What started as a discussion on approving the form and character for two duplexes resulted in Lantzville's mayor walking out and accusing council of engaging in illegal activity. On Wednesday, Sept. 17, a development permit came before District of Lantzville council for 7100 and 7106 Sabrina Pl. for a multi-unit housing development, with the proposal of two duplexes with eight residential units in total. According to an associated staff report, the build aligns with the recent provincial legislation under Bill 44 which requires municipalities to enable small-scale multi-unit housing on lots serviced by municipal water and sewer. While the permit approval passed in a narrow vote, the controversy came from a failed motion to postpone the approval. Coun. Ian Savage moved to postpone, stating that he heard from a number of residents who were opposed to the duplexes, who claimed in at least one letter that the properties were subject to a subdivision covenant which called for single family home on each lot with a potential carriage home. "It's my duty, I believe, to allow residents who feel they have a legal right in this to be able to have a say, with no disrespect to the applicant on this," Savage said, adding that the district could then pursue a legal opinion on the matter. Mayor Mark Swain questioned George Robinson, director of planning and community services, about whether the discussion about a speculated private covenant was appropriate, after the mayor suggested moving to a closed meeting due to "serious legal concern about what is about to happen here." Robinson urged council to move forward with the building permit application that was in front of them. "Building schemes are a title instrument that the district is not party to," he explained. "So again, I want to emphasize building schemes, regardless of where they are, are between the developer, the owner of the property, and when the developer no longer exists as a component, between those [that are part of] that building scheme, not the District of Lantzville as a local government." During the meeting, the applicants told council that they did seek legal advice when they bought the lot, and the schemes follow all covenant regulations. "We do have approval, though the developer, for the building scheme, for those lots, for what we're doing," said Walter Hughes. "We're here for a development permit application, we already obtained approval through the building scheme to do what we're doing." Coun. Joan Jones, who seconded the postponement motion, stated she was not ready to vote that night and would like more legal advice before making a decision referencing the alleged covenant. "The thing that concerned me in the letter is that the developments are under a covenant that is in place and my understanding, and I certainly may be wrong, my understanding is that Bill 44 does not apply to covenants…" Jones said. "For me I need this to be looked at with a fine-toothed comb and I need to hear straight from the people who are the authorities that this does actually apply to Bill 44." Delcy Wells, Lantzville's director of corporate administration, warned council it was "going outside its purview." "So I have to say, that creates a potential liability if you don't make a decision tonight," Wells stated, further clarifying after a request from Jones. "There is no reason to postpone, all of the conditions for this permit have been provided to council. Applicants have to have assurances that when they follow the rules they're going to get things approved. By not doing this tonight, it is going to potentially attract liability to council, and it is also really affecting the development community's interest in doing business with the District of Lantzville because they won't feel they can rely on what the rules are. They have been met, I assure you, and a decision has to be made tonight." Coun. Jonathan Lerner said that while he sympathizes with people who have written letters on the matter, he cannot "conduct business appropriately based on letters that insinuate things we don't know as fact." "The proper procedure is to consider the development permit," Lerner said. "If there are other consideration such as covenant, building schemes, whatever, those are between property owners, not with the district at which point those property owners would have legal recourse to have that changed." The postponement failed on a tie vote with Lerner and Coun. Rachelle Mundell opposed.
More
Less
