After an evening of public criticism, council decided — with a divided vote — to send a development slated for Wilson Crescent back to the drawing board.
On Feb. 1, elected officials voted 4-3 to send the proposed project for 1189 and 1201 Wilson Crescent back to municipal staff to incorporate feedback heard that night.
Councillors Eric Andersen, Doug Race, Chris Pettingill, and Armand Hurford voted to send it back to staff.
Mayor Karen Elliott, and councillors John French and Jenna Stoner voted against the deferral.
The adjustments that staff and the developer proposed were only directed towards the variance requests that the proponent was asking for.
The proponent of the project, Accorde Properties Ltd., is seeking to build eight three-bedroom and four four-bedroom townhouses on the southeast corner of Wilson Crescent.
A staff report says the four-bedroom units will have double car garages and the three-bedroom units will have tandem parking with a single car garage and a covered outdoor parking stall behind. Two bicycle parking stalls will be provided in the garages of all 12 townhomes, which will be connected with a common driveway.
Council deliberated on several variances that the developer was seeking for the project.
The variances largely revolved around reductions to the setbacks of the property.
This would reduce the front setback to 6.62 metres, down from 7.62 metres; reduce the rear setback to 6.5 metres, down from 9.15 metres and reduce the interior side setback to 2.74 metres, down from 4.57 metres.
There were also variances regarding accessory buildings and structures, as well as common space.
Accessory buildings would be varied to 0.9 metres, down from 1.52 metres from any side or rear lot line.
There would also be a change to "usable open space" to having no dimensions less than 4.57 metres, down from 6.10 metres.
During the meeting, members of the public were allowed to comment on the proposed variances. All those who commented either in person or remotely online were against the variances.
Their reasons were related to privacy, obstruction of views, and shadows being cast on their properties.
Almost all those who spoke were from the neighbouring Arbutus Grove development at 38447 Buckley Ave.
A letter to council bearing 25 names of Arbutus Grove residents was also submitted.
"The revised [development permit] would continue to have serious impacts on neighbouring residents that are not mitigated through the measures set out in the staff report," reads the letter.
"These include: infringement on privacy and natural light due to building siting and variance requests; impacts to privacy and ecological and human health, through the removal of all mature trees within the property; repercussions throughout Wilson Crescent and the District of 樱桃视频for the viability of multi-family housing and the credibility of neighbourhood planning."
Similar points were brought up by the speakers at the meeting, many of whom were signatories to the letter.
"The shade report appears deficient in that it only covers the summer months," said Matty Walton, one of the signatories.
"The shade reports only show when the sun is on our buildings. The developers knew of our concern with the shade report and it's very interesting they still only show sunny shade reports."
Walton said there was concern about how the shade would interact with neighbouring buildings during the winter months.
Regarding privacy, he noted that the developer had suggested planting a hedge to reduce visibility between properties.
However, Walton said there's a strong chance that a hedge would not grow fast enough to provide privacy. He said it could take years or even decades for a hedge to grow to the point where it provides ample privacy.
Irene You, another signatory, said that there would be a loss of natural light, and the lack of privacy would mean that her blinds would have to be shuttered all the time.
Robert Forsyth, perhaps the only commenter who wasn't from the neighbourhood, expressed concern that the development would reduce the value of its neighbouring properties for the reasons outlined by the Arbutus Grove residents.
The Brackendale resident floated the idea of perhaps setting up a compensation system to offset any loss of value to nearby properties.
Mayor Karen Elliott was against deferring the development permit, saying that it allowed for a more walkable neighbourhood.
"The Wilson Crescent neighbourhood is...built for cars, not for people, and so one of the things we have to be mindful of is finding ways to incorporate sidewalks into that horseshoe," said Elliott. "We have to do that from the private property. We don't have room in the road right of way to create a pedestrian and biking [route.]"
In exchange for the variances, among other things, the developer agreed to create a sidewalk on its portion of Wilson Crescent.
Councillors Jenna Stoner and John French voted in the same manner.
Stoner said issues like shading and privacy would still be issues if the variances weren't there.
French said the developer had adequately addressed concerns raised at a previous meeting on this matter.
On the other hand, Coun. Eric Andersen had a differing view from Elliott. He, and councillors Chris Pettingill, Doug Race and Armand Hurford were in favour of deferring the application.
Andersen said there were a number of issues that should be addressed.
"As has been suggested by some of our correspondents, we do have to consider what we're doing community-wide. We have to make multi-family developments work as a viable alternative if you like, but we need to do this right, and here we have some lessons and puzzles to solve," he said.
Andersen added that it was not true that Wilson Crescent was built for cars, not people.
The whole context of car use has also changed, and also the habits of walking; the safety of walking," said Andersen. "We never had people being driven to school, and it's a whole world that has changed, and it's simply too simplistic to suggest that [neighbourhoods] were built for cars. That is simply not true."
Race said he had difficulty with the sideyard and backyard setback variances.
Setbacks are there to separate properties and to reduce a cramped feeling, he said.
Pettingill, who had first proposed deferring the development permit, said he was trying to pay attention to what neighbours were saying.
He said he regretted there wasn't more communication with the developer and the neighbours.
Hurford also was in favour of deferral.
"[The] interaction of this project to the interior side setback of the neighbours at 38447 Buckley creates some challenges," he said.
The project will go back to staff, who will consult with the developer on making changes to the project's variances based on the feedback received.
