Controversial development moves ahead

The 1.36-hectare piece of land at 2305 Pagé Road – cornering on Innes Road – had its zoning changes approved by council last month, after an ongoing battle with residents over issues ranging from density to noise that saw a number of concessions made, says applicant James Locke.

The amendments will allow for conditional use of a car wash, a provision initially accidentally omitted by the city, only if a gas bar and convenience store are developed as main uses for the property, he continues, as well as residential changes for planned units.

In terms of concessions made to appease nearby residents, Locke points to the reduction of 81 units proposed for the property’s residential section to 36 as one example. “We listened to all the neighbours’ concerns,” he says, also highlighting three meetings held even prior to September’s council decision. “We went above and beyond to try and please the neighbours … to try to have a happy medium for everyone. You always have some NIMBYism. It’s a very small percentage of people (who are still upset). The city wants (this development); we want it.”

Two public meetings – one last February and another in May – saw a vocal turnout from residents upset about the proposal, in addition to a petition with approximately 100 signatures, identifying concerns including noise, traffic, safety, compatibility and questioning the need for another gas station.

The project is currently at the site-plan stage, Locke continues, explaining while it’s not specifically moving forward, it has been supported and endorsed by both city committee and council. No construction date or timeline currently exists, he adds. “I definitely think what’s going in there is functional,” Locke recounts. “It really fits with the neighbourhood. I get the feeling most people like it.”

The 36 units now included in the proposal is “considerably less than what they had before,” suggests Innes Coun. Rainer Bloess, whose ward includes the Pagé Road property, while the car wash has been allowed if situated in a way that doesn’t negatively impact the neighbourhood.

There was, Bloess admits, “an overwhelmingly negative response because of the number of units” when the development was first proposed to the Chapel Hill South community, also recounting that many were not pleased with the proposal’s commercial component. But he attributes a shift in some residents’ opinions to further clarification about the proposal, concessions by the applicant and expansion on the city’s Official Plan (OP) policy related to the development.

Though calling initial plans for the land “a little overzealous,” Bloess says that “over time, there were changes made to the site. There are still some objections, but I think there’s recognition that planning principles by the province and OP policies allow for in-fill development. There was reluctant acceptance … a better understanding of how this works. You’re not going to make everybody happy.”

The next step for the property is refining the site plan, he continues, calling the possibility of anyone appealing the zoning amendments unlikely.