The Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake has reversed course on its response to a proposed York Road development at the Ontario Land Tribunal, opting to pursue a settlement instead of mediation, after staff shared that a settlement would cost $20,000 less than mediation at the tribunal.
The dispute centres on an application from Christopher Adams of Newcastle Communities, owner of 2052 York Rd., to build another house on the site.
In July, Adams applied for minor variances that would allow changes to the new building’s façade and lot frontage. Planning staff recommended approval, but the town’s committee of adjustment denied the applications in September, ruling the changes were not minor in nature.
Adams appealed that decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal on Oct. 14, which prompted council to debate its response at an Oct. 28 council meeting.
Staff presented council with three options in a report: option one, retain legal counsel and an external planner to defend the refusal; option two, retain legal counsel and an external planner to pursue mediation with Adams in an effort to settle; or option three, instruct legal counsel to settle the matter by accepting staff’s recommendations.
Originally, council chose the second option — a decision later brought back by Coun. Andrew Niven at a Dec. 9 meeting, who brought forward a motion to reconsider the decision.
He said he changed his position after receiving new information that was not available at the time of the original vote.
Council carried the motion and only Coun. Sandra O’Connor opposed. Council then defeated the second option and voted in favour of the third option, directing legal counsel to pursue a settlement, to be presented to the tribunal.
Niven opened the conversation by stating that he “made a mistake” by supporting the second option.
“I spoke in favour of mediation … based on the information I had at the time — and I take responsibility for that.”
Niven said staff later provided council with cost estimates for pursuing each choice: option one at $50,000, option two at $25,000 and option three at $5,000.
“The report did not include any cost estimates for the three options,” he said.
With that in mind, Niven said he believes the third option “is the most cost-effective and practical path going forward,” adding the move is in the best interest of taxpayers.
Niven also noted that since planning staff supported the application, it cannot defend a committee of adjustment refusal at the tribunal. That would require hiring an external planner at additional cost, with no guarantee of success, he said.
Reopening a decision should never be taken lightly, Niven said, but he argued it is appropriate when new information comes forward after a vote.
