Meaford council has given initial approval to a two-year extension of a temporary commercial use bylaw, allowing Johnny B’s auto repair shop to continue use of a rural property on Sideroad 22 while their new shop is being built.
The Johnny B’s auto repair shop on Sykes Street was destroyed by fire on May 25, 2023, and in the three years since they have operated their repair shop on a rural property located on Sideroad 22. They were granted a three-year temporary commercial use permission by bylaw on the property, which expires on November 13 of this year. The owner, John Bulsink, had requested an extension to the temporary commercial use bylaw for another three years as he continues the process to rebuild his garage.
A public meeting held in Meaford’s council chamber on Monday, July 13, gave residents an opportunity to share their thoughts on the request for a three-year extension of the temporary commercial use bylaw.
A number of residents filled the council chamber for the July 13 public meeting, both opponents of the extension as well as supporters of Johnny B’s. The temporary location in a rural agricultural area has been a frustration for some neighbouring property owners, who say that Bulsink has not been following the rules established in 2023 when the temporary commercial use bylaw was approved.
While the applicant had requested a three-year extension of the temporary use bylaw, in their 14-page report presented to council during the July 27 meeting, staff recommended an extension of 18 months, and they also recommended that council approve a clause that would direct municipal bylaw enforcement to undertake proactive enforcement regarding the property, suggesting a minimum of six unscheduled inspections annually to ensure that the business is in compliance with the temporary use requirements as well as municipal bylaws.
Staff reminded council that while the original three-year temporary use bylaw was recommended by staff and approved by council in 2023, agricultural land does not typically allow use for an auto repair shop.
“The opinion of staff is consistent with the original Staff Report DEV2023-24. As such, it is staff’s opinion that the proposal does not meet the intent and direction of the Provincial Planning Statement and companion Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas and does not meet the intent the County of Grey and Meaford Official Plans, and does not conform to Zoning By-law 60-2009,” staff noted in their report.
Section 39 of the provincial Planning Act states that an extension may be granted for a maximum of three years, and only one extension can be granted.
Staff also noted that there have been a number of complaints since in the three years since the auto repair shop has used the rural property.
“Municipal Enforcement staff have attended the site following receipt of a complaint and have followed up with the business accordingly. The business has then taken steps to become compliant. However, Staff would note that this has been an on-going matter, with Municipal Enforcement staff attending the site frequently,” staff noted in their report to council.
Council had heard, both at the July 13 public meeting, and at the beginning of the July 27 council meeting, that delays in the business owner obtaining a building permit had caused the need for the extension of the temporary use bylaw, and that those delays were the fault of the municipality.
In their report, staff suggested that the required building permit could soon be issued.
“The Municipality has continued to work amicably with the applicant to advance their Site Plan Approval and facilitate full construction of the new building. The new, larger building necessitates improvement to infrastructure off-site to allow the project to move forward. This aspect has represented a point of impasse for the file. On behalf of the applicant, the Municipality has provided a solution that would meet with the Meaford Engineering Standards, Official Plan, and Ontario Building Code and satisfy the technical requirements of the development,” staff advised in their report. “As of the writing of this report the applicant is in receipt of a Site Plan Agreement from the Municipality ready for execution. Upon execution, the Municipality is in a position to commence Building Permit review once again.”
Members of council expressed that they were unaware of the details surrounding the delays in issuing a building permit, and they voted to go into closed session before continuing with discussion on the extension request, and to learn of the reasons for the delays.
Council returned to open session after roughly 30 minutes.
Ultimately, council opted to amend the staff recommendation in order to grant a two-year extension, and to approve one proactive bylaw enforcement inspection after awarding the extension, rather than the minimum of six inspections recommended by staff. All other bylaw enforcement related to the property will be reactive, or driven by complaints.
Council voted 5-2 in favour of the amended motion.
