City recommends exemption from Interim Control Bylaw

Monday’s city council meeting should be interesting and will demonstrate how committed councillors are to remaining “consistent” and not setting “precedent” regarding both the interim and demolition control bylaw.

It is interesting to note, that in their report this time, Administration gave a choice to councillors – to exempt or not exempt.  I don’t recall that option being given in any other report regarding  exemptions to the bylaws.

However, administration is recommending that Maryvale’s proposed development of a one-storey residential treatment building be approved and that the project be exempted from the interim-control bylaw.

City administrators state:

Council may consider an exemption from the Interim Control By-law for this facility because (a) the building to be built and the services it will provide are clearly in the public interest, in that they will provide critically needed public health facilities; (b) The building will not impair heritage/archaeological resources; (c) there is also urgency and a public interest in proceeding with construction in order not to risk loss or impairment of the provincial $2 million grant.

So here we have the conditions for exemption:

1. It is in the public interest.
2. The project will not impair heritage/archaelogical resources.
3. Risk of losing a provincial grant

Too bad for Norm Wilson, the Sandwich Town resident who wanted to replace his crumbling garage which threatened the safety of his grandchildren.  His application was denied.  But clearly replacing a crumbling garage is not in the public interest.

I suppose building a greenspace in conjunction with community partners is also not in the public interest and boarded up homes that could become targets for vandals and arsonists is.  The Detroit International Bridge Company’s application was also denied, even though consultants found no significant heritage qualities of the now boarded up homes.

It will be interesting to see how Councillor Ron Jones will vote, unless of course he is suddenly ill that day.  In a Windsor Star editorial (The Garage Debate, The Windsor Star, September 19th, 2007), the councillor is quoted as stating:

“Certainly these are good people, but we have to look at the big picture. We cannot cherry pick who is worthy and who is not,” said Jones, the acting mayor, who cast the vote that resulted in the deadlock. “Someone mentioned our high-priced lawyers. Certainly we will need more if we create a crack in the interim control bylaws.”

And what is truly amazing is that city solicitor, George Wilkki and Lee Anne Doyle, Acting Executive Director Building & Development while recommending exemption for Maryvale, had this to say about Norm Wilson’s garage (City won’t OK razing of eyesore, The Windsor Star, September 18th, 2007):

“Giving Wilson approval to take his garage down would be a dangerous precedent, warned City Solicitor George Wilkki.”

Several administrators agreed, including chief building inspector Mario Sonego, acting city planner Thom Hunt and acting executive director of building and development Lee Anne Doyle.

Then again, these are some the same administrators who warned some members of council they may be in conflict over the WUC matter and then later claimed they were not.

Adminstration also warns that Maryvale could lose a provincial grant for their project if they are not exempted. 

But where is the proof of this claim? Has the province threatened to cancel the grant should construction not proceed in a timely manner?  Is there a deadline?  Why is this not mentioned in Administration’s report?  The risks involved with other applicants being denied an exemption were not considered such as garages falling down on young children or the potential impact of boarded up homes on public safety.

So will councillors continue to remain “consistent” and not “cherry pick?” Monday should be very interesting.

In the words of councillor Percy Hatfield regarding Wilson’s application, “On merit, I love the plan, but we cannot make decisions on who is a nice guy. We should be here to do planning on a consistent basis.”

The majority of councillors approved the interim control bylaw knowing full well the negative impacts it could have on neighbourhoods. 

They have also repeatedly stated how important it is to not set precedent.

There is only one way that individuals, neighbourhoods and taxpayers can be protected – I wonder if any councillors have the courage and conviction to undertake that task.