Neighbours oppose apartments

Planning committee backs rezoning

A plan to build a three-storey, 27-unit apartment building next to a neighbourhood with singledetached houses faced opposition Monday night from residents who are worried about traffic, flooding and the height of the proposed building.

It took city council about three hours to listen to a staff presentation, hear from residents and debate the requested land-use change for 882 Whitefield Dr. at the planning committee meeting. But the packed gallery with about 50 residents from the neighbourhood off Whitefield Dr. failed to convince council to block the rezoning.

Several residents asked council to maintain the current zoning that would allow lowdensity residential uses such as single-detached houses on the 10.19-acre property that’s owned by Parkview Homes.

The builder is respectful of the area and respectful of the neighbourhood, Coun. Dan McWilliams said.

“It’s a good project and it meets intensification targets,” he argued.

Coun. Keith Riel had a much different take on the proposal.

Riel chastised Parkview Homes for wanting to switch the zoning to allow an apartment building on the property when people in the neighbouring subdivision bought their homes with the understanding that the property would was zoned for single-detached houses.

“Shame on the developer,” Riel said, sparking applause from many of the people in the gallery.

Riel wanted council to force the developer to do a traffic study as part of the next stage of the planning process, but several councillors pointed out that if there are traffic issues in the neighbourhood they’re existing problems that the city should study.

Council endorsed the zoning, but added the requirement for Parkview Homes to hold another public information meeting as part of the site plan approval process.

The property would be diffi- cult to develop efficiently for single-detached houses, land use planner Caroline Kimble said.

“The property is adjacent to commercial lands along Clonsilla Ave…. In my opinion it provides a suitable transition from the commercial to the l ow-density residential to the north,” she added.

The item returns to the regular council meeting in two weeks.

Stu Muirhead, who lives in the subdivision, shared that he’s concerned about traffic and flooding and he noted that Whitefield Dr. is the only way in and out of the 127 properties in the neighbourhood.

“This was supposed to be a sleepy conclave,” he said.

“It’s one road going into our area and basically what you’re doing is strangling it,” resident Larry Schneider said.

Gary Rabjohn, who lives on Whitefield Dr. just north of where the apartment building would be built, commented that the trees on the property were removed about three years ago.

“I don’t want an apartment building in my backyard. That being said, the proposed structure can’t be any worse than the waste land that we’re looking at now,” he said.

For Silverdale Rd. resident Robert Jones, traffic is the main concern.

“When I moved into the neighbourhood, it was an oasis in the city. It was a really beautiful place to live,” he said.

Kevin Duguay, Parkview Homes’ planning consultant for the project, responded that the flooding and traffic issues in the neighbourhood aren’t being caused by the company’s property.

Coun. Henry Clarke reluctantly supported the application.

“I admit that I don’t have a great deal of appetite for this one,” he said. “I do believe that we can make this acceptable. I do believe that it is fully compliant with our planning.”