Although the mayor of Sundre had to hand over the chair for a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the town's Land Use Bylaw last week, he spoke in opposition as a landowner during the hearing.
But Terry Leslie wasn't the only opposing resident at the council meeting on June 16.
Eight 12th Avenue NE-area residents spoke to council in opposition to the proposal to rezone the land for the construction of eight duplexes.
An application has been 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 would be built on the site for a total of 16 dwelling units.
Town administration supports the amendment because they say it supports the Municipal Development Plan (MDP), which was adopted by council in September.
But Leslie believes otherwise. 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 said during the meeting. “I urge you not to pass this amendment, as it will change the zoning, yet again, in an existing, not a new, residential area.”
He 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,” Erin O'Neill and Denica Crosbie, both 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 in question 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.
“This was in 1998 and we didn't buy ours until 2004. Why are the realtors not being told or why are they telling us that it's going to be green space?” Angie Vanderzwan asked council during the meeting.
But the town's chief administrative officer, Dave Dubauskas, said she should approach the realtor.
“It is the realtor's responsibility and duty to know what it is, the zoning around you, and they should be telling you what it is. And a statement of ‘it will be green space forever', in my opinion, isn't very good business,” said Dubauskas.
But another resident, Wendy Roth, said it wasn't only realtors that were telling them that.
“Actually it was not only our realtor that had told us that, but when we had a meeting with Lyle (the developer) when we purchased our house, he told us the same thing,” Roth told council.
“I feel it's not fair to anybody in that area that we were under the impression when we bought that that was going to be left as is (green space). And now we may have to look at duplexes.”
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.
Other residents who spoke in opposition to the proposal were Allan Vanderzwan, George Rockey, David Patterson and Debra Leslie.
Judy Patterson expressed concerns about the lawns not being landscaped and maintained if the buildings sit empty for a period of time.
Laurie Walton said if town officials wish to increase the population, then more roads should be built.
The developer Lyle Stevenson was present at the council meeting and said he wishes to meet with town officials and discuss all of the issues that were expressed during the meeting.
“We're not making an application to have it zoned and then sit. We're planning on moving forward with this,” Stevenson told council.
Coun. Chris Vardas asked Stevenson if the duplexes would be senior friendly.
Coun. Verna McFadden asked if he would settle for less than eight duplexes.
Stevenson said he would look into both of the possibilities.
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.
Council is expected to debate the information from the public hearing during the July 7 council meeting.
