OMB denies Minnow Lake eight-plex appeal

The Minnow Lake Restoration Group may have lost its appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board against an eight-plex apartment building, but its members learned a valuable lesson in the process, the group's president said.

The group presented its case over a day and a half Feb. 28-29. The group's mandate is to protect the lake and the neighbourhood, John Lindsay said, “so we really had no choice but to appeal the decision, even though we knew the chances of being successful were relatively small.”

The building's owner, William Auger, received approval in August 2011 to expand a four-unit building into an eight-unit complex on Bancroft Drive.

However, the issue dates back to about 2008, Lindsay said, when the group was against the proposed four-plex unit, because the “predominant build (in the neighbourhood) is really single-family homes,” he said.

The group maintains that the building does not fit well with the existing neighbourhood, one of the city's oldest, Lindsay said. The group, formed about 30 years ago to improve the conditions of Minnow Lake, also cited environmental concerns and the impact it would have on water.

The group's own environmental expert admitted that the overall impact might not really be significant, but without an environmental study, “how would you really know?” he questioned.

“I'm all in favour of having apartment buildings, but the idea of planning, as I understand it, is to have them in the appropriate spots,” Lindsay said.

There is a four-plex located at the other end of Minnow Lake, but it fits in nicely with the surrounding neighbourhood, “and you would hardly even recognize it.”

But many people would question the eight-plex's location in the neighbourhood, Lindsday said.

He said his group was well aware of the fact it was fighting an uphill battle with its OMB appeal. The decision was made based on the current Official Plan, and as long as everything fits in legally with what's in that plan, the city can go with it, he said.

“We had an argument, but it's not much of an argument when the Official Plan is written a certain way,” Lindsay said. “We're disappointed, because we had a petition from basically everyone around the lake that said we are unhappy with the actual development.”

Auger said he's happy with the OMB's decision, but he is frustrated by the approach taken by the Minnow Lake Restoration Group and Ward 11 Coun. Terry Kett. He said they have “misinformed” the public with respect to the eight-plex.

“It's been a nightmare,” he said. “I'm happy I won, but I don't like the way the game was played. I think that if the neighbours had a better idea of what is going on, they wouldn't have as many objections.”

Auger said nowhere was it mentioned that his application requires an official site plan and storm water management system.

“There's no truth in what (Lindsay) is saying as far as any impact to Minnow Lake,” Auger said. “His own environmental witness said that a 20-metre buffer zone, which we are proposing, is plenty. He's saying this will be harmful to the lake, and it's not a fair statement.

“Don't get me wrong, John does a lot of good things for the community, but when you fill up the parking lot (located next door) for meetings, why are you complaining about someone putting in four extra apartments right next door?”

Auger said he's not a professional developer by trade, and the Minnow Lake apartment complex is a project being done on the side as “an investment.” It's “intimidating” having to deal with the city and the planning committee and with all of the associated expenses.

He said he's been accused of trying to “dupe” the city, and that people are making all kinds of accusations.

“I find as a developer, you have to defend everything you do,” he said. “This was the second time I had to go to OMB on this lot. I don't know if I would want to go through this entire process if I'd known about this from the beginning.”

At the start, Auger said he made it very clear that his intention was to build only four apartments. He said he was also just as clear that, if that plan changed, which it did, he was going to go through the entire process again.

The idea to add four more units to the building stems from the need to dig 21 feet into the ground to lay the foundation for the building, he said. Any material that came before that depth wasn't suitable for building. There was 16 feet of backfill, five feet of sawdust and a layer of blue clay.

“Because of those extra costs, I decided to proceed with the four extra units right away,” Auger said.

He's hoping to have them complete within a year. The first four were completed in February, and have already been rented out.

Residents are frustrated that the city isn't listening to their concerns, Ward 11 Coun. Terry Kett said. There have been people in Minnow Lake who have worked so hard for so many years to improve the water quality, and they have achieved a great deal of success through those efforts, he said.

“I think the city owes these people a thank you, and should commit to protecting that lake,” Kett said. “So far, I don't see that happening.”

Kett said he is personally disappointed in the planning committee's decision “in the first place to allow an eight-plex on the shores of Minnow Lake.” The building “really does stand out in a negative way, but, unfortunately, it does fit the Official Plan.”

Kett said he doesn't place any blame on the OMB, as it was just interpreting the law. It's the decision of city planners, the planning committee and city council that he's “not pleased with.”

He said he believes that if this was attempted in other areas, such as Ramsey Lake, it would never have been allowed, but “somehow the attitude is that it's OK in Minnow Lake, and this is what I strongly object to,” he said.

The Minnow Lake Restoration Group will undoubtedly face similar fights in the future, and “perhaps what we've learned in this round, we can put to use in later rounds,” he said. “We've moved on. Live and learn.”

Following the OMB hearing, the group has devised a number of suggestions it thinks will “tighten up” the Official Plan, Lindsay said. The city is currently reviewing the Official Plan and is seeking feedback from residents in shaping it for the future.

Following is the group's list of proposed revisions to the Official Plan:

Proposed revisions to present Official Plan:
- In order that any new developments, regardless of size, are in the words of the Official Plan “compatible with the existing character of the neighbourhood” and important environmental concerns are respected, the following suggested revisions to the City of Greater Sudbury Official Plan are suggested. Changes are noted in brackets or in comments.

3.2.1 Living Area 1 – Communities – Policy 6 b.
- “the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood (in a radius of 500 metres in each direction) in terms of scale, massing, height, siting, setbacks and the location of parking and amenity areas (in relation to a minimum of 75 per cent of the properties within this area)”
Rational: This specifically defines the extent of the “neighbourhood” and the comparison to other properties.

3.3 Intensification – Policy 1.b - Opportunities for intensification will be supported on lands:
- “where the present use is maintained but the addition of residential uses can be accomplished in a complementary manner (in consideration of 3.2.1 6b)

8.5.1 Environmental Constraints on Development
- Keep all policies in place but change “may” to “shall” for Environmental Impact Studies for all new development in lakes under 50 ha, trout lakes, unique natural feature etc as described in Policy 3.
Rational: remove the possibility of the city to arbitrarily determine if studies are necessary.

8.2 Watershed Approach – The Link between Land and Water: Source Water Protection
- Policy 1.i change “may to “shall” with respect to “a site plan control agreement required prior to the enactment of an amending by-law.
Rational: remove possibility of city arbitrarily determining if site plan required.

20.6 Site Plan Control Areas.
- Change “may” to “shall” with respect to “waterfront properties subject to site plan control in order to implement policies and programs related to the protection of water resources.
Rational: remove the possibility of city arbitrarily determining if site plan required.

Site Plan Requirements for development:
That site plans be required for all residential development beginning with duplex (R2) developments.
Rational: All revenue properties, other than single family units be required to have a site plan as part of the development approval, to limit potential development abuse and to protect neighbourhood interests.

Posted by Arron Pickard