"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Sunday 18 September 2016


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "IT MAY BE ABOUT HAVING FRIENDS IN THE RIGHT PLACE....": 

Geez, off to another OMB hearing we go. 

Posted by Anonymous to  Our Town and Its Business at 17 September 2016 at 12:15


I read  Brock Weir's  news story again to be sure I had details straight. 

The addition to a two storey building is four not two. The proposal would triple height and size. 

The Committee  of Adjustment is an independent body. 

The  town must be informed and application for variance  must be advertised as soon as a date is set .  

In tnis instance ,Councillor Gaertner went the extra step and made sure the neighbours were aware. 
That too is a Councillor's responsibility. 

The C of A must notify relevant public agencies for professional input re impact of the variance. 

Council ,as Planning Board, is an agency.  Planning Board  input is required. 

The application is not for a change in use. 

The  use conforms.

The question is ,can they cram 78 more units onto this  site?

 Can they change location of the driveway and reduce a neighbour's property enjoyment?

Can they replace a two storey building with a building three times the height in a stabilized neighbourhood? 

CofA members are appointed residents required to adjudicate.

Councillors also are elected residents obliged to exercise authority. 

The question of going up four storeys in height and changing access for delivery trucks,garbage 
trucks and increase ambulance traffic without interfering with continued enjoyment of  neighbours' property is not insignificant. 

The need  for more is not public business. 

Murray and Seaton Drive are not Yonge Street. 

The site is not a vacant parcel of land subject to a plan of subdivision. 

The application is for a variance. Not a change in use. 

No planning arguments support the need for a variance. 

Institutions for senior care  is a lucrative and fast growing industry . The argument in support of adding seventy-eight units to an inadequate site is strictly economic. 

This council has removed several parcels of property from the revenue sector of the ledger during this term. They can hardly argued over-use of an inadequate site in an inappropriate location is in the public interest. 

Exploitation for private gain  is not a public function. 

Approval is contra- indicated.

Whether sufficient grounds exist for successful appeal of a  negative CofA decision, is a matter for the applicant to decide. 

He won't know that until the decision is made. 

No comments: