Residents Irked Proposed Zoning Amendment Moved Forward After Developer Declines Further Consultation
By Robert Thomas
Council may have tabled the final reading of a controversial amendment to the zoning bylaw until September 11th to allow further neighbourhood consultation but with the developer not interested that’s not going to happen.
Instead the rezoning of 476 Stadacona Street East from R1 (single family dwelling ) to R2 (multi family dwelling) has been moved up to this Monday afternoon’s regular council meeting.
It’s also a rescheduling residents see as shoving their concerns aside on the issue in their Eastside neighbourhood. A rescheduling many only learnt of late Saturday afternoon.
In an unsolicited email to MJ Independent long time resident of the 400 block Stadacona East Anna Kwasnica wrote residents feel left out with the rezoning amendment vote moved ahead without further consultation.
“I just wanted to contact you to let you know we have had zero consultation and we just found out that the matter is going to a third reading this Monday now,” Kwasnica wrote late Saturday afternoon.
“It may not be of great interest, but there have been a lot of inconsistencies with this,” she wrote going on to claim “Not only was a drawing not provided (I have the public document from the city website saying these are required for the matter to be read at council), the developer refused to consult (we don’t matter, clearly).”
Kwasnica said this was the second time residents have been given short notice from the City as to when the issue would be dealt with by Council.
ONA STREET EAST IS WHERE EVCO DEVELOPMENTS FROM REGINA PROPOSES TO BUILD A NEW FIVE-PLEX RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX - MJ INDEPENDENT FILE PHOTO
When Council gave the first two readings to the proposed zoning bylaw amendment residents were given a time hours later for them to appear to stay their concerns publicly.
As a direct result of residents appearing at Council the final vote on the bylaw amendment was tabled until Council’s September 11th meeting to allow consultation between residents and the developer.
With the developer not interested in further consultation Administration is recommending the third reading (vote) to amend Bylaw 5701 (Zoning Bylaw) happen Monday afternoon August 28.
If Council approves the agenda and votes to lift the tabled third reading of the zoning bylaw amendment, then the proposed amendment would go to a third reading and final vote.
What Is This About???
The dispute surrounds a plan by Evco Developments from Regina to construct a three-story five-plex residential building on vacant lot at 476 Stadacona Street East. Originally a single-family home sat on the property.
Residents from the 400 block of Stadacona Street East are concerned the development will have a negative effect upon their heritage homes community.
Residents point to parking problems, aesthetics change in a historic neighbourhood, closeness to school, decreased property values and the potential for the property to be sold, or re-purposed for low income housing.
Residents have requested the developer not construct a multi unit, residential development, but rather build a single-family home.
The developer states the exact opposite that the proposed development will be a boon to the neighbourhood.
The developer has also pointed out that neighbourhoods change over time and a new multi family residential unit would fit into the character and location of the neighbourhood.
At the present time, the property has been a vacant corner lot for a number of years.
Reason For Re-zoning Amendment
Evco Developments needs the Zoning Bylaw amended from R1 (single family dwelling) to R2 (multi-unit residential dwelling) in order to be able to build the proposed five-plex.
According to the report to Council the main reason to move the tabled third reading of the Bylaw was because the developer sees no need for further consultation with residents.
The Developer’s reasoning is based upon the fact that the City cannot impose aesthetic and other conditions on them because of what the Bylaw entails.
In a report to Council director planning Michelle Sanson wrote “zoning deals with the regulations that would apply to future development, not the particulars of any one plan or development proposal.”
“City Council does not have authority to include additional conditions for the aesthetics, the number of units or requirement for additional parking spaces or development plans when reviewing rezoning applications,” Sanson’s report states.
The report states one of the residents’ fears that once rezoned the property could be developed differently or sold for a low income housing project as possible and legal under the rules.
“It should be noted that if it is rezoned to R2, neither City Administration nor City Council has the authority to hold the developer to the proposal that was shared,” Sanson wrote.
The proposed bylaw amendment only deals with moving the property in question from R1 to R2 zoning and no further conditions can be placed on the development so long is it in accordance with the Bylaw.
Once rezoned, a future landowner could build anything that would be Permitted within the R2 Residential District if it meets the setbacks, parking regulations and Permitted uses within the R2, the report states.
“Given the limitations described above, the Developer did not believe that any further information provided through consultation regarding their specific proposal would be useful to the rezoning decision process,” the report reads, adding “Therefore, no further consultation will be scheduled.”
The developer has already stated without the proposed zoning amendment passing the development is unlikely.