Application for variances to build on undersized lot deferred after marathon meeting
The Town of Pelham's Committee of Adjustment wants more information before it considers a proposal to sever a lot on Alan Crescent in Fonthill. At their regular meeting last Tuesday, January 14, the committee received an application from a property speculator looking to split the existing single lot at 20 Alan Crescent into two parcels, one of which would be considerably smaller than is permitted under the present zoning bylaw.
The application to sever was supported by the Town’s Planning Department, as it conforms to Provincial standards and meets the requirements of the Planning Act and the Town’s Official Plan, according to Planning Director Barb Wiens. However, the 20-plus residents attending the meeting made clear their opposition to the radical change in the character of the neighbourhood that would result from large lots being diced into smaller ones to permit such intensification.
Committee Chair Don Cook, and members Bill Sheldon and Bernie Law wrestled with the conflict between the rights of the developer, represented by Craig Rowe of Upper Canada Consultants, and the feelings of the residents.
At issue is the size of the severed lot and its frontage on the street. Current zoning requires a minimum lot size of 700 square meters, while the new lot would be only 432 square meters. Frontage of the lot would be 14 meters, while the current law requires 17 meters. The developer is asking for variances to permit the smaller lot, while neighbours assert that a house placed on such a small area would adversely affect their own properties.
Planning Director Wiens emphasized that Pelham is required to intensify housing in its residential areas by 15 percent, according to Regional directives. This amounts to 300 new residential units within the current urban boundaries.
Wiens pointed out that the intensification rules for the entire Region of Niagara require an average 40 percent increase in density (St. Catharines is at 80 percent) while Pelham’s larger lot sizes and rural character are recognized in the much reduced requirement.
However, when questioned by the committee, she revealed that the East Fonthill Development does not count in the Town’s intensification statistics because it is a “green field” development—namely, a new parcel of land that was previously a farm field and not an existing residential area—nor does the townhouse development on Highway 20, at the old Fonthill Lumber site, because it is on commercial/industrial land.
At the end of “the longest meeting in my four years of experience on this committee,” Don Cook agreed with the other two members that the matter should be deferred so that they could get more information. He said that he thought the Planning Department had “not looked at the fabric of the neighbourhood” in recommending approval of the application. In moving for the deferment, Bill Sheldon cited the Official Plan’s assertion that “the established character” of a neighbourhood must be taken into consideration in deciding on amendments.
The current zoning bylaws were brought up several times in the discussion, and one solution to what Sheldon called “the current conundrum” would be to kick the entire matter upstairs to Town Council, for an update to the now-33-year-old zoning bylaws. Town CAO David Cribbs has gone on record as favouring an overhaul of the zoning regulations, but such an approach may take years to work its way through the municipal process.
There is no set timeline for the matter to reappear before the committee. The owner of one of the properties adjoining 20 Alan Crescent, Foster Zanutto, feels that the issue is of such importance to the entire area bounded by Pelham Street, Haist Street, Canboro Road and Pancake Lane, that there could be as many as 200 residents at the next committee meeting. A petition is already circulating in the neighbourhood to prevent such severances.
Zanutto also suggests that the Planning Department did not sufficiently consider the 15 letters of objection filed by neighbours prior to the meeting when it recommended approval. “A decision in favour of this application could set a precedent for development that would totally change this neighbourhood and maybe all of Fonthill,” he said.
In the end, the Committee unanimously passed Sheldon’s motion that a decision on the application be deferred until the committee could get clarification on the concept of “established character” of a neighbourhood, as outlined in the Official Plan, and be sure that this concept factors in the decision on the severance application.
