Stephen Vance, Staff
At their September 10 meeting, Meaford’s council rejected a zoning bylaw amendment for a Boucher Street property on which a small hotel described by the proponent as a ’boutique hotel’ had been proposed.
Three variances were sought in the zoning amendment request for the property which is zoned C1 (downtown core commercial). Rob Armstrong, Meaford’s Director of Development and Environmental Services, told council that the requested variances would have allowed for parking spaces to be established on the front lawn of the property, a reduction in the required setbacks between the building and parking area and abutting residential zoned properties, and to allow for the establishment of a hotel without a restaurant, which is not permitted under the existing bylaws.
The proposal was concerning for neighbouring residents, and they brought those concerns to council in July. Topping the list of concerns for residents was the lack of supervision and oversight on the property which would have no on-site staff. Guests would book their reservations online and would be given an electronic access code to enter the property. The residents, along with some members of council, compared the proposed operation to an Airbnb service which the municipality has no current bylaws to accommodate. Residents were also concerned that the small property would not allow enough room for piling cleared snow in the winter months, and they noted a lack of greenspace in the proposal.
The proposed ’boutique hotel’ would have had six rooms, three with in-unit cooking facilities that were to be geared toward longer term rentals, and three without cooking facilities that would have been used for short term stays.
While the requested zoning amendment was not out of the ordinary for a commercially zoned property, and it fit with Meaford’s official plan, council was in the position to weigh the concerns of residents with a zoning amendment request that would otherwise have been a standard exercise at council. As a result, council decided in July to defer any decision until the September 10 meeting in order to allow time to study the issue.
Shortly after council began debating the issue on September 10, it was clear that most councillors were opposed to the proposal, and would vote against the zoning amendment.
“If you had a bunch of little houses that all looked the same, and even though the rules say you can put up a five storey building, would it really fit? Would it be something that would enhance the neighbourhood?” asked Councillor Tony Bell while sharing an example presented during a session at the recent AMO (Association of Municipalities Ontario) conference. “So I have difficulty with this being a fit and being compatible.”
Councillor Bell was not alone in his concerns about the proposed zoning amendment. Councillor Steve Bartley and Deputy Mayor Harley Greenfield both expressed concerns and indicated they could not support the proposed zoning amendment, as did Councillor Shirley Keaveney, who had previously appeared likely to support the proposal.
“Everybody knows that I am a supporter of growth and development for Meaford. Attracting more residents and visitors is the only way to diversify our tax base. However that doesn’t mean that I, or we, get excited about every development that is proposed,” Keaveney told council. “In this particular circumstance, this could be potentially reasonable for Meaford, but I think it’s the wrong spot for it. This particular piece of property isn’t the right place for this development.”
Mayor Barb Clumpus attempted to sway her fellow members of council to support the zoning amendment without success.
“I’m going to jump in and just make a couple of comments because this property is in my neighbourhood,” Clumpus told council. “I walk past that property frequently. I was past there just yesterday. I fully understand the concerns of what used to be (formerly a house was on the property which was divided into rental units), and I know that it was a huge concern for neighbours at that time as well.”
Clumpus told council that she has listened to and has understood the concerns of neighbouring residents, but didn’t share the same concerns.
“It’s a question of looking at what is proposed for semi-permanent rentals, which we badly need in this community, and shorter term rental opportunities which we also need in this community. So this type of development I think is something that is progressive, it is something that we have to deal with, short term accommodations. I think we really need to be looking at all aspects of this. I have listened to the residents, I am a neighbour, and as I said I walk past that property, and I am very much aware of what is happening in my neighbourhood. The concern of what used to be there may be clouding the judgment of what could be there,” offered the mayor.
Ultimately, only Councillor Mike Poetker and Mayor Barb Clumpus voted in favour of the zoning amendment, with the other five members of council voting against in a 5-2 vote.
