Lyle Hall
Special to Niagara Now/The Lake Report

Disappointment with planning decisions in Niagara-on-the-Lake seems to intensify as the weeks roll on.  

Whether it be the town’s ambiguous statement that “no appeals were received” on the Parliament Oak hotel decision — implying community consent when, in fact, no third-party appeals are permitted.

Or the refusal of the director of planning to provide an accounting of our progress towards meeting provincial intensification targets, despite citing the need to meet these targets in every planning application coming before council (the director did point out that these targets are only a minimum).

Or the planning department’s assault on heritage while at the same time contemplating an “expansion” of the heritage district (the same expanded district that would almost certainly include 187 Queen St., a part IV-designated property where planning recommended the creation of two severed lots).

Often these decisions/directions are supported by “experts” with questionable qualifications or where disclaimers waive any responsibility for the advice being provided.

But leaving these unfortunate decisions and associated communications aside, the current controversy over 223/227 Mary St. is truly a mystery.

Despite the town’s decision to reject a previous rezoning application, we are now faced with yet another situation of planning by exception. The rezoning of a centrally located lot, at the very entrance to Old Town, from single family to “residential multiple” should not be considered without a complete understanding of how the proposed new zoning fits with the existing.

What is the long-term plan for Mary Street and the Mary/Mississagua intersection? Given a four-storey residential building on the north side of Mary, what might be considered appropriate to the south (the site of the Avondale plaza)? What about the rest of Mary up to King Street? How will the Mary Street urban design guidelines be affected?

The whole point of planning (i.e., “an organized — and usually detailed — proposal according to which something is to be done”) is to eliminate surprises. Despite Coun. Cheropita’s lament at committee of the whole about residents not liking the construction of apartment buildings in her neighbourhood some years ago, those apartment buildings were always part of the plan. The roads and underground services were designed with that level of development in mind. The surrounding residents knew (or could have easily discovered) the long-term plan for the area. This is simply not the case with the Mary Street rezoning application.

One-off planning decisions do not benefit the community. We have an official plan for a reason (whether the 2019 version or its predecessor). Fundamental zoning changes should be made in a thoughtful, comprehensive manner not in a seemingly knee-jerk reaction to benefit a single landowner.

Want to know why some residents think there are two sets of planning rules in NOTL? Because planning on a case-by-case basis is becoming the norm … and it just doesn’t work.

Lyle Hall is a NOTL resident who is involved in many community organizations.