Sundre council passed second and third readings for an amendment to the town's Land Use Bylaw to allow for the construction of duplexes on 12th Avenue NE, despite hearing several residents voice their opposition to the proposal.
It was passed during the council meeting on July 7.
Eight 12th Avenue NE-area residents spoke to council in opposition to rezone the land for the construction of eight duplexes at a public hearing during the council meeting on June 16.
An application was made to amend the town's Land Use Bylaw to rezone Lot 8, Block 17, Plan 9912954, at the corner of 12th Avenue NE and Centre Street N, from low density residential to general residential district.
It is proposed that eight duplexes will be built on the site for a total of 16 dwelling units.
During the meeting last week, Coun. Chris Vardas said when he was reviewing the information, a concern that kept coming to mind was ‘what happens if they rent them out?'.
“Every time I ask myself that question, I ask myself this as well ‘if I bought a house right beside one of the people there and I rented it out, what is the difference?',” said Vardas.
He noted that it provides people with another option who cannot afford to buy a home.
“I can't determine who is going to move into them. I can't control that, but we've got a bylaw officer that can try to maintain certain things,” he said.
Town administration supported the amendment because they say it supports the Municipal Development Plan (MDP), which was adopted by council in September.
During the public hearing on June 16, Terry Leslie had to hand over the chair because he is an adjacent landowner, and he spoke in opposition as a landowner.
He pointed out that according to the MDP: “The town shall require a mix of housing types and forms in all new residential areas and avoid excessive concentration of single-type housing”.
“This is not a new residential area, but an existing one,” Leslie told council during the hearing. “I urge you not to pass this amendment, as it will change the zoning, yet again, in an existing, not a new, residential area.”
Vardas said mixed housing types should also be in old developments, not just new.
“While administration would argue that this should be considered a new area, if council chooses to qualify this as an existing area, it should be noted that policies in the Municipal Development Plan encourage re-investment and infill in older neighbourhoods and include policies that facilitate the development of various housing forms,” Erin O'Neill, the town's manager of planning and development, reported to council.
Vardas said it's becoming a common thing in town where residents are in favour of a proposal, but not the location of it.
“That's starting to become a common theme here in a lot of things. ‘Not here we want it, not here, but we'll take it over there' and then it will just get tossed around,” he said.
“Progression sometimes has growing pains and I think this is what we're going to go through…I didn't sign up to go backwards, I want to look forward and I like to be progressive.”
Coun. Myron Thompson said he has lived in Sundre for 48 years and has owned a home for 24 of those years, and has rented for the other 24 years.
“Many people I've talked to can't afford $300,000-plus homes and prefer to be able to buy something with a little less money and this is an opportunity for that to happen,” said Thompson.
“Renters are not bad people.”
Coun. Jodi Orr said she lives in a duplex and “it's the prettiest place in town”.
“We want to keep our young people in our town and we don't have a lot of high paying jobs, so we have lower homes that they can buy into,” said Coun. Verna McFadden.
Coun. Paul Isaac said he received comments from residents after the public hearing in favour of the development.
“I had probably six or seven people, residents from Sundre, call me and were taken back by some of the articles in the paper, such as the negativity to the project,” said Isaac.
“And I was challenged by a number of those residents saying ‘Paul when you ran you ran on the promise or the statement to have affordable housing and have families live here'.”
Leslie was not physically at the meeting, but was participating via telephone. Coun. Tony Jordan was absent from the meeting.
It was a full house with residents who are in opposition to the development.
During the public hearing, Leslie also said that although the developer says he intends to sell the duplexes as owner-occupied residences, it cannot be guaranteed.
A common concern from some residents was that the duplexes would devalue the neighbouring properties.
But town officials said when duplexes are owner-occupied they do not have an impact on neighbouring property values.
“Should the developer choose to build all the duplexes and rent them out, there may be a reduction in property values. However, as explained to us by the developer, it is the intent to sell the duplexes, so as to be owner occupied,” O'Neill and Denica Crosbie, also from the town's planning and development department, said in a report to council.
“Neither the town or the developer can guarantee these units will not be used as rental units in the future,” argued Leslie.
“I urge council to listen to residents of this existing residential area and stop making changes. Please don't amend this Land Use Bylaw.”
His comments met with applause from audience members.
Numerous residents said they were told when they purchased their homes that the area would remain a green space.
However, town officials reviewed past amendments to the Land Use Bylaw and determined that the area was amended from urban reserve to low density residential in March of 1998.
Residents also expressed concerns with limited parking, but town officials said they confirmed with the developer that each side of the duplexes would have two parking stalls.
Another adjacent landowner requested that if the application is approved, town officials enforce controlled hours of operation and other restrictions during construction of the duplexes.
Residents also expressed concerns with grading and drainage issues.
The application for the amendment was circulated to all of the town's internal and external stakeholders, and all property owners within 90 metres of the site.
Officials received comments from Canada Post, ATCO Pipelines, BSEI Engineering and the town's operations and community services departments, and there were no concerns expressed.
Town officials also received letters from seven adjacent landowners, all in opposition to the amendment.
