OLDS — Town council has defeated two proposed bylaws that would have changed the East Olds Area Redevelopment Plan to allow a duplex to be built in the area.
Administrative staff recommended against passing the bylaws, saying doing so would change the character of the area and disrupt a compromise achieved via the plan, implemented in 2015 after several years of community consultations.
One bylaw would have revised the East Olds Area Redevelopment Plan, changing allowable uses in the area from R1 (single-detached homes) to R2 which would enable the construction of duplexes there.
The second bylaw would have changed the town’s land use bylaw by allowing duplexes to be built on formerly R1 land as well.
The site in question is at the corner of 47th Avenue and 51st Street.
Councillors voted down second reading for both bylaws, thereby killing them after a 23-minute debate and public hearing on the matter, held during council’s May 9 meeting.
During the public hearing, no one spoke in favour of the proposed changes.
A request for decision in council’s agenda package included several cited by the owner of the site as reasons for making the bylaw changes, thereby allowing a duplex to be constructed there.
The duplex would provide much-needed affordable housing.
The lot, measuring 80 by 120 feet, exceeds the minimum area requirement for R-2 zoning.
Although a secondary suite would allow the same density, it would not offer duplex residents the opportunity to own their home.
The owner said a duplex does not negatively impact traffic, density, or neighbourhood property values.
Craig Teal, a director of Parkland Community Planning Services, said the property in question is currently vacant.
He noted that under the East Olds Area Structure Plan, 51st Street serves as the dividing line between lower density single-family housing and land north of there that can be used for a mixture of single-family and higher-density development.
Teal said the reason the East Olds Area Redevelopment Plan was developed in the first place was due to concern about “how duplexes were managed and how older houses were coming down.
“Duplexes that sometimes that were not very sensitive to the context were going up,” he said.
Three residents spoke against the bylaws, including realtor and former town councillor Mary Jane Harper, who also lives in the area.
In a letter in council’s agenda package, Harper said there are already several vacant lots or “or lots with dilapidated homes” on them that are designated for R2 development.
Harper noted there are “lots of realtors in town” and if the lot were made available someone would likely be interested in buying it.
Another speaker opposed to the bylaws was Dana Fisher who said he and his wife live directly adjacent to the property where the duplex would have been built.
“We feel that we are creating a domino effect on our side of the street that would just tip the balance of one at a time, knocking off these lots into duplex or be rezoned to even R3,” Fisher said. "We feel that there is ample R2 zoning in our area, including across the street.”
He said a person is currently renovating a home in the area, “maintaining its character.”
“We like the nature and the ambience of our kind of diminishing R1 residential area and we oppose the bylaw,” he said.
Fisher said a duplex was proposed for the area several years ago and it too was denied.
He said he had about 25 letters from nearby residents who also opposed the changes.
Another area resident, Neil Godwin,also spoke in opposition to the proposed bylaws. Godwin said the land there has many big, mature trees and he believes they should be preserved. He warned at least some could be knocked down in the course of duplex construction.
“Nobody wants to see somebody come in, build a large building and say to build that building, get the chainsaw out and knock down all the trees,” he said.
Coun. Heather Ryan said although she understands the need for attainable or affordable housing, this isn’t the place to build a duplex.
She noted the plan for the area was only adopted in 2015, “which is not that long ago."
“I think it’s a little bit early to start changing and second-guessing what that plan was and so I’m in favour of defeating the second reading of this bylaw,” Ryan said.
Coun. Harvey Walsh agreed, saying, “I actually participated in these meetings that the community had and I think they came up with a great compromise that allowed R2.
“And yeah, kitty corner to that property there’s an R3. It’s not even developed, so it’s not a matter of not having property in that area that could be expanded. So yeah, I would not support any changes to this area structure plan."
Coun. Darren Wilson said given the concerns voiced by the people who spoke during the public hearing and the number of letters received from people opposing the bylaws, he could not support the proposed changes.
Coun. Wanda Blatz wondered why there was apparently no interest in building a single-detached home on that land, given the large size of the lot.
“Isn’t there a famous quote that says ‘if you build it they will come,’” she said.
Mayor Judy Dahl wondered the same thing.
Dahl said she “totally, 100 per cent” agreed with the consensus among councillors opposed to the proposed bylaws.
