A proposed two-tower, 330-unit development at 201 Water St. S. in Galt has been put on hold after the property was listed for sale, offering temporary relief to nearby residents but raising concerns among city officials
Residents living behind an approved 330-unit high-rise proposal are feeling a mix of relief and anxiety after the property was listed for sale a year after council approved the proposal.
The situation has also left city officials frustrated over approved housing remaining unbuilt with no foreseeable timeline for getting shovels in the ground.
The 3.5-acre property at 201 Water St. S. near Churchill Park was listed for sale in May at just over $10 million and marketed as “shovel ready for 330 units.” As of July 29, this property has been listed for 68 days.
In May 2024, the property was approved for two 15-storey towers over a three-storey parking podium. A previous iteration of the proposal consisted of three towers.
Investment firm SG Real Estate Developments LP II was behind the proposal as presented to council but an online project summary suggests the site was suitable for 80 stacked townhouses and lists the development team as SZAM Capital Partners Corp. in partnership with The Sarracini Group. Neither company responded to a request for comment.
SZAM Capital describes itself online as a joint-venture partner focused land development and investment whose purpose is to acquire land for future development in high demand niche markets.
It lists 201 Water St. S. under its investment opportunities alongside other lots around Ontario.
The Sarracini Group’s website said the partners behind SG RED Trust II have been sourcing properties for the last two years. It notes a five-stage process of purchasing investment properties with the final stage providing the greatest number of exit options, which include: selling the site to a builder, partnering with a builder or building the units themselves.
Neighbours up the hill from the property on Highman Avenue, whose backyards would face the towers, were active in the planning process and spoke out against the proposal.
Adjustments were made based on their input and it was approved by councillors who praised the compromise that had been reached with residents.
Highman Avenue residents Gary and Chea Kirkham said their reaction to the news it was for sale was relief.
“Even after all the hearings, all the work, etcetera and in trying to reach a compromise, it just to us wasn’t a compromise,” Chea Kirkham said.
Gary Kirkham added, “If they do ever build, it’s going to delay it by a couple of years at least when they get their stuff together, you know?”
Pat Comeau, another Highman Avenue resident, felt similarly to the Kirkhams. She said she was glad for some more time with her current view from her back deck.
“I’m glad for the reprieve, it gives us more time to enjoy our property,” Comeau said.
While thankful, Comeau said it also puts residents in limbo due to the uncertainty over what comes next.
“It’s put our plans at a standstill because we don’t know what’s going on,” Comeau said, referring to an idea to expand her back deck.
While Highman Avenue residents may be feeling thankful for any potential delay, city officials are not as impressed.
At a recent public meeting on a 28-storey residential proposal for Grand Avenue, Mayor Jan Liggett pressed the project’s consultant on if his client actually intended to build and not “upzone” the property.
Upzoning is a practice of increasing the allowed housing density of a property through rezoning which can increase its market value.
“We’re not meeting our housing targets because of people upzoning and putting their developments on the market,” Liggett said at the meeting. “It looks like we’re not doing our job when it’s actually being upzoned.”
The mayor was referring to Ontario’s Building Faster Fund, which provides funding to municipalities that meet at least 80 per cent of their annual housing targets. The city was unsuccessful in reaching this target in 2024 and only received funding for 2023 following an appeal to the province.
“Unfortunately, the city can only approve the housing through the planning process, but cannot mandate bringing these projects to construction,” said Hardy Bromberg, Cambridge’s general manager of planning and growth, via email. “It is disappointing when we don’t see projects come to fruition on sites that could support additional housing.”
Bromberg wrote that since 2023, council has approved 7,476 units of which 2,163 are in the process of being built as of June 18, 2025.
“Lands that get approval for additional homes and then don’t build also impacts our ability to plan future infrastructure, not knowing necessarily when and if a project might proceed,” Bromberg said.
While the city can’t force building, Bromberg added the province has terms that allow approvals to expire after three years.
“This is something that we as a community will be looking at exercising if these approvals aren’t proceeding to construction within those set timeframes,” Bromberg said. “It will be a better way to manage growth and incentivize those approvals already completed.”
Coun. Adam Cooper, whose ward would include this development, said he was surprised to learn the property went up for sale as there was no indication this wouldn’t be the case during the planning process.
He expressed pride in how he and residents worked hard to come to a compromise on the proposal with the developer. In the short term, he said residents can enjoy an unobstructed view but this opens the door for something different or something that may fit in the approved zoning.
“These things happen … condos aren’t exactly doing that well right now. Just like anybody else doing some development sometimes things change,” Cooper said. “We’ll be happy to work with the developer and the neighbours for whatever new plan comes up.”
