Fredericton north-side townhouse proposal defeated by margin of 1 vote
501 Gibson St. proposal required 7 votes to pass, received 6
Fredericton councillors have voted down a proposal to construct an 88-unit townhouse development partly on parkland the city would have sold to the developer.
The vote to rezone two pieces of property to allow the development at 501 Gibson St. fell short by a single Yes vote at Monday night's regular council meeting, an outcome met with cheers from residents sitting in the gallery at city hall.
"We're thrilled that the council had the common sense to reject this application," said Melynda Jarratt, who lives across the street from the proposed development.
"It was something that really galvanized the neighbourhood."
Gibson
Street resident Melynda Jarratt said she was pleased the development,
which would have gone up across the street from her home, did not win
enough council support. (Aidan Cox/CBC)
Building Prosperity Inc. proposed constructing a cluster of two and three-storey townhouse — 26 one-bedroom units and 62 two-bedroom units — at 501 Gibson St.
The project would have required rezoning two adjacent properties, including one owned by the city and zoned parkland, to allow for buildings as high as three storeys.
The sale of those properties hinged on Building Prosperity getting its rezoning application approved.
While the development was recommended for approval by city staff, the city's planning advisory committee recommended it be rejected.
The proposal called for a series of two and three-storey townhouses totalling 88 units. (City of Fredericton)
Because of that decision by the planning committee, the proposal required approval by a majority of the whole of council, or seven votes, because there are a total of 12 councillors.
On Monday, Deputy Mayor Greg Ericson, councillors Cassandra LeBlanc, Jocelyn Pike, Jason Lejeune, Ruth Breen and Henri Mallet voted in favour of the proposal.
Councillors Steven Hicks, Bruce Grandy, Mark Peters, Kevin Darrah and Eric Megarity voted against it.
Coun. Margo Sheppard was required to sit out the vote as she was not present during the previous meeting, which heard from the developer, as well as from neighbours who were primarily opposed to the project.
Many of those neighbours spoke about their concerns about the loss of the 1.29-acre property owned by the city.
The property is zoned as parkland, but hasn't been developed as an official City of Fredericton park, and city staff have indicated there's no plan to do so.
Despite that, residents said they use the property to walk their dogs and get exercise, and concerns about losing access to it appeared to resonate with Megarity, whose ward includes the land proposed for the development.
"Municipal parks play a significant role in maintaining ecological balance within urban unit," Megarity said before it came time to vote. "They serve as green lungs, providing oxygen, absorbing carbon dioxide, supporting the biodiversity.
"Transforming parks into a housing development will result in the loss of green space, and once it's gone, it's gone forever, and that contributes to increasing pollution and the decline in air quality."
Fredericton Deputy Mayor Eric Megarity voted against the development proposed for his ward. (CBC)
Other councillors said they were torn by the decision, acknowledging the desire by residents to keep access to the green space, while recognizing the city's need for more homes.
Pike said when it came to the proposal, creating new housing was more important, noting councillors agreed last year to an affordable housing strategy, which in part positioned the city to sell off parkland where appropriate to make room for housing construction.
"This particular parkland ... it's been on the books since the 1960s, and there are no plans to develop it, and there never were any plans to develop it," she said.
"This development is going to provide affordable housing. It's located on a bus route. It's on a major collector. The Nashwaaksis trail runs right behind on Gibson Street.
Pike also noted there are a handful of other parks within about a one-kilometre radius.
"For all these reasons, as I said, I've struggled with this, but I am going to support this project," Pike said moments before it was rejected.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Reply by James Risdon.
1 day ago
That's an unfair characterization of Melynda Jarratt. The location and format of this particular project was the issue. This in no way should be used to imply that Ms. Jarratt is somehow against housing for the poor.
Reply by Kyle Woodman.
1 day ago
Buddy you though it was in Saint John just a minute ago. You are adding no value to the discussion, once again.
Reply by James Risdon.
1 day ago
I typed in Saint John because I am also commenting on a story about Saint John. It was a simple mistake and one that in no way invalidates the comments which I have made.
Reply by Kyle Woodman.
1 day ago
OK man whatever you say. Keep making things up trying to appear intelligent about a subject you have no knowledge of.
Reply by James Risdon.
1 day ago
Actually, I know a great deal about the development industry as I reported on it for about four years and have taken the real estate licensing course and have also reported on government and run for municipal council.
I just happen to disagree with you about this one particular project at this one particular location.
That's no reason for you to start casting aspersions about my competence or intelligence.
Reply by Kyle Woodman.
1 day ago
Good for you James. I'm sure you have the answer to all of life's problems.
Reply by James Risdon.
1 day ago
Thank you, Kyle. If you want me to provide advice on any of your life's problems, I'd be happy to help to the extent that I am able.
Comment by Ralph Wighham.
1 day ago
Maybe a few tent dwellers using the public parkland would change everyone's mind about putting permanent housing there...
Reply by James Risdon.
1 day ago
No-one in Canada should be living in a tent in winter unless they're on a winter camping trip in a park.
Reply by Ralph Wighham.
1 day ago
Searching just this website for "tent city" gives 1883 results. That would seem to suggest that it might be a thing
Reply by Robert Brannen.
1 day ago
They might not be if Conservative governments in the mid 1980s had not gutted the housing legislation then in effect.
Reply by James Risdon.
1 day ago
What is it that you think happened and how do you think it led to the development of these tent cities 40 years later?
Reply by Robert Brannen.
1 day ago
In the 1980s the Mulroney, Reagan and Thatcher governments all modified Housing Acts, Canada's housing act was The National Housing Act. The Federal government invested in providing housing through the 1960s, 70s, and early 80s, until the Mulroney government cut funding for housing. Homelessness, in Canada, has been growing ever since those cuts. Just check into the history of homelessness in Canada.
Reply by James Risdon.
1 day ago
So, what would propose as the best mechanism to boost the construction of homes and resolve the issue of homelessness?
Reply by Kayline Gabriole.
1 day ago
Start by allowing projects like this one.
Reply by James Risdon.
1 day ago
Since 2015, the last year prior to the current Liberal government, federal housing subsidies for housing amounted to $2 billion annually. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, that funding has jumped to about $11 billion annually. But the Liberal government did not raise the amount of money to housing subsidies right away or, at least not by much.
After raising the housing subsidies to about $3 billion annually after the 2016 election, the Liberals let these subsidies slide back down until just prior to the next election and then they shot up again.
Due to that lacklustre commitment by the new government in its first term, the 2015 - 2024 federal housing subsidies have averaged $5.5 billion annually, or about 2.5 times the amount under the former, Conservative government.
So, yes, the Liberals have upped their game and are now subsidizing more housing. Mitigating that, though, is the record-breaking level of immigration to Canada over that same time period. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada figures show that there were 271,840 new permanent residents to Canada in 2015 and we're now on track this year to have 485,000 new permanent residents to Canada, excluding of course international students and foreign workers whose numbers have also increased, this year.
So while the Liberals have increased housing subsidies, they have done so relatively late in the game and it is only in the last two or three years at most that their level of funding for housing has been greater than their increases in immigration to the country.
Reply by Robert Brannen.
1 day ago
An x word raises its head.
Reply by James Risdon.
1 day ago
What word?
Comment by Brandon Hubbard.
1 day ago
Sad that this was blocked. This is exactly the kind of development the city needs. This is really embarrassing for the city.
Imagine looking that happy at the prospect of blocking housing to "protect" a 1 acre plot of disused land. These NIMBYs should be ashamed.
Reply by Tom Gordon.
1 day ago
Maybe there's some vacant land next to your property they could use.
Reply by Brandon Hubbard.
1 day ago
Yes, and I'm fine with that. There's development in my neighbourhood that some neighbours have been against but I support. Cities aren't meant to be preserved in amber and I think it's shameful to block reasonable residential development.
We're talking about townhouses and apartments in a city. It's not like it's an industrial site being plopped down in someone's backyard.
Reply by James Risdon.
1 day ago
Why? The development, as good as it would have been for another area, was incompatible with the community. These people preserved the integrity of their community.
Reply by James Risdon.
1 day ago
This was apartments and townhouses in a residential neighbourhood of single family homes. That's why it was the wrong location.
Reply by Brandon Hubbard.
1 day ago
I live in a single family house and I think they're great, but we shouldn't zone in an exclusionary way that prevents townhouses and apartments from being built in any neighbourhood.
Just because you don't like townhouses doesn't mean they should be banned in your neighbourhood. Nobody is forcing you to go move into one of them.
Comment by James Risdon.
1 day ago
Park land is important.
Reply by Kyle Woodman.
1 day ago
So is housing. Plenty of parks adjacent to that site. A one acre park isn't much of a park.
Reply by James Risdon.
1 day ago
Yes, housing is important and it's a good thing to have when it is properly located.
Reply by Kyle Woodman.
1 day ago
Just not in your backyard eh?
Reply by Kayline Gabriole.
1 day ago
Properly located in an otherwise residential neighbourhood with ample park space nearby...just like this proposal. They weren't proposing an 80 story tower.
Reply by James Risdon.
1 day ago
There's a house behind mine. I don't know where you would put a housing development there.
I don't even live in Saint John.
Reply by Kyle Woodman.
1 day ago
This is Fredericton you twerp.
Reply by James Risdon.
1 day ago
Yes, of course. My mistake. I also do not live in Fredericton.
Thank you for your correction which was made in the spirit of Christian love.
Reply by James Risdon.
1 day ago
Clearly, the loss of this park land and the incompatibility of this residential development given the neighbourhood made the city council decide otherwise.
Reply by Kyle Woodman.
1 day ago
It's not though. Have you been to that neighborhood? I have. My extended family lives there. This so called park has just been a vacant piece of land for as long as I can remember. Stop espousing on things you have no knowledge of.
Reply by James Risdon.
1 day ago
This project would have added 88 units in an area of single-family homes. It was just out of place and the neighbours didn't want all of that development near their homes. I understand them completely.
This is a good project but it should be located elsewhere.
Reply by Kyle Woodman.
1 day ago
How do you know that? You aren't even sure what city we are talking about.
Reply by James Risdon.
1 day ago
That information is in the article.
" 88-unit townhouse development partly on parkland the city would have sold to the developer" and "the development at 501 Gibson St."
Did you not read the story?
Reply by Kyle Woodman.
1 day ago
No how do you know that it won't fit into the neighborhood? Have you ever visited that neighborhood?
Reply by James Risdon.
1 day ago
I've been there on Google Maps. Technology is wonderful.
Reply by Kyle Woodman.
1 day ago
Hahaha. Really?!
Reply by James Risdon.
1 day ago
Yes. Really. Do you not like technology?
Comment by Tom Gordon.
1 day ago
Finally the people win. The council usually doesn't pay much attention to the will of their constituents. Good to hear.
Reply by Kyle Woodman.
1 day ago
Which people?
Comment by Alex Weldon.
1 day ago
88 more people without a home, but at least the locals still have their favorite dog-walking spot, right?
Reply by Kayline Gabriole.
1 day ago
Yup - 88 families without a home. Sad that Council bowed to the NIMBYs once again.
Comment by Jonathan Martin.
1 day ago
This is exactly what Pierre Polievre is always talking about. NIMBY and ignorant councilors who stand in the way of affordable housing.
Reply by Tom Gordon.
1 day ago
NOT affordable housing. The cities definition of affordable housing is senseless. The people that really need a place to live cannot afford $1200 - $2000 per month.
Reply by Crystal Ann.
1 day ago
Building units as such as this opens up affordable units elsewhere as people who can afford to pay more will do so.
Reply by Robert Brannen.
1 day ago
The company's target rental pricing for affordable units was $1,300 to $1,500 per month, still not affordable for many who need housing.
Reply by SW Home.
1 day ago
Not Affordable housing. The only one this helps is the developer trying to get rich.
Reply by Kayline Gabriole.
1 day ago
Anything brand new is going to cost that. Those who are homeless AND jobless don't need brand new fancy housing. They need a roof over their heads and programming to help them overcome whatever is holding them back in life.
Reply by Terri Baxter.
1 day ago
Nope. That's not considered affordable in today's economy. What was once considered a liveable wage, is now in the low-income bracket. Corporations and the like will never understand that concept. Numbers change over time, greed does not. It tends to get worse.
Reply by Robert Brannen.
1 day ago
The issue of affordable housing effects many more than just the homeless on the streets. Just because people are housed does not mean that the housing they have is adequate for their needs.
No comments:
Post a Comment