Council rejects detached garage suites proposal after backlash

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 05/04/2018 (2839 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Following neighbourhood backlash, Brandon City Council has rejected VBJ Developments’ proposal to build detached garage suites on the 1000 block of Seventh Street.

A public hearing brought out several area residents who spoke out about the plan, and sparked a lengthy debate around the city council table.

“It was a really difficult decision because I could see both sides of the conversation,” said Coun. Lonnie Patterson (South Centre). “I really do like the concept that the developers put forward, and I really do appreciate that they’re trying to be innovative … But there were a number of people from the neighbourhood who came out and expressed their concerns, and so I went with their concerns at the end of the day.”

After much discussion on the conditional use and variance applications, council voted 6-5 in opposition. In addition to Patterson, the other votes against the plan included councillors Barry Cullen (Victoria), John LoRegio (Meadows-Waverly), Jeff Harwood (University), Shawn Berry (Linden Lanes) and Jan Chaboyer (Green Acres).

A main issue — and why the proposal had to come to council — was the size of the property. VBJ Developments purchased the property at 1056 Seventh St. last summer and demolished the single family home on the site. The 75-feet by 120-feet property consisted of three 25-feet lots, which the company legally separated. According to city bylaws, a property should be at least 33 feet for a detached suite to exist.

The single-family homes will have two bedrooms and one bathroom, while the detached suite would have had one bedroom and one bathroom.

Lisa Halter lives next door to the property and was upset when she found out about the development plans.

“I wondered why no one told me,” she said. “You want to know when something’s happening.”

The plan was to require the home and detached suite be owner-occupied, but Halter questioned how that would be enforced.

“I’m really glad they voted against it happening,” she said. “They’re not against this, and I’m not against this, but I am against it in this amount of land. They need the required amount. Don’t change the rules. They made those rules for a reason.”

Steve Higgins lives two properties to the north of the site. His main concerns include a high rate of density, and the potential for high turnover.

“These homes are very small homes, packed side by side and it doesn’t afford anyone any extra living space,” he said. “I think that doesn’t fit with what the City of Brandon needs in our neighbourhood.”

While he wishes the development was not allowed to go forward in this style in the first place, Higgins said he was pleased with the council vote.

Several councillors said they liked the idea of smaller, more affordable homes, but not on this particular property.

“It’s the visual, it just seems to be … too much development on too small a lot,” Harwood said.

Berry added: “It’s a great idea, great concept, but if you can’t build it within the rules, then it shouldn’t be there.”

Other councillors spoke up in favour of this unique development plan.

“This is an opportunity to bring developers back into the affordable housing game. They’ve been sitting on the sidelines,” Coun. Kris Desjarlais (Rosser) said, adding that affordable housing projects should be done by any developer, not just non-profits.

Desjarlais also suggested that this was a great opportunity, and if rejected, they would be “missing the boat.”

This was the first development of this nature to come to council, since the secondary suites bylaw was amended five years ago.

“New and innovative can be a bit of an uphill battle sometimes,” Patterson said. “I just really do appreciate that the developer has been hearing the community needs … so I really hope (Tuesday) night’s decision doesn’t become a deterrent. I hope it just informs future projects.”

Steve McMillan, vice-president of planning services for VBJ Developments, pointed out that the company could have developed duplexes on the property, and wouldn’t have had to come to council for approval.

“If we wanted to make the most profit, we would have just went and made three duplexes, three bedrooms each,” he said. “(We) wouldn’t have went through three months of council and planning commission meetings, wouldn’t have went through three months of negotiations with the city beforehand.”

McMillan said they chose this route because they thought it would fit better with the neighbourhood — single-storey homes with a garage suite in the back. He added that the company was hoping this type of development might catch on and be accepted in the local market as another housing option.

“It’s too bad because … all you hear is affordable housing, affordable housing, and we’re trying to find other ways to provide different housing types, and then you get rejected like this,” he said.

The contingency plan is to put regular garages up, or at least a pad site for future homeowners to develop.

Following the council decision on Tuesday, McMillan said he was “at a loss.”

“We put a lot of work into it to make it blend with the neighbourhood, and something like this I think should have probably been approved,” he said.

» jaustin@brandonsun.com

» Twitter: @jillianaustin