Development plan stalls in Niverville

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 07/11/2017 (2359 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A Niverville development has hit another hurdle, after council refused to give a new proposal first reading on Tuesday.

Up for discussion were 27 lots at the southwest end of Breckenridge Drive, and a request for them to be rezoned so that the lot sizes can be decreased from approximately 55 feet to approximately 35 feet.

Earlier this year, rezoning was sought on the same lots to change them from single-family to multi-family so duplexes could be built. That proposal was rejected by council in September after more than 50 Niverville residents publicly opposed the proposal.

“There was a zoning change needed and the general public came out and said ‘No we bought our houses based on what the developer told us, so we spent our money on our homes, and we want to see it stay that way.’” Niverville mayor Myron Dyck said.

The latest proposal to create single family homes on the lots, but decrease the size of those lots went to a first reading vote on Tuesday.

“Council believes that the proposal is not significantly different than the original proposal because in the mind of council with either proposal you are still creating more density,” Dyck said.

“And that is a concern of those who own larger single-family homes in that neighbourhood.”

Dyck said council has now made suggestions for the developer before they consider taking the bylaw to first reading, which include the developer talking directly with residents who live in the area, and also clarifying to both residents and to council his plans for the lots.

Niverville councillor Nathan Dueck stated during Tuesday’s meeting that at this point he believes there are too many questions and unknowns about the proposal to take it to first reading.

“Based upon what he has proposed, he ultimately doesn’t quite have a formula in mind for what he’s ultimately planning on doing,” Dueck said. “So it’s difficult for us to figure out what we are doing with the community when the developer hasn’t told us what his final intentions are with this project.”

Dyck said council will now relay their suggestion to the developer and stated that at the point the proposal “is not dead but it is on hold.”