NOTL councillors uphold parkway’s large lot sizes

An application to sever a large property on the Niagara River Parkway in Queenston was unanimously rejected by Niagara-onthe-Lake politicians.

At their committee-of-the-whole meeting Monday, councillors objected to the reduced lot frontage that would be created.

The Queenston Residents Association opposed changes to Niagara-on-the-Lake’s official plan and zoning bylaw that would allow the severance of the property, although town planning staff recommended that the application be approved.

Currently, there is a single detached house on the property at 14555 Niagara River Pkwy., between Queenston Street and Dee Road, with a significant woodland on a steep slope.

Under the Queenston Secondary Plan, newly created lots with frontage on the parkway are to be 60 metres in width and similar to the size of neighbouring properties.

With this application, the frontage width of one property would be 32 metres and the other 49 metres.

A survey by planning staff of nearby properties along the parkway with no service road access showed that lot sizes ranged from 33 metres to 73 metres.

“The proposed lot pattern is consistent with those of the adjacent area and are not anticipated to produce any land-use conflicts or negative impacts,” staff reported.

Staff also noted that the application complies with provincial intensification policies, which includes the urban area of Queenston, and is consistent with regional and town planning policies.

President of the Queenston Residents Association, Jim Armstrong told councillors that the staff ’s analysis of other properties in the area is “flawed and misleading ” as some of them pre-date the secondary plan.

“The fact is Queenston is not targeted for intensification,” he said. “There is no compelling reason to approve this application.”

Said Coun. Terry Flynn, noting much work went into its development, “I think we should be upholding the Queenston Secondary Plan.”

Coun. Jamie King said he does not believe variances being requested for the property are minor. He also expressed concern that council is sometimes “far too eager to meet the needs of developers”.

The decision by the town’s community and development advisory committee to reject the changes requested in the application goes to council next week for a final vote.