Customize your website

West Hill zoning fight rejected

 - A court battle centred on the southern portion of the Angus Mirasty School yard has wrapped up.  
Herald photo by Joshua Pagé

A court battle centred on the southern portion of the Angus Mirasty School yard has wrapped up. Herald photo by Joshua Pagé

Joshua Pagé
Published on February 5th, 2010
Published on February 5th, 2010
Joshua Pagé
Topics :
Queen's , West Hill Heritage Society , Angus Mirasty School , West Hill

A lawsuit launched to kill a bylaw that paved the way for the development of affordable duplexes in the West Hill has been shut down in a Court of Queen's Bench ruling.

A written decision authored by Justice R.D. Maher dismissed an application by a number of West Hill residents representing themselves and the West Hill Heritage Society.

The application sought to quash a bylaw that re-zoned a southern portion of the Angus Mirasty School yard from institutional to a specific type of residential zoning that allowed duplex development.

The rezoning was intended to allow Northern Spruce Housing Corporation to build a maximum of four affordable duplexes.

The Prince Albert Grand Council currently owns the land. The bylaw was argued at city council chambers last summer and spilled into a courtroom in early December.

Opponents of the rezoning argued at council that losing green space was a key issue for them.

Maher's ruling said the city acted reasonably while considering submissions from "various competing groups."

He also decided proper public consultation occurred and council undertook "necessary due diligence."

"Council gave due consideration to the bylaw amendment at two council meetings, heard and received numerous submissions, plus attended a community meeting with the various interested parties before council came to a decision," said Maher's ruling.

He also added that council ultimately had to make a decision.

"The applicants are not happy with the decision but ultimately council is charged with a decision-making responsibility and authority," read the ruling.

City manager Robert Cotterill said the decision showed the city followed The Cities Act and made a decision within its power.

Northern Spruce could now apply for permits to begin preparing the land for development - if they chose to and council gave approval - according to Cotterill.

The heritage society's lawyer, Eric Lanoie, said he needed to speak with his clients before deciding how to move forward. It's not known at this time if an appeal will be launched.

Comments

  • Username
    Wise?
    - February 7th, 2010

    What this bright judge just did is give Scarrow a free hand to do anything he wants in anybody's neighborhood, no matter what the city's own bylaws say and no matter what the people who live there say. Wow, is this ever a delibrate act of screwing over a neighborhood. First, Scarrow and Council changed the zoning against the residents' wishes, ignored the Bylaw that guides city planning (so this judge doesn't consider a Bylaw or city plan to be important?), ignored/refused to address the residents' concerns (obviously the "public meetings" were just for show, and this judge missed that) and was hypocritical in dealing with this instance in comparison to another landowner issue elsewhere in town. All for a developer who apparently is friends with Scarrow. How's that for democracy? Good to see you thought this one through so well judge. Nice job.

    This comment is offensive

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Wise?
    - February 7th, 2010

    Well, just because he is a judge doesn't mean he is wise. What this bright judge just did is give Scarrow a free hand to do anything he wants in anybody's neighborhood, no matter what the city's own bylaws say and no matter what the people who live there say. Wow, is this ever a delibrate act of screwing over a neighborhood. First, Scarrow and Council changed the zoning against the residents' wishes, ignored the Bylaw that guides city planning (so this judge doesn't consider a Bylaw or a city plan to be important?), ignored/refused to address the residents' concerns (obviously the "public meetings" were just for show, and this judge couldn't see that) and was hypocritical in dealing with this instance in comparison to another landowner issue elsewhere in town. How's that for democracy?

    This comment is offensive

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Wise?
    - February 7th, 2010

    Well, just because he is a judge doesn't mean he is wise. What this bright judge just did is give Scarrow a free hand to do anything he wants in anybody's neighborhood, no matter what the city's own bylaws say and no matter what the people who live there say. Wow, is this ever a delibrate act of screwing over a neighborhood. First, Scarrow and Council changed the zoning against the residents' wishes, ignored the Bylaw that guides city planning (so this judge doesn't consider a Bylaw or a city plan to be important?), ignored/refused to address the residents' concerns (obviously the "public meetings" were just for show, and this judge couldn't see that) and was hypocritical in dealing with this instance in comparison to another landowner issue elsewhere in town. How's that for democracy?

    This comment is offensive

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    dougie
    - February 7th, 2010

    The ironic thing about this story is that the planned housing isn't low income at all. It is fairly high-end with renters having to pass an income means test. Says a lot about Northern Spruce, District Chiefs and the City of P.A. It is all about money and nothing else.

    This comment is offensive

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Got an Idea
    - February 5th, 2010

    Lets close every building and area where low income people live. Its not like they will just move somewhere else in the city, they will just evaporate and we will never see them again. Lets not build low income housing. That encouages people that are not as good us to live near us. Lets not encouage people who have less than us to have pride in a nice home and get on their own two feet and become good neighbors. What a mindset we have. Trivia---Edmonton and Prince Albert became cities on the same day in the same year. Our attitude has served us well !

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Mike
    - February 5th, 2010

    I like this message

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    the truth
    - February 5th, 2010

    the people on the west hill will have too just keeep complaing to the city if the yards are not kept up.if anything looks out of place call the city let them deal with the housing if the tenants do not keep the area clean and garbage free.i am sure if the city is getting a couple hundred calls a day something would be done asap.if all of a sudden you see people hanging around at the streets at all times of the day and night call the police each and everytime and soon they dont want to be hanging in the streets because the cops always show up.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Ken
    - February 5th, 2010

    Hopefully, the new low cost housing tenants will do a better job in removing snow from the sideways than the last owners. Unlike most property owners in the area, the current keepers of Angus Merasty School never clear the snow from the walk on 22nd St, 20th St. or 5th Ave that connects the streets.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    jhon hoovermnN
    - February 10th, 2010

    I like Turtles.

    This comment is offensive

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Neethow Napew
    - February 17th, 2010

    Neethow Napew - It seems that the West Hill residents in question used the premise that they wanted to keep the space "GREEN". Then it evolved to keeping it as is for "HERITAGE" before moving onto to "NOT WANTING LOW INCOME HOUSING". All these are CODE WORDS for "WE DO NOT WANT INDIANS LIVING NEAR US". This is PA we are talking about so most of you will no doubt know this is true but remember, these are for "affordable housing" through the Prince Albert Grand Council which means the tenants will have to be working and paying mortgages. The mortgages may not be as high as many in the area but rest assured, nothing newly built will be cheap and thus be in the $700 - $1000 per month range if not more. With more than 30% of PA resdients claiming ABORIGINAL ancestry, you would think these types of coded claims would be called out but alas it stays unchallenged. Gutless West Hill residents.

    This comment is offensive

    Submit a Comment

Submit a Comment

Submit a Comment

The Prince Albert Daily Herald is not responsible for posted comments. Please be polite and confine your comments to the subject of the posted story. If you have an account, please sign on to it..

(we keep all emails private)
Agreement

We ask that users remain courteous. You may not post insulting, discriminatory or inappropriate content, which may be removed at our discretion. We are not responsible for user content and opinions. Use of this site as well as content submission & ownership are governed by our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.

Member organizations should be non-profit in nature, and promote legal activities. Any organization found promoting illegal activities or commercial products or services will be deleted from the site.

I agree with these conditions.

Enter the following code

Please copy the text above in this box.