ST. PAUL - Following an appeal hearing held on Aug. 17 in St. Paul, a decision previously made by the Town of St. Paul’s Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) to deny a development permit to a proposed liquor store in the downtown core, will stand.
The Intermunicipal Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB) released its decision on Aug. 28, 11 days after the appeal was heard, stating, the board would not grant a variance to the 100-metre distance that is required in the Town’s Land Use Bylaw (LUB) between a liquor store and a public park.
“The proposed development does not meet the required setback. Therefore, the board denies the appeal,” reads the decision from the ISDAB. The appeal has been dismissed.
The 19-page document offered background on the topic, stating the MPC issued its decision on April 28. On May 18, Navjit Singh Tatla (the appellant) filed an appeal with the Land and Property Rights Tribunal (LPRT).
On July 24, the LPRT determined that the appeal should be heard by the Town of St. Paul’s SDAB.
The appeal was then heard by the Intermunicipal Subdivision and Development Appeal Board on Aug. 17.
According to the document released on Aug. 28 by the Appeal Board, “The Board has reviewed the evidence before it. This evidence includes the evidence of the Director of Protective Services speaking about the concerns of public drunkenness and loitering, particularly around other liquor stores.”
Speaking at the hearing was Oralee Williams, who spoke about the business she manages in the area. She stated that the business, and the ability to access ATMs at the business, was directly affected by the proposed liquor store. Ultimately, the board wrote it was swayed by the evidence presented by Williams.
The Board was not swayed by the appellant's argument that a variance to the 100-metre setback should be granted because the door of the proposed liquor store would be facing 49th Street.
“The Board is of the view that regardless of the location of the door, liquor sales will still occur,” reads the decision.
“The Board finds that granting the variance to decrease the required setback would unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighouhood, both the Public Parks and the commercial district. The Board found the evidence of the Director of Protective Services compelling. His evidence was that the downtown core is ‘inundated with public intoxication and loitering in an area where a liquor store already exists.’ The Board accepts this evidence (which was not contradicted by the Appellant.”
Ahead of the Aug. 17 hearing, documents were released to the public, including a letter by the Town’s Director of Protective Services Trevor Kotowich.
In his letter, dated July 4, Kotowich states, “Loitering, public intoxication, and vandalism are complex social issues that can be influenced by various factors, including the proximity of where alcohol can be purchased and consumed.”
He noted that St. Paul Municipal Enforcement deals with issues relating to these issues on a daily basis, and it is most notable in the downtown core and areas where some liquor stores already exist.
"By opening another one in the downtown core, will exacerbate this issue, and will create complex enforcement challenges with the Downtown Lion’s Park, which is directly across the street from this proposal,” wrote Kotowich.
In the SDAB decision, it was stated that “Given the proximity of the Lions Park, the Board finds that there would be an enhanced likelihood that at least some of those purchasing alcohol from the proposed development would cross the street to drink the purchase in the Lions Park. Further, having an additional liquor store would increase the likelihood of an impact to the commercial area. For instance, commercial business operators like Ms. Williams could see an increase in negative behaviour.”
In the written decision, the Board said it was persuaded by the evidence of the neighbours, those who spoke at the appeal, and those who wrote letters.
The board found that granting the variance, and decreasing the required setback to the nearby park, would cause an undue interference with the amenities of the neighbourhood and would interfere with the use and enjoyment of nearby parcels.
“Based on its findings, the Board is not prepared to grant the variance,” reads the document.
“Since the Board will not grant the variance, the proposed development is located within 100 metres of a Public Park, contrary to the requirements of [the Land Use Bylaw].”
*This story was updated on Aug. 31 at 2:30 p.m.