Tight squeeze

Existing townhouses at 214 Oak Street.

Developer has difficulty getting approval for housing project

Aproposed development on the tiny, dead-end Oak Street in Wellington got some heavy criticism at a planning meeting last week.

The property, at 214 Oak Street, currently consists of a set of two townhouse-style apartment buildings with four and eight apartments, faces Wellington’s water tower, with a small, unpaved parking lot in front of the buildings. To the northeast, on the same property, is a field surrounded by backyards from houses on Niles and Main Streets.

The owners of the property, purchased in 2012 from former mayor Peter Mertens, have proposed a new development for the site. The development would see two buildings added to the existing lot—affordable housing units that would add rental housing in the village.

But there were objections from neighbours, worried about the location of the lot, which has no real street frontage and only one exit at Oak Street.

Residents arrived at the deputations and discussed concerns that the new development would lower property values, restrict access to emergency vehicles, make it impossible to remove dead trees and overpopulate a street never meant to bear so many cars.

Others demanded privacy fences and complained about balconies designed to face their backyards. They were concerned about the type of person who might be drawn to rent affordable housing units.

Resident Pam Inwood was among them.

“We have some concerns about [this], if this is targeting low income, affordable housing. We do understand that there is a need for that in Prince Edward County. However, we are concerned that some of the people in existing apartments have a lack of public decency and concern for neighbours. We [have] on several accounts witnessed public intoxication and foul language, and also people using the bathroom outdoors.”

“We currently don’t have young children, so it’s not the biggest concern to us at this point, but we certainly do hope to in [the] coming years. And we don’t want our children in the backyard to be witnessing things like that.”

Council had different concerns. As a proposed affordable housing project, the developers had requested breaks on both the development and the waterworks connection fees for a location that has not yet been connected for those services.

Councillor Gord Fox brought up the concern.

“We have a water and sewer crisis, and they’re asking us to give them water and sewer for nothing? There’s something wrong with that,” said Fox.

The planning committee elected to defer the motion to approve the proposal, requesting a meeting for public input be scheduled before the project is approved.

Developer Justin Stein left the meeting frustrated and feeling he had lost a lot of money.

“It’s disappointing. I felt that the project was warranted. I have tenants there. They’re very happy there. There’s not much choice in rental housing, especially new rental housing, in all of Prince Edward County. I thought we were adding value,” says Stein. “Anyone, when you’re building in their backyard, is going to complain a bit.”

“There’s a misconception,” says fellow developer Hugh Davidson of concerns from residents like Inwood. “It wasn’t low income housing, it’s affordable housing. And the County does have provisions in their bylaws to bonus this type of construction—and the increased density— and I think that was forgotten. This is NIMBYism.”