Reason restored

Council reverses unanimous planning committee decision

A bit of order was restored at County council last week when a majority reversed an earlier decision to permit a pair of apartments on a rural property west of Bloomfield. It was a remarkable turnaround. Just three weeks earlier, the County’s planning committee—comprising the same members of council—had unanimously approved the apartments. Last week they voted, 13-3, to undo their mistake.

Few were ready to call their earlier decision a mistake. In the intervening weeks, however, it had become clear to them that they had opened doors—both to illegal development and to apartments in outbuildings across the County—that would be difficult to close again. Worse, the signals to the community and their own staff was that policies and rules didn’t matter; that council preferred to make up their own rules on the fly. Worse still, it occured to many that their lapse in judgement would surely not withstand an Ontario Muncipal Board Challenge— a process that would plunge both the municipality and the property owner into a costly battle they would likely lose.

So with an uneasy mix of defiance and selfenlightenment, council gingerly backed away from their earlier unanimous decision.

Perhaps sensing the likely outcome, the property owner chose not to speak to council nor did she appear at council to try to salvage the vote. Or perhaps she too had realized the elected officials were leading her down a dead end.

Most who have heard Marta Lambert’s story, sympathize with her plight. She bought the three-acre property on Loyalist Parkway near Mathie Road two years ago. Originally part of large farm, the property had been carved off from the farm years earlier. Along with the brick farm home, the property comprises two outbuildings that had been used for agricultural storage. More recently one of the buildings had been modified for use as a yoga studio.

But almost immediately upon arriving to the County, Lambert’s personal circumstances changed. She scrambled to construct two onebedroom apartments in each of the outbuildings in order to “keep a roof over my children’s head.”

Each is rented for $750 per month. Rent includes heat and electricity.

But, critically, Lambert had failed to get a building permit before she renovated the buildings and built the apartments. She had not sought nor obtained the handful of other regulatory approvals that would be required of anyone undertaking such a project.

A year after the fact she came to the County’s planning committee looking for approval retroactively. Council’s planning staff had rejected the file and recommended the committee do the same. The application contravened both County and provincial rules governing residential development in rural areas. Worse, there were fundamental questions about the safety of the structures, the water supply and septic capacity on the property for which there were no answers.

Lambert said she was prepared to work with County officials to make her property comply with zoning, building and planning regulations.

For the 10 members of council who heard Lambert’s appeal on July 17 it was a compelling story. For some, the appeal was in expanding the inventory of affordable housing in Prince Edward County. For others, it was an occasion to snub the province—to show that local council is better placed to make land planning decisions relevant to this community. And for others it was simply about helping out a constituent in a tough spot.

All 10 members of council, that night, were willing to overlook a whole host of fatal flaws in the application including that it had come a year after the fact.

But with a month to stew on the implications of their July decision—and to absorb the cautionary words of many of their other constituents—a more reasoned approach came to the fore at last Tuesday’s council.

Earlier in the meeting, council had heard from a neighbour who wished she didn’t have to make her objection. Mary MacDonald said she wasn’t certain what the impact of the decision to allow apartments in outbuildings in rural areas might be, but suggested council had better understand it because, “others will come forward asking for the same thing.”

“It is extremely important for you to understand the impact of your decision,” implored MacDonald.

Another neighbour, Linda Mather, urged council to reverse its planning committee’s July decision because the apartments had been built illegally and without regard for the surrounding environment or agricultural activities.

John Thompson, representing the County’s Federation of Agriculture harshly denounced the planning committee decision saying it was in direct contravention of well-established provincial and County policies enacted to protect agricultural land and practices.

Then it was council’s turn to speak.

Heather Campbell, one of two councillors for Hallowell, said she was changing her mind because, upon reflection, the application was opening a door best left closed.

“This is not the way to change planning rules,” said Campbell.

Picton councillor Brian Marisett wanted to hear the opinion of Chief Administrative Officer Merlin Dewing.

“It goes against good commonsense,” said Dewing. “It opens the door to future such development and sets a base to make decisions outside of established policy.”

A succession of councillors explained how they “struggled” with their July 17 decision and were now voting against the application.

Only three councillors remained in support of their earlier decision.

Picton councillor Bev Campbell said that while she was reluctant to condone the fact that Lambert came to the council only after the fact, she could separate that issue from the need to create affordable housing options in the County.

“This isn’t adding buildings,” said Campbell.

“This is adaptive reuse. It is not a huge change.”

Bev Campbell also noted that council would likely support the application if the properties were built for tourist accommodations.

Ameliasburgh councillor Nick Nowitski sounded as if he might backtrack on his July 17 vote but he veered midway through his explanation to take up Lambert’s plight and honour.

“She is the victim of unscrupulous contractors,” said Nowitski. “She is not a demon.”

Councillor Heather Campbell cautioned that in attempting to help Lambert, the planning committee might not be doing her any favours.

She noted that an OMB appeal was likely forthcoming, thrusting Lambert into an expensive appeal process.

“It is unfair to send her down this road,” said Heather Campbell.

Mayor Peter Mertens says provincial planning rules don’t properly reflect the needs and current state of rural communities. Yet, he argued, this wasn’t the way for council to assert its views. He said affirming the July 17 decision would send the wrong signals to staff in the planning and building department.

“This is illegal,” said Mertens. “If we condone this we make it difficult for our staff to do their job.”

When the vote was taken only Keith MacDonald, Bev Campbell and Nick Nowitski stuck with their original decision. Thirteen others, six of whom were absent on July 17, voted to deny the application.