Proposed 26-Unit Apartment Building Facing Backlash, Legal Challenge

Local Residents Challenge Rezoning Decision Amid Concerns Over Process and Neighbourhood Impact.

A proposed 26-unit apartment building in Sturgeon Falls is stirring up growing opposition from local residents after it got the green light from the Planning Committee. Municipal staff say the project checks all the boxes under Ontario’s and West Nipissing’s planning rules, but people in the area are voicing serious concerns about transparency, safety, and how this could change the feel of their neighbourhood.

The Proposal

The project, initiated by 2569189 Ontario Inc., would see a single-storey, 26-unit apartment building constructed at the corner of Dovercourt Road and Cache Bay Road. The land, previously vacant, spans roughly 1.45 acres and is currently zoned Residential Two (R2) and Residential Three (R3). The requested rezoning to Residential Four (R4) would allow for a higher density residential use, in line with West Nipissing’s 2023 Housing Strategy and the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement.

Planning Committee Approval Sparks Legal Action

The West Nipissing Planning Committee approved the rezoning application during its April 8, 2025, meeting. However, shortly after that decision, a coalition of approximately 57 residents, led by Ray Routhier, retained a North Bay law firm to formally challenge the proposed development.

Following pressure from the community and legal counsel, the matter has been delayed and is now expected to appear before Municipal Council on May 6, 2025.

Residents' Core Concerns

The coalition has identified several key concerns:

• Structural Risk from Blasting: Some homes in the immediate area are built on bedrock, and residents fear blasting for foundation work could cause significant damage. They argue that insurance assurances from the developer’s blasting company offer little peace of mind.

• Property Devaluation: Residents have commissioned professional appraisers to assess the potential impact of the project on nearby property values. While this falls outside the Planning Advisory Committee’s mandate, it remains a pressing issue for homeowners.

• Low-Income Housing Concerns: The residents have expressed unease about the potential for the development to include low-income or geared-to-income housing. Although the developer has clarified that this is not the intended purpose of the project, concerns persist that such a shift could occur in the future. Staff however have noted that regardless, the intent of the Zoning By-law is to regulate the use of the property, not the user.

• Insufficient Notice and Procedural Fairness: Many residents say they were not given adequate notice about the rezoning application or the opportunity to participate in the municipal process. The petition organizer noted that only seven days' notice was provided before the application appeared on the Council’s agenda—despite municipal by-laws requiring written submissions at least ten days in advance to speak at meetings. This timeline, residents argue, effectively barred them from voicing their concerns and undermines the transparency of the rezoning process.

Next Steps

The future of the project now hinges on the upcoming Municipal Council meeting on May 6, 2025. As the coalition readies legal and community-based arguments, the municipality must balance its housing targets with mounting pressure from constituents.