As far as convoluted debates go, this one was a doozy. Meeting on Tuesday, city councillors were getting ready to vote whether to ratify a Nov. 5 decision of the planning committee.
The decision was to reject an application from a Hanmer business in that operates in land zoned rural. Ranger Wrecking and Salvage Inc. on Bodson Drive wants to build a 145-square-metre warehouse, a covered tent and an office trailer on their property.
Technically, zoning laws don't permit industrial uses on rural lands, but the business has been operating on the property since before current land-use laws were established.
“The salvage/wrecking yard use was established on the subject lands in the early 1970s prior to any zoning being in effect on the property,” a staff report on the application said.
In those sorts of cases, businesses are allowed to continue operating as a “legal non-conforming” businesses, grandfathering them into the new planning laws. Land-use changes are to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Planning staff recommended, based on provincial law, the application should be approved. But, with dozens of angry residents looking on, the planning committee voted no, changing the wording of the recommendation from approve to deny the application.
That decision had to be confirmed by city council. That's when things got complicated.
Ward 5 Coun. Bob Kirwan said, under new planning laws, the city could be held liable for costs if they reject an application it knew was legal.
“If we force someone to go and spend a lot of money to defend a denial that should have been approved,” Kirwan said, it could end up costing taxpayers money and the decision would be reversed anyway.
“We can't just decide on things we would like to do,” he said.
Ward 7 Coun. Mike Jakubo agreed, saying planning staff are experts in planning law. The committee can impose conditions to limit the impact, however.
“We have professionals that make a recommendation – even if we don't like it,” Jakubo said. “Our tool in that scenario is adding conditions to the approvals.”
But Ward 6 Coun. René Lapierre said what is the point of making any decision if they're just rubber-stamping staff recommendations.
“What is my role as a councillor and a member of the planning committee?” Lapierre asked.
He said their job is to make decisions in the best interest of residents and allow the process to develop from there.
“This one is a little bit different, because it's a legal non-conforming,” Lapierre said. “This is a time for us to correct it.”
When it came time to vote, however, the changed wording of the resolution became an issue. Councillors voted 6-6, and a tie vote is considered a no vote.
However, planning laws require applicants receive a clear yes or no answer. In this case, the rejection of a denial despite a staff recommendation to approve did not provide a clear answer yes or no. In other words, saying no to a denial is not the same as saying yes.
“The applicant is entitled to a decision,” said city clerk Eric Labelle.
“Defeating the denial is not an approval of the application.”
That led to a confusing debate, and at one point the matter was almost referred back to the planning committee. But with many of the same residents in the gallery at Tom Davies Square getting angry – shouting and cursing at times – councillors ended up voting again.
This time, however, they voted on whether to approve the application. This time, the tied vote was considered, for planning purposes, a no vote.
So, in this case, two tied votes equalled a no vote, and the motion was, finally, denied.
All clear?
