Appeal denied

OMB suggests proposed development may be more compatible than existing use

An Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) member has dismissed an appeal regarding the rezoning of land for the future Twelve Trees condominium and townhouse development in Wellington. In May, Sylvia Sutherland heard the appeal from John Gare—a Wellington resident whose home backs onto the development.

Gare said the County was wrong to approve rezoning of the property and appealed to the OMB to overturn the decision. He argued that the proposed 30-unit condominium apartment building and six townhomes are incompatible with the surrounding neighbourhood of mostly single-detached homes.

But the OMB adjudicator disagreed, suggesting the proposed development was perhaps more compatible than the current use—a single house on a large lot creating a wide gap in the streetscape.

Sutherland noted, too, that compatible does not require that development be the same as, or even similar to, other buildings in the area. She turned to the Oxford Dictionary definition of compatibility as “able to exist or occur together without problems or conflict”.

“The Board heard no evidence that the proposed development will not be compatible with the area,” wrote Sutherland.

Further, she noted that the developer is required to provide a detailed architectural design report illustrating how the townhouses and apartment building will fit into the existing neighbourhood.

The OMB member observed the expert testimonies of the County’s planner, James Bar and planning advisor Mark Touw, that the project was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, the County’s Official Plan and conformed to the Secondary Plan for Wellington.

This expert evidence was uncontested, according to Sutherland, who found both Bar and Touw convincing.

Sutherland wrote in her decision that while Gare was correct in asserting the County does not prescribe rules to guide design in the village corridor area of Wellington, this was no reason to refuse the proposed development, given site plan control.

The appellant also claimed that the developer had failed to provide sufficient notice. But the OMB member dismissed this argument saying that the requirements of the Act had been met with a sign on the property, ads in a Picton newspaper and notices delivered to property owners within 400 metres of the development.

Another neighbour, Hugh Sonnenberg, argued at the May OMB hearing that “he did not care what the Secondary Plan said” because he had been assured in 1988 by municipal officials that no development would occur on the adjacent property.

Sutherland pointed out that the planning regime of Ontario has turned over many times since 1988 in ways the municipal official could not have foreseen.

Sutherland dismissed the appeal.