A zoning amendment that was subject to long public debate over allowing a four-storey, 63-unit rental apartment building at 2060 White Birch Rd. has been shot down by Sidney council.
During a regular council meeting March 27 – and following a public hearing during the meeting – council voted 5-2 against the zoning amendment, with Mayor Cliff McNeil-Smith and Coun. Steve Duck the only supporters.
The zoning amendment sought by property owner Mark Lindholm was to change the way maximum permitted density on the property is calculated from the current formula based on the number of residential units per hectare of land – which limits this property to 34 residential units – to the more modern floor-area ratio used for most of the town’s existing and upcoming multi-family residential developments.
This would allow for the 63 units Lindholm planned to build.
It also sought to allow an increase in the permitted lot coverage for a structure from 26 per cent to 36 per cent, and a reduction in rear setback from 7.5 metres to 6.5.
READ MORE: Sidney council backtracks on proposed 4-storey, 63-unit rental building after public hearing
But after hearing concerns from residents at two public hearings and debating the issue at length – including removing part of the original request which would have allowed a cafe to be included in the building, triggering the second public hearing – the majority of council decided the concerns raised by residents were not outweighed by the potential benefits of approving the request.
With the zoning amendment denied, Lindholm will have to either submit development plans for the property which do not require any zoning amendments, or submit a new zoning amendment request.
At issue for the residents who submitted no fewer than 40 written pieces of correspondence, and who spoke directly to council, were the primary concerns of the traffic and noise increases which would come from the neighbourhood’s increased density.
Other concerns included a loss of views and sunlight for neighbouring buildings – including two 80-unit condo buildings – and potential impacts on a shared private laneway which would serve as the only access to White Birch Road for both the proposed building and one of its neighbours.
While they failed to sway their colleagues at the council table, McNeil-Smith and Duck defended their support for approving the rezoning, which was recommended by staff, by arguing the fundamental changes being requested in the zoning amendment were reasonable.
McNeil-Smith highlighted the move to FAR-based density calculations for the property made sense considering the majority of properties in the town use that method of calculation.
The request to increase the lot coverage and decrease the rear setback requirements would still leave the property with less total building area and a larger rear setback than is required for properties zoned medium or high-residential density in the town, he added, making the requested changes more than reasonable in his eyes.
”This could be up to 63 units built between two 80-unit condo developments on either side – I think it is very reasonable and I think the proponent has provided very good rationale for this,” added Duck.
Some of the councillors opposed to the request said they had hoped Lindholm would have returned to council with a more modest request after hearing resident concerns at previous meetings, and that they would have been more inclined to support the requested changes had the proposal featured guaranteed affordable housing units, rather than the 15-year guarantee they would be market rental units included in the proposal.
“I think it is really important as elected representatives of this community, that we pay strong attention to the feedback we have received in this process,” said Coun. Richard Novek. “There are approximately 95 per cent of the people who commented on this opposed, and I think as a councillor I really have to take that into consideration … there have been so many challenges cited with access and egress, infrastructure, sight lines, shade lines, with the general size of the project, that I find it very difficult to support it as it is presented. I would love to see the proponent come back with something less cumbersome.”
The prominent waterfront location in Sidney’s northeastern corner has been the subject of several development proposals, but remains under-developed after the expiration of three development permit applications previously approved in 2007, 2015 and 2018.
READ MORE: Controversial Sidney rezoning to allow apartments cleared for new public hearing
@JSamanski
justin.samanski-langille@goldstreamgazette.com
Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
