Neighbours raise concerns about potential Wingham apartments

BY DENNY SCOTT

A proposed development that would see a 73-unit, five-storey apartment building will be the focus of work between its developers, North Huron staff and concerned neighbours and citizens.

 

During North Huron Township Council’s Monday night meeting, council received a report on the apartment building, proposed for the former Wingham Trailer Park, and directed staff to try and address a litany of issues that neighbours had with the development before it could proceed.

 

Huron County Planner Kelly Vader outlined the building for council, explaining the structure would be just over 19,000 square feet and built on a mixed grade with four storeys visible from the east and five from the west. At its peak, the structure would be 61 feet tall, she said, and the site would include 90 parking spaces, buffering spaces between neighbours, an amenity space, including picnic tables and on-site snow storage, and a relocation and continuation of the Wingham Community Trail.

 

Vader walked council through the work that had been done, including studies that had already been completed such as archeological studies, environmental site assessments and environmental impact studies, as well as work that had been done, including remediating contaminated soil from the site. 

 

She said there were no concerns with the project, save Morris-Turnberry Public Works Department staff asking about traffic impacts, which she said wasn’t an issue as the size of the proposed structure wouldn’t increase traffic enough to cause an impact it when compared to its previous use.

 

Vader listed the concerns that were discussed by neighbours of the development, including potential ecological damage to the site and surrounding areas, loss of trees and impact on wildlife, loss of recreation opportunities, the distance from the site to the schools, concerns the development won’t provide affordable housing, questions about servicing, inquiries about damage from salt and sand on the site, the loss of trees, loss of recreation opportunities and the possible increase in demand for services such as hospitals and physicians.

 

She said some of the issues were already handled, including the ecological concerns, which were reviewed by the Maitland Valley Conservation Area and the county biologist, resulting in recommendations for the build and servicing, which was investigated early on. Vader said the loss of recreation was handled with the trail being relocated. She also said other concerns, including site lighting and the specifics of snow removal, would be addressed with site plan control measures.

 

The applicants, Jonathan Eelman, a local business owner, and Brock Hodgins, whose family operates Hodgins Rona in Wingham, said they had put together the best site plan to help address residential property shortfalls in the area, meet requirements like the walking path and make the project financially feasible.

 

The neighbours, however, were concerned with nearly every aspect of the build, with some claiming it would negatively impact property value, traffic, safety in the community and a lack of compatibility with surrounding properties. Most speakers also referred to how this development would have a negative impact on their quality of life.

 

Karen Dekker, who lives on John Street, said she wasn’t against development, but was against the specific apartment building, and also criticized council for having a discussion about it so close to Christmas. She said she felt the scheduling of the meeting, plus council only notifying people in a certain area near the property, wasn’t transparent. 

 

Dan Noble, who spoke on behalf of a property owner, said that construction trucks can provide danger, citing his own experience in the industry. He also said that renters don’t make for good neighbours. “People who rent don’t care,” he said. “They are all-around crazier people.”

 

Michael Woodman, who shares an address with Dekker and also sent a joint letter to council with her, said he felt the move wasn’t well researched.

 

Others complained that when they purchased their homes, they didn’t do so to look at the proposed structure.

 

While some would welcome “appropriate” development at the site, others felt it should be turned into parkland, since that’s how it has been used since the trailer park was removed from there.

 

Council didn’t comment on the issues, but moved ahead with the recommended motion which would see staff attempt to resolve the issues before council’s next meeting on Jan. 17.