Councillors reject student housing plan
While in favour of improving student accommodations, committee says this is the wrong location
KITCHENER — City councillors rejected their own planner’s advice, and voted against a controversial 175-bedroom student housing project in Lower Doon.
Kitchener councillors voted 9-2 at Monday’s planning committee to refuse applications for zoning and Official Plan changes to allow the development, which would have built stacked townhouses up to 4.5 storeys high on vacant land tucked behind single-family homes on Doon Valley Drive, Durham Street and Amherst Drive, down the street from Conestoga College.
The complex would have had 40 fourbedroom units, and six two-bedroom units, as well as a three-bedroom unit for a supervisor. In rejecting the plan, councillors said it was simply too intense, putting too many students in a parcel that measures just 0.7 hectares (1.7 acres). “It’s like taking 10 pounds of sugar and putting it in a fivepound bag,” said Coun. Zyg Janecki. “In the end it won’t fit, and the bag’s going to burst.”
The proposal has attracted a lot of controversy and attention since the developer, Oliver Jahn of Owl Properties, first brought it to the city more than two years ago. The city received more than 70 letters and emails on the matter — most vehemently opposed to the plan — and two
petitions: one with 408 signatures in opposition, the other from Conestoga College students with 222 signatures in favour.
At Monday night’s meeting, more than 80 people filled the council chambers to hear the discussion, which attracted 18 delegations and ate up more than three hours of discussion time.
More than a dozen residents of Lower Doon spoke against the plan Monday. The area has seen many conversions of single-family homes into multi-bedroom student rentals, and residents regularly complain about noise, garbage, unruly behaviour, illegally parked cars and unkempt properties.
The developers of the proposed housing complex attempted to address those concerns by including a supervisor on site, and by having each of the four-bedroom units licensed as a separate lodging house. Lodging houses are inspected every year by the city, making it better able to address problems and limit the numbers living in a unit.
Three young people told council the area badly needs appropriate student housing rather than the often-illegal conversions where students are crammed eight or 10 to a house.
Justin McLaughlin, a vice-president of Conestoga Students Inc., told councillors the student association didn’t have a formal position on the merits of the specific proposal, but said much of the available housing for students is subpar. The association favours purpose-built housing such as Owl proposed, because it is safe, affordable and close to campus, which gives students greater access to college services and facilities.
“These are young adults living away from home for the first time, and it can be pretty depressing to come home to some of the student housing now in place,” said Brock Wardell, a recent Conestoga grad who still lives in Lower Doon.
While many councillors expressed similar support for better-quality student housing, the majority said the proposed location amid single-family homes was the wrong location. Many also said the plan shouldn’t proceed until area problems are addressed.
The community has been badly “wounded” by the degradation caused by this host of problems, said Coun. Frank Etherington. “Council is not here to shoot the wounded. We should do everything possible to save this neighbourhood from becoming a student ghetto.”
Coun. Paul Singh, who with Coun. Kelly Galloway-Sealock voted in favour of the plan, said rejection of the plan could mean the city loses control of the proposal. “We’re delegating the final authority ultimately to the Ontario Municipal Board,” he said. The city runs the risk of losing the many enhancements to the proposal that city planners convinced the developer to include as the plan took shape, he warned.
The decision to refuse the application will come to city council April 24 for ratification.