North Frontenac Rejects Gravel Point Proposal

In a show of force, five of the six members of North Frontenac Council who were present at last week's meeting (Friday, November 21) voted against Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw amendments that would have enabled the establishment of a co-op on Lafolia Lane, at Palmerston Lake, and the construction of cottages on the property.

This brought an end to a process that has been underway since 2021, and has been consistently opposed by neighbouring property owners and other residents on Palmerston Lake, citing concerns of potential threats to fish spawning grounds in the vicinity of the proposed co-op, which is known locally as 'Gravel Point'.

A planning report from Jenny Kapusta, community planner with Frontenac County, which provides planning services for North Frontenac under contract, cited some changes the applicants, Craig and Amber Hall, have made to the development plan, as a response to concerns that were raised at a public meeting concerning the project.

Kapusta recommended that Council support the project by passing the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw amendments at the meeting, saying all necessary conditions had been met for the proposal to move forward.

Before the vote, comments from members of council regarding the project made it clear that council was not inclined to follow the recommendation of their planner.

Councillor Fred Fowler said “I think there are some errors in the planning report. Palmerston is a spring -fed, trout lake. It is a unique lake. I think notwithstanding how much hard work the planning has been done, there was an error in not giving more support for the lake.”

Councillor Hermer said “I see this application as a convenient way to over develop a piece of property that normally would not be approved.”

Mayor Lichty, and Deputy Mayor Huetl both said that a land co-op is not something that was talked about when the current comprehensive zoning bylaw was developed in 2019, and it would set a precedent if one was approved now, in a waterfront context.

Councillor Inglis, who would eventually cast the only yes vote, said that the lot size and shoreline for each of the proposed units are larger than what would be required for individual lots, and if this had come forward as a plan of subdivision or a plan of condominium it would be approved.

After the vote, Clerk Tara Mieske said that council was obligated to pass a second motion, providing reasons for rejecting a planning proposal that was supported by the planning department.

The matter could be appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal by the applicants.

When contacted after the decision, Amber Hall said they are considering their next steps.

She also commented briefly on the decision by council

“We met every condition we were given and exceeded normal waterfront development standards, making concessions not required by the experts, but to satisfy public concern. We are incredibly disappointed by the council’s decision,” she said