Amendments for project at GAHS site approved

The proposed mixed use plan for the former General Amherst High School site will proceed.

Amherstburg town council approved an Official Plan amendment and a zoning bylaw amendment and that means the proposal by the Valente Development Corporation has cleared a major hurdle as they attempt to redevelop the site. While an addition to the motion to approve the amendments called for the town to ask administration to work with the developer on the issues of lighting, traffic, garbage, fire protect, access to the site and other related issues, the plan for 130 Sandwich St. S. is moving forward.

Those plans call for an eight-storey residential tower, an 11-storey residential tower and commercial space while trying to preserve historic facades of the former public high school.

The issue of whether town hall is going in there will be decided at a later date, as will what might happen to neighbouring Bill Wigle Park. 

Peter Valente, president of the Valente Development Corporation, said it is a “really big investment” his company is undertaking and was excited that the Official Plan and zoning bylaw amendments were approved by Amherstburg town council. He said his mother’s family is still in Amherstburg and many people in town had attended General Amherst High School.

“When I bought the property, I knew a lot of people would have an interest in it,” said Valente. 

The redevelopment of the former high school is one of the biggest projects his company has entertained and said it will take “many, many millions” to realize the vision. 

Valente said condominium units will likely go for around $600,000 while rental units could start in the area of $2,000 per month plus utilities.

Construction could start in the spring of 2026, depending on how pre-sales go, and take about two years to complete. Another facade has been discovered dating back to the original construction of the building when it was a farm exposition centre, and that efforts will be made to restore that.

Phil Kasurak, a Laird Ave. resident, noted it wasn’t the result he and some of his neighbours were hoping for. He did take some solace in the amendment to the original motion that called for the town to work with the Valente group on issues relating to lighting, traffic, garbage, fire protect, access to the site and more, stating he believed the citizens had been heard.

“Kudos to the mayor for making that motion,” said Kasurak, noting Mayor Michael Prue put forth the amendment. 

Kasurak outlined concerns he had relating to traffic and parking, noting while there are 1.5 parking spots per unit assigned in the plan, he believes many residents will have two or more cars. Combined with visitor parking and parking for the commercial units, he believed there would be “overflow” into Laird Ave. and surrounding areas.

“I feel the town needs to monitor that,” said Kasurak. 

Traffic calming on Laird Ave. needs to be looked at, he added. While there is a proposed access point onto Sandwich St. S., Kasurak said residents don’t want to see Laird Ave. used as a quicker way to leave the area. 

Kasurak was hoping to address council on the matter but refused under the procedural bylaw. In his presentation, he called parts of the administration report “either inconsistent or unsatisfactory.” Building height was one of the issues he raised, noting it would conform with the Official Plan. Should town hall not go there, those could be the additional units that could help make the project viable, he believed.

The written report Kasurak would end up sending to council and the RTT also questioned if the fire department would need new equipment if there are taller buildings in Amherstburg. He also raised concerns over the site plan and called for the matter to be deferred in his written submission sent out before the meeting.

Gary Bowerman, another Amherstburg resident that had hoped to speak, also shared his comments. He called for “meaningful consultations” with Parks Canada before adopting any of the Official Plan or zoning bylaw amendments as Fort Malden National Historic Site of Canada is nearby. Bowerman noted David Botsford was the first curator of Fort Malden and the main reason it exists today.

“Currently Fort Malden brings approximately 50,000 visitors through their gates each summer,” he said, adding there are opportunities for young people to attend and have “a fabulous learning experience.”

“The spinoffs from the activities and visitors to Amherstburg is a huge financial benefit for the Town of Amherstburg,” said Bowerman. “Visit the park, get lunch, have coffee, buy ice cream, and fake muskets, the younger grandkids love it.”

Bowerman said cannon firings are one of the 17 highlighted issues with the operation of Fort Malden within the Strategic Environmental Assessment, all of which had been rationalized, analyzed, resolved or mitigated. He did note parking was an issue dealt with as far back as 1983 but that could come back, though noted Valente was “straightforward and honest” when discussing the matter in his reports. He added the federal government purchased the site from the Town of Amherstburg in 1905.

“Without full disclosure and meaningful consultation with Park’s Canada, I am questioning the ability of Parks Canada to meet its own requirements as a viable institution within our community,” said Bowerman. “Is it something town council, town administrators, business owners, developers and residents should have concerns about? There are options available to mitigate these concerns, viable opinions for this project.”

Prior to town council debating the matter, Analee Baroudi from the Baroudi Law Professional Corporation provided her legal opinion on the matter. CAO Valerie Critchley noted Baroudi is a planning lawyer with much experience before the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT).

Baroudi noted several concerns raised about the Valente proposal, one of which was its proximity to Fort Malden. She said staff has reached out to the federal heritage review office at Parks Canada “and has received confirmation via e-mail that federal heritage requirements apply only to federal departments and federally owned properties. These requirements do not apply to a private property adjacent to a federal heritage property, such as the site in question.

Heritage preservation for the development site is governed by provincial legislation, specifically the Ontario Heritage Act, Baroudi told council. 

Refusing the application on the basis that the development doesn’t comply with federal heritage legislation would not be defensible at the Ontario Land Tribunal on an appeal by the applicant,” she said. “With respect to the concerns raised about Fort Malden’s ability to continue operating, the town can require that notices can be registered on title for all units in the development advising of the noise and light impacts from Fort Malden. This will be addressed at the site plan stage and does not need to be addressed at the Official Plan and zoning bylaw amendment stage.”

Baroudi also addressed parking concerns, stating “zoning relief is not required for parking as the on-site parking is more than sufficient to meet the zoning requirements.” She said refusing the application regarding the amount of on-site parking would not be defensible at the OLT.

“Should the proposal change in the future in a manner that requires additional parking, the applicant will be required to apply for further relief through either a minor variance or a zoning bylaw amendment,” she wrote.

Garbage bins, vehicle access lanes and lighting fall within the site plan process, Baroudi added. Any move to refuse the application based on those concerns would not have been defensible at the OLT either.

“Furthermore, proposed companion regulations to Bill 17 contain a list of items that cannot be required as part of a complete application, which includes information and material relating to lighting,” she stated. “It is also important to note that the proposed companion regulations to Bill 17 will remove the town’s ability to request information and material relating to urban design. In other words, the town cannot dictate the design of the building.”

Regarding concerns over an alleged conflict of interest in relation to the institutional use remaining in the proposed designation, Baroudi stated the proposed designation and zoning will continue to permit institutional uses but not create any type of conflict of interest.

“To summarize, I have reviewed the staff report recommending approval of these site-specific applications as well as the concerns from residents,” said Baroudi. “In my opinion, it would not be defensible to refuse the applications based on the concerns around compliance with the federal heritage legislation, parking, matters that fall squarely within the scope of the site plan process or an alleged conflict of interest. Legal advice has been provided to council regarding the chances of success of a potential appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal relating to other issues such as height, traffic and heritage.”

Councillor Diane Pouget voted in favour of Prue’s amendments but was the lone council member to vote against the main motion to proceed with the Official Plan and zoning bylaw amendments. She said she congratulated Valente and wished him well, but the height was among her concerns, namely the 11-storey tower.

“You have a vision for Amherstburg,” she told Valente. “I really want you to succeed.”

Pouget said both the current Official Plan and the new Official Plan being proposed both recommend maximum heights be eight storeys. She also wanted to know if anything would go on top of the 11-storey building, with manager of planning services Christopher Aspila stating it is common to have mechanical structures on the rooftops of such buildings.

Pouget stated the town would no longer have any control over site plans based on provincial legislation once the amendments are approved. She wondered if the town hall were not to go into the development, whether more residential could be added.

“The residents don’t have the right for an appeal with the OLT,” she said. “I want the developer to succeed. He’s a good, honest developer. I can’t go against the Official Plan. Why have it if we are not going to obey it?”

Deputy CAO/director of development services Melissa Osborne said as a right, developments can be eight storeys. She said original proposals for the site asked for 15 storey buildings but the town worked with the proponent and “a lot of cooperation by both parties to find something sympathetic” to the area was undertaken.

Osborne added it was a nine-month process. She said the three additional storeys on the one tower do not go all the way across the building, noting a tiered design where the ninth floor is smaller than the eighth and the floors get smaller and smaller on the tenth and eleventh storeys.

“We’re not talking 11 storeys from one end of the building to the other,” she said.

Deputy Mayor Chris Gibb noted the 1.5 parking space requirement, which is over the one spot per unit requirement. Traffic was another concern he heard in addition to parking, noting a four-way stop along Sandwich St. S. at Fort St. is proposed along with traffic impact studies.

“It comes down to height,” said Gibb.

Gibb added he heard from people who want three storeys to all 11 or somewhere in between, doubting there would be agreement from all residents on a specific number. He indicated he liked the design rather than simply an eight-storey “brick box” and that if it were made lower, it would likely be made wider.

“What is being proposed, I think, is in the best interests of Amherstburg,” said Gibb. 

The deputy mayor added “the province is pushing us to go up” and that voters overwhelmingly voted Progressive Conservative in the last provincial election.

“They are telling us they are building homes,” he said. 

Councillor Linden Crain said there is “lots to unpack” in the proposal but many of his concerns were being answered. He said there was a 120-day window that has passed between when the proposal was filed to the present and a deferral could mean an OLT appeal for a non-decision by town council.

Calling it “a project of compromise,” Crain said “I think it’s important we move on this.” He believed it meets the town’s Strategic Plan objectives and supports growth.

Councillor Don McArthur stated he spent time walking and cycling down Laird Ave. considering the proposal and understood many in Amherstburg enjoy the town’s “small town charm” and want to preserve it. While there is a concern the “big city is coming to us,” McArthur said growth is still coming, citing Official Plan projections that the population will eventually grow to 40,000 people.

New housing is needed for children, grandchildren and other family members.

“That’s not just fat cats from Toronto,” he said.

In supporting the proposal, McArthur added it helps make the town a more walkable community. As for the height issue on the 11-storey tower, “we’re talking about three floors.” He noted the guiding documents say eight, but noted Valente’s efforts to work with town administration. The project adds more housing intensification in the downtown core, adds commercial options for residents, helps provide more services and an expanded tax base.

Councillor Molly Allaire said the proposed buildings are visually appealing and also noted the efforts of the proponent to work with the town. She said she is “very excited” by the proposal, and believed it was a good thing that the former high school won’t sit vacant.

“I actually think this is a great choice for Amherstburg,” said Allaire.

Councillor Peter Courtney stated he understood Pouget’s concerns, but said the province has taken away a lot of powers from elected officials.“We need to have faith in our professional staff,” he said. 

Courtney said he too had concerns that were addressed by the proponent or by administration, stating Valente and his team answered many of his questions. He also said the three additional storeys on one of the two towers don’t go all the way across the building.

Prue added citizens don’t have the appeal rights they used to. While he didn’t like Bill 17, it is law and that it states the province needs to build more houses. The mayor added Official Plan and zoning bylaw amendments regularly come before either town council or the committee of adjustment.

“Amherstburg voted overwhelmingly for the Conservatives in the last election. You voted for them. They got the power and this is what they did,” he said of the legislation.

Prue said he didn’t want “big box” looking residential units and was glad to see the proposed design. He wanted the amendments to the motion to help address concerns put forth by residents. 

Amendments for project at GAHS site approved

By Ron Giofu