Despite the vocal objections of surrounding neighbours, the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) has ruled that the proposed six-storey apartment building at 16 Ormond St. S. can move forward as planned.
The decision, published online, triggered a heated response from the developer — who says the "entire process was a waste of taxpayers' money" and that the people of Thorold should "start demanding professionalism from our City Council."
"We look forward to getting our project back on-track to add much needed housing to our growing downtown," says developer Milski Inc., in a written statement provided to ThoroldToday. "This entire process was a waste of taxpayers’ money that could’ve been avoided if our City Council didn’t think they knew more than their own Planning Department."
As ThoroldToday first reported, the developers behind Milski Inc., Shane Webber and Italo Marandola, are proposing a 40-unit apartment complex at the former site of Riganelli's Bakery, but some area residents feel the project does not fit their neighbourhood.
The proposal appeared before the Thorold Committee of Adjustment in March, where a decision was deferred because committee members felt they didn’t have enough information — particularly when it comes to parking in the area.
The developers filed an appeal with the OLT, where the case was heard over the summer.
There were four variances on the table during the hearing: the absence of a loading zone, one parking space per unit, and a reduction in the facade width and parking area buffer.
Previously, the developers had also asked for permission to reduce the minimum step back of the building, but they retracted that request at the start of the hearing.
The neighbours and the City of Thorold brought their own lawyers and planners to the tribunal, in a bid to get the OLT to deny the developers’ variance requests.
Anthony Cornacchia, who ruled on the case, was not impressed with the evidence presented by the opposing parties. In an 18-page ruling, he explains his reasoning for deciding in favour of the developer.
Cornacchia called the evidence presented by the city’s planner Craig Larmour “difficult to follow” and “his reasoning left something to be desired.”
The planner representing the neighbours, Stephen Bedford, was found to be “least helpful to the Tribunal.”
Cornacchia said that the arguments brought forward by the opposing parties concerning nearby heritage sites are negligent because the project still has to go through a site plan process before it can move forward.
A site plan functions as a map for a development project, incorporating all aspects of landscaping, construction, paving, utilities, and terrain features.
“Urban design issues and the heritage impact assessment can be appropriately addressed at the Site Plan control stage of the development application for this proposal,” Cornacchia wrote. “Development or site alteration cannot proceed on the Subject Property, without site plan approval.”
Concerned neighbour — and newly elected city councillor Tim O’Hare — feels let down by the OLT’s decision.
“We are disappointed,” he tells ThoroldToday. “We felt that we had a very good case to at least win some of the variances that were being requested. Of course we accept the decision. There’s not much we can do.”
O’Hare isn't hopeful that big changes will be made to the project during the site plan process.
“How much control the city planners would have over that I’m not too sure," he says. "Of course I’m optimistic that there may be a few additions to the design that make it a little bit more appropriate, a little more pedestrian friendly. We’ll keep our fingers crossed and we’ll hope that some of those details are in fact discussed and brought to the table.”
He might have lost his case but O'Hare still believes in his vision for Thorold.
"The whole fight wasn’t against development," he says. "It was against compatibility in our neighbourhood. I’m not sure whether the future will be kinder to us in terms of citizens having an input in the shape of their cities but I truly do hope so."
The developer believes that the city should have been more reasonable from the start.
"The taxpayers should know that we suggested settlement meetings multiple times before the hearing to save us all time and money," reads the developer's written statement. "The City Council, the staff, and their lawyers ignored us each time."
The developer alleges that the City of Thorold "spent $100,000 of taxpayer money fighting their own Planning Department."
They also accuse O'Hare of unnecessarily extending the hearings.
"The taxpayers should know that Councillor Tim O’Hare demanded to be part of the hearing because he lives across the street," the developer writes. "He appeared without legal representation and turned a 1-day hearing into a 3-day hearing."
The developers conclude their statement by pointing the finger at Thorold City Council.
"Our Provincial Government is warning us that we need more housing," they write. "Yet our City Council continues to oppose residential developments, against their own Planning Department’s recommendations. Until the taxpayers start demanding professionalism from our City Council, our tax dollars will continue to be wasted on meritless legal battles."
