with an average of two to three people per unit; adding her statistics do not take into account the waiting lists for affordable or supportive housing.
“I think we have to be careful that if we turn this down, we might be sending the wrong message to the investors,” said North Kent Coun. Joe Faas.
Some residents concurred with Chatham-Kent’s need for growth in their deputation but stated that the municipality should focus on increasing density closer to the city’s core or on neighbourhoods already designated as higher density rather than as single-family home.
“I don’t think a five-plex in the wrong neighbourhood is going to alleviate our housing issues,” said South Kent Coun. Trevor Thompson. “We do need to be strategic on where we grow and I think part of that is making sure it’s not unfettered growth. I don’t think a five-plex is proper for this area, the community clearly doesn’t want it.”
Shropshire said ultimately the decision lies in the hands of council, which has the “difficult task” of balancing off the needs of existing residents compared to the rights of new investors coming into the community.
“Chatham-Kent is a community that is open for business. But you know, it’s not open for business at all costs,” he said.
