A proposed small lot development and the perceived lack of public interaction surrounding the approval process is causing concern for people in neighbouring residential areas.
Concerned neighbours feel the development is being rushed since the first municipally-required public meeting on the proposal hosted by the developer, Townline group of companies, on Nov. 10, was held less than one week before District of Squamish council passed first and second reading on Tuesday (Nov. 16).
Mike Suter lives in Regency Place, just over 100 metres from the proposed development site, and although he's not against the development, the lack of public communication has him worried.
"I'm not a NIMBY [not in my back yard] type," said Muter, who has lived in Squamish for 40 years.
"I realize development is coming on, but it's got to be controlled and there's got to be some input by people who live in the area. I don't think we should be rushing and kowtowing to contractors and developer's will."
The Townline group of companies is requesting the district amend the current lot size zoning from 690 sq. ft. to 300 sq. ft. The project would include a three-storey single-family dwelling on each of the 43 lots.
Due to the smaller lot sizes - which are comparable to such developments as Amblepath and Edgewater - the housing is dubbed affordable.
However critics deem the lots to be incongruous with the rest of Newport Ridge Drive, a street lined with large single family homes flanked by two-car garages and big backyards.
Cam Cairns, who lives near the proposed site, told council he didn't think enough people were notified of the information meeting since the applicant was only obligated to invite residents within 100 metres of the site as well as advertize in the newspaper and provide development signage on site.
Cairns said he believes a new development affects more than just immediate neighbours.
He asked council to review the policy at a future committee of the whole meeting and council agreed to put it on a future Committee of the Whole agenda.
Cairns also voiced concern about the "rushed and urgent process" during open question period. He said seven days between the public meeting and first and second reading seemed short, and Mayor Greg Gardner gave that some credence.
"We could consider putting a time limit between the public open house and first and second reading," said Gardner.
During this week's council meeting, district staff recommended giving the development first and second reading, and scheduling a public hearing for Dec. 7.
Corporate services general manager Cameron Chalmers and planner Chris Bishop said 25 people signed in to the developer's public information meeting, and about 40 attended.
"There's certainly some concern on density and neighbourhood character - but there are also comments supporting the project," said Chalmers.
"Since the public meeting we have received approximately 10 written submissions and these will be part of the package given to council before the public hearing."
Coun. Patricia Heintzman wanted more details, but Chalmers said he didn't feel summarizing the public's opinions was appropriate.
"They do come to council in a raw form at public hearing," he said.
Coun. Paul Lalli was the only council member to attend the public meeting.
"I was there and there were a number of concerns, though some people that supported it as well," he said. "But would it be out of the ordinary if we required the developer to hold another public meeting? I think it would be a good idea."
Chalmers told Lalli it was council's decision. He also reminded council members that a sub area plan for the neighbourhood that started in 2006 addressed density of this sort and involved extensive public consultation over the years.
"Council can certainly direct a second public information meeting but I would remind you that official legislated form to hear from the public is at the public hearing," said Chalmers.
Heintzman told Chalmers she thought another public meeting was necessary.
"I believe this was predominantly addressed in 2005 and 2006 - since then we have 2,000 more residents so I don't think those meetings are very relevant," she said.
"We rely on the public for their comments and if we don't get it until after the public hearing that's pretty far along for a developer."
Coun. Corinne Lonsdale was particularly disappointed not to see more senior friendly housing requirements and suggested designating a portion of the new development as single storey residences to accommodate for seniors.
Other concerns included building heights, rental suites, parking and strata responsibilities.
Lalli nonetheless made a motion to give the zoning amendment first and second reading, while asking Chalmers to relay council's desire for another public meeting to Townline.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Gardner made a motion to hold the public hearing on Jan. 25 instead of Dec. 7 to give the public more time to review the application.
"There's nothing technical I'm concerned about ,but I don't think Dec. 7 is enough time to have the engagement."
The motion was carried unanimously.
The issue will also be discussed at a future meeting.
