7-storey apartment, 3 townhomes proposed for Essex Centre’s former Home Hardware site

by Sylene Argent, Local Journalism Initiative

The Town of Essex Council heard a proposal that could allow for a seven-storey apartment building and three, two-storey townhome dwelling buildings at 47 Wilson Avenue, the former Essex Home Hardware site.

  In all, this plan could offer up to 126 dwelling units.

  The purpose of the meeting on April 27 was to notify, hear, and receive comments from the public on this application for Site-Specific Amendments to the Zoning By-Law (ZBA) for the irregularly shaped 3.19-acre property.

  The amendments will be decided at a future meeting of Essex Council. At that time, Council could defer, deny, or provisionally adopt the plan. If provisionally adopted, final approval would be tabled for consideration at the following Council meeting.

  Manager of Planning, Rita Jabbour, explained the apartment building is proposed to include 96 dwelling units (70 one-bedroom units and 26 two-bedroom units). The townhome buildings are proposed to include a total of thirty dwelling units (10 dwelling units in three buildings, each with two-bedroom units, a basement, a first floor, and a second floor).

  The tenure is currently proposed as purpose-built rental, so they will not be individually owned, Jabbour relayed.

  The property is currently zoned Commercial District 2.2 (C2.2), “General Commercial” uses, with a Site Specific Zoning Provision that allows for the sale of building materials and a lumber yard.

  The proposal includes 146 onsite parking spaces, five accessible spaces, 14 visitor spaces, and six bicycle spaces for the apartment building.

  In addition, another 30 onsite parking spaces are proposed for townhome dwellings in the attached garages. Jabbour explained that results in one space per dwelling unit, which is the parking standard in the Town of Essex Zoning By-Law.

  There would be three access points: one from Station Street and two from Wilson Avenue.

  In order to achieve this, the proponents have approached the Town of Essex to redesignate the entire site from “Essex Town Centre” to “Residential” in the Official Plan, and redesignate the entire site from “C2.2 with S28.1.7” to a site-specific “Residential District 3.1 (R3.1)” zoning category to permit multi-unit and townhome dwelling buildings. There is also a request for two site-specific lots and building regulations: recognize the lot area is existing at 1.29-hectares, and the maximum lot coverage needs to be increased from 35% to 50%.

  In addition, the apartment building will require site-specific regulations permitting: a maximum building height of 24m, 18m is the maximum; a minimum exterior side yard width of 20m to be consistent with site plan; and a minimum of one loading space, as three spaces are required.

  For the townhomes, the definition would be “one building separated vertically into three or more dwelling units attached by a common interior wall,” as townhome dwelling units are required to be on their own lot with separate street access; and prohibit a roof with a slope of less than 20 degrees to ensure a gable roof structure is constructed. It would also need to establish a maximum building height of 10m, a minimum exterior side yard width of three-meters, and a minimum interior side yard width of 2.7m. It would also need to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 6m, as 7.5m is required.

  As part of the proposal, the proponents had to submit a Planning Justification Report (PJR), Urban Design Brief, Traffic Impact Statement, Functional Servicing Report (FSR), and Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA).

  Results indicate the development is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conforms with the intent and purpose of the County and Town Official Plan. It uses appropriate setbacks, building scale/form, architectural elements that are compatible with the neighbourhood and upholds principles of good urban design.

  Some signal timing adjustments will be required at signalized intersections. Minimum delay and queuing are projected at stop-controlled intersections. It was also determined that adjacent services are sufficient for the proposed development.

  In addition, the Record of Site Condition (RSC) has been filed, and mitigation measures have been taken to remove any potential contaminants from the former use.

  Forty individuals – including Council members and staff – attended a public open house in February. All owners of land within 120m of the site were notified.

  Jabbour noted a number of concerns were heard, including that the parking ratio is insufficient and that overflow parking could impact streets, properties, and public parking lots. Concerns were also heard regarding traffic volumes at intersections, with the height and density, and whether the project aligns with the area’s current zoning and urban character, and its impact on local infrastructure.

  She added the proposed development will accommodate projected residential demand for Essex, is proposed in a settlement area, has access to municipal services, proposed as a form of residential intensification, and is consistent with the goals of residential designation that allows for greater height and density.

  Despite the request to add the seventh storey, density targets are not exceeded by the proposal. Information Jabbour provided noted height should not exceed six-storeys.

  The Essex Region Conservation Authority had no objections to the proposal. After April 21, the Town did receive more public comments. 

If Council approves this, it will proceed to the County of Essex for its final decision. The applicant would then proceed to Site Plan Control.

  In answering Councillor Joe Garon on potential traffic impacts on the street, Director of Infrastructure Services, Kevin Girard, noted the Traffic Impact Study was scoped in consultation with the Town. The Town had them review major intersections to ensure there would be no negative impacts. Overall, the study indicated there would be no major impacts from traffic, but there would be some. It did take into consideration improvements the Town intends to make at the Talbot/Maidstone intersection.   

  Residents of the area were provided an opportunity to speak to the project. Comments from Blaise Markovich, whose family lives near the development, noted they were not afraid of change. They did have concerns, however, with the water table and infrastructure.

  Susan Robson spoke about how the area has become an “unofficial truck route,” with local businesses getting deliveries.

  “Wilson is used to avoid the downtown by transports, as well as cars,” she said.

  Robson also had concerns with parking. The designated parking requirements are unrealistic. She pointed out many have more than one car, and where would they park their vehicles?

  “The subject land is designated Commercial Town Centre for a reason,” Robson said. “As a taxpayer, I have contributed to a new, beautiful downtown, but by rezoning where will it expand?

  “To eliminate an entire commercial area for what the Council sees as growth is not having foresight. You may have residential growth, but not commercial in your downtown core, and your residents will start to shop looking elsewhere for variety.”

  She noted the area is in need of housing.

  Deputy Mayor Rob Shepley said the growth that is coming is heard a lot, but he doesn’t see it, other than building roads.

  His concern is the scale of the housing on this property. The seventh storey is probably a bit much. He also wondered about the precedent set in allowing a seven-storey building. Lori Chadwick, Director of Planning Services, said that is dependent on each application being brought before Council. It is a site-specific matter.

  “I personally think this is a little too much for this area,” Shepley said, adding he believes parking will be an issue.

  He added that when commercial space is given up, it is pretty much impossible to get it back. If there was a commercial component to the main floor of the building, he might be able to get behind the idea.

  There is a need for housing, Shepley said. But this is too condensed for him.

  Councillor Katie McGuire-Blais was not opposed to the seven-storey height, but would rather see the first floor commercial. The townhomes feel like too much in one space. Having one parking space per unit for the townhomes, in a garage, is unacceptable, she said.

  Chadwick said the applicant has been made aware the Town is currently reviewing its parking requirements.

  Councillor Joe Garon believes the lot will not be as attractive for commercial use as it would be for mixed commercial/residential or residential. He had concerns with parking, as well.

  A representative of the applicant, Melanie Muir of Dillon Consulting Limited, noted parking may change, and if it does, as they go through Site Plan Control it will be addressed at that time. The market may change and they may not want as many townhome units and more parking may be provided.

  What was submitted was the most optimal use of the site.

  The applicants are willing to look at comments, she said.

  In answering Shepley if the building is still viable as a six-storey building, Muir said it would be. They wanted the flexibility for the height of each storey for taller units.