Lasting choices

The leafy lawns at HJ McFarland Memorial Home in Picton.

Councillors want their decision to be forever

Can and should a council of the day limit the choices of future governments? Even if it were acting out of the best of intentions, does the current council have the tools and authority to forever foreclose a future council’s ability to make a different decision?

These were some of the questions council was asked to ponder last week as it confirmed that the lands on the front of the McFarland Memorial Home were to be rezoned as open space—thus prohibiting development of the front lawn of the property.

The 24-acre property upon which the municipal nursing home resides came into focus in recent weeks when a developer proposed building much-needed seniors’ accommodations on the site. Originally, Nautical Lands group had proposed building two apartment complexes on the front of the property.

They had been attracted by the County’s Age-In-Place concept, prepared and presented last year by a cross section of municipal officials and staff. The purpose of the concept is to promote development of the 24- acre property to address, in part, the burgeoning accommodation and healthcare facility needs of the aging population in Prince Edward County.

Residents of McFarland’s however, pushed back against the prospect that their front lawn would be confiscated for these proposed buildings—their pastoral view of grass, gardens and trees to be replaced with the back of an apartment complex.

The developer responded—with the municipality’s urging—by altering the proposed development, moving it to the rear of the nursing home. Council met last week to formalize this change to the zoning and amend the Official Plan.

Yet some neighbouring landowners continue to worry the protection council is implementing doesn’t go far enough. This view was supported by a clutch of councillors eager to lock up the land forever— going as far as recommending the County sell the front lawn to a land trust, thus taking it out of the hands of future councils.

“How do ensure that this view is never obstructed?” asked Athol Councillor Jamie Forrester. “How can we guarantee that nothing will ever be built on that land?”

Planning Manager Jo-Ann Egan advised that zoning bylaws and even Official Plan amendments could be changed by future councils.

“If you wanted to save the land from yourselves, you could put it in a land trust,” offered Egan.

This prompted Commissioner Robert McAuley to put a finer point on the issue.

“Nothing this council does is ironclad,” said McAuley. “Nothing planning does is guaranteed forever. Unless you dispose of the land.”

Forrester pushed on, saying this might be a dealbreaker for him unless he could extract some form of guarantee that no future council could develop on the open space.

Councillor Keith MacDonald joined in the call for the ability to constrict future councils.

Staff reiterated that any decision this council made could be undone by a future council.

The issue failed to gather more traction among fellow councillors and drifted away. It seems not enough councillors were ready to give land away in order to keep it out of the hands of a future council.

CONSIDER AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Councillor Brian Marisett did manage, however, to wrangle a bit of “leverage” to encourage potential developers to build affordable housing options into their plans.

Egan suggested that council might amend the Official Plan regulating the property in such a way that that would “provide a policy basis in support of affordable housing.”

So that is what they did.