Developers or Residents?

Yesterday, I blogged and commented on how developers here in Paradise and other towns, can do as they please. At least it seems that way. Well tonight, the proof may be in the pudding, so to speak. The town council here in Paradise will be voting on whether to allow a three-story apartment building on the corner of Kestral and Karwood Drives, an already extremely high traffic area. Karwood Drive is scheduled to be expanded from two lanes to four (five counting a turning lane), at a cost of $5 to $7 million tax dollars. Way this wasn’t done initially is beyond me. Karwood is also where the new school is located. So I’m against the development.

So much so, that I responded to an advertisement on changing (again) town regulations on rezoning. I outlined my reasons to the council in a letter below.

To whom it may concern:

I am writing to express my concerns of purposed amendments that would re-designate the property located at the north corner of Kestrel Drive and Karwood Drive from Commercial Local to Residential High Density (Municipal Plan Amendment No. 21, 2011 and Development Regulations Amendment No. 55, 2011).

Despite what the consulting firm states, the development may have a negative impact on traffic flow through that area of town. It is already an extremely high traffic volume area and, in my opinion, the addition of an apartment building would only exacerbate this problem. I understand that a traffic study was commissioned by the town, but I am unaware of the findings or if the study has been completed. If the study has not been completed, it would appear that the consultant’s statement on traffic flow should be dismissed. If the study has been completed, what were the findings and did the consulting firm take these into consideration? In addition, one has to question the objectivity of a firm that was hired by the developer and just whose interests are based served by their report.

The fact that the apartment building is three stories high is also a concern. To my knowledge, no other building in that area is as high. It stands to reason that it would not blend in with surrounding residential developments. While I understand that there is public consultation, I would assume most residents are not aware of the purposed amendments. I would also assume area residents would be upset on finding out that a three story apartment building was going up in their neighbourhood if, and when, construction begins.

(As an aside, I feel that a notice in The Shoreline - or any newspaper for that matter - is an inadequate way of informing town residents of any purposed municipal amendments. Area residents should be informed by mail on any purposed changes in order for real public consultation to take place. The Town may claim it followed the rules by posting the notice and asking for input, but is it fair if residents are unaware of any purposed changes? )

In my view, the development sets a dangerous precedent if the Town wishes to amend its own Municipal Plan. Using the word “changing” in any context, especially with respect to development within town, is bound to raise red flags. Rightly or wrongly, such changes will be viewed as council allowing developers to do as they please.

Hopefully, council makes the right decision or at least defers until after the road is expanded. We’ve seen enough poor decisions that adversely affect traffic and subsequently endanger pedestrians to last a lifetime.

Update: Developers (again).