Proposed development finds sand trap

A development deemed to be a hole-in-one by city staff was rejected by council after residents in the affected area expressed concerns about potential hazards.

Home owners from Queensgate Boulevard and Ruscio Crescent argued their choosing to reside in the area was largely based on the nearby golf course and green space.

Tony Ruscio, on behalf of Ruscio Masonry and Construction Ltd., was applying for a re-zoning from parks and recreational to residential, along with approval for the development of 94 single-detached homes on the former Queensgate Golf Course site.

City council voted 10-3 against the application.

“This green space means a great deal to us,” said Bill Howe, Queensgate Boulevard occupant who vowed to move if council approved the application. “Council needs to stand in support of the people. Otherwise you'll see a bunch of for sale signs in the area.”

A crowd of approximately 100 people from the affected area gathered at council chambers and voiced their concerns during the near three hour debate about the proposed subdivision.

Residents said the natural environment near their property is cherished and worry a new subdivision could cause safety issues in a neighborhood primarily populated by young families and seniors.

Lisa Fletcher, Queensgate Blvd. home owner, returned to Sault Ste. Marie seeking a safe spot enclosed by local woods.

“We have to speak for the trees, because they have no tongues,” said Fletcher. “I can't imagine the havoc that would occur if additional houses were to be added.”

Pointing to continual construction and increased taxes paid, residents railed against Ruscio and his proposed subdivision.

Over the past two decades, area citizens say they have paid thousands of dollars in additional assessment taxes based on their proximity to the golf course.

“We are not against development,” said Bud Campbell, Queensgate Blvd. resident. “Our backyard has been under development for 18 years and we've had enough.”

Ruscio wanted to turn the 32-acre property - which has remained vacant since Queensgate Golf Course closed in 2008 - into a subdivision.

He bought the former golf course in 2009 and submitted a formal application to the city two years later.

Bob Paciocco, an attorney representing Ruscio, said his client feels a golf course is no longer economically feasible.

“There’s no demand from the local golfing community,” said Paciocco. “Mr. Ruscio came up with a plan for the area that makes more sense.”

Don McConnell, city planning director, backed Ruscio’s plan based what he believes to be a strong plot for the former golfing hot spot.

Ruscio pledges 2.4 acres designated as green space and a park planned within the proposed subdivision.

Mayor Debbie Amaroso, Marchy Bruni (Ward 5), Steve Butland (Ward 1), Paul Christian (Ward 1), Frank Fata (Ward 6), Frank Manzo (Ward 6), Susan Myers (Ward 2), Rick Niro (Ward 4), Joe Krmpotich (Ward 6) and Brian Watkins (Ward 3) voted against the motion, while Pat Mick (Ward 3), Lou Turco (Ward 4) and Terry Sheehan (Ward 2) were in favour.

Mick said council needs to decide whether the whole city is open for business - or just certain locations.

Christian, who declared his support for development in most situations, asserted this case is anything but common.

“What we're dealing with is not a normal situation,” said Christian. “This is not a simple planning issue. We can't ignore the history.”

He said people bought their homes thinking they would be close to green space and Mayor Amaroso admitted the quality of life buyers were promised swung her support.

“Homes are emotional issue,” said Amaroso. “We shouldn't go back on what residents in the area were originally sold on.”

Other than an open house held about the application in 2011, Butland was disappointed with a lack of consultation and compromise between both sides.

While he may have been against the motion, Butland was displeased with the end result.

“What are we left with?” he questioned. “Green space with a fence around it.”

Ruscio now has the option to lodge an appeal with the Ontario Municipal Board, whose ruling would take precedence over the decision reached by city council.

Tweet