CommunityCouncilTop Story

Appeal Board orders Avondale council to rescind home approval

By Mark Squibb

The Eastern Regional Appeal Board has ordered the Town of Avondale to rescind an approval in principle for a new home along Goat Shore Road after determining the Town acted outside it’s own development regulations.

Council approved construction of the home, subject to government approval of an onsite septic system, on July 18, 2023. The Province issued its approval of the septic system in October of that year.

The Town’s development regulations require 30 metres of frontage for an unserviced residential lot and a minimum lot area of 1860 square metres. The survey of the property showed a frontage of 20.6 metres and lot area of 1799 square metres.

According to the appeal documents, a neighbour decided to appeal the approval over concerns a septic system on a substandard lot might negatively affect their well.

Mayor Don Lewis explained the council was aware the property did not meet minimum development standards, but council used its discretion to grant approval in principle.

He also noted the town hall was in a state of disarray at the time. As reported previously in The Shoreline, disagreements over Budget 2024 led to a number of resignations of councillors and staff, leaving only a skeleton crew to run the town.

The applicants, meanwhile, argued the development bylaw is “not a law but a guideline,” and that the Town can take on each development on a “case-by-case basis.”

The applicants also said they had identified an environmentally sensitive septic system which does not require a leaching field. They received approval for a small dwelling on the property and sought approval for a second, but said there was no way to contact Town staff as the office was closed and the answering system was full.

Despite the arguments of the applicants and town council, adjudicator Elaine Mitchell ordered that the permit be rescinded as the development did not meet the Town’s development standards.

“The Authority (The Town) acted prematurely in issuing an approval in principle with conditions,” Mitchell wrote in a decision dated August 20. “When faced with the deficient lot standards, the Authority should have either refused the application or deferred consideration pending an amendment to its Development Regulations.”

As to the provincial government’s approval of the septic system, which is based on an evaluation of the lot, Mitchell said she could not override the approval nor comment on whether it was appropriate.

She also criticized the Town for allowing development while the matter was appealed.

“While I recognize that the Applicants sought and received a permit for one structure and attempted to obtain a permit for the second structure, the Authority should not have proceeded to issue a permit while this decision was pending,” reads the decision. “This is unfortunate circumstances which unfairly penalizes the Applicants who, by their testimony, wished to abide by legislative requirements but were unable to do so because of the disarray within the Authority and its operations.”

The appeal documents also note the appellants were not made aware of their right to appeal until October, long after the build was approved in July.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *