In a last ditch attempt to stop the approval of the conversion of 394 College to 5 apartments, Emily Chorley made a presentation to Council tonight that accused Council of not listening and of not following proper procedure. Emily represents the residents on College street and you have to give her credit for persistence and not giving up. Her presentation was organized and systematic with specific concerns about how the zoning and site plan approval has been done. She said that 92 local residents did not receive notification of the project, that there were external changes even though it was said there would be none and that they were foreseeable and that none of the suggestions or requests for concessions by residents were listened to since none were implemented.
She said that the Council was giving preferential treatment to the developer and that the Integrity commissioner was preparing a report with the implication that his report was about this issue. She asked that the decision be delayed until after this report was received.
Emily made these recommendations
- That the Town review their practices in approving developments – she said she is losing faith in the Town
- That Council automatically seek Heritage committee approval for projects in a Heritage District
- Per above, that Council defer approval on this project until after the Integrity commissioner has reported.
Glenn McGlashon conceded that a large number of Condo Residents had not been included on the mailing list and blamed it on a glitch in the GIS system. But he said that the newspaper notice in Northumberland Today met the requirements of the Planning Act and that mailings were something that the Town tried to do but were not legally required. This was confirmed by the Town’s solicitor. He said that the GIS glitch has been fixed.
In response to Emily’s presentation, Jason Schmidt, of Schmidt Law Legal Services defended the process and said that all Heritage guidelines had been followed.
There were three minor changes to the building that Emily said should have been made public but were not until after the fact. These were a window in a basement door that was enlarged, another window that was enlarged and a balcony that needed repair. Glenn said that these were minor, that minor changes always occurred and were to be expected and that they were minor enough that staff could decide if they were acceptable. The changes were required by the Building code and maintained the Heritage look of the building.
When it came to a vote, Council unanimously approved the development.
Earlier posts on this topic.
- Converting 394 College to 5 unit apartments 20 August 2017
- 394 College Public Meeting and Council Meeting 22 August 2017
- Update on 394 College Application 3 Sept 2017
- Council decision on 394 College Zoning 12 Sept 2017
The following link shows what the apartments look like: