Rothesay Council passed a zoning bylaw amendment last night that would allow a high density residential development consisting of two apartment buildings and parking lots off Hampton Road between Cochran’s Market and Kennebecasis Drugs. The proposed development abuts a new residential development off the Marr Road directly behind the proposed apartment buildings.

After the public meeting, Council met to consider bylaw changes required for the development to proceed.

For such an important decision, it seemed that the standard of sober reflection for some Councillors amounted to little more than, “It’s development. Development is good. We need the taxes.” Only two councillors paid any attention to the issues raised by neighbours and only one, Councillor Wells, ultimately voted against the bylaw change.

If some councillors have a default position that favours developers over neighbours, then what’s the point of having a zoning bylaw in the first place? Spot rezoning creates uncertainty and often works against the interests of existing property owners.

I asked a Town Planner friend if zoning bylaws were effective in managing development and supporting community values. He referred me to wording in a zoning bylaw for Carver, a small Massachusetts town about the size of Rothesay. The residents of Carver clearly see their zoning bylaw regulating;

 …the use of land throughout the town to protect the health and safety of its inhabitants; to lessen congestion in the streets; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent overcrowding of land; to encourage housing for persons of all income levels; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, water supply, drainage, sewerage, schools, parks, open space, and other public requirements; to conserve the value of land and buildings, including the conservation of natural resources and the prevention of blight and pollution of the environment; to preserve the cultural, historical and agricultural heritage of the community;and to reduce the hazard from fire by regulating the location and use of buildings and the area of open space around them…

Last night few if any of these principles or values were on display in the short pro forma debate by Councillors on the motion to approve the apartment buildings. This, despite concerns from neighbours in the public meeting potentially affected by the development. Once again it appears that labelling development as being for Seniors gives some councillors cover for amending or bending the rules. There were three “seniors” who spoke in favour of the development. They did so as potential customers of the developer. But that is their right just as it is to be unsympathetic to the concern of their future neighbours.

A resident who recently invested more than $400,000 in a property directly behind the proposed development believes, with good reason, that he will lose the peaceful enjoyment of  his property when three stories of apartment dwellers congregate behind and above him on their balconies just 20 feet or so from his property. Yes, even seniors can party!

(Contrast this willingness to accommodate a developer on setbacks for a three story apartment building towering over the next door property with Rothesay’s court case against a resident who had the temerity to place a fence on his property just a foot beyond the required setback from his own property line.)

Zoning bylaws are meant to provide for orderly development. Homeowners rely on them as an indicator of the kind of development that is likely to take place in the neighborhood they plan to invest in. This change of rules has occurred after that investor apparently joined the game in good faith. He must be wondering now how property owners can win in Rothesay.

When a development needs multiple variances, then the opinion of neighbours should be given a great deal of weight. In this case it is hardly fair to ignore a reasonable request for even marginal buffering between a proposed three story apartment building and higher end, low density, single family residential development that represents locked-in investment.

Despite the town’s recent experience with flooding in many parts of town and despite the intervention of a Dobbin St. homeowner who asked for a stormwater management plan before this was approved, Council approved the two apartment buildings, parking lots and driveways on a sloping lot without that stormwater management plan. Given what we know about climate change, this seems risky for taxpayers and for residents who may well have to pick up the bill for any downstream impacts.

As noted above, only Councillor Wells voted against this on second reading last night. Let’s hope that in future, more Councillors share her concern for the interests of homeowners and their families when they conflict with the interests of developers.

Meanwhile, stay tuned for Rothesay’s next public meeting on September 14th. That meeting will give the public an opportunity to comment on more multi-unit apartment buildings as well as a condo development proposed for land at the corner of Hillcrest and Hampton Road. If you live in the area and have concerns or comments, you should take them in writing to the public meeting.