Lively school developer says plans jeopardized by city sidewalk demands - Action News
Home WebMail Wednesday, November 20, 2024, 12:07 AM | Calgary | -9.3°C | Regions Advertise Login | Our platform is in maintenance mode. Some URLs may not be available. |
Sudbury

Lively school developer says plans jeopardized by city sidewalk demands

A Sudbury developer is blaming the city for delays that have turned the site of his planned housing complex into an eyesore.

"There needs to be a partnership in development."

The former Jessie Hamilton elementary school in Lively is slated to be converted into 55 apartments, plus 5 homes in the old school yard. (Google stretview)

A Sudbury developer is blaming the city for delays that have turned the site of his planned housing complexinto an eyesore.

SeeleyHomes got approval two years ago to turn the oldJessieHamilton school in Lively into a 55-unit apartment complex, which the companyplans to market to seniors, plus five single family homes in the school yard.

But the city wants the developer toput in sidewalks, curbs and storm sewers on the portions of Jessie and Patricia Streets bordering the school.

President Kevin Seeley said"urbanizing" those streets will cost about $144,000 and that will make his multi-milion-dollardevelopment unprofitable.

"Costs became a staggering amount and has placed the project in jeopardy," Seeley told the planning committee Monday night.

Ward 2 Greater Sudbury city councillor Michael Vagnini (Michael Vagnini)

"There needs to be a partnership in development."

The councillor for the area, Michael Vagnini of Ward 2, urged his colleagues to drop the street improvement requirement.

"I think we're in dire need of that, because if you take a look at theJessieHamilton school at the present time, it's in very, very bad shape. And it really is an eyesore," he said.

Seeley instead offered to chip in $30,000 towards sidewalk construction, appeasing some councillors who were mostly concerned with providing some kind of pedestrian infrastructure.

But councillors were frustrated by some confusing cost figures being thrown around and a lack of clear information, including some that was introduced to them during the meeting. So, in the end, the committee voted to put off a decision until its next meeting on May 25.