~ Soniétime in February, 1992, Bud’s
'. Trucking: - ‘of. Terrace tried a. different

7 tao approach | ‘to development. Prior: to going to

‘ the city, they mailed a letter describing a

proposal for the construction of some condo- .
_ miniums near Yeo and Westview to nearby
” . property owners and residents of the neigh- —

_bourhood. ‘The idea apparently was to work

out any problems before the matter was pres-

- ented at a: public hearing.

. «wo representatives of the neighbourhood
- showed: up at the Feb. 24 council meeting to.

‘complain. Of concern was an iricrease in

-. traffic, declining property values, and the.”
” ultimate eviction of-a local population of .

deer, oe OO

saying a public hearing was not required, b but
pointed out the rezoning would be advertised
and at that time concerned residents could

~ approach council to express their views.

: hare Toe

As there a-common thread j in the: ‘stories

above? City planner Marvin Kamenz thinks —
* there. is, and -he has recommended. Terrace
city council take a new approach when ‘re-
<eeiving’ proposals for much-needed multi-
family housing projects: ask the developer to
7 sort things out with the: neighbourhood first.

‘In the Lovatad affair, the Planning De-

: partment recommended that the rézoning
_ should procéed. In making that recomménda-
7 tion, consideration was given to- traffic,Jand
~ use, the Official Community Plan, the avail-

ability of Residential and- ‘Multi-Family

council. This one for a four-plex at the corner

‘of Sparks and Walsh. One nearby ‘resident -

lodged a complaint, pointing out that the city
planner had recommended against the pro-
ject because it would not conform with exist-
ing land use in the area. A petition was filed
backing that position, and with it an express-
ion of concern over the possibility of declining
property values and an increase in vehicular
traffic. . :

(City cone gave the projet the nod,

D.. es 8" "55 5). Dywelling (R3)zonied lanid and the shortage of
uring ‘the March 9 couneil T mesting,
another proposal was to be considered by city .

rental units iri the city. One hundred neigh-

: bouring residents, though, signed a. petition

opposing the application.

According to the petition, the proposed
change in zoning would have a detrimental
impact’ on the neighbourhood through
increased traffic and lower property values.
These same residents had rejected a proposal

- for the construction of a dry. cleaning-
laundromat-retail operation one block.south

a few months earlier. They said it would not
provide a suitable. buffer between the down-

town core and: residential areas.

| _ At 7 p.m. on Monday; Jan.
oA -1991,. Lovstad’s apartment
ce ‘proposal went to public hear-
ing: The event..attracted a
-gtanding-room-only crowd.

Low-rise landscape.

. They’ expressed concern over

increased traffic, the vagueness

. of the proposal and its effect on

the quality of life in the area.

And in the end, council said

there would be no apartment
building at Eby and Davis.

It wasn’t a landslide victory
for those in opposition,. how-
ever. Council was divided.
Aldermen Ruth. Hallock, Mo
Takhar. and Rick .King gave
Lovstad the: thumbs down.
Aldermen Bob Cooper, Danny
Sheridan and Darryl Laurent
said they favoured the idea.
This left mayor Jack Talstra
with the deciding ballot, and he
voted against the proposal,
saying, “If a change of this
importance is to take place in
this community we must have

Terrace Review — April 3, 1992