Dear editor:
Promises Made: From the Lake Report’s coverage, the special edition prior to the last municipal election (Oct. 13, 2022)and the Niagara Foundation’s pre-election questions of candidates.
Gary Zalepa: “… Would start by studying why contextual zoning did not work last time, how it can be made to work and subsequently institute it. He would establish clear “goal-posts,” expectations for both infill and new developments. He wants the official plan approved ASAP and intends to use public forums, guided by a town vision statement, to determine the parameters for how to use available or potential available land assets.”
Zalepa: “Bring clarity to the town’s development and growth policies. This will provide assistance to applicants to understand the community needs, it will reduce burden on staff in managing applications that are not aligned with community needs and it will reduce our need to fund expensive legal actions defending poor / outdated policies.”
So, where is the new official plan and the study of how to make contextual zoning work and what community needs does another hotel fulfil?
The mayor certainly has reduced the burden on staff managing applications that are not aligned with community needs and the need to fund expensive legal actions defending town policies; just say yes.
I suppose in many ways the lord mayor has brought clarity to the town’s development and growth policies (“Whatever you want, just ask and we’ll make it fit community needs.”)
The Parliament Oak decision was the most egregious betrayal of the official plan as it wasn’t simply a matter of increased density or lot coverage and setbacks (like the King Street apartment project), but rather a complete change of use from institutional/community to commercial.
Of any proposed development to come before council in the past several years this was one which was most defensible at the Ontario Land Tribunal; it is in direct contradiction to the goals and policies of the official plan.
Inserting commercial into a residential neighbourhood flies in the face of the heritage nature of Old Town and contributes nothing to residential intensification.
The King Street apartment was a battle that should never been engaged at the tribunal, let alone appealed.
And the town’s loss of that appeal almost looks contrived to be an example of why the town shouldn’t spend money defending our priorities.
But, then I read Brian Marshall’s excellent column about the Chrysler-Burroughs House (“Councillors continue assault on heritage,” July 25) and how staff deflected the question of the process of proceeding with severing the lot of a heritage-designated property and whether aside from bad planning advice, it may even be illegal under the Ontario Heritage Act.
No wonder the citizenry is up in arms.
The leadership provided to staff by this lord mayor and council is sorely lacking.
Yes, our town’s professional planners are hired to provide analysis and advice on planning applications and interpret the official plan, regional and provincial imperatives with respect to those applications.
But if our elected officials are simply turning a blind eye to the official plan and signalling that everything should be approved because we won’t spend the money to hire competent legal and professional consultants to fight inappropriate proposals, I’m afraid the legacy of NOTL will simply be destroyed in the next two years of this administration.
Bob Bader
NOTL