By Norm Park
normpark@estevanmercury.ca
In a narrow 3-2 decision, Estevan city councillors provided a green light for a local in-fill housing development that will replace an aging single family residence with a four-unit multi-family complex on the corner of First Street and 12th Avenue.
Despite the voicing of concerns and written protests regarding the proposed development, Mayor Roy Ludwig and Coun. Greg Hoffort and Trevor Knibbs voted in favour of the bylaw change that will allow the multi-family unit to be built.
Coun. Dennis Moore and Brian Johnson voted against the plan. Two councillors, Kevin Smith and Lori Carr, were not in attendance.
Speaking in favour of the bylaw change and development plan, Hoffort cited the need for the city governors to remain consistent in their decision-making. Having allowed similar projects to move forward in other sectors of the city, he felt this project also had to be approved. He noted he had given the plan and the protesters' concerns a lot of consideration and noted the public input on the matter, but he concluded, his decision was driven by other property issues where legitimate concerns were raised and later alleviated. He said he had also contacted the provincial Community Planning branch to gain additional perspective and arrived at the conclusion that there was a requirement to provide consistency. He noted the private concerns, such as the potential loss of privacy and a grove of trees that separate the property to be developed and the Rondeau residence next door.
Homeowner Rose Rondeau was in attendance in the council chambers to hear the arguments raised on both sides and departed shortly after the vote was taken.
"I felt like crying. Of course I didn't, but I didn't want to stay around there. I was very disappointed," she said.
During the council debate, Johnson, speaking in opposition to the motion to continue the bylaw change from R1 (light residential) to R3, said he would be more inclined to encourage the building of another single-family dwelling to maintain the ambiance and environment of the existing neighbourhood. He added that he understood developers had to be profit-driven.
"There are issues with this property. There is a lot of pedestrian traffic there, a public park with a lot of children across the street and drainage on this sloped land, that might not have been thoroughly considered," Johnson said. "There are impacts on a set community and I believe in this case, we're losing perspective. The phone calls I received about this matter brought up fresh concerns that I don't think were considered before."
Coun. Moore, having spoken up about the issue when the project was first brought to council in late June, calling for the delay in the decision, did not add to the debate on Monday, nor did Coun. Knibbs.
Giving the last words on the subject, prior to the vote, Ludwig said "we didn't take this decision lightly."
Contacted after the vote was recorded, Eldon Rondeau said he could only sum it up by expressing the same degree of disappointment as his wife and added, "it's just another victory over the little guy. Developers have the clout in our city right now. It would have been a bit better perhaps if the developer (Wilhelm Construction) had engaged the neighbourhood in a little discussion instead of just dropping the bombshell."
"The council has made mistakes before on some property development plans, so why would they go for another? What if councillors Carr and Smith had been there? I kind of feel right now that this was one vote where they might feel better if they had a full council in attendance. But we'll never know now," said Rose Rondeau in conclusion.
The proposed two-storey structure will include seven to eight off-street parking stalls and includes the proper residential setbacks.
When the matter first came to the council table in June for public consultation, Rondeau attended and pointed out the growing concerns regarding other multi-family developments nearby as well as the safety, traffic volume, ambiance and environmental factors he felt had not been addressed seriously.
Prior to the public meeting in June, council members had received an informal petition and a few letters of concern regarding the proposed development from other First Street residents, which prompted them to delay their final decision that was delivered Monday night.
