EDMONTON – Edmonton City Council has unanimously voted down a rezoning application that would see a new liquor store open up in the Belvedere neighbourhood.
More than a dozen concerned residents and business owners showed up to voice their opposition to the proposal at a public hearing Monday afternoon.
“We represented our side. And it wasn’t against a specific business or anything, it was more in this location,” said Mike Kleparchuk, president of the Belvedere Community League.
The owner of the proposed liquor store applied to have a location in an existing strip mall in the area of 132 Avenue and 66 Street rezoned to make way for the business.
With three liquor stores already in the area — one eight blocks north, one five blocks south, and another a few minutes east — residents said it was enough.
“We don’t need one right in the centre. We need to keep it clean. We want to keep the neighbourhood clean,” said Rob Skoreiko, who has lived in the neighbourhood his entire life.
City Administration was in favour of approving the store, stating in a report: “The proposed addition of Minor Alcohol Sales is appropriate at this location as the site is located at the intersection of an arterial and collector roadway and at the edge of the Belevedere neighbourhood.”
The application followed city requirements, which require the liquor store to be built more than 500 metres away from another liquor store and at least 100 metres away from any school or park space.
Get daily National news
However, those in the community weren’t as convinced. Members of the community league say this same proposal came up in 2011; they fought it then and they will continue to fight it now.
“At that time, City Council was in agreeance with us that this was not a good location or a good fit for a liquor store,” Kleparchuk explained Sunday.
Advanced notices were sent out to area property owners in June 2012 and again in February 2013. In response, three calls in support of the application were received. On the other side, there were 70 responses in objection to the proposal.
- ‘I’m pissed’: Alberta premier, oil and gas industry slam Ottawa’s new emissions cap
- RFK Jr. and Trump want fluoride out of water. What does the mineral do?
- Elon Musk’s $1M voter giveaway can continue through U.S. election, judge rules
- Conservative MP wants to reverse new rules for natural health products
-
![]()
Countdown to the U.S. Election: Harris and Trump make their final pitch -
![]()
Guilbeault says Conservatives doing ‘stupid things’ amid oil, gas emissions cap pushback -
![]()
Canada to require oil, gas sector to cut carbon emissions by one-third -
![]()
‘Canada lost a giant’: Trudeau pays tribute to trailblazing Indigenous leader Murray Sinclair
Kleparchuk says community members have done a lot of work revitalizing the area and they don’t think the addition of a liquor store will help in their efforts. And they maintain it’s not simply a case of NIMBY, or Not In My Back Yard.
“Definitely not. We do support area businesses. The community has made hard, strong efforts to revitalize working with area businesses,” Kleparchuk said. “By putting a liquor store here it will drag undesirable people into the residential area of Belvedere.”
“The community has worked very hard to reduce crime over the past few years. We’ve worked with the city police… and bringing another liquor store into our community is going to draw more of the type of people that end up resulting in more crime,” added Alana Prockiw, Treasurer of the community league. “There’s going to be panhandling next to the convenience store, next to the drug store and it’s just not a business that should be next to the corner store.”
“We’re trying to build a park and we’re trying to keep it safe. We don’t want that in the area, it’s already bad enough as it is,” added Skoreiko.
Watch below: Vinesh Pratap reports on the community members’ concerns
With files from Vinesh Pratap, Global News.
*This story was originally published Sunday, Feb. 9, 2014. It was updated on Monday at 4:51 p.m. to include City Council’s decision.
Comments