More than 20 people packed into Barrhead town council chambers to voice their opinions about a land use amendment bylaw (06-2016) during a public hearing on Tuesday, March 8.
The bylaw, if approved, would allow the property owner of a lot (680KS, Block 9, Lot1) on 54 Ave. to be rezoned from R2 residential to R3 residential medium density.
The R2 designation allows property owners to build a single-family dwelling or a duplex, while the R3 designation allowing a tri-plex or four-plex to be built.
Council passed first reading of the bylaw on Feb. 9.
Cheryl Callihoo, Barrhead’s director of administration, said the town has received four letters from residents who had concerns about rezoning the property.
“All the letters stated concerns about snow removal, parking, the size of any potential developments and drainage,” she said.
Mayor Gerry St. Pierre then asked for the applicant or their designate to come forward to make an opening statement and answer questions council may have.
No one came forward, so St. Pierre then opened the floor for anyone in favour of the application to come forward.
Susan Peters said she was in favour of the application.
“I live just a little ways from there and I am tired of looking at the mess of that lot,” she said. “The grass isn’t cut, snow isn’t removed and it just looks run down and bad. I would be happy if a development occurred there because it would just look a lot better.”
Peters added she had no concerns about the size of the development, whether it be a duplex, tri-plex or four-plex. She also asked what the parking requirements were for a four-plex.
Callihoo said the number of parking stalls required depends on the number of bedrooms per unit. For a one bedroom unit it is one parking spot, but for every bedroom after that the requirement is 1.5 parking spots.
“So if you had a four-plex that had two bedrooms per unit you would at least need six parking spots,” she said, adding the spots have to be on the property.
With no one else coming forward to speak in favour of the application, St. Pierre asked anyone who was opposed to come forward.
Vern Stocking, who also lives near the lot, said he was concerned that if the rezoning was permitted any development may not conform to the plans that the developer submits to the town.
He said that was what he and his wife experienced when a development on the lot next to his home was built.
“The blueprints that we saw for that particular project were never followed. The side (of the duplex) that touches our boundary is only 29 inches away,” he said, adding the development also negatively impacted his property value.
Stocking said it is his understanding that the same builder will be the one who will be developing the lot in question and worries that they may extend the boundaries beyond the blueprints.
“We just want something that will follow the rules and that we will be able to see the blueprints of whatever is going to be built on the lot,” he said.
St. Pierre said Stocking’s concerns had more to do with what happens if and when the property is developed.
“This hearing is strictly about whether to rezone the property and when it is developed we will have to make sure it is done by the standards established in the land use bylaw,” he said.
Harvey Woycechowsky also spoke against the rezoning, saying one of the major reasons why he is against the application is parking.
He said there are a number of duplexes on the street already and residents in the neighbourhood are already having issues finding appropriate parking.
“Parking is already tight,” Woycechowsky said, adding after he talked to a local development company who had built a four-plex unit in town, he was concerned about declining property values. “They said when they built it property values went down, but taxes went up.”
St. Pierre reminded the gallery that the subject was the rezoning of the property and discussion about development was a separate issue.
He also questioned Woycechowsky’s contention that property values would decrease if there were a multi-unit development on the property.
“It is a dilemma. What would more likely devalue neighbouring properties? What is, right now, considered to be an unsightly premise, a vacant house that is overgrown with weeds or a nicely developed, properly maintained duplex?” St. Pierre asked.
Woycechowsky responded by saying he believed people would rather have an undeveloped property rather than a four-plex that would increase the amount of vehicle traffic on the street. “Beaver Brook, stick it there. That way you can plan out the whole district and don’t have to worry.”
Gail Harrison, whose home is across the back alley from the property, agreed that the lot in its current condition is an eyesore.
“I would love to see something done there, but not a four-plex,” she said. “The street (43 St.) is busy, there are big trucks going up and down it and the ambulances use it to get to Hillcrest. If you add a four-plex and all the parking issues including people backing in and out of there, I’m afraid of what could happen.”
Colleen Thompson also spoke against changing the zoning of the lot and suggested Beaver Brook would be a better location for a four-plex. “Why don’t we put them there where they are going to look attractive and much more attractive to buyers.”
She said one of the reasons why developers are buying lots in places like her neighbourhood is cost.
“They’re cheap because they are going to old people saying, ‘you only paid four grand for this. Look at all the money you’ll be making.’ I know that’s where it is coming from,” she said. “Sell them the more expensive lots, get your bigger tax dollars and have it built there.”
St. Pierre responded by saying council could only do so much.
“It’s not council who decides to build something. Someone has to approach us and say we want to build a four-plex and I want to build it here,” he said, adding then it is up to council to approve or not to approve a project.
Thompson also voiced her concern that by having multi-family dwellings in neighbourhoods that they weren’t suited for would impact future development in town.
“If you take away all the trees from these neighbourhoods, which happens when these larger developments are built and is why many of us bought our homes in the first place, all you are going to be left with is buildings,” she said. “Take a look at St. Albert. It’s beautiful with all the trees, it brings people in. Here we aren’t bringing anyone in. We need businesses and people.”
Councillors Shelly Oswald and Don Smith thanked everyone for their comments saying council understood their concerns and would consider them seriously before making a decision.
“It is always hard to strike the right balance of what we are putting into our community,” Smith said. “All throughout our community, duplexes, tri-plexes and four-plexes are going up and each and every time it is a challenge, especially when we are dealing with homes that were built in the 1940s and ‘50s and developers come along wanting to build new structures.”
Council voted to delay second and third readings of the bylaw so the Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) can review the concerns brought up by residents during the public hearing process.
