Skip to content

Neighbours express concern over proposed development

Some opposition to a proposed development by Wilhelm Construction Services Inc. was expressed to Estevan City council during a public hearing in council chambers at the June 30 regular meeting of council.


Some opposition to a proposed development by Wilhelm Construction Services Inc. was expressed to Estevan City council during a public hearing in council chambers at the June 30 regular meeting of council.

The opposition was raised to a proposal to rezone 1138 First Street, which currently contains a single-detached house, to allow for a four-unit row house to be constructed on the premises.

The City received two responses from adjacent landowners, both opposing the zoning change, and there were four total written submissions opposing the rezoning application. One of the written submissions also provided 13 signatures of various people living on First Street and Valley Street who expressed their opposition to the development.

Eldon Rondeau, who lives next door to the property of concern, made verbal submissions to City council during the public hearing.

Rondeau told council the "idea of moving in a row house doesn't go with the present atmosphere of the neighbourhood," as he expressed issues concerning parking and increased traffic around the Churchill playpark, which is across the street from the property in question.

Rondeau's submissions as well as written letters to council showed concern over potential parking issues. Mayor Roy Ludwig noted the criteria for parking on the property had been met, as the drawing supplied by the developer outlines eight parking spots, four on First Street and four on the back of the property by the alley.

There was a question raised from council about the restriction of on-street parking around the property, but it was noted parking on the street isn't part of the proposal and the developer has allotted space for the seven minimum required parking stalls.

Rondeau also expressed concerns regarding old trees on the property, which aren't on his property and provide his backyard with shade, and said he is a "afraid our wall of nature will disappear."

He said his opposition is partly based on logistics issues but also on not wanting the development in his backyard, suggesting the housing is meant for other areas of the city where similar developments already exist, saying he would rather have one neighbour than four or more new ones.

Councillor Dennis Moore, noted that council has received similar development requests in the past and heard familiar arguments in opposition of the proposals, which generally involve multi-family units. He said in the early stage, neighbours too often assume the worst is going to happen, but it is rare when any problems actually arise.

"We've sat around this room several times now with the same issue, and it seems that when something like this comes up, everybody assumes the worst and they think the worst things are going to happen," said Moore. "When most of the things have been finished, everybody has been happy.

Moore said he would have the same concerns were he the neighbour of the potential development, but in his experience few worst-case scenarios have ever come to pass.

He encouraged Rondeau and other neighbours who feel they may be impacted by the development speak with the developer to see if common ground could be reached, particularly regarding aesthetic issues on the property such as maintaining as many trees as possible.

Engineering services advised that a storm drainage plan would be required for the proposed development, as more than 45 per cent of the lot area would be a hard surface. The proposal does meet the required minimum landscaped area of 20 per cent.

After hearing the concerns, Coun. Greg Hoffort requested council table any decision on the zoning application until the following council meeting, so councillors may further review the application, the opposition submissions and the property site in question.

The public submission portion has closed, and the matter will return to council on July 21.