No di­a­logue on is­sue

The Compass - - NEWS - Melissa.jenk­

“Point of or­der, Mr. Mayor. The pur­pose of this meet­ing tonight is not to de­bate the is­sue,” he told more than a dozen peo­ple in at­ten­dance. “Based on the ar­gu­ments pre­sented tonight, we’ll take those and con­sider them in the fu­ture.” Fa­hey quickly snapped back. “If we don’t know the his­tory, we can’t de­bate at any point.”

Doyle’s Lane is cur­rently six me­tres across, with Fa­hey’s prop­erty on one side. It will be 12.2 me­tres across once the road and pro­posed de­vel­op­ment is com­pleted, and Fa­hey fears it’ll be his land that will be ex­pro­pri­ated for the road to get widened.

Might not be one de­vel­op­ment

Two other res­i­dents present at the meet­ing were Eileen Mar­shall and Deb­bie Reynolds.

Reynolds lives in River­head along the Con­cep­tion Bay High­way. Her big­gest con­cern is that once the reg- ula­tion is changed, it will im­pact de­vel­op­ments all over town, not just for this in­di­vid­ual de­vel­oper.

“If land is not an ac­cept­able size to­day, then why would it be OK to­mor­row?” she asked. “The land didn’t grow overnight.”

Mar­shall, who also lives on Har­vey Street, said land close to her home had ini­tially been con­sid­ered for an apart­ment com­plex, but de­vel­op­ment re­stric­tions led to its re­jec­tion. Now, she feels this lot can get de­vel­oped, which could po­ten­tially “box me in” with apart­ment com­plexes.

Barnes said all de­vel­op­ment ap­pli­ca­tions could get ap­proved or de­nied at the dis­cre­tion of coun­cil, in­clud­ing ones that have been pre­vi­ously re­jected.

More than an is­sue for some

Sean Ash, who owns prop­erty close to the Danny Cleary Drive de­vel­op­ment, could not at­tend the meet­ing, but did send a let­ter. The let­ter was not read dur­ing the meet­ing, but Ash also sub­mit­ted a copy to The Com­pass (see page A4).

Ash is a dis­trict fire chief from the Markham dis­trict in On­tario, serv­ing some 350,000 peo­ple. He has se­ri­ous is­sues with fire safety on the pro­posed de­vel­op­ment if it goes ahead, be­cause there is no min­i­mum space re­quire­ments.

“I have worked 28 years as a pro­fes­sional fire fighter,” Ash ex­plained. “I per­son­ally know the im­por­tance of hav­ing and en­forc­ing (mu­nic­i­pal) reg­u­la­tions to en­sure the safety of res­i­dents, and their homes, and the lives of emer­gency ser­vice per­sonal.”

“The pub­lic might be very in­ter­ested in know­ing that, as a re­sult of a fire which oc­curred at the pro­posed de­vel­op­ment site a num­ber of years ago, my prop­erty re­ceived thou­sands of dol­lars worth of fire dam­age. This oc­curred even when the by­laws for min­i­mum clear­ances for the front and rear set­backs for prop­er­ties were up­held by Coun­cil,” he said.

What hap­pens next

Although the coun­cil did not con­firm it, those in at­ten­dance were con­vinced the meet­ing was just a for­mal­ity, re­quired by the town to make amend­ments to the reg­u­la­tion.

One res­i­dent said af­ter the meet­ing the de­ci­sion had al­ready been made, but the pa­per­work hadn’t been signed.

Depart­ment of Mu­nic­i­pal Af­fairs spokesman Hugh Don­nan told The Com­pass the amend­ment must be reg­is­tered with the de­part­ment “to en­sure it doesn’t in­ter­fere with any pro­vin­cial in­ter­ests.”

The amend­ment had not been reg­is­tered as of Thurs­day, Oct. 16, so Don­nan could not com­ment on specifics.

He also said amend­ments of this type are rou­tine through­out the prov­ince, with some 150 an­nu­ally.

Coun­cil is ex­pected to vote on the amend­ment at its next coun­cil meet­ing, Oct. 29 at 7:30 p.m.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.