By: Sylene Argent, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Essex Free Press
The Town of Essex’s Committee of Adjustment (COA) denied a consent application seeking to construct one semi-detached dwelling on each of the three vacant residential lots on the northern-side of Brien Avenue – known as 195, 197, and 199, located just west of Sweetman Avenue in Essex Centre.
The decision took place during the COA’s meeting November 18.
Essex Council declared these three parcels of land as surplus earlier this year, having previously received them as part of the Jakana Development in 2015.Anadditional parcel is still owned by the Town. During a closed session in January, Council reviewed three offers. All were one price for the three lots. Council accepted an offer of $900,000 for the three lots.
The applicant, who is the same for all three parcels, sought approval to divide each lot down the center of the semi-detached dwelling unit to be constructed on the lots. Each semi-detached dwelling unit would have then contained two Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) for a total of six dwelling units within the building.
In total, there would be 18 dwelling units. The floor plans show two bedrooms on each level per dwelling unit for a total of 36 bedrooms for the entire development.
Rita Jabbour, Manager of Planning, noted the Zoning for the lots permits single, two, three, and semi-detached dwellings. The Zoning By-Law also permits Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) in those types of housing options.
The Town requires onsite parking spaces for each dwelling unit, which is three parking spaces for each of the three properties.
Back in September, the Town of Essex’s COA deferred the three consent applications, wanting a Traffic Memo to be completed by a professional at the applicant’s expense to address potential issues resulting from the development and the curvature of the roadway and proximity to the intersection, and the ingress/egress issues to and from the site.
The applicant has since submitted that Traffic Memo. The application was returned to the Committee for decision at its November 18 meeting.
Jabbour relayed the engineer, who completed the Traffic Memo, commented the addition of site-generated traffic would have a nominal impact on Brien Avenue West, egress sightlines are clear, there are 33 under-utilized on-street parking spaces within a 200m walking distance that would be sufficient in compensating for overflow parking demand, and the development would not adversely impact traffic operations in the area.
With the application’s consistency with Provincial Planning Statement, conformity with the County of Essex and Town of Essex Official Plans, compliance with the Zoning By-Law, and the information received via the Traffic Memo, Jabbour told the COA members that the Town Planning Division recommended it be approved. That was subject to eight conditions, including that the applicant constructs a privacy fence along Optimist Bridlewood Park for 19 Brien Avenue.
A number of delegates spoke to the matter, mainly residents in the area, who voiced concerns regarding the parking planned for the back of the units, if the Traffic Memo will be available for the community to read, the disappointment of the loss of the greenspace, parking needed for the proposal, being crowded with the number of units proposed, how density will impact use and safety of the multi-way stop sign nearby, the number of underutilized parking spots identified in the Traffic Memo as parking is allowed only on one-side of the road, how recycling and organics will be picked-up by the truck using an arm with potential additional on-street parking, and potential safety concerns for children and pedestrians.
Mayor Sherry Bondy spoke as a delegate during the meeting, noting her belief that the Traffic Memo should have been attached to the agenda for public viewing, or the Engineer should have been invited in-person to answer questions from the public regarding parking and sightlines.
She said the Traffic Memo did not address parking issues. She wanted to see where additional parking spots would go.
Bondy also spoke of the need for walkable communities. She supports intensification, but it has to be ensured the neighbourhood is not drastically changed. Though it is known the province wants intensification like this, it needs to be kept in mind that when private developers put parking on public roads, public taxpayers are paying for the private parking spots.
Ward One Councillor Katie McGuire-Blais spoke in opposition of the proposal as a delegate at the meeting.
“This proposal does not reflect smart planning, nor does it respect the character needs – or realities – of the surrounding community,” she said. “The Developer has not taken the community into consideration. Placing 18 units without proper parking on this limited footprint is excessive and incompatible with the neighbourhood.”
It is concerning, McGuire-Blais added, Council did not previously recognize the Town’s Parking By-Law Amendment applied only to commercial uses and that residential standards remained unchanged. Council is now revisiting the By-Law.
Placing parking in the back of the units is not permissible, she added.
The applicant, Daniel Crofts, said the Engineer who completed the Traffic Memo was capable of doing so. He knew there were a lot of emotions in the room, “but the facts are the facts,” he said, referring that the Engineer deemed the proposal to be appropriate. “We are only proposing to build this because this is what the Town By-Law allows.”
In terms of the 33 parking spaces mentioned, Crofts noted the study was done on a Friday evening, deemed at peak hours. 23% of the available on-street spaces were being used.
He said he bought the properties from the Town, as they looked at the by-laws beforehand.
Crofts hoped the proposal would have been approved, otherwise it “causes a big problem for us and a big precedent that you will be setting that the by-laws are not trustworthy.” He cautioned developers could go elsewhere.
COA member Dan Sauve said he struggled with the parking, noting there would be 18 dwellings. He believes that would cause a hazard. He wanted a solution to be brought forward.
COA member Bill Baker said what is legal and may conform may not always be bright. The committee was put in a tough position, based on what the province is allowing and what the Zoning By-Laws are permitting. Many questions were raised that do need to be answered.
When Council sold the lot, Baker added, it was not considered that this would happen. He believed the proposal needed to be deferred until more answers were made.
In Answering COA Chairperson Phil Pocock’s question on the plans for parking in the back, Crofts said they could get permission to use rights-of-way, as the owner of all three properties. That would include getting permission to get another driveway.
COA Committee member Matthew Child moved to deny the request, believing the application does not meet the planning guidance laid out in the County of Essex Official Plan or the Town of Essex Official Plan. He also believed the application is not of gentle density or orderly development.
Though COA member Dorene Lester wanted to defer to hear from the Engineer, Child struggled with what he called assumptions in the report, including the criteria that parking will be assessed within 200m of the subject site. Child said it takes a couple of minutes to walk 200m. He wondered if all folks are going to do that with children, grocery bags, if they have mobility issues. He does not need to see a more detailed assessment. For him, the issue is more subjective: is the application consistent with existing neighbourhood character and does it constitute orderly development? He could not convince himself it does.
Child also had concerns because the proposal is so close to Bridlewood Park, a larger park in town. He believes there is a potential hazard for injury or worse.
“They are more subjective concerns than [the] quantitative concerns that are spelled out in detail in the Zoning By-Law in terms of height, units, side yard setback, etc.,” Child later added.