The town’s committee of adjustment has rejected developer Rainer Hummel’s plan to divvy up the land of a heritage property that’s occupied a part of Queen Street for more than two centuries.
At last Thursday evening’s meeting, Paul Johnston was the only committee member to vote in favour of the amendment to sever land at 187 Queen St., site of the historic Crysler-Burroughs home.
Committee members Angelo Miniaci and Eric Lehtinen voting against the application. Margaret Louter declared a conflict of interest and was not present for the presentation or vote.
This rejection comes after the controversial severance plan was officially defeated in a tie vote by council on July 30. The town’s planning committee had approved it on July 16.
The proposal was quickly taken to the committee of adjustment for consideration. Hummel plans to appeal the committee’s rejection of the severance plan.
The latest decision followed extensive presentations by four residents. Nine letters also were sent to the committee.
The Crysler-Burroughs dwelling, completed circa 1822, was the home of R.M. Crysler, a successful merchant in NOTL and a member of Upper Canada’s Crysler family.
Resident Ian Gibson lives on Simcoe Street, just north of the property, and spoke out against the severance.
Gibson claimed that it seemed as though the developer is trying to “circumvent” the other municipal bodies in order to get the severance approved.
He said he believes the amendment is a deviation of the town’s official plan.
“It is handing developers carte blanche to jam oversized, non-conforming, unwanted projects into our local landscape,” he said.
Judy McLeod spoke as well, supporting a written statement from her husband Peter Howe.
As the owner of a heritage property herself, McLeod said as long as she and her husband are around, their large property would not be severed.
“We feel quite strongly that we have these precious properties and that they should be protected,” she said.
Gracia Janes, of the Niagara Conservancy, and Karen Taylor-Jones also spoke against the amendment.
Though not on the agenda, architecture columnist Brian Marshall and Coun. Gary Burroughs also made presentations regarding why the property should be left alone.
Burroughs, who previously lived at 187 Queen St. and helped obtain its heritage designation in 2002, said the designation includes the entire property, all of which should be protected.
“We wanted the whole property designated because it made the whole place important to the history of our town,” Burroughs said.
Marshall backed up these statements, emphasizing the heritage value of the entire property.
He said 187 Queen was part of a survey done in NOTL more than 200 years ago.
“It is the only property (left from the survey) that looks onto the street, so that residents and visitors can actually see what an original property looked like and what it comprised,” Marshall said.
“I’d argue that the property itself is intrinsic to the cultural heritage landscape.”
In response to claims that the application violates the town’s official plan, Hummel said that is simply untrue.
“If it would have not conformed to either the regional official plan or the town official plan, we would have had to do an amendment. We didn’t have to do an amendment,” he told The Lake Report.
The application meets the provincial policy statement, the Places to Grow Act, the growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, as well as the plan for the town.
Lord Mayor Gary Zalepa corroborated that in an interview.
“It lines up with our official plan and that is maintaining existing residential — it’s actually expanding as well because it’s going to be adding another accessory type dwelling to the main unit,” Zalepa said.
During last week’s meeting, two of three committee members were swayed by the resident presentations.
Johnston said he voted in favour of the severance because “heritage values will not be disrupted by this severance,” but subject to council and heritage committee assessment.
Miniaci said that based on what he heard during the meeting, he could not vote in favour.
“The reality of the situation is that I think we should allow the original appeal process to play through and then proceed from there,” he said.
Lehtinen also voted against the amendment.
“I believe the property is a heritage property, the house is a heritage house. I believe the mature trees on the property cannot be replaced,” he said.
“Severing this property would make it look like a number of other properties you can find anywhere in southern Ontario.”
Jennifer Vida, who represented the developer, said a committee vote in favour would not change the fact that council had already rejected the rezoning.
Hummel has already filed an appeal application with the Ontario Land Tribunal and is awaiting a hearing date, she added.
