A rezoning proposal at Paxton Lane in St. Davids is drawing pushback from a local resident who says it conflicts with what the Ontario Land Tribunal intended when it approved subdivision plans for the area in 2013.
The warning came last Tuesday at a public meeting for the application on block 18 — a one-acre parcel of land at 46 Paxton Ln., next to the site of the David Secord House.
In 2013, the Ontario Land Tribunal, then known as the Ontario Municipal Board, approved subdivision plans for St. Davids from developer 2248877 Ontario Limited, but flagged this parcel of land for its archeological potential.
The tribunal required it to be transferred to the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake once that archeological work was complete.
The applicant wants to keep this block of land private and add a holding symbol, which would stop any work from happening until the province signs off on the archeology.
Under this new setup, the land would no longer have to be turned over to the town — the developer would keep it after it’s cleared, no longer guaranteeing that the land ends up with the town.
Nicholas Colaneri says that’s “a fundamental change from what the tribunal approved.”
“My comments focus strictly on the planning and technical issues that directly affect the subdivision’s long-term structure and the town’s ability to make a defensible decision,” he told councillors.
Colaneri said he isn’t trying to stop development, but believes council is being asked to approve a zoning change (adding the holding symbol) that “represents a shift from permanent public conservation to temporary private control.”
He said he wants the decision to be “transparent, coordinated and consistent” with town policies and the logic of the approval given in 2013.
“Proceeding with new zoning, while archeological work remains unfinished, is objectively premature,” Colaneri said, noting that heritage and archeological work is “usually handled before new permissions or zoning changes occur.”
He urged council not to approve the zoning until archeology is done and all the changes can be reviewed together, arguing that completing that work first is essential for council to “understand the full picture.”
Approving it now, he said, could make the decision harder to defend if challenged.
“This is a planning reality,” said Colaneri. “Decisions must remain aligned with the original intent of an approval authority to remain secure and defensible.”
He also pointed to a revised servicing plan that proposes “a different routing and a different set of dependencies” than what the tribunal approved and said those changes affect how the subdivision fits together and how the surrounding land functions.
“Servicing is not a cosmetic detail.”
“For these reasons,” he said, “I respectfully ask that you refuse or defer any decision on the zoning for block 18,” until the town completes a coordinated review, confirms what will happen with blocks 18 and 19, evaluates the revised servicing plan and receives updated comments from outside agencies.
Block 19 is not part of the rezoning request before the town, but the 2013 approval identified it as a conservation block as well.
Coun. Adriana Vizzari questioned whether updated traffic expectations in the area should factor into this application.
Especially considering that a decade ago, the region added road improvements to handle increased volumes, she said.
“Ten years ago, there wasn’t a roundabout going in at the corner because of the increased traffic,” she said.
Jennifer Vida, the planning consultant representing the applicant, said the approval has been kept active through time extensions and each extension was reviewed by agencies, with no traffic concerns raised.
She added that the current application has “not received any comments from the town’s traffic department or the region.”
