A proposal for a storage hub on protected farmland that Niagara-on-the-Lake council already killed is back from the dead.
Lord Mayor Gary Zalepa has ordered town staff to bring a controversial St. Davids agricultural development back to council this Tuesday, despite councillors rejecting it in a lopsided 7-1 vote a month ago.
The proposal for 263 Concession 6 Rd. would allow a produce storage building, farm equipment storage and agricultural market on protected specialty crop land.
In a statement from the lord mayor shared May 25, he said he decided to reverse course on this decision after receiving more information about the development, hearing analysis from professional planners and the province and to prevent the town from going through a legal battle that would’ve cost it $50,000.
In a written directive issued under the province’s “strong mayor powers,” Zalepa directed staff to bring the zoning bylaw forward again at the May 26 council meeting.
Those powers, which give the lord mayor more control over key parts of municipal governance, came into effect May last year.
The directive says town staff continue to support the application and believe it complies with provincial, regional and municipal planning policies for agricultural-related uses.
But the document also reveals another pressure point behind the scenes: money.
According to the directive, the applicant’s lawyer warned council before the vote that refusing the application would likely trigger an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
The directive estimates a one- to two-day tribunal hearing could cost the town roughly $50,000 in legal and planning expenses.
But by the time Zalepa issued the directive, the fight had already moved beyond council chambers.
The applicant already filed an appeal with the Ontario Land Tribunal on May 13. Zalepa ordered staff to bring the bylaw back to council two days later.
In Zalepa’s statement, he said after reviewing professional planning advice, the relevant policies and “the significant financial implications” of a legal battle the town may not win, “I believe it would not be responsible to commit additional taxpayer dollars to litigation that is unlikely to change the outcome.”
He also said he received more information from the development’s applicant, including site-specific zoning provisions meant to ensure the project continues to support nearby farm operations and doesn’t end up serving “a broader, non-agricultural customer base.”
After Zalepa’s directive, Coun. Sandra O’Connor, who voted against the proposal, told The Lake Report that she is questioning whether strong mayor powers should be used in this case.
“My concern is that I am not clear on the validity of applying the strong mayor’s legislation to this particular issue.”
O’Connor said strong mayor powers were intended to help speed up housing and related infrastructure projects, not agricultural-commercial developments.
“The strong mayor’s powers were supposed to be used for housing and infrastructure to support housing,” she said. “This isn’t for homes.”
She called Zalepa’s move “a surprise,” noting seven councillors voted against the proposal during the original decision.
“The agricultural community is against going forward with this as well,” she added.
O’Connor said she plans to raise the issue at Tuesday’s meeting and wants council to seek legal input on whether the powers are being used appropriately in this case.
Council rejected the proposal on April 21 after several councillors argued the development did not belong on protected specialty crop land.
The application drew opposition from members of the agricultural community, while town staff maintained it met provincial, regional and local planning policies for agricultural-related uses. Zalepa cast the lone vote in favour of the proposal during the original decision. Coun. Erwin Wiens was absent.
Wiens was not available for comment by publication time on how he would have voted on the proposal had he been present during the original council decision.
