Flawed process

For a while it was standing room only at Shire Hall on Friday evening for special Committee of Adjustment meeting regarding the proposed new LCBO outlet in Picton.

Mutual frustration for the planning process for a proposed new LCBO store

The council chamber at Shire Hall was so full on Friday night, visitors had to be accommodated with chairs normally reserved for commissioners. Residents gathered to discuss the planned LCBO. They had much to say, but as planner James Bar made clear at the meeting’s outset, comments were restricted to the issue on the table: the minimum setback variance application.

Although the property in question, on the southwest corner of Lake and Picton Main Streets, is zoned a commercial property, it is restricted by the same requirements as its residential neighbours, and must be set back 7.5 metres from the edge of the property. The developer recently applied for what is termed a minor variance to allow the building to come up to the edge of the property, a zero metre setback.

That application was the first neighbours had heard of a project the developer and the LCBO had in the works for two years. One that property owner Robert Brown says was encouraged by the outgoing County planner Bar replaced.

Developer Robert Brown and Task Force Engineering’ Hilary Murphy speak to councillors after the meeting.

When a delegation of angry neighbours appeared for the committee of adjustment meeting last week, council promised there would be a public consultation before they approved the application.

The meeting on Friday began with the developer giving a detailed backstory on their project, which seemed to elicit some sympathy from the audience, many of whom placed the LCBO as the body to blame for the design of the building. No LCBO representatives attended the meeting.

The developer then presented some alternate solutions, one of which included tearing down the 150-year-old house next door which the heritage committee had urged the developer to keep when they were consulted in January. That would allow for the necessary amount of parking spaces, along with the ability to add a metre of green space to the front of the building on Main Street.

The neighbours seemed to agree with this idea. Some suggested the house was junk, not worth keeping. Others, like members of the heritage advisory committee who attended warned against revisiting the demolition of the building. Gord Gibbons suggested that if tearing down that house was back on the table, there would be a very different crowd at the meeting next time. He suggested instead that the LCBO keep the property where it is and use it for a vintages section, similar to an LCBO in Niagara on the Lake.

Local historian Peter Lockyer suggested that the first instinct is always to tear things down. But, he said, it’s those buildings that make Picton unique, pointing to the Crystal Palace as an example. If they are allowed to be torn down, even one by one, it would eventually turn Picton into anyplace, Ontario.

Still, the thought was tempting for the developer, who had vowed to maintain the house to help appease neighbours, offering to have it moved to the back of the property at a cost of about $200,000 just so it could be preserved. When he saw how few people rose to defend the house, he embraced the potential to save that money.

There will be another committee of adjustment meeting with new recommendations from Bar, based on notes from Friday’s meeting.

What seemed clear to everyone is that the planning process in the County is faulty. The community was aching to have a conversation about the entire design of the new building, but they were restricted. The developer was facing wide criticism from the community for a project that had two years invested. The LCBO has already moved to a temporary location so construction can begin. There is no turning back now.

“More and more of an issue is that people want to be involved a little bit earlier,” says Bar. “Some municipalities post online when developers first come in… it’s not perfect, and a lot of municipalities in Ontario are grappling with, how do we make the process more open to public dialogue earlier on?”

Bar says that while there is a provincial bill that will change the process across Ontario to allow for more public dialogue, every municipality can make creative changes to their planning policies, and he expects to see a proposal come to a council meeting soon.

Hilary Murphy of Taskforce Engineering, who is on the team developing the project, shared some things she wants to ensure happen in the future.

“Initiating that dialogue at the onset and hearing everybody’s concerns. It doesn’t mean everybody’s concerns are going to be addressed, but at least it’s a more thoughtful development to the community and what their mind is for that development as opposed to just the planning guidelines and the zoning requirements,” she says.