Two residents claim PAC approval of townhouse projects used misapplications of its authority and ignored unreasonable hardship of existing property owners
The New Brunswick Planning Appeal Board held a meeting in Woodstock on Friday, Dec 6, to hear the concerns of two Helen Street residents who contend the town’s planning advisory committee (PAC) overstepped its authority in approving two townhouse developments on their street.
Bill Hogan and Bob Stokes, neighbours to the proposed development, outlined the basis of their appeals to the three-member board at the hearing held in Sam’s Room at the AYR Motor Centre.
Woodstock CAO Allan Walker and Planning and Development Director Andrew Garnett defended the PAC decision.
The board, consisting of chair Brigitte Ouellette and members Gary Mersereau and Darlene Skaarup, listened to submissions and asked questions of all four presenters during the hour-and-a-half meeting.
Ouellette explained the board will deliver a written decision within 90 days.
John Keenan, a developer Martin Rentals Properties representative, attended the hearing but did not address the board.
The development company, co-owned by Woodstock councillor Mike Martin, hopes to build one three-unit and one four-unit townhouse at 108 and 115 Helen Street.
Walker and Garnett provided the timeline leading to the PAC decision, which began with a public notice, including hand-delivered notices to nearby residents, on May 10.
Garnett explained that the PAC held a public meeting on May 21, but Walker filled in for him because he couldn’t attend because of a family death.
Walker described the May 21 public session as a “standard meeting,” with residents raising several objections and questions about the proposed project.
He said that because the PAC couldn’t answer some of the questions, it deferred a decision until it could answer them, scheduling a follow-up meeting on June 17.
Garnett explained he returned to his usual role at the June 17 meeting, coming prepared to answer four questions he deemed relevant to the issue. He also acknowledged that, unlike the previous public meeting, the public was not allowed to address the PAC.
Garnett told the board the June 17 meeting got heated at times, describing it as one of the worst he had attended.
“Never saw a group as disrespectful as that,” he said.
Hogan said he couldn’t defend the actions of a few attendees but noted their actions did not change the basis of his and Stokes’ appeals.
However, the actions of the PAC at the June 17 meeting played into Hogan’s view, citing the misapplication of proceedings.
While the PAC had every right to ask rowdy public members to leave the meeting, Hogan argued the committee wrongfully removed all public members while discussing the question. They were allowed to return to hear the vote.
Hogan quoted the Municipalities Act, which states that “all meetings of committees of council must be open to the public.”
He added the act sets specific exceptions to that rule, none of which the PAC met.
Hogan also dismissed the town’s explanation for its actions, which said the committee, according to the PAC constitution, had the right to expel the public. Hogan pointed out the council never passed the PAC constitution, which remains a draft copy.
“I find that highly irregular and doesn’t meet the standards of a public meeting,” he told the board.
Hogan, who is Woodstock-Hartland MLA and a former Woodstock councillor, outlined the council and PAC’s steps to fuel his misapplication of process complaints.
He and Stokes both noted the lack of details describing the planned development. They also stated that neighbourhood residents should have been allowed to ask follow-up questions at the June 17 meeting.
Hogan and Stokes called it unusual that the council passed a motion at the May 14 council meeting to express “no objection” should the PAC grant the needed variances.
Walker said the council did not approve the variance with that motion but indicated a “neutral position.”
Stokes pointed out that the councillor who seconded that council motion also sits on the PAC.
Stokes, quoting a real estate expert, said the planned developments would cause unreasonable hardship by significantly reducing the value of his and some of his neighbours’ properties.
Walker and Garnett said property value is determined by assessment, not a realtor’s opinion.
Stokes also criticized the town’s efforts to notify the neighbourhood about the public meetings, especially for the second meeting. He also noted that the town never notified officials of the Townsview School, which sits at the end of the dead-end Helen Street.
The board listened attentively to the submissions from both sides of the argument, asking questions for clarity and further details.
