A recent development permit approval that saw drastically reduced parking stall requirements caused enough concern for one town councillor that she brought the issue before council during its August meeting.
Councillor Leslie Taylor brought forward the issue due to a project with a 70 per cent variance in parking requirements, which was the result of a clause in the Land Use Bylaw being applied by the Municipal Planning Commission.
The permit approved was for a 38-unit apartment building with 61 bedrooms and 28 parking stalls. The LUB sets out parking for an apartment may be reduced to one stall per dwelling unit “subject to the provision of an alternative transportation incentive as approved by council.”
Without use of the clause, the apartment building would have been required to have 78 parking stalls.
Taylor said she is concerned the clause can be interpreted two ways with the one stall per bedroom as the limit for parking reductions, or as the baseline from which further variances can be granted.
“It may well be council’s intention is congruent with the way the bylaw was interpreted, but I think it would be nice to clarify,” she said.
The section of the LUB is newly approved and Taylor pointed out an alternative transportation incentive policy has yet to be approved by council.
Municipal planner Darren Enns said a policy has not yet been drafted, and “in lieu of that, we offer it on a case by case basis. Our intent has always been to bring back the policy.”
Enns said it was felt the planning commission was the appropriate legal authority to seek approval of the development with the LUB clause because council members sit on MPC.
Taylor argued that without the policy in place and approved by council, the LUB clause should not be used.
“We need to make it clear that it is by council policy and frankly, I would question the authority for that clause to be used at all without the existence of an alternative transportation incentive policy approved by council,” she said. “Until that is in place, I would suggest this clause is not usable.
“I don’t want to second guess a particular decision, that is water under the bridge, the appeal period is gone and that is how it is, but I want to be sure council understands how the bylaw will be interpreted going forward,” she said, adding the clause applies to duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes, which can be approved in many residential areas around town. “This decision could be coming to an area near you.”
Council passed a motion to consider the clause to be the maximum limit to variances for parking allowed. The motion also left MPC as the development authority to decide if the clause should be applied.
Taylor went on to provide a notice of motion, meaning at the next council meeting she will put forward a motion to direct administration to investigate the advantages and disadvantages for separate categories of employee housing and if changes should be made to the Land Use Bylaw.
“It occurs to me the problem we are trying to solve with this clause is the encouragement of developing employee housing for people who are unlikely to have a car,” she said. “If we define two different types of land uses here, employee housing and apartment housing, and we set different conditions for those land uses and have different districts, it would allow us to encourage one without giving relaxation to others.”
