Just what is going on at LACAC? - fire the lot!
Extract from the agenda for Monday night's Council meeting:
Report from the Deputy Clerk regarding an application for a heritage permit at 20 King Street West, Cobourg. (Planning and Development Services)
Action Recommended - That the recommendation of the Cobourg Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee be endorsed and that the application for a heritage permit at 20 King Street West, Cobourg be denied; and further that the applicant be requested to give consideration to reinstating the former original window openings, reinstating the original window lintels, undertaking structural repair required between the original window openings with a similar colour brick material to infill the opening and install new windows, with six over six design, to replicate and be consistent with the original windows of the building and those on the third floor and to be consistent with the Heritage District Guidelines.
What this means is that last week LACAC recommended that a course of action be taken that would be in violation of its own guidelines and Heritage standards to allow a local developer to do what he wanted to his historic building in the middle of the heritage district. Now this week LACAC recommends that the full weight of the standards be applied to another property owner in the same heritage district effectively denying him the same right to do what he wanted to do - ignore heritage standards!
What kind of message does this public contradiction send to the voters? As far as I am concerned the whole of LACAC must bear the blame for this. Accepting the demand from the Town staff (which staff?) to have a quick meeting without the usual notice to all members was wrong. Meetings take place under regular policy and to expect the Chair of a committee to accede to pressure from staff just because they have timetable is scandalous. The whole of the bureaucracy knows the time and dates of the meeting and they should plan agendas accordingly. If they had then the Chair of LACAC would have not missed the hurriedly called meeting because of his scheduled vacation commitment.
Now to the point of making recommendations outside of LACAC policy. It was wrong and has been roundly condemned by all sectors of the electorate this week. Perhaps the members of LACAC who are not willing to uphold the policies should not have a seat on the committee.
But even more importantly just how are the gang of four supposed to uphold this week's recommendation when it contradicts the public position they took last week?
Stay tuned for these follies!
Report from the Deputy Clerk regarding an application for a heritage permit at 20 King Street West, Cobourg. (Planning and Development Services)
Action Recommended - That the recommendation of the Cobourg Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee be endorsed and that the application for a heritage permit at 20 King Street West, Cobourg be denied; and further that the applicant be requested to give consideration to reinstating the former original window openings, reinstating the original window lintels, undertaking structural repair required between the original window openings with a similar colour brick material to infill the opening and install new windows, with six over six design, to replicate and be consistent with the original windows of the building and those on the third floor and to be consistent with the Heritage District Guidelines.
What this means is that last week LACAC recommended that a course of action be taken that would be in violation of its own guidelines and Heritage standards to allow a local developer to do what he wanted to his historic building in the middle of the heritage district. Now this week LACAC recommends that the full weight of the standards be applied to another property owner in the same heritage district effectively denying him the same right to do what he wanted to do - ignore heritage standards!
What kind of message does this public contradiction send to the voters? As far as I am concerned the whole of LACAC must bear the blame for this. Accepting the demand from the Town staff (which staff?) to have a quick meeting without the usual notice to all members was wrong. Meetings take place under regular policy and to expect the Chair of a committee to accede to pressure from staff just because they have timetable is scandalous. The whole of the bureaucracy knows the time and dates of the meeting and they should plan agendas accordingly. If they had then the Chair of LACAC would have not missed the hurriedly called meeting because of his scheduled vacation commitment.
Now to the point of making recommendations outside of LACAC policy. It was wrong and has been roundly condemned by all sectors of the electorate this week. Perhaps the members of LACAC who are not willing to uphold the policies should not have a seat on the committee.
But even more importantly just how are the gang of four supposed to uphold this week's recommendation when it contradicts the public position they took last week?
Stay tuned for these follies!
1 comments:
It is unbelievable that Council thinks they can get away with this kind of blatant contradiction.
I think it demonstrates a new bunker mentality, indicating that they have interpreted the public's desire for accountability as a threat and/or rebuke,so they have dug in their heels in defiance.
After all, what can we do about it? They're secure in their overly padded seats for another 4 years.
The residents of the Town have just been given the Finger by our elected officals, and all we can do is sputter and burn.
Lovely.
DJO
Post a Comment