Proposal to erect two more houses on single lot rejected by LPAT, pleasing neighbours but raising questions about role of Planning Department
There is a sense of relief among the residents of the Fonthill neighbourhood around Alan Crescent and Elizabeth Street, on the hill just northeast of the cemetery. An application by Mancini Developments to sever a lot on the corner of Elizabeth and Alan and erect two new homes on the site (while retaining the home that is there) has been turned down by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). Previously turned down by the Town’s Committee of Adjustment, and Town Council, the application was appealed to the LPAT where it was again rejected in a decision published in late February.
Along with the sense of relief, there is confusion and anger over the role played by the Town’s Planning Department in this process. The application was originally supported by the Planning Department as conforming to the Town’s Official Plan and meeting the infilling mandate from the Province. At two lengthy public meetings before the Committee of Adjustment in January and February 2020, neighbourhood residents made clear their opposition to the application for “minor variance” from the Town’s bylaws, insisting that the bylaws were there for a purpose and there was no reason to grant an exception to them. Further, they pointed out that the character of the neighbourhood consisted of large, treed lots with single family homes, and that the proposal to crowd three houses onto one lot would be significantly detrimental to the area’s environment.
The only person at these meetings who spoke in favour of the application was Mancini’s lawyer, Patrick Maloney, supported by Pelham’s Planning Department.
At the first meeting, the Committee of Adjustment deferred a decision and instructed the Planning Department to reconsider their support in light of the neighbourhood’s objections, yet at the second meeting the Planning Department reiterated its support of the application. The Committee then rejected the application anyway.
At the LPAT appeal hearing last November, the scene was replayed. The tribunal heard from two professional Town Planners (not Pelham employees): Craig Rohe, who testified on behalf of the developer to support the application, and William Pol, who represented the Town on behalf of the Committee of Adjustment to oppose it. The battle of duelling Town Planners focused on whether or not the application met requirements of the Pelham’s Official Plan.
While Pol maintained that it did not, and that the “minor variances” were not at all minor, Rohe suggested a “liberal interpretation” of the Official Plan would permit such development. They further disagreed on whether the proposed development would enhance or detract from the character of the neighbourhood, with Rohe suggesting the new buildings and the removal of a wooden fence would be an attractive addition to Elizabeth Street, and Pol maintaining the intensification would be “an undesirable precedent” and “expose the neighbourhood to increased development pressures.”
Representing the Town’s Planning Department, Curtis Thompson testified under summons—meaning that his appearance was not voluntary, and that he was compelled by the process to attend— saying he continued to support the applications and recommended that the tribunal grant the variances. The Town was in the unique position of being represented by two witnesses on opposing sides of the matter: Pol, Registered Professional Town Planner, presenting the opinion of the Committee of Adjustment opposing the variance request, and Thompson, Town of Pelham Planner, representing the Town’s Planning Department, supporting it, as he did before the Committee of Adjustment.
he proposed severance will result in built form which is inconsistent with the scale and density of the surrounding neighbourhood
In its decision, the tribunal echoed the concerns that the neighbours had been making since the first meeting of the Committee of Adjustment: “The proposed severance will result in built form which is inconsistent with the scale and density of the surrounding neighbourhood.”
Furthermore, the tribunal concluded that the proposed minor variances did not conform with the Town’s Official Plan: “… the tribunal finds that the proposal fails to have regard to the criteria stipulated in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act in that the proposed consent does not conform to the Official Plan. This non-conformity with the Official Plan is itself sufficient reason for the tribunal to conclude that the consent should not be approved.”
While the residents of the adjoining and neighbouring properties are happy with the result of this drawn-out process, they are expressing their dismay over the apparent conflict between what the residents of the Town clearly want, supported by the Town’s own committee, and what the Planning Department continued to recommend. Neighbour Foster Zanutto, in a letter to Councillor John Wink, made available to the Voice, said, “It bothers me… that the Planning Department seems to be so out of touch with the wishes and visions of the council, the Committee of Adjustment and its citizens, and when advised by any of these bodies that maybe they should revise their position after hearing from others, they refuse to change and in fact they ‘double down’ on their erroneous original position.”
Zanutto’s opinion was echoed by another neighbourhood resident, Ted Galotta. “Although we should feel relief that 20 Alan did not pass, we should take this opportunity to highlight the poor direction this planning department is taking.”
Mayor Junkin downplayed any conflict between the Town and its Planning Department.
“Where council has acted against a staff recommendation [and] that staff is then summoned by the developer to testify on their behalf before LPAT, this is a common occurrence.”
The Director of Planning and Development, Barb Wiens, noted that the Planning Department cannot simply make decisions based on the desires of the Town’s citizens, since it is constrained by the restrictions imposed by Provincial, Regional, and Town of Pelham policies, bylaws, and regulations.
“Staff’s role is to provide objective professional planning opinion to the authorities making decisions on land use planning matters and in this case that was to the Committee of Adjustment initially, and then to the LPAT at the LPAT hearing, due to receiving a summons to attend the hearing. Staff’s professional opinion is based on existing planning policies and Planning Act requirements.”
Both the Mayor and Councillor Wink noted that time still remains in the 30-day appeal period, so this saga may yet turn into an epic.
