By Mark Squibb
Despite its commitment to “intensification” of housing, Mount Pearl council this week unanimously voted to reject construction of a 12-unit apartment building along McCarthy Crescent citing resident outcry.
The application was to demolish two duplexes and replace them with two six-unit apartment buildings, for a total of 12 residential units, at 50-56 McCarthy Crescent. The proposed apartment buildings would require 18 parking spaces but the applicant, NextGen Construction Inc., on behalf of Apollo Housing Co-Operative, requested permission to move ahead with only 17 spaces.
An apartment building is not permitted in the Residential-Medium Density zone.
Following publication of the discretionary notice, the City received 17 e-mails regarding the application, and 20 residents spoke at a public session held on July 25. Impact on property values and increased traffic were among the concerns raised by the residents.
In addition, 98 residents signed a petition against the development, headed up by Greg Bennett.
The planning committee recommended that council approve the application based on the City’s residential intensification policy. Council, however, had other plans.
Councillor Bill Antle, who brought forward the motion as chairman of the planning committee, said that while he was supportive of co-op housing, he was not supportive of this particular development.
“I don’t think this is the right area for this development,” said Antle, who listed a number of concerns he shared with residents, including an increase in traffic.
Antle said that rather than ‘gentle intensification,’ this application amounted to ‘intrusive intensification’ as it disrupted life on an already busy street, and added that according to City data, the amount of traffic along McCarthy Crescent is triple that of comparable streets throughout Mount Pearl.
Antle said the parking lot was perhaps his biggest concern and went so far as to quote Canadian folk singer Joni Mitchell and ask whether council was prepared to “pave Paradise to put up a parking lot.”
Councillor Chelsea Lane, citing the need for affordable housing, said the decision was a difficult one, but in the end decided to vote against the application given the number of residents who spoke out against it.
“I got to be on this council because of the support of residents,” said Lane. “They elected me to represent what they feel is in their best interest. And I’ve received numerous phone calls and e-mails, and I know that many residents have very valid reasons as to why they feel it’s not a fit for this neighbourhood.”
Deputy Mayor Nicole Kieley said this was one of hardest decisions she has had to make in her first term of council, citing the need for more housing but also taking into consideration the concerns of residents.
“We are elected to make difficult choices,” said Kieley. “And sometimes, residents are the experts… It’s just not a fit for the area.”
Councillor Mark Rice also voiced his opposition to the application, saying that approval of the application would dramatically change the character of the subdivision.
“It is a well-established family neighbourhood that was built in the 1980s, and I know that many families have lived there for 30, 40 years,” said Antle. “If we decided moving forward to put in a brand new neighbourhood or a brand new subdivision, or another area that might suit this type of affordable housing, I would be all for it, but to put this type of building — and I certainly looked at the size of that development compared to what it would be next to the duplex that already exists there, and it’s a big difference in size — and so I don’t support the motion.
Councillor Isabelle Fry said she would not reiterate what other councillors had already said, and only added that, given the concerns brought forward by residents she would not support the application, despite a need for affordable housing.
Councillor Jim Locke was the last to speak on the matter.
“When this proposal first came to the table, I was excited about this proposal,” admitted Locke. “There is a huge need for housing of all types.”
Locke said the application ticked all the boxes.
“It’s a great development,” said Locke. “These are new, modern homes that would have been a good fit for the neighbourhood.”
Locke said that concerns about impacts on property values are usually never borne out in fact.
In the end though, Locke said, he was swayed by the increase in traffic in an already busy neighbourhood.
“Whether or not this project proceeds, that traffic issue is not going away,” said Locke. “We also had Harbour Side (Consultants) do a traffic analysis, and if this particular development were to proceed it wouldn’t be a significant impact on the traffic flow in the area. I think the report said three to six additional cars during peak times in the morning and afternoon. So, it’s not going to add a significant amount of vehicles on that road during peak times… but, the nagging thing for me was the volume of traffic going down McCarthy Crescent right now, and to add to an already existing high volume of traffic was what swayed me the other way.”
Council ’s decision to deny the application was met with applause from the 20 or so residents who attended the meeting to watch the vote live.
Among them was Greg Bennett of nearby Mitchener Avenue, who helped spearhead the petition. “I’m really pleased with council’s decision,” said Bennett. “It wasn’t the right development for that area. Moving from duplexes to a 12-unit apartment complex is not gentle intensification, it’s taking the zoning regulations and throwing them out and not paying regard for people who have brought property in the area and have lived there for the last 30, 40 years. Council made the right decision. And as for the development, it was great, but it just needs to be somewhere else in the city where the City will permit.”
Bennett said if council had approved the application, residents would have been ready and willing to appeal the decision.
The apartment building project was valued at approximately $3.3 million.
