(File photo)
Paving parking lots has become an issue for development in the Town of Edson.
At their regular meeting March 15, council debated a motion on whether to grant a development permit to a business at 5101 – 3 Avenue.
To accommodate a new business moving in, Town officials note the zoning was going to be altered to add Motor Vehicle Equipment, Sales, Service, and Rentals as a permitted use.
Administration recommended granting the development permit, but with one catch. Under the Town’s current municipal plans, the parking lot of that building needs to be paved. It is currently gravel. So the landowner would need to do that.
Councillor Gean Chouinard took umbrage with the need to pave the parking lot. As Chouinard pointed out, this is not a major development, noting the landowner is just looking for a new tenant. So to require the landowner to pave the parking lot looks like the Town is punishing the landowner for developing business, added Chouinard.
Administration explained the pavement requirement comes from the new use for the building. If a facility is to have the Motor Vehicle Equipment, Sales, Service and Rentals designation, then it needs to have a paved parking lot, say Town officials.
Councilor Greg Pasychny sided with Chouinard.
“Business owner comes in, they want to rent a bay, they come to us for a license, now the landowner’s getting slapped with what is probably a $400,000 parking lot,” said Pasychny. “That will impact every single business on that site. If it was my business, I would say, ‘I guess I am not renting it.’ That does not help business growth in our community.”
Pasychny moved that the permit be granted, but to remove the pavement condition.
Mayor Kevin Zahara voiced his concerns about removing the condition.
“I know this property has sat for years, looking absolutely horrible in the downtown core,” said Zahara. “So where is the responsibility on the property owner to ensure that that property is looking in a positive light in our community?”
The removal of the condition did pass unanimously. Zahara said he did vote for it because he does not want to hinder new business, plus it is an existing building with its new use being not too different from its current use.
