Two Niagara-on-the-Lake residents warned council a proposed change to a St. Davids subdivision could open the door to more development — and most councillors agreed, rejecting the proposal Tuesday.
The development at 46 Paxton Ln. would include 29 homes — 12 single-detached houses and 17 townhouses — as part of the Settlement at St. Davids (Extension). The debate centred on one block within the development, called block 18.
Under earlier conditions tied to the approval, the block was expected to eventually be transferred to the town after archeological work was completed. A new proposal before council would instead allow the developer to keep the land, while placing a “holding” zoning provision on it that would prevent development until archeological requirements are addressed.
Right now, the developer still owns the land because the conditions tied to transferring it to the town have not yet been completed.
Residents Nicholas Colaneri and Tracy MacLeod spoke against the proposed change.
Colaneri said the plan removes permanent protection for the land and could open the door to more development in the future, which he argued is not a minor change.
“Once this temporary symbol is removed, it then opens the door to additional development,” he said. “This is intensification beyond the (Ontario Municipal Board) approval.”
“I respectfully request that council refuse this staff recommendation report.”
MacLeod said the proposal raises concerns about open space that she described as “a significant part of the village’s history.”
“The sensitive nature of this site,” she said, should not be overlooked.
“The modification and the zoning amendments, in my opinion, are not minor,” MacLeod said. “The potential development of another acre of land without any more information is very concerning.”
Several councillors said they were uneasy about giving up the land.
Coun. Andrew Niven said he was “struggling” with giving up land that “may or may not in the future be developed.”
To Coun. Erwin Wiens, the land has long been seen as open space in the community.
“It’s been that way since I was a kid,” he said. “Why did we not want to keep it?”
The conversation also touched on sidewalks and neighbourhood walkability.
“My concern is that, with this application, it almost gives us an opportunity to sort of get it right,” Coun. Adriana Vizzari said.
“What, then, would you consider a walkway? Like, what’s walkable if it’s without a sidewalk?”
Staff described this as a “chicken-and-egg situation,” suggesting pedestrian connections depend on other planning decisions that may come later.
“I understand what you’re saying — that it’s coming,” Vizzari said. “But we’re calling it walkable, but there’s no place to walk.”
