Save Our Rand Estate says Benny Marotta’s latest proposal for Niagara-on-the-Lake’s Rand Estate is not a reset, but the same battle all over again.
The new application, deemed complete by town staff, proposes a five-storey hotel with 111 rooms, a spa facility, five three-storey residential buildings with up to 270 residential units and 514 parking spaces across the Rand Estate lands in Old Town.
“What it means is that Mr. Marotta has learned absolutely nothing from the Ontario Land Tribunal judgment,” said Lyle Hall, chair of the Niagara Foundation and a SORE member.
“What he’s proposing flies in the face of everything he was told is bad planning and doesn’t work.”
Several of the application documents refer to the proposal as “Ritz Carlton Hotel, Spa and Residences.”
An open house is scheduled for May 25, followed by a public meeting June 2.
The proposal comes less than two years after the Ontario Land Tribunal rejected Solmar’s previous subdivision plan for part of the estate.
The applicant’s planning report says the tribunal found the previous plan had problems with the disputed 200 John St. E., panhandle access, safety, and protection of the estate heritage features. The new application says it responds by redesigning the panhandle, studying other access options and proposing changes meant to reduce heritage impacts.
“Section 3 of this report provides a summary of key takeaways from the decision and order of the Ontario Land Tribunal,” the planning report said, “and how those key takeaways have informed and shaped the proposed development.”
“Overall, the proposed redesign of Ritz Carlton Lane generally addresses the issues identified by the (tribunal),” it said.
But the documents also show the residential component would still use the 200 John access corridor and several heritage features would still be removed or relocated rather than kept in place.
“Again, in a community that’s spent millions of dollars to fight for the heritage and heritage integrity of this site, we have a developer who simply won’t take no for an answer,” Hall said.
He called the proposal “a classic wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
“It’s trying to put the same proposal through with a different framework around it, but it’s still bad planning, it’s still use of the John Street panhandle, which the (tribunal) told them won’t work,” he said.
“It’s still movement and desecration of parts of the Dunnington-Grubb landscape. It’s still far too much density and it’s still all the things that the (tribunal) determined was why this project shouldn’t work.”
Hall said SORE is not arguing the estate cannot be developed.
“Private property rights are something we all enjoy, we all have,” he said. “Nobody has ever said or suggested that Mr. Marotta shouldn’t have the right to own that property and come forward with a development proposal.”
“But what he’s come forward with is so egregious, so out of step and so inconsistent with what the highest planning authority in the province is saying,” he added. “It just flies in the face of reason that he’s back here doing this again.”
Coun. Sandra O’Connor said the town cannot automatically reject an application once staff deem it complete and must follow the process laid out by the province.
“I will be looking at it to make sure it complies with all the points raised in the (tribunal) decision,” she said.
O’Connor said she has heard the panhandle is again proposed for the residential component, though she had not confirmed it herself.
“If that’s the case, I mean, that was a very definite point that the (tribunal) raised — not using the panhandle. To me, that’s critical,” she said.
Coun. Erwin Wiens said it is too early to take a position on the proposal and the town still needs to hear from residents, staff and the applicant.
“We don’t approve or disapprove of any of any projects based on who the developer is,” Wiens said. “We use policies to evaluate each project on its own merits.”
Hall said SORE plans to delegate at the public meeting and urged residents to get involved before council makes any decision.
Marotta did not respond to requests for comment by publication time.
