Battle lines have been drawn between a developer and the City on a development proposed for the corner of Cunningham and Lyndon Streets.
The severely polarized opinion between some councillors and developer Mike Skrtich indicate the battle may be a long and expensive one.
Confusion reigned after planner Dan Romanko made a presentation on behalf of Skrtich to council on Sept. 3. The development proposed requires a zoning change to proceed. (See prior story here).
Council was expecting a development geared toward seniors but Romanko stated the units would be four-bedroom and four-bathroom ones, with a common area. He admitted the design was based on student housing but insisted the design was in use in other municipalities for seniors.
Council denied the zoning change unanimously as they felt the units were definitely aimed at student housing.
But Skrtich charged Romanko had made a serious mistake in a letter he sent to the City on Sept. 6.
In it, he stated:
Dear Mr. Mayor,
I just watch the council meeting on line regarding my Lyndon and Cunningham project and I am quite embarrassed. I apologize for my planners gross incompetence. The idea of students was my thought from the beginning but I have since changed my mind, as I told you and other Councillors. I hired Emilio Raimondo to design a SENIOR FRIENDLY building attached is the design and you can see that they are two bedroom, two washroom units about 1200 square feet each. The building footprint is actually smaller than what I was asking for because I'm making the units smaller than the original plan. They have elevators and is completely designed for acceptability. Needless to say that planner will no longer be part of my team because he was completely clueless on what I have decided to build there.
Is there some way that I can go in from of council to explain what I'm really going to build? There was defiantly miscommunication with Dan Romanko and myself. Dan Romanko completely misrepresented my plan, concept and my business. If you can't make this happen know that in the appeal process I will be building the two bedroom apartments because like everyone said we need more inventory of accessible apartments in Thorold.
Once again I apologize for the embarrassment.
Michael Skrtich
At Tuesday's council meeting Councillor John Kenny brought forward a "reconsider" motion which would have allowed Skrtich to attend council and present new information on the proposal.
Kenny stated, "Since Council was not properly informed that evening at Council when it came forward. I spoke with the developer after and, as you know, we all had some issues with the presenter and he would like to come here himself on Oct. 1 and explain" the proper plan."
Councillor Ken Sentance asked if the matter was up for reconsideration "because he (the developer) is going to come forward with a seniors' proposal?"
Skrtich would be presenting "new information," answered Mayor Terry Ugulini.
A majority of three-quarters of Council is needed to allow a reconsider but four councillors--Anthony Longo, Carmen DeRose, Jim Handley and Victoria Wilson--voted against the motion and it was defeated.
Afterwards, Kenny told the Thorold News, "I tried putting a motion forward to reconsider to allow a developer to come and speak and hear him out because he sent someone who had made a mistake. I wasn't asking Council to change anything they had voted on; I was asking Council to reconsider and allow the developer to come and speak on the opportunity to build 12 housing units for seniors."
He then added, "Whenever a developer comes forward to speak about building seniors' homes, it should be number one on our radar because of the housing shortage in Thorold. This is what he (Skrtich) was presenting so we should have listened. You hear him speak and then you vote on it."
Skrtich spoke to the Thorold News on Wednesday and was clearly livid.
"They are discriminating against seniors. It’s awful what they’ve (the four councillors) done for the City of Thorold. If they had done any research they would figure it out that I was telling the truth. Now it’s war. I don’t have a job anymore. I just finished a $15 million project downtown to get students out of Confederation Heights. The city of Thorold can make lots of tax money. But as the developer I'm the last one to get paid," he said.
"Am I not doing good? Go to Google and view Thorold in 2007 and see what Thorold looked like before Michael Skrtich came to town. What have those four councillors done? Now they’re stopping progress from happening. They don’t want seniors living downtown. I want to bring more supply of housing in the area. By providing more seniors' housing, they (seniors) can sell their homes and make a profit to invest in rent. That, in turns, frees up more homes for families. The four of them (councillors) are ignorant to the issues and how to solve the problems," he charged.
A refusal for reconsideration means it cannot come back to Council again. The next step is to go to the The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), formerly known as the OMB.
Skrtich continued, "I will win at the OMB because their arguments are discriminatory. They don’t understand that it’s a zoning issue and I’m asking for intensification of an area that is mandated by the provincial and federal governments. City staff understands it but these councillors don’t," he charged.
He admitted his original intention was to put student housing there but said, "Mayor Ugulini and Councillor Kenny came and asked me to put seniors' housing there."
The plan now calls for twelve 1,200 ft. units and 20 parking spaces, he revealed. Skrtich said that was the plan Romanko was supposed to present.
The zoning currently allows for townhouses which could house students but Skrtich said that's not his intention.
"I'm not going to do it because it's a business decision. It's economies of scale. If you go too big you can’t provide the right service with the staff I have. Student housing requires a lot more labour. The magic number is around 300 beds for the staff I currently employ. Adding more means I have to hire more staff," he said, adding that he's not in a position to do that.
For some of the four councillors, it's a matter of trust.
Councillor Handley charged, "When Mike Skrtich first came here he was proposing all these developments then. He always told Council, 'I'm not just building student housing, I'm trying to build affordable housing for the people of Thorold.' But first project - students, second project - students, third project - students. He never built anything other than for students until he did the Albert Street project. He tells everyone they're going to be two-bedroom, one-bathroom apartments, but his own representative shows up at Council and we asked him questions and he says it's actually four bedrooms and four bathrooms with a common area. Then after the fact he says, 'He misrepresented me'. He's (Romanko) been to Council many times for years representing Mike Skrtich. And on this one he's wrong? I think the guy was telling the truth."
Councillor Wilson agreed with that stance, telling the Thorold News, "I have no interest in changing the zoning. The developer sent a representative to the last council to speak on his behalf. That representative described the build to consist of four-bedroom units with four bathrooms and not enough parking spaces to account for those tenants. It was voted down. Now the developer says that was wrong and it is two-bedroom units for seniors and wants us to reconsider. I think it is convenient. They are not geared to income or income friendly, for that matter. I don't believe that is the intent of the units."
Councillor DeRose explained, "The reason I voted against this project is that I feel we were misled by the planner, who was not very well prepared when questions were asked. The citizens of Thorold have stated loud and clear to me that they don't want more student housing in their neighbourhoods. I continue to advocate for seniors' living spaces, which to me, is one of my top priorities over the next four years. The developer has made some great contributions to our community, but it would be beneficial to all if senior housing becomes a top priority going forward. The business model presented had too many flaws and inconsistencies. Once the integrity of this project was compromised, I could not support it at this time."
Handley added, "I'm not supporting a reconsideration but it's not written in stone. An individual can say all they want about what they're going to do, but what they can do is a different thing. I don't believe he is going to do what he said. He never has in the past. He didn't follow through in the past with his intentions. It was 100 per cent student residency. We believed he was going to build both kinds of housing but never has, other than Albert Street."
Skrtich, understandably, has an entirely different view on his past performance.
"If you ask anyone that I do business with, I mean what I say and I do what I say," he said.
For Councillor Longo, it was a matter of procedure.
He felt the reconsideration motion was handled poorly.
Longo said, "I was taken totally off guard as there was no conversation or even a heads-up from Councillor Kenny. I was really unprepared to discuss it because he really didn't articulate what he was trying to do. I also voted against it because I didn't think it required a reconsideration. It was my understanding that he was going to come back with a totally separate proposal, which is what he said he wanted to do. That's what I was waiting for."
Wilson was also doubtful, saying, "Once we vote to change the zoning, we have no control over how many bedrooms and baths are put in that building or what demographic it is marketed to. Therefore, given the information at the previous meeting and the sudden change of heart of the developer, I have no interest in hearing a presentation and potentially putting those residents in that area in risk of what may very well happen."
Longo added, "To me, a reconsideration is something is to address what was discussed before. I was told that he was coming back with a totally different proposal for the area so that, in my mind, is not a reconsideration."
He also noted that drawings for the original proposal were not in the Council package so they had no way of knowing if the planner presented it properly.
Councillors Kenny and Handley both agreed they expected the LPAT appeal to cost the city between $10,000 and $12,000 but they had differing opinions on what that means.
Kenny argued, "I cannot believe, no matter who the person is that we wouldn't allow them to speak. Now he's going to go to court and it's going to cost him $10,000 to $12,000 and cost the city the same, and he's going to win."
Handley, however, was adamant. "Yes, it will cost us 12 grand. It's not the first time we've gone (to LPAT). We're going to lose and he's going to build what he intended to anyway. Let him go to the OMB and let him win and let him actually build residences where seniors are going to live and maybe next time he comes to Council I will believe him."
Skrtich concluded, "This is going to take another year of my time and I can’t make any money because I make my money developing. Now it’s going to cost me another $10,000 or $20,000 on lawyers and consultants and the city hasn’t got a chance in hell to win this."
