SANDRA M STANWAY
Brooks Bulletin
By a vote of 4-3 city council approved an amendment to the Land Use Bylaw to allow for the construction of a medium density development on a .36 acre parcel at the corner of Kellington Close and Second Street East.
Voting for the amendment to change the lot from single residential to medium residential density were mayor John Petrie and councillors Joel Goodnough, Ray Juska and Bill Prentice. Opposed were councillors Mohammed Idriss, Jon Nesbitt and Marissa Wardrop.
During the hearing property owner Don Elmer, who was the only person speaking in favour of the development, sought clarification on development responsibilities and provided locations where medium density properties exist.
Six adjacent property owners presented their opposition for the amendment during the public hearing last week. The amendment could allow a four or eightplex to be built on the .36 acre property.
The biggest factors expressed by those who opposed the amendment were parking, the use of Second Street as a shortcut that sees a lot of speeding while children play on or near the roads and they questioned if there is a need for such a multifamily development when there is a nearby complex that often has vacancy signs.
“We just don’t feel that we would want extra cars that a fourplex or an eightplex is going to bring,” Tracy Krinke told council.
She presented a petition to planning on Feb. 14 prior to the meeting that was signed by close to 60 residents who oppose the change stating that it could decrease property values, increase traffic in the back alley and there will be “parking overload” on Kellington Close.
“I haven’t talked to a person who doesn’t want to see something happening there but everybody was of the opinion that we would like to see a single family dwelling or at the very most a duplex,” she said.
“I can’t see that this would be an issue for a lack of rental space that we need to think more than a four or an eightplex. It just seems too much,” said Penny Bannister.
“I just hope as a city council that you guys listen to our concerns that it’s too small of an area for the density.”
Sandy Hyslop urged council to plan.
“We need to think ahead how it is going to work. I ask you to take a handle on this and see if we need to plan things better. Are we just going to hand out these bylaw changes without thinking about the future?” she asked.
With council’s approval, at some point in the future a development application will be taken to the Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) to approve or deny. If it is approved, the residents can call for a Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB) hearing to hear their case.
Gavin Scott, the city’s land planner, said it would be “quite difficult” to meet the requirements for parking for eight units on the property.
“It is not the biggest property. The parking requirements would put it closer to a dozen if not 16 (spaces) depending on the number of bedrooms and that’s a lot of parking to try to fit on here. Those things weigh through the development process,” he said.
