'Despite best advice of staff' council rejects planning amendment

Posted March 6, 2013

For the second time in about a month, New Tecumseth council has voted against a recommendation of one its department heads, which in this instance could end up pitting the council decision against its own planning department, if development proposal at issue, proceeds to an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) appeal.

In the previous instance, it was a majority voting against the recommendation of the fire chief to add full-time firefighters to the Town's roster.

On Monday night, led by Mayor Mike MacEachern and Ward 6 councillor Richard Norcross, the two argued against a recommendation to amend a draft plan approved development on CW Leach Road, increasing its scope from 60 estate lots, to 160 residential units, which the planning report notes conforms to all applicable policies. (edited from original post)

At root is a planning application that dates back to 1997 whose subject lands are legally described as Part of Lot 8, Concession 14, covering approximately 13.37 hectares (33.04 acres) in size. It is east of the Industrial Parkway, and north of the 14th Line and to the west of the planned expansion of the Briar Hill West. The Treetops (Belterra) development of approximately 1,900 homes, is underway, east of this proposal at 10 Sideroad at Conc. 14.

The proponent of the Nottawasaga River Estates development, has draft plan approval for 60 lots, but in January 2010 (edited from original post) submitted an amendment that increased that to 160 single detached units with lots ranging from 10 to 13 metres plus corner lots and would create a density of 30.5 persons per hectare.

"The subject development proposal is located within the existing settlement of Alliston. The plan provides an appropriate mix of lot frontages within the proposed plan of subdivision. The proposal will be compact in form and efficiently use the lands and infrastructure available. The required parkland dedication has been provided with the parkland being located in a centralized location, providing efficient access to the parkland," according to the Town planning report summary. "In consideration of the foregoing, staff are of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), conforms to the Growth Plan and County of Simcoe Official Plan, meets the intent and purpose of the Town of New Tecumseth Official Plan and represents good planning. To this end, staff have no objection to the approval of the proposed draft plan of subdivision and Official Plan Amendment application, subject to the recommendation as provided in this report."

However, mayor MacEachern, in a rare show of opposition to senior staff, said he was on council when the application was approved, and that it was to be estate homes.

"At least we thought we were approving a plan, and given assurances by the owner at the time, that this was going to be estate residential and part of why I think people leaned to actually approve it, was the belief that it was estate residential and it had been held up for some time," he said. "And from your (Eric Chandler, director of planning) report, I don't gather there is any way from a planning perspective, at least from a technical perspective, that the community could deny the request of the owner based on the fact those assurances were given early on in the process about what it was going to be utilized for."

Mr. Chandler said the only stipulation attached to the development when it was approved in 2006, was the number of homes proposed.

"However, in and of itself, that's not an assurance for estate residential forever and ever. For example, corresponding with that could have been a restriction on the permitted uses in the designation, to restrict it just to that use, which did not occur," said Mr. Chandler. "Of course, that was in a different planning period at the time. Today we're in a totally different planning world as far as policy is concerned with Places to Grow, and density. This land is within the settlement area of boundary of Alliston and normally with the look toward increased density within settlement area boundaries, for all the efficiencies and sustainability issues, it would be unusual to find lots within those boundaries for estate residential."

He noted there are estate lots outside the urban settlement areas, and that more units are being proposed as part of subdivision proposals still in the works.

"So to answer your question, we did look carefully on the planning end, (PPS), Places to Grow, We looked at all the policy regime, aside from the Town's Official Plan, to look at whether this represents good planning going forward, which to answer your question, as you can see from the report, yes.

"I sort of lean to that this isn't what we had contemplated for that property," replied mayor MacEachern. "So if the Town were to take a different position than our planners, is that a legal question that we have to look at? Or, we have the opportunity to say listen, despite the best advice of our staff, we don't think this is in keeping with (inaudible)...."

Mr. Chandler said his department provides "what we feel is the best recommendation going forward, and it's up to you folks as council to decide if that still makes sense or not. If not, the recourse is to bring on another planner to assess it differently should you move in that direction."

Before opening questions to other councillors, the mayor told them "I know in the past when we've talked about larger scale developments, there was some consternation from some members of council about the OMB, and not proceeding to the OMB, but I think as a municipality, if we think this is not in the interest of the community, and we feel strongly about that, then we need to be able to take all avenues to make sure that what we believe is in the best interest, goes forward. So we certainly have that opportunity. Just because the OMB costs money, I don't think we should be sort of adverse."

Councillor Fran Sainsbury, whose Ward 4 includes the development, said she only wanted the issue to be deferred until residents from Briar Hill, who winter down south, can take part in the debate. The residents have expressed concerns about the traffic impacts on CW Leach Road, and requests for sidewalk on the west side, and worries about home values, and privacy.

Councillor Norcross said he didn't need any more time to make a decision.

"I was also here back when we changed the zoning on that based on the assurances it was going to be 60 lots, purely estate lots, and you know what, not a lot of people wanted to do it at the time, but it was sold to us based on the fact there were no estate lots in New Tecumseth and this was something that we needed," he said. "So I'm quite surprised that it's back at 160 lots. We're in a position tonight to give it a yea or not. I personally will not support the plan. I know councillor Sainsbury wanted to defer it, but I propose we deal with it tonight, we make a decision so everybody knows where we stand."

The majority voted against the recommendation, and it comes back March 18 to council for ratification.

Ms. Sainsbury told Free Press Online later via email, that she feared council's decision, if it's appealed to the OMB, could mean a loss of control.

"There will be development there, what form it will take, is now up in the air. I doubt they will go back to the 60 Draft Plan approved lots. The Briar Hill residents all expect answers to their questions which was not part of the decision," she said. "I just think we missed a step before voting no. They (residents) deserve an answer without having to go to a Board hearing to learn the hard way."

Click here to send a Letter to the Editor.