A proposal to build a house on a severed lot next to a public school has put city council at odds with staff and the city’s official plan.

The proposal to divide an existing property in two and build a new, two-and-a-half-storey semi-detached house on the newly severed lot near the intersection of Victoria and Earl streets is supported by city staff, who said the new house’s design and location adheres to the city’s official plan, which calls for appropriate infill building in existing residential areas.

The project is opposed by neighbourhood residents, who argue it is too big for the lot and too close to Winston Churchill Public School.

“The official plan is asking that there be infill in cities and infill along corridors, but developing this many units right next to a school is a little bit far-reaching,” neighbourhood resident Meredith McDonald told city council.

“Seven bedrooms to 17 is not modest infill. The request is too much,” she added. “This neighbourhood is at risk.”

McDonald said there are no plans for how garbage will be stored at the new house, where the residents will park their vehicles, and the impact on the area’s safety.

McDonald also said the new house would be overlooking the school.

Williamsville District Coun. Jim Neill described the new house as being “a few inches” from the school.

According to city staff, the new property’s side yard, which is to include a private lane and parking spaces, is 5.7 metres (more than 18 feet, or 224 inches) wide.

The city’s planning committee voted 4-1 against the project last month and on Tuesday night council voted 7-6 against it.

Sydenham District Coun. Peter Stroud, who presented a petition with 315 signatures opposed to the project, said the proposal is too big for the site and would turn the site into a medium density development and create a situation where three of the bedrooms in the new house would face directly into classrooms at the school.

“The upside of this development is that one wealthy landowner makes a little bit more money,” he said. “The downside is 315 people already signed a petition saying they will be upset if it goes forward. Those are residents of the city of Kingston and their concerns need to be addressed.”

Knowing that council’s decision would likely be challenged, Stroud put forward a list of planning reasons for turning it down, including the size of the lot, which is less than half of what is required, the increase from low to medium density, inadequate setbacks from Victoria and Earl streets, the distance from the school and inadequate parking.

Stroud’s planning rationale for denying approval of the project was passed by the same 7-6 vote that earlier turned down the project.

The denial of the project did not sit well with some members of council, who struggled with turning down a project that conformed with the city’s official plan goal of increasing intensification.

Like many councillors, Countryside District Coun. Gary Oosterhoff said he was “troubled” by the vote because both sides have merit.

“I can see both sides; that’s my problem,” he said.

Mayor Bryan Paterson also said he sympathizes with both sides and questioned whether voting against the project would be a vote against the official plan.

Trillium District Coun. Adam Candon was more blunt, saying the decision sends mixed messages to other developers considering infill projects, something the city has been encouraging.

“If this is our standard, there will be no infill,” Candon said. “If that is the case, we should be broadcasting that we are a city that does not want infill.”

With a vacancy rate of 0.7 per cent, Kingston is in a housing crisis, something Candon partly attributed to the lack of infill building.

“If we can’t stand for a little project like this, I don’t know what we can stand for,” he said.

elferguson@postmedia.com