To say that last nights council meeting was not entertaining for us onlookers would be an understatement. Most of the discussion revolved an application by a resident to build a house on a portion of 1150 Torbay Road, that would be where Cole's Bar used to be on Piperstock Hill. This is the second time this application has come before council, the first time was April 2, 2012 and it was refused by a unanimous vote at the time on the recommendation of the Planning and Land Use Development Committee (PLUD).
So here we are a little over a year later and the application comes before council again and it passes by a vote of 4-2. So what changed to convince council to do an about face on this particular application? I have been told that the applicant had begun an appeal process of councils decision then withdrew it and simply resubmitted the same application again. That action itself seems a little odd considering the original vote was unanimous in it's rejection why would council change it's mind?
The reason the application was rejected the first time was because the development only had enough frontage for the existing dwelling. This is the same reason that the PLUD committee gave this time to recommend rejection again. However this time councillor Smith elaborated on the reasoning and stated that the current house has been there for years and does not conform to the towns regulations. By permitting another house to be built on the property they will be adding another nonconforming development with shared frontage.
Once the motion was open to discussion each councillor had their say and stated their opinions on whether the application should be approved or not.
Councillor Tapper said that he believed the regulation is not looking out for the best interest of the town and that is a reason to look at it in the five year review of the town plan. He stated that 5 years ago a previous council dealt with similar issues and he doesn't believe this is a backlot development.
Councillor Byrne stated that the town has spent a lot of money on these regulations and the towns outside consultant advised against approving this application and he is as independent on this matter as you can get.
Deputy Mayor Gallant said that he would love to help these people if it is within the rules to do so. He said that a previous council back in the 80's created this backlot problem by allowing the original house to be built. He says that people don't realize that when they build so far back on their property that the front portion would be no good. He thinks they should be grandfathered in and allowed to build.
Councillor Whitty stated that he feels there are a lot of places in the town that don't conform to the town regulations. He also stated that in the last 4 years council doesn't seem to be consistent in their decisions.
Mayor Codner stated that he believes that the applicant does have a case and that council in 1982 approved the original development and he believes it is within the authority of council to approve this application.
Councillor Smith who is also the chair of the PLUD committee had the final say on the motion. Smith said she was speechless and wanted to remind council of the impact of voting against rejecting this application. She stated that council would be setting a precedent by approving a backlot with shared frontage and the phone will be ringing off the hook by other people looking to get similar developments approved. Smith said that it is not popular to be a member of the PLUD committee right now and that this is the second time in 2 months that council has voted against their own regulations. The job of the committee is to bring forward sound recommendations and no council in the future will be able to refuse a backlot development.
The motion to reject the application was defeated 4-2 with Councillor's Smith and Byrne voting in favor and the Mayor Codner, Deputy Mayor Gallant, Councillors Whitty and Tapper voting against.
On the heels of that vote Councillor Tapper introduced a new motion to approve the building application and the motion passed along the same voting lines as the previous motion, 4-2 in favor of approval.
Once the motion was passed Councillor Smith stated that this whole thing is nothing more that vote buying and that is when the fireworks started. Councillor Tapper raised a point of order and said that he is sick and tired of councillor Smith throwing around accusations of vote buying. He doesn't think this is a backlot development and disgusted with comments about spinning the vote against the committee. He asked for an apology from Smith and tried to present a motion forcing here to apologize. Smith countered and said that she doesn't believe that council can pass a motion forcing here to apologize. There was some discussion back and forth and I think councillor Tapper put forward a notice of motion regarding the apology and I guess we will see if it will be put forward next meeting.
Now I don't know if this application should have went ahead or not based on the town regulations. I do know that there is a lot of land in that area and it would be a shame of nothing could be done with it. On the surface looking at it through untrained eyes I don't see the problem. Then again I didn't see a problem with allowing a bed and breakfast to be built on Dominion Hill either but that was apparently against regulations as well. It is funny how regulations are held up by some members of council as the gospel in one instance and totally disregarded in others. Maybe Councillor Whitty has a point when he says that there is no consistency when it comes to rulings by this council.
This is not a new problem for those of us who have been living in Torbay but our town is growing and new people are moving in. Not to mention people who may just be passing through that want to visit our town. Every member of this current council needs to take responsibility for this current mess. They didn't put the sewage there but they certainly need to take responsibility for the safety of residents and visitors of our town.
