There was a full house in Meaford’s council chamber on Monday, October 2, for a public planning meeting focused on an application proposing a temporary commercial use for a rural property located on Sideroad 22. The application was submitted by John Bulsink, owner of Johnny B’s auto repair shop, which was destroyed by fire in May of this year.
The property on which Bulsink has established a temporary location for his business is currently zoned Special Agriculture and Environmental Protection, which does not allow for the operation of an auto repair shop, however council can approve temporary use for up to three years despite the current zoning, though a temporary use by-law must define the area on the property where the use can occur.
The purpose of a public planning meeting is to gather input from residents on such zoning amendments. Before hearing from the public, Meaford’s Manager of Planning Services, Denise McCarl, made a presentation explaining the proposal, along with the steps to be taken by the applicant, municipal staff, and council before approval of the temporary use can occur.
McCarl discussed a petition that had been circulating in the community supporting the temporary use application.
“Petitions may be important for council to review, but planning staff don’t have any real role in looking at petitions, and that is because we look at the policies and the guiding documents, not whether someone wants it or doesn’t want it,” McCarl explained. “It doesn’t matter to me professionally as a planner whether one person says they have a concern, or whether eight million people say they have a concern. If it’s a real concern, it is a real concern that would need to be addressed.”
McCarl noted the comments received thus far from the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority and Grey County. She also noted that a letter from a resident had been submitted expressing opposition to the granting of a temporary use for the property. The letter of opposition submitted to the municipality by a neighbouring property owner expressed concern about potential environmental issues, increased traffic on the rural road, as well as noise.
In their planning justification report, the applicant has committed to capping operating hours to 8 a.m. through 5 p.m., to limit the number of vehicles on the property to 10, as well as to take proactive measures in order to avoid spills of oil or other chemicals on the property.
Bulsink spoke to council in support of his application.
“I do want to make a note to any neighbours that have any trouble, they can talk to me, I’m easy to get along with,” Bulsink told council, adding that he is trying to keep his business going while he rebuilds at his permanent location on Sykes Street. “We want to get out of this situation as quickly as possible, so three years (the term allowed for temporary use by-laws), probably not.”
However a property owner across the road from Bulsink’s temporary location had a number of concerns which they expressed to council during the public meeting.
“We live directly across the road from the subject property,” Dave Wilcox told council.
Wilcox said that they first expressed concerns about the temporary location to the municipality on May 30, five days after the fire that destroyed Johnny B’s auto repair shop on Sykes Street. Wilcox and his wife were concerned that the property across the road was being used as a temporary location for the repair shop without having the proper permits to do so. He expressed frustration that the municipality allowed the property to be used as a temporary location for the repair shop prior to having the approvals necessary to do so.
“We are taxpayers as well, we should be entitled to have some say as to what goes on across the road, as this affects our privacy and property value, among other issues,” Wilcox told council.
Wilcox also shared that since the property had been used as Johnny B’s temporary location he and his wife have endured excessive noise, increased traffic, as well as speeding vehicles on their previously quiet rural road.
“There’s dangerous driving at the entrance to the business, as vehicles do not come to a complete stop when exiting the driveway, we’ve seen many near collisions,” Wilcox told council. “This business should not be approved for this subject property, there must be many other pre-approved locations within the municipality which would better suit this business.”
No decision was to be made by council during this public meeting, as the intent of a public meeting is to gather input from residents and other stakeholders. Municipal planning staff will complete a review of the file, including input provided by the public at Monday’s meeting, and they will then prepare a report for council’s consideration, including recommendations to council at a future council meeting.
