Luxury condo: yes; non-profit, 55-plus: no

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 29/02/2016 (3544 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Allegations of political interference in the city’s planning department have resurfaced after revelations a luxury condominium project was approved in Charleswood when a similar development for a nonprofit life-lease project was rejected.

Proponents for the life-lease project said they remain puzzled as to why city planners rejected their project. They now have more questions when learning city officials recently approved amendments for a nearby luxury condo project with twice the number of units on a similar-sized lot.

“All the reasons that were cited for rejecting our project were used to approve this other one,” said Brian Wall of GW Architects.

It appears city officials placed impediments to the life-lease development that are not required for the rival condo project, he added.

Transcona Coun. Russ Wyatt has alleged city planners were pressured into rejecting the 55-plus, life-lease project — a charge that was rejected by senior planning officials, ward Coun. Marty Morantz and Mayor Brian Bowman, who lives in the ward.

Wyatt said his suspicions of interference were reinforced after he learned the condominium project was approved while the life-lease project was rejected.

“Both projects are needed for Charleswood, but the department’s decision to reject one and not the other makes no sense,” Wyatt said.

“There has to be an explanation why one project is rejected on the grounds it’s too intense, yet another project that’s twice as large is allowed to proceed.”

Morantz said while the life-lease project divided the community, the condominium project had no opposition and was supported by the planning department.

“The project on Dale (Boulevard) satisfied the needs that the proponents of the (life-lease) project were saying but without the neighbourhood opposition,” Morantz said. “The community had no problem with it.”

Requests for interviews with the city planning department were turned down. Instead, the department issued an email response stating “the two projects are significantly different from each other.” It included a history and comparison of the two projects.

Charleswood United Church has made a conditional sale of the southern portion of its property, at the corner of Roblin Boulevard and Dieppe Road, to the Charleswood Red River Masons, who are sponsoring a $20-million, 55-plus, life-lease project that will see 65 units constructed in a three-storey building on a 2.48-acre parcel of land now used as a church parking lot. The church needed approval to subdivide its property and rezone the southern portion to allow small-scale, multi-family development.

The life-lease project was the subject of bitter division in the community. A public hearing drew just as many supporters as opponents.

‘All the reasons that were cited for rejecting our project were used to approve this other one’– Brian Wall of GW Architects, representing the non-profit, life-lease project on Dieppe Road

Meanwhile, 3.5 kilometres to the west off Roblin on Dale Boulevard, StreetSide Developments is planning a $20-million, four-storey, 122-unit luxury condominium on 2.2 acres of vacant land surrounded by a duplex development.

The property received a commercial zoning in 1980 that allows multi-family development. The plan restricted the number of potential units to a maximum of 53 units, limited the building height to 35 feet, and required any building to be set back 20 feet from the south property line.

However, city planners recently agreed to change the property plan to allow only a 10-foot setback from the south property line, increase the number of units by 130 per cent and allow a building height of 45 feet. There was opposition to the project at a public hearing in July.

At public hearings, the Dale project had two supporters and three in opposition; the Dieppe life-lease had 175 supporters and 171 in opposition.

The planning department noted the Dale project has duplex housing on the south side and larger multi-family units on the east side. It concluded the condos would be a good addition.

The Dieppe project has five single-family homes along the west side; the backyards of five large-lot single-family homes along the east side, separated by a 40-foot buffer area; and one residential backyard against its southern boundary. The planners concluded the proposal would have too many effects on the surrounding single family homes and the site was “too constrained” for the proposal.

Morantz said the church unknowingly hurt the project years ago when it sold a strip of land on Dieppe for housing. Now the life-lease project is in conflict with those residents. “If those houses weren’t there, the arguments against (the life-lease project) would have been weaker.”

Marty Maykut of StreetSide Developments, said his firm would begin pre-selling the condo project in the spring and he hoped to start construction in the summer.

“StreetSide takes a lot of pride in developing projects that are great for neighbourhood, considerate of adjacent properties, in line with Our Winnipeg and supported by both councillors and city planners,” Maykut said.

Wall said changes were made to the life-lease project to reduce its effect on the neighbourhood, including lowering the height, making it three storeys instead of four, increasing the setback from neighbours and altering the design.

“One of the reasons the planners rejected our proposal is they said ours is too intense a development for the neighbourhood. Yet they approved a large increase in the number of allowable units for the condo project, twice the number of units on essentially the same size parcel of land and no concerns were raised about that,” Wall said.

On paper, the life-lease project has less of an impact on the neighbourhood than does the condo project, he added.

The planners’ rejection of the Dieppe project was supported by the community committee, the property and development committee, executive policy committee and council.

Wall said the Masons will appeal the decision to reject their project.

aldo.santin@freepress.mb.ca