Area being destroyed in name of improvement

The area is already crammed with high density homes with no consideration to our seniors, school children and lack of parking for our arena.


Dear Editor,

I would like to thank Bryna Boisvert for taking the time to publicly address the feelings of many residents in the area that is presently being destroyed in the name of improving it.

Why can Sylvan Lake not give others the opportunity to raise their families in the same way that we have had the privilege to raise our families? Why destroy a beautiful old neighbourhood for the sake of profiteers who do not even live in our community. One comment made by a council member that really upset us at the last meeting was: “This is just another case of you don’t want this in your backyard.” These are our homes he was referring to and they may not be mansions but they are ours. My question to this member of council is would you like your area torn up and have these planted on your front lawn?

Putting emotion aside, which seems to rise to the top when discussing this issue, I would like the Town to show us a plan for our neighbourhood. Have you sat down as a planning board and strategized development of the area? What is the point in having a zoning bylaw when the word discretionary use can be used to help the developer rather than the taxpayers who have lived in the area and paid taxes for decades? We have numerous high-density homes, a multiplex, the Bethany Centre, a school and three houses down from this purposed building is the busy 47th Avenue.

We have nothing against these homes, but can they not be built in the newer areas where there is room for parking and expansion? Parking in this area is at a premium. There is no shortage of room in this town for building, so why cram it into our older areas. This does nothing for town planning; it only continues to further create a zoning bylaw disaster. Why have a zoning bylaw when it is changed at various Town boards’ discretion. These bylaws need to be more specific before the older heritage areas of town are destroyed in the name of profit.

In response to the comment made by Mr. Kalirai in the July 9th newspaper — if the MPC board is not expected to know the bylaws, how are the members of the community expected to know what they are? This is a position they have accepted and should know the bylaws particularly when relaxations and enormous changes to community are involved. Garbage in a fourplex is not picked up by the Town, but rather by a commercial pickup. Is there room for these pickups to be made or will the alley turn into an area littered with debris? Is this not something that should be closely looked into before a decision to allow these complexes to be built is made? In our humble opinion, the comment made by Mr. Kalirai on the difference between a balcony and a deck is yet another attempt at twisting the word discretionary. It is a vocabulary choice.

Our next question for Mr. Kalirai is there seems to be tandem parking on two stalls in one fourplex and the other fourplex has an allowance of all four parking stalls to be tandem parking. Why is tandem parking not allowed in a secondary suite which involves one parking area but is allowed in a fourplex where many more people are involved? What is the actual parking allowance for fourplexes? Does it allow stacked parking? What does the bylaw say? This will indeed lead to more tenants parking on the street as the people in the front suites will not want to walk from the back to the front. Is this again another use of the word discretionary?

The area is already crammed with high density homes with no consideration to our seniors, school children and the already considerable lack of parking for our arena. Why can we not preserve these areas for future generations?

Hugh and Loretta Hermary

Sylvan Lake