A pair of developments were reconsidered at Monday’s (April 7) Mission council meeting.
The reconsiderations came for properties on Tunbridge Avenue and Cedar Street due to tied votes at the March 17 meeting when three councillors were sick.
Rezoning at 32876 Tunbridge Avenue to allow a 24-unit townhouse development was previously defeated after a 2-2 vote on March 17 with Gill and Hamilton opposed.
The development application unanimously moved forward upon reconsideration.
However, an amendment from Coun. Jag Gill to change a $7,500 voluntary contribution to $170,000 received more contention. The amendment carried 4-3 with Mayor Paul Horn, Coun. Danny Plecas and Coun. Carol Hamilton opposed.
Staff said since the application was defeated last month, the applicant volunteered an additional $170,000 for a requested crosswalk.
Mission transportation manager Ellen Croy told council the crosswalk wasn’t identified as a priority location in the city’s “Mission Mobility 2050” plan.
Coun. Danny Plecas supported the project but shared concerns with the amendment due to process.
“It concerns me how we go about doing business with our development community,” Plecas said.
He went on to say: “In [the] future, people may assume that that's how we do business. It's not really the way we do business – outside the Box. If council …wants to see things done differently, or want a different amounts from developers or larger amounts from developers, there's a process to go through.”
Coun. Angel Elias, who was absent for the March meeting, voiced support for the project.
“If the builder is willing to put in a controlled crosswalk for safety for our kids, plus the 51,000 for the garden Creek pathway. I mean, that's a that's a win, win for the community,” Elias said.
Mayor Paul Horn said he’s concerned Mission’s is getting into the habit of a process that is inconsistent and unfair.
“We have a policy around community amenity contributions, park land … all of the things that we do and it is becoming a wild west for us right now where somebody comes in, they've met with our staff, our staff have told them what they think is reasonable given the percentage of impact in a neighbourhood and then it just goes out the window.… It hasn't been warranted,” he said.
“I am concerned that it is not only going to set a precedent for us sort of doing this ad hoc negotiation that goes beyond the CACs, it's also going to significantly impact the faith of people who would develop homes and buildings in our community. It's also going to make people think, ‘Oh, if I can convince the community to reconsider, I'll just add [to] the pot, ’”
Coun. Jag Gill said he was shocked by the comments from Horn and Plecas.
“This crosswalk has been discussed before. It's been raised by the Cherry Hill PAC and the principal there for a huge concern of public safety. Developers should be paying for development and if we don't collect $170,000 and the developer only puts forward $7,500 Guess who's on the hook for it? It's the community. It’s you as taxpayers on the hook,” he said.
He went on to say: “I don't agree with the comments that this is the wild west. I hear from community members that say infrastructure is lagging and it's important development pays for development and the onus isn't put on us.”
The application to allow a 45-unit townhouse project at 9099, 9107, and 9111 Cedar Street – Cedar Street also moved forward with a 4-3 vote. Gill, Herar and Elias were opposed.
It was previously defeated after a 2-2 vote on March 17 with Gill and Plecas opposed.
Gill noted concerns
