Orangeville council continues to be divided in its opinion of a proposed apartment building on Broadway, west of Dawson Road, despite plan changes from the developer, Stone Ridge Holdings.

At Monday’s public session, Councillor Mary Rose spoke against the proposed sixstorey, 32-unit building, which would be built on the south side of Broadway, across the street from Banting Drive.

It would be bordered on both sides by commercial buildings to the east and west, and on the south by Mill Creek and the town-owned railway.

While the proposed number of units has been decreased to 32 from 38 – largely due to a council concern the apartments would be too small – Ms. Rose said such a building would be “overwhelming,” and disagreed with a planning department report that was favorable to the development. She maintained such a building “is certainly not in keeping with the neighbourhood.”

But Councillor Sylvia Bradley, on the other hand, spoke in support of the project. “We need more affordable housing and more rental units,” she said. As for the location, Ms. Bradley said,

I don’t know where there would be a better spot,” pointing to the proposed building’s access to public transit and other amenities.

Ms. Rose felt that only a small fraction of the project’s units could truly be classified as affordable housing, prompting Councillor Scott Wilson to ask what the price range would be.

Speaking on behalf of the town, planner Meghan Keelan said information on that point was not currently available.

Mr. Wilson expressed concern that the apartment building could be eventually converted to condominiums and joined Councillors Rose and Gail Campbell in opposing the project.

Councillor Gary Kocialek argued that “any new apartment building can be ‘condominiumized’ in the future. That’s a fact of life.” As for Ms. Rose’s contention the project is unsuitable for the area, he said: “I’m not aware of any issues raised by the neighborhood.”

Ms. Keelan addressed the condominium conversion concern by saying it could possibly happen, “but we haven’t been led to believe they will.” Council ended up carrying motion from Deputy Mayor Warren Maycock that concerns raised Monday be deferred and that any vote on the issue be postponed until the next council meeting.

The staff report prepared by planning director James Stiver pointed to the project’s benefits, saying the development would “accommodate over 30 new persons or families without the need to build the need to build new roads, watermains or sewers. Therefore the proposed development can be considered to be energy efficient, as it makes more efficient use of the Town’s existing infrastructure.

The property can also be type of development as it is located on a transit route and is relatively close to the downtown area. It is not anticipated that the surrounding uses will be negatively impacted by the proposed development.”

In a correspondence to the town, Trailways Committee chair Bernadette Hardaker suggested that the parkland allocation of the project be put toward a trail that would run behind the property and adjacent to the railway. She also alluded to the recent vote by council to kill a planned railside trail.

“Despite this council’s unwillingness to endorse the viability of a trail along its rail trail corridor, it is important not to make decisions today that impinge on future opportunities for continuing the trail system.”