Andrew Bates, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Telegraph-Journal

Sussex councillors voted Sept. 21 to reject a proposal for an 11-unit apartment complex on a parcel of land adjacent to Route 121.

The rezoning proposal for 0 Lansdowne Avenue South failed to pass first reading during the September council meeting. The vote came after a hearing of objections before the meeting where nearby residents raised issues with safety, lot setbacks and traffic on the street, which intersects with Route 121, connecting traffic exiting from Route 1 to Sussex’s downtown core.

“Rezoning applications, when they don’t go through, it really is a double-edged sword, because you’re turning down investment in your community,” said Sussex Mayor Marc Thorne, who voted with council against the development. “That said, it’s extremely important that the needs of the people who are currently residents of the community and the safety and wellbeing of those who could possibly live in the developments being proposed, that all of that is being considered.”

The proposal from Nick McCullum’s Stonefield Properties asked council to rezone the 1.05 square kilometre parcel from one- and two-unit residential (R2) to medium density residential (R3) to accommodate a three-storey, 11-unit apartment building. The parcel is at the corner of Route 121 and Lansdowne Avenue South, bordered by the Superstore parking lot, single family housing and the entrance to the new Westgate Apartments property on the far side of the street.

According to the planning report by Thomas Lewallen, the application needed four variances, allowing for a rear setback of four metres instead of seven, three metres on the side instead of 3.5 and allowing off-street parking in the front yard, with spots within 1 metre of a dwelling wall with windows instead of 1.8 metres.

The developer had previously asked for a variance to allow a nine-unit building, and was rejected in part due to the R2 zoning, which has a maximum of six units, according to the report. The developer then applied to change the zoning, with a higher unit count for the larger zoning category, according to the report.

Staff had recommended three of the four variances, as well as a condition to plant evergreen shrubs where the parcel borders with other lots, saying the “unique spatial orientation of the lot,” with right-of-ways and physical buffers on two sides, justified the setback variances. Staff recommended declining the request for a window variance, saying it “severely compromises tenant livability.”

According to planning advisory committee minutes, the property was part of a Housing New Brunswick program requiring at least half of the units be rent capped, with a cap of $980 per month, according to the developer. The committee voted to support the planner’s recommendations, including denying the window variance, and the application went to council.

At the hearing of objections, council heard that four letters had been received, with two of the writers attending to read the letters in person. Barry McMann, who is adjacent to the property, said there were “big issues,” including having only 11 parking spaces for 11 units, no outdoor spaces for kids in the lot, light blockage for neighbours, impact on property values and an impact traffic on Lansdowne Avenue.

The building would cause a “severe bottleneck” on Lansdowne Avenue South, McMann told council, noting that the building foot print covers more than 30 per cent of the lot, with the parking and driving lane covering most of the rest.

He told councillors the “stress” of having to fight the application was “not okay,” describing it like “trying to jump into a game of Monopoly with no idea how to play the game.” He said he had been told that councillors were likely to ignore him and push ahead with it.

“If nobody wants this in their neighbourhood, it should be enough,” he said. “It’s unfair that me and my neighbours have to prove why this should not happen.”

He asked for the application to be rejected unless an independent traffic study was conducted or a privacy fence was constructed.

Thorne told Mann that the process takes about four months to complete, and stressed that there’s “no pre-determined outcome.”

“It ain’t over till it’s over,” Thorne said. “When it’s said and done, council makes a decision based on having heard everyone’s viewpoints.”

Maureen Moore, who lives near the property, said that she’s “witnessed significant change in the area” with new apartment construction and is opposed to the addition of another building, saying growth has poured more traffic onto Lansdowne Avenue South.

“Residents of this area have already adapted to significant change,” she said. “I’m not opposed to development simply for the sake of opposing it, however I believe growth should occur in a way that’s safe, responsible and balanced. I don’t feel it would be balanced at Lansdowne South, I don’t think it is now.”

Council also received letters from Paul Maguire, not in attendance, who wrote that property owners in an R1, or one-unit residential, or R2 zone “should have the protection and peace of mind” from zoning bylaws that adjacent properties would not be rezoned for multi-unit housing without consent, and from Rachel Kyle, who wrote about the importance of affordable housing and asked for a requirement of at least 20 per cent affordable units.

When the bylaw came up for first reading, Thorne, who handed over chairing in the meeting to join the debate, said that he recognized the developer for showing “confidence” in the community, but said it was important not to “lose sight of the things that form a baseline of quality of life in this community” like safety.

He said the multiple variance requests were a “red flag for me,” saying zoning bylaws exist to ensure a “degree of safety.” He said that developers understandably want to “optimize their investment,” but said lots are sometimes “too small for what’s proposed.”

He said the driveway for the lot would be just behind the “apron” of the Route 121 intersection and it would present issues with children waiting for the bus.

“I don’t see … how the applicant can possibly change what’s being asked for,” said Thorne, who said he’d be voting against.

Couns. Graham Milner, Ann-Marie Snyder, Doug Bobbitt and Gisele McKnight also spoke against the rezoning, with McKnight saying that she believed the building was too big on a lot that was too small.

“We’ve asked a lot of residents of Lansdowne South over the year, with the Superstore and two apartment buildings, and this is another big ask,” McKnight said. “I couldn’t help but feel, listening to these people, boy I’d be mad as hell if I were living there.”

Deputy mayor Tim Wilson spoke in favour of the development, saying that residents raised “valid points” he was taking them into consideration. But he said that traffic comes with living in a town, and saying there’s a need to “balance the need for housing” given the scale of demand.

The vote for first reading failed 1-5, with Wilson voting for. Coun. Fred Brenan did not record a vote or an abstention, and later said that his intention was to support the motion.

A second application by McCullum, to rezone a Queen Street lot from one-unit residential (R1) to one and two-unit residential (R2) for a four-unit apartment, was withdrawn after PAC voted to recommend rejecting it, Thorne told Brunswick News.

At the meeting, Thorne addressed McCullum in the gallery, saying that the community “needs your housing desperately” but they had to think about those who would live there.

“There’s room for what you want, and council is a willing partner,” Thorne said.

Afterwards, Thorne said council had to make a “tough call,” saying that residents “articulated their positions very well” and that councillors “were saying many of the same things.” He said McCullum has “great respect for the community,” and another planned project on Union Street was a “very easy process” because there was “ample space.”

“The application was going to be problematic regardless of what you put there, but the more you’re asking, you’re making the risk exponential,” he said.

McCullum did not respond to a request for comment by email before press deadline.

McMann said Thursday that he was “quite happy with the result,” saying he personally agrees with development but said the particular proposal “should have been shot down before that point.”

Moore said Thursday she was “really pleased” about the outcome, saying council “basically gave an overwhelming response” towards rejecting the application.

Learn more about our News Monitoring here.

---