Richmond Hill councillors test official plan

By Adam McLean

Plans for a future home some councillors say is in direct contravention of Richmond Hill’s official plan was endorsed in a 6-3 vote at council Monday night.

As such, policies and guidelines in the town’s new official plan were challenged for the first time — by one couple.

While the official plan took years of public input and staff work to formulate, newly elected councillors voted against one of its policies in a matter of seconds.

“This was a clear lack of respect for the official plan and a lack of respect for our town staff,” Ward 4 councillor Lynn Foster said regarding the vote to withdraw a town appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board to uphold official plan guidelines.

The vote centred on plans for a future home to be built on a lot at 222 Rumble Ave. near the Mill Pond, which is in Ms Foster’s ward.

Under the official plan’s policies for residential neighbourhoods, development in existing neighbourhoods must be compatible with the character of the adjacent and surrounding area.

Ms Foster, Mayor Dave Barrow and Regional Councillor Brenda Hogg all believed blueprints presented by Richmond Hill residents Daniella and Primo Ballan were not in accordance to neighbourhood compatibility guidelines.

Regional Councillor Vito Spatafora and Councillors Greg Beros, Carmine Perrelli, Castro Liu, Nick Papa and Godwin Chan voted in favour of the Ballan’s plans for their “dream home”, following a presentation by Ms Ballan and after her revised plans received approval from the town’s committee of adjustment.

On the agenda Monday night, councillors were expected to appeal the committee of adjustment’s decision at a future OMB hearing.

Instead, there will be no appeal and town staff have been directed to continue to work toward a satisfactory resolution for both parties.

Ms Foster isn’t satisfied. “I expected our councillors to be a little more mindful of the official plan. We can’t just pick and choose from issue to issue and disregard the plan’s guidelines. This is setting a bad precedent,” Ms Foster said.

But Ms Foster was clearly in the minority regarding the Ballan’s home plans.

Mr. Papa, who moved the eventual motion to avoid an OMB hearing, said taking this case to the OMB would not only be awkward, but also a waste of time considering council’s position would be against the committee of adjustment.

“This (home) blueprint is not exactly what the official plan says, but adjustments or amendments can be made. If no adjustments were ever made, Richmond Hill would be all farms,” said Mr. Papa, following Ms Ballan’s presentation that included a story of her battle with lymphoma that halted her family’s plan to build the home years earlier.

“That area of town isn’t a uniform subdivision and I believe their design will add to the neighbourhood. Council should not be a stumbling block, but rather help them through this process.”

Mr. Spatafora seconded Mr. Papa’s motion and credited Ms Ballan for reaching some compromises with the town’s planning staff by reducing the length of a planned protruding garage by five feet, while also honouring a neighbour’s request to have a window changed to a skylight for additional privacy.
“Yes, I understand that we brought in a new policy, but I don’t see this residence as being a significant variance,” Mr. Spatafora said.

What may be significant is the effect this decision has on the future strength of the official plan.
“This kind of kicks the legs out from under the official plan and weakens its position. My concern now is that a minor variance like this will become incrementally larger in size,” Mr. Barrow said.

“There is proof now that the official plan’s policies are negotiable and there is no longer a clear explanation of the rules regarding in-fill development.”

No related posts.