Seniors Hampton planning committee gives go-ahead for $3.5M apartment building

C7

Erin Dwyer
For the Telegraph-Journal

Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

Speak Up

HAMPTON - Connie Heighton of Hampton is looking to downsize from her four-bedroom home to an apartment.

For nearly two years, the widow has had her name on a waiting list of seniors waiting to get into the Hampton United Church's proposed seniors apartment building. So she was quite anxious earlier this week to learn whether the town was going to grant a variance that would allow the $3.5-million project to proceed.

"I just don't want the responsibility anymore," she said. "I'm pushing 80, but I don't want to leave Hampton. This is my home now."

For her and the other 60 people who crowded into town council chambers on Monday night, the news was good. They erupted into applause when the motion was read granting a variance that would allow the three-storey, 32-unit apartment building to be constructed as planned.

"I'm overjoyed," Heighton said after the meeting.

She was joined by Darrell Kilpatrick, a longtime member of the church and a construction consultant who has been spearheading the church's steering committee.

"It means we are going to move ahead as quickly as we can to get the ball rolling," he said.

For two years, the United Church in Hampton has been working on plans to build a 32-unit apartment building on land it owns across from the church, which would include 16 subsidized units for low-income seniors. The project, which was scheduled to break ground last month, began to unravel when the project went before the town's planning advisory committee in October.

Only last month did the church learn that the three-storey building, called Ossekeag Place, surpassed a town bylaw requirement for height. The bylaw doesn't permit the construction of new buildings more than nine metres high within Hampton.

The church's proposed seniors complex is 11.5 metres high.

Last week, the church's building committee, backed by 80 supporters, went before the town's planning advisory committee again - this time asking for a variance. It was ready to add a permanent ladder to the roof and standpipes in the stairwells for added fire protection. But the planning advisory committee was hesitant after getting advice from the town's insurance provider, which said the town could be held liable in case of a fire at the complex if it issued a variance that was inconsistent with past ones.

The PAC initially made a motion to issue a variance for a flat-roof building, which would still surpass the town's bylaw, but by less than a metre. But it revoked the motion after hearing that option would scuttle the project. Project proponents said it would cost more, breaking the project's budget, and wouldn't be in keeping with the neighbouring architecture.

That left the town with three options: maintain the original plan, require the project to reduce the pitch on the roof or deny a variance. the PAC opted to table the matter to allow it do more research - adding another delay to the project and putting it in danger of losing $480,000 in provincial government funding to create subsidized housing units.

For Heighton, who was at last week's meeting, the delay put her future in doubt.

"It was all iffy, thinking am I going to be able to stay in Hampton or am I going to leave?"

Kilpatrick, however, said he remained optimistic, despite the jeers from the crowd and the gloom that hung over the end of the meeting.

"I would have felt a whole lot worse if they had come back and said absolutely no," he said.

"Then it really would have been done. I knew there was still some hope and that there was some people working for us. We needed that week and it worked out well."

Mayor Ken Chorley, a member of the PAC committee, said the week allowed the town to satisfy its insurance provider with the added fire protection measures the project proponents were willing to add and to analyse other variances the town has given out in the last four years.

"This building came within tolerance of that and with the concessions that they made on the fire protection areas in consultation with the fire chief, it seemed to meet all the criteria that we needed," Chorley said.

"I'm glad we postponed the decision because I felt last week it wasn't going to go the way everybody wanted it to go, including PAC, just because of protocol."

Kilpatrick said he's hoping the contractor, Bird Construction, will be able to break ground in the next two weeks, which will allow the first residents to move in early June.