Martin Rentals Properties contemplates lots’ future
After a rezoning process that took over a year to complete, the Woodstock Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) has rejected the Martin Rentals Properties application to develop two multi-family housing units on Helen Street. Woodstock councillor Mike Martin is co-owner of the company.
Despite residents’ initial pushback during a hearing last year, the PAC approved the application on June 17, 2024, after the committee discussed the issue in a closed session before publicly announcing their decision.
Two people who live on the street, Woodstock-Hartland MLA Bill Hogan and resident Bob Stokes, appealed the decision to the New Brunswick Planning Appeal Board, which held a hearing in Woodstock on Dec. 6, 2024. The three-member board overturned the PAC’s initial decision on March 30, 2025, citing a lack of transparency. The committee was ordered to hear the application again and ensure the meeting remained open to the public.
During the sometimes-heated hearing on Monday, June 23, PAC members listened to a string of neighbours opposed to the project. Most were concerned about the proximity to other properties and further traffic congestion on a dead-end street that already has four multi-unit residences.
The Martin proposal would have seen a three-unit building at 108 Helen Street and a four-unit building at 115 Helen Street. Company representatives said their plans fit the town’s municipal plan directive, which encourages developers to use pockets of land for housing infill while promoting population density.
Both projects required setback variances. Each was dealt with as a separate application, but residents opposed both projects with the same reasoning.
Bill Hogan took issue with the proximity of the units to other structures on the street. He was also concerned about each building’s orientation on the lots, which he said was contrary to the building design guidelines for the town as outlined in its municipal plan.
“Woodstock’s Municipal Plan talks about maintaining a higher residents’ satisfaction in the community and having a vision statement where building exteriors don’t differ from what you currently find on the street. These buildings certainly do,” said Hogan.
He also referenced the town’s zoning bylaws, which say new developments must have frontage onto the street in keeping with the standards and provisions of the subdivision bylaw. Hogan argued that these projects didn’t meet those guidelines because of the orientation of the buildings.
“(They are) situated not like any other building on the street; there is no front door facing the street,” he said, noting the buildings are essentially ‘sideways’ on each lot.
Multiple homeowners brought up parking and traffic congestion if more units were added to what they considered an already crowded street.
Casey St. Amand became emotional when discussing the possible development of a multi-residential unit at 115 Helen Street. As proposed, the building would be just over 10 feet from his property line. Because of the orientation of the building, he said residents of the new units could look directly into his bathroom window and backyard, impacting his family’s privacy.
“There is a lot of emotion with what’s being proposed here. The congestion on the street has already been noticeable,” he told the committee. “And (with) emergency services scenarios, I just find it hard to believe that anyone could vote (for this) in good conscience.”
Heather Hogan said that while she had concerns about these particular projects, she found the entire situation challenging because she respects the company and its partners.
“Personally, I think the developers are great people, and this is very difficult for all of us. It puts us all in a very horrible situation. We’re in a small town, they’re good people, and my concern is I am in the house directly across (from 108 Helen Street),” she told the committee.
“If they wanted to add on to the existing building, even though it’s R1, that would be okay. For me, it’s how it’s aligned. It’s three units, but I’m looking at the side of a building, and it does not fit with any other building or structure on the street,” Heather added.
While four letters of support for the project were submitted from area residents, none of the letter writers spoke at the meeting.
Martin Rentals representative John Keenan told the PAC that the need for affordable, quality housing that isn’t ‘high end’ hasn’t gone away.
“These fit into the municipal guidelines, with the exception of the two little variances,” said Keenan, referring to the setbacks.
“On our other projects, and you all have pictures in our package, those projects turned out well, and we had a lot of opposition as we do with these. We will work with the people, colours, roof lines, whatever,” he said, adding that he was willing to alleviate St. Amand’s concerns, offering to erect a fence to protect his family’s privacy.
Before the vote, Keenan asked the committee to focus on the “real issues,” which he said were the procedures they didn’t initially follow. He noted that what the company was asking for was allowable within the current municipal plan.
“It’s not the traffic, not the snow, not the sewer and water, not the parking, not the policing, and it’s not decreasing property values,” said Keenan.
PAC member Keith Bull read a prepared statement outlining his concerns. As the newest PAC member, he wasn’t a part of the committee when the development was initially approved.
“I believe serious issues of concern were not captured during the first PAC review,” said Bull.
He noted his 35-year background in law enforcement, most of which was spent with the Woodstock Police Force. Bull said a significant concern for him was the street’s high density.
“I have a concern with the over-populating of the south end of Helen Street,” he said. “It adds to the challenges when dealing with emergencies because it’s just more people and more traffic to deal with.”
Bull said if there were a fire on the street that resulted in injury or death, an investigation would ask if there was a sufficient staging area for police, fire, and ambulance. He also believes they would look into whether traffic congestion impacted response time or put lives in danger, and whether these things were affected by the housing density on a dead-end street.
“One could say… I’m using scare tactics, and this isn’t likely to happen,” said Bull. “We all know that unfortunate things happen,” he said, pointing to the 12-unit apartment fire on Main Street.
“With that fire, police could reroute traffic easily, and firefighters could attack the fire from the front and back. In areas like that, I can agree with a higher density of buildings and population because it makes sense,” he said, noting higher density on a dead-end street does not, in his opinion, make sense.
The PAC vote on 108 Helen Street initially resulted in a tie, with Norm Brown, John Slipp and Monica Grant voting in favour of the development and Will Belyea, Sarah Leech, and Keith Bull voting against it. PAC chair Kurt Young broke the tie, voting against the motion and citing parking issues in his reasoning.
In the vote on 115 Helen Street, Belyea and Grant voted for the development, while Slipp, Brown, Bull, and Leech voted against it.
Slipp told the developers he hoped they would return to the PAC with an adjusted proposal.
“They made their decision, and residents are happy,” Keenan said after the meeting. “We will carry on, even though our project met (all of the conditions under) the 2024 municipal plan. The town gets little tax (revenue) from a lot with sidewalks.”
Keenan took exception to the Woodstock-Hartland MLA’s comments early in the meeting. Bill Hogan told the PAC that the Helen Street units were no longer needed because the housing crunch in the community had lessened, pointing to Cook Construction’s developments off Deakin Drive and their plans for a new subdivision in Upper Woodstock.
“Half of the proposed Helen Street units were already spoken for,” said Keenan. “We don’t need to advertise because we have a waiting list. His comments are shocking, to be honest. There is a housing shortage, or we wouldn’t have people calling us.”
Even if the project didn’t require setback variances, Woodstock Director of Planning and Development Andrew Garnett said the PAC would still have to approve any new proposals on those lots because they are R1 legal non-conforming, which carries a ‘conditional use’ requirement, which automatically sends it to the PAC.
When asked if Martin Properties would return to the planning committee with a revised plan, Keenan wouldn’t say.
“I’ll say no comment right now, but there is a plan B,” he said.
Woodstock councillor Norm Brown thanked his fellow PAC members at the end of the meeting.
“This is hard,” Brown told the audience. “It’s hard on them. They’ve lost sleep over it. Some people have been rude to them. I want to thank the PAC members because they are all volunteers.”
