StratfordToday received the following letter regarding the response by the City of Stratford to an Ontario Land Tribunal appeal.
The City of Stratford’s response to the 173 William St. Ontario Land Tribunal appeal raises questions of transparency and democratic process.
173 William St.’s 11.39 metre minor variance height request (10m bylaw) failed to receive Committee of Adjustment majority support (2-2 vote) in July and on
Sept. 25 the COA denied the request with a 4-0 vote.
Ms. Heron appealed the COA denial to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
Jan. 8, 2024 the 173 William appeal was on the Council In Camera agenda.
A Closed Meeting Investigator has found that: “Council voted to provide its solicitor and CAO with several instructions regarding the City’s position. Council had delegated its authority to make decisions in this matter to the CAO. The CAO therefore had the authority, in their sole discretion, to enter into a settlement without a further decision of Council being made.”
The Minutes of Settlement agreed upon by the CAO:
Karen Heron (the “appellant”) and The Corporation of the City of Stratford, with the Approval of MVA (minor variance application), within the minutes the following items appeared: 3. The Parties agree to jointly request that the tribunal approve the proposed minor variance; and 5. The Parties agree to jointly oppose any requests for party status…..
Stratford CAO’s May 3 response when details of the settlement made by the City were requested prior to the May 30 OLT Hearing: “The City is not able to provide further information at this time regarding the position the City is taking in response to the appeal. In response to your second question, the City Solicitor takes direction of Council.”
The CAO defended the City’s action to oppose party status by using Ontario Govt. legislation as justification. From a May 28 email: “The Province changed the Planning Act with respect to appeal rights and around party and participant status at OLT Hearings. This may be a conversation to have with MPP Matthew Rae to discuss legislative appeal rights under the Act and changes you may be seeking.”
The CAO is incorrect. Provincial legislation did not remove the right of concerned residents to participate in an appeal being made by another party. Party status
is decided at the Hearing by the Tribunal.
Both Ms. Heron’s solicitor and Stratford’s Solicitor spoke at the start of the hearing, opposing any request for party status. Because party status was not granted; it was an entirely one-sided Hearing. The City’s efforts to block residents having the ability to present evidence or question Ms. Heron’s paid expert was a factor. Freedom of expression was suppressed.
A Stratford Councillor also defended the City’s actions, claiming Ontario Govt. legislation as justification. From a May 29 email: “I have heard from many residents who oppose this development. Unfortunately, it appears to comply with provincial law so we have little recourse. The best we can do is lobby our local MPP, Matthew Rae for changes to that law.”
The Councillor is incorrect. There is no provincial law that would require approval of a variance to permit an 11.39 metre high house at 173 William.
The Mayor and Councillors claim public input and due process are valued. Council chose not to support the decision of its COA members. 100+ citizens wrote letters, attended and spoke at Hearings, with well articulated, substantiated concerns and objections. Nonetheless, Councillors at an In Camera meeting, delegated authority for the 173 William appeal to the CAO.
The Committee of Adjustment determined the 11.39 m request did not meet all four of the provincially mandated tests. The Ontario Planning Act states if a request fails to meet even one of the tests, it must be denied. COA members, after thoughtfully considering all the written and oral public input denied the request, as per their Planning Act mandate. The City of Stratford decided to override the denial and agreed to the 11.39 metre request.
If Ontario Land Tribunal approval is granted for 173 William, this will be the first new build on William St to exceed the 10 metre Bylaw, but unfortunately won’t be
the last, either on William or in other Stratford neighbourhoods. The path around the lake will be irrevocably changed for residents and for visitors. Huge imposing
structures, after demolition of existing homes, will dominate the riverscape/other neighbourhoods.
City of Stratford/Council actions supporting the 173 William St appeal prompt several questions:
There was no obligation on the part of the City to have representation, legal or otherwise, at the OLT Hearing. When Council decided not to support its Committee of Adjustment, it could have decided to stay neutral. Legal costs to taxpayers would not have been incurred. Why did Council chose to engage a solicitor for the appeal to support Ms Heron and a settlement?
Why did Councillors chose to delegate authority and sole discretion to the CAO?
Why did the CAO/City of Stratford agree to a settlement with Ms, Heron, approving 11.39 metres, after 11.39 metres was denied by the Committee of Adjustment in a 4-0 vote?
Why was there a lack of openness and transparency? Why did the City refuse to disclose details of the settlement for a Minor Variance appeal prior to the OLT
Hearing?
According to the CAO the City Solicitor carried out Council’s instructions.
Councillors were made aware on May 2 that a settlement had been agreed upon by the City. Prior to the May 30 hearing Councillors were informed by residents of the terms of the settlement: the Parties agree to jointly request that the tribunal approve the proposed minor variance, and the Parties agree to jointly oppose any requests for party status…..
Why did the City of Stratford oppose any requests for party status by residents? The motivation of Ms Heron’s Solicitor to oppose requests for party status is obvious but why would the City of Stratford oppose party status requests? The CAO may have been responsible for the settlement, but Councillors were informed of the terms prior to the May 30 hearing. Council did not act.
Council chose to let this agreement be presented to the Tribunal, so whether it was at their specific direction, or whether the CAO was responsible matters little.
The Mayor and Councillors were fully aware of terms prior to the Hearing and did not instruct the City Solicitor to amend the settlement agreement.
The City’s joint action with Heron’s lawyer to silence opposition at the hearing of residents who believe the 11.39 metre variance is not minor and should not be
approved was unfair to residents and to Committee of Adjustment members.
Transparency, respect of due process and freedom of thought and freedom of expression are fundamental principles of the democratic process. To silence voices undermines democracy. The OLT Tribunal heard only one side because differing opinions were suppressed when party status was not granted. Why the City of Stratford opposed any requests for party status, silencing the voice of concerned residents is incomprehensible.
Karen Fleming
Kathryn Fleming
