RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Appeal includes the kitchen sink

Opponents of the Bay Beach condominium proposal threw everything at the Ontario Municipal Board, even the kitchen sink — literally.

One of the issues in the detailed appeal was the zoning did not allow residential units on the ground floor. They said that three guest rooms contravened this provision.

The Town countered that they were not considered residential units because they did not include kitchen facilities, which presumably would include a sink.

After pre-hearing consultations, 15 issues were isolated in four broad categories of planning, traffic, urban design and environmental impacts.

Many of the objections are repetitive and individual points crossed into multiple categories.

These are the objections to the project that the Fort Erie Waterfront Preservation Association based its appeal.

1. The proposal is contrary to the Provincial Policy Statement on seven points: managing and directing land use; public spaces and, parks and open space; infrastructure and public service facilities; long-term economic prosperity; natural heritage; water; cultural heritage; natural hazards.
2. The bylaw amendment is contrary to the Planning Act on six points. The project does not:
• promote sustainable economic development in a healthy natural environment within the policy and by the means provided under the Act.
• provide for a land use planning system led by provincial policy.
• integrate matters of provincial interest in provincial and municipal planning decisions.
• integrate matters of provincial interest in provincial and municipal planning decisions.
• provide for planning processes that are fair by making them open, accessible, timely and efficient.
• encourage cooperation and coordination among various interests.
• recognize the decision-making authority and accountability of municipal councils in planning.
3. The project is contrary to “Places to Grow: A Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2006” document on seven points: guiding principles, infrastructure planning, transportation, moving people, community infrastructure, natural systems, culture of conservation.
4. The project is contrary to the Town’s stated objectives and goals for Crystal Beach in the Official Plan which has been in force since 1995 on 20 points: land use, environment, social and community, transportation, heritage conservation, open space, lakefront areas, policies for commercial areas, general commercial, hazard lands, Erie Beach, environmentally sensitive areas, heritage conservation, Lake Erie development constraint area, development, community improvement policies, general road policies, specific road policies, parking, stormwater management.
5. The project does not address the provisions of the Official Plan approved by the Town in 2005 but which is awaiting approval by the Region on 26 points: purpose of the plan, general goals and objectives, social and community needs, communities, residential, recreational open space, environment, cultural heritage, transportation, policies relating to existing uses, commercial, general commercial, open space, site specific policy area for Bay Beach, site specific policy area for lands below Lake Erie flood elevation, neighbourhood planning, urban design, environment protection areas, habitat of threatened and endangered species and species of special concern, natural hazards, locally significant natural areas, water quality and quantity, cultural heritage, roads, parking, neighbourhood plans.
6. The zoning amendment does not conform to the Regional Official Plan on nine points: regional strategy, the Greater Niagara Circle Route and related trails, urban area policies, commercial policies, recreation and open space, shorelines, hazard lands, historic sites and buildings, transportation.
7. The zoning bylaw does not address the Town’s Parks and Open Space Master Plan on nine points: priorities, vision, goals, natural areas, public consultation framework, waterfront, parks and open space hierarchy, provision of specialized parkland, park facilities recommendations.
8. The project does not address the Crystal Beach Neighbourhood Plan on 16 points: vision, key background, land use objectives, environmental areas, environmental protection, urban design guidelines for the core areas and gateway area, special main street areas, Crystal Beach Gateway and Heritage Boardwalk, road transportation network, public transit, parking, retail and commercial assessment of core area, tourism planning, community improvement plan, natural heritage, community focus area of Bay Beach.
9. The development does not have regard to the local context, neighbourhood and surrounding planning areas, impacts on surrounding uses, open spaces, tourism and the local economy.
10. The zoning amendment does not represent good land use planning.
11. The zoning amendment is not in the public interest.

12. The development does not provide adequate parking for residents, visitors and other users of the site.
13. The removal of public parking spots that will occur have not been addressed.

Urban Design
14. The proposal does not have regard to:
• compatibility of the form of development in terms of type of use, size and scale, height, massing and setbacks
• the physical existing character of the area
• the existing context.

Environment Impacts
15. The project requires an Environmental Impact Study or other assessment to address local and migratory birds, Fowler’s toad and habitat, other threatened species such as the redheaded woodpecker and the hooded warbler, and encroachment of structures within the dynamic beach zone and the impacts on the natural beach, dune dynamics and surrounding land uses.

Issues related to wildlife were removed from consideration.

Trackback URL

RSS Feed for This PostPost a Comment