A bylaw nixed by city council earlier this month is coming back to life after Monday night's council meeting.

The bylaw concerns the rezoning of a parcel of land by holes seven and nine at the Meadow Lakes Golf Course.

Developer Jeff Luehmann wants to turn the land into a housing development called Hidden Haven, which would cater to the 50-plus crowd.

However, Luehmann has been met with staunch opposition from the proposed development's neighbours.

Residents of nearby Fox Haven Estates have brought several concerns to recent council meetings, including how the proposed development would affect their privacy, septic and water systems, and traffic in the area.

Council defeated second reading of the bylaw at its July 11 meeting.

Council's Procedures Bylaw says a question will not be reversed, reconsidered nor rescinded within a year of the decision unless a written motion to reconsider is submitted and at least four member of council vote in favour. On July 18, Coun. Dave Austin provided notice that he would bring forward a motion to reconsider the bylaw.

Last night's meeting saw extensive debate, not only on whether the rezoning bylaw should come forward once again, but on the merits of the development as well.

Luehmann responded to some of the most prevalent concerns, saying he has tried to the best of his ability to provide council and Fox Haven residents with data to show Hidden Haven "is indeed a very responsible development.”

Engineers have approved the water and septic systems, Luehmann said, and the systems of the current Fox Haven residents will not be compromised.

Kelly Pollard is a Fox Haven resident who has spoken against the proposed development at several council meetings. She repeated her request that the city provide a written guarantee saying current residents will be provided with water and sewer services if their water or septic systems do experience diminished performance.

Pollard offered an alternative solution as well:

"If the developer is so confident that this development will have no repercussions, perhaps part of his proposal should be the posting of a bond for 10-15 years that would ensure alternate water or sewer delivery systems could be put in place that would not include trucking,” she said.

Doing so would ensure current residents' peace of mind, Pollard explained.

Rick Farnell, who lives on a property next to the golf course, is also concerned about Hidden Haven's effects on the area's septic fields and water quality.

Privacy is another concern for Farnell. One of the Hidden Haven building sites overlooks a house on Farnell's property where his daughter and her family live. Farnell said their privacy has been "greatly reduced.”

Luehmann maintains development was always going to happen on the land.

He also responded to allegations that the project is just a way for him to make a buck.

"I cannot apologize for risking my substantial investment in hopes of making a profit,” he said.

But residents of Fox Haven have made an investment as well, Caroline Carter argued at last night's meeting.

Carter said she and her partner have put everything they have into their Fox Haven property.

"I understand Mr. Luehmann's risk-for-reward concept, but some of us don't have as many rewards to risk,” she said.

Protecting the interests of current residents is essential, said Coun. Ranj Pillai.

"It is a risk and reward. Absolutely,” he said. "And I see that this development can be done. But let's see that the people who currently have places there feel comfortable with what's going to happen.”

Pillai said he would support the motion to reconsider, but challenged Luehmann to come up with a creative solution to guarantee the neighbours will be protected.

Mayor Bev Buckway echoed Pillai's challenge. She encouraged the developer to call a public meeting for residents to discuss the development and clear up any misinformation surrounding the project.

Not everyone on council was as optimistic, however.

"I think we've heard enough tonight from the people who spoke and from the people who've written letters why this is not a good development,” said Coun. Dave Stockdale.

"The development does not respect the lifestyle promised in a country residential setting.”

Nor will the development assist in aiding the region's housing crisis, he said, adding that what's needed are rental suites, not "$500,000 condos.”

Coun. Doug Graham disagreed.

"To say we don't need $500,000 condos — how the heck do we know?” Graham asked.

The units will "probably sell like hot cakes,” Graham said, adding this may lead to homes being rented out or sold in other areas of the city.

But solutions for the housing crisis are not the purview of city council, Graham said.

"To get involved in that kind of stuff is social engineering that we shouldn't be doing,” he said. "What we're here for is to determine whether or not this zoning will go ahead. That's it.”

Six councillors voted in favour of the motion to reconsider. Second reading of the reintroduced bylaw will take place Aug. 22.