BARRHEAD - If the comments made during an Aug. 13 public hearing are any indication, Beaver Brook Estates vehemently oppose a proposed amendment in the municipality's land-use bylaw (LUB).
Specifically, the amendment would rezone six lots in the municipality-owned residential subdivision on 61st Street from low-density housing to zoning that allows for a variety of more dense housing types.
The proposed changes would take the zoning from R1-residential, which allows for low-density housing, such as single-detached dwellings, to R3, which provides various housing options, such as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and rowhouses.
Later in the meeting, following an in-camera session, councillors instructed administration to forward the bylaw and the amendments to the municipal planning commission (MPC).
Chief administrative officer (CAO) Edward LeBlanc told the Barrhead Leader a day after councillors gave the bylaw its first reading in an in-camera session on July 9 that one reason council decided to rezone the lots was that it recognized a shortage of housing in the community.
"People are trying to move to town and are having a huge challenge finding suitable accommodations," he said. "So the council decided to become proactive to see if they could attract a potential developer by rezoning the lots."
"The truth is the lots in Beaver Brook Estates have been up for sale for a considerable amount of time," LeBlanc said.
Mayor Dave McKenzie said in an interview after the Aug. 13 meeting council decided sending the bylaw to the MPC would be the best way for the public to get the answers they were asking.
"When we heard people's comments and what their concerns were, it became apparent to us that they were not necessarily against it; they just had lots of questions on what the thought the process was to get to this point, but there is not a mechanism for that," he said. "By sending it to the MPC, where they review it, they will have a chance to address their concerns.
McKenzie said that as part of the process, the MPC will document their findings and create a report for council to review and discuss at a future meeting.
"The report will be a public document and include all the thinking that has gotten us to this point, he said.
McKenzie also noted that several of the over 20 attendees expressed frustration at the lack of interaction between the gallery, councillors, and administration.
"That is a matter of the process," McKenzie said, adding that the purpose of a public hearing is to give residents who could be impacted by a bylaw or project the opportunity to voice their opinions.
"It is not a venue that allows council an opportunity to engage with the public or answer questions," he said. "It is a time when residents that the bylaw or development could potentially impact can comment on, whether for or against. Councillors will then use what they heard when council debates, discusses, and ask questions about the bylaw during later stages before second and third readings. The entire process is highly regulated [by the province] through the Municipal Government Act [MGA]."
He also said there is a misconception that just because council gives a bylaw first reading, it is a done deal.
"Not many people outside the political system understand how these things work, and there was a lot of panic when we gave first reading to the bylaw," McKenzie said. "It is something that we have to do to get the process started so we can have a public hearing and further discussion."
Public hearing comments
Two people who did not identify themselves stated they favoured the LUB amendments.
John Turner, who lives about two blocks away from the lots that would be rezoned, said that although he wasn't necessarily opposed to the lots being rezoned, he did have several questions, including whether a potential developer has approached the municipality or submitted plans for the lots and whether the constructed residences would be for sale or rent, including "affordable rental projects."
He also expressed his concerns that the higher-density lots would be constructed of a lower quality than the existing developments in the subdivision.
Another Beaver Brooke Estates resident who has lived in the subdivision since 2015 said he opposed the rezoning of the lots.
He said he moved his family to Beaver Brook because it was a quiet, low-density neighbourhood.
"If the neighbouring lots are rezoned to R3, the quiet neighbourhood that we chose to live in will be altered," he said.
The resident said it would also alter the neighbourhood's character and introduce additional parking and traffic issues.
He also worried that adding higher-density residences would negatively impact property values.
The municipality also received two letters opposing the bylaw amendments, and a third letter was read into the record.
Sally, a resident who lives across the street from the lots, was concerned about the subdivision's lack of access, noting that there is only one official road to Beaver Brook Estates.
She added that an unofficial, unpaved road connects Beaver Brook to nearby MacGill Estates.
"My question, is [the town] going to develop and pave this street as an access point to the subdivision?" she asked. "When adding more people, parking, and traffic, would this be considered before approving a development? [The secondary access] is needed for safety and fire because the subdivision is huge."
Beaver Brook resident Shannon Reeve also opposes the rezoning, voicing his concerns about the potential addition of what would likely be rental properties in Beaver Brook.
He and others also suggested other options for higher-density residential, explicitly referring to the old trailer park.
He also expressed his frustration, as did several others, about the lack of engagement and the council's seeming unwillingness to answer questions.
"What recourse do we have? How do we block this," he asked.
McKenzie reiterated that the purpose of a highly regulated public hearing is to listen to the public's concerns and not engage with residents.
Linda West, a former Town of Barrhead councillor and County of Barrhead administrative assistant to the CAO who does not live in the subdivision, claimed the proposed rezoning goes against the subdivision's area-structure plan (ASP).
ASPs outline detailed policies for growth and designations of specific areas for future land use.
However, later, she said duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and row housing are discretionary uses in the ASP.
She also said the lots in question did not meet the size requirements for an R3 development under the current land-use bylaw.
"Reading this [referring to the background of the bylaw stating the purpose of the rezoning is to increase the residential density of the six lots] to the bylaw, I can't help but think what else is in the works," West said. "I feel for these people who've invested hundreds of thousands in their homes, and it comes to this."
Barry Kerton, TownandCountryToday.com
