Essex Council postpones decision to allow event venue on 6th Conc., former Mayor has outburst

by Sylene Argent, Local Journalism Initiative

Whether or not to approve a temporary Site-Specific Zoning By-Law Amendment (ZBA) request for the Hearn’s property at 6655 6th Concession Road that would allow an event venue to operate resulted in a split Essex Council on two motions presented at a special meeting on August 12.

  The first motion asked for the matter to be provisionally adopted, the other to be given its first reading.  

Ultimately, after a lot of questions posed to Town staff and the applicants, discussion, hearing varying opinions from Council members, and an outburst from a former mayor during the over two-hour meeting, the majority of Council voted to table the matter.

  That means no decision was made.

  This second meeting was a continuation of the first held on July 21, which was paused as it went over two-and-a-half hours and delayed the regular Council meeting by an hour-and-a-half.

  The Hearn family owns the property and is seeking the temporary ZBA to allow for an event venue – primarily for weddings, from May to October on the weekends, in an existing 371-square-metre metal tent structure in the agricultural-designated area of the property. The applicants saidthey plan to welcome around 10 events a year.

  The ZBA would be through On-Farm Diversified Use (OFDU), permitted in the Town’s Zoning By-Law when coupled together with an agricultural-use, if it takes place in an outbuilding. As it cannot occupy more than 90-square-meters as per Essex’s Zoning By-Law, there is a need for the amendment. 

  The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and OMAFRA guidelines do not prescribe a maximum gross floor area for OFDU in accessory buildings, but do recommend no more than 2% of the land area – up to one-hectare – be dedicated to the OFDU, Planning Manager, Rita Jabbour, explained. The area used for the tent and outdoor ceremonies is less than that 2%, it was noted.

  That was something Councillor Jason Matyi questioned. He also asked if the venue would become the primary use through the OFDU, if it brought in more revenue than the ag practice. He was told the primary use is determined by spatial and temporal terms.

  During the second special meeting hosted, a split Council did not pass a motion to provisionally adopt the ZBA as amended, which would permit the event use until October 31 of this year (instead of the original six-month term) – only from Friday to Sunday, and removed the condition respecting compliance with the Noise Memo as conditions cannot be included in a ZBA.

  Deputy Mayor Rob Shepley, and Councillors Katie McGuire-Blais, Joe Garon, and Rodney Hammond, were in favour, with Mayor Sherry Bondy, and Councillors Matyi, Kim Verbeek, and Brad Allard opposed in a recorded vote.

  At least 2/3rds support was required to earn 3rd reading, in addition to approval by the Clerk.

  This split decision led to the motion failing, and former Mayor Larry Snively, who was in the gallery for the meeting, to have an outburst.

  “The next election, you are done, and you are done,” Snively said, pointing to Matyi and Allard, the two Ward 3 reps, where the property is located.

  “That was very inappropriate of Mr. Larry Snively for threatening Council members,” Bondy said, as Snively left the gallery. “I apologize for that.”

  “I wouldn’t let one resident’s bad behaviour affect my decision-making tonight,” Matyi said, when he was asked if he wanted to have a recess, after the outburst.

  McGuire-Blais, who put forward the first motion, then put a second motion on the floor to give one reading to the amended by-law. This also failed with the same results as the first motion.

  Director of Planning Services, Lori Chadwick, reminded Council it had to make a decision on the application before it expires on September 16, 90-days after its creation. If no decision is made by then, it is considered appealable to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT).  

  McGuire-Blais also put forward a motion to defer the matter, but rescinded it.

  “Because we can’t make a decision, we are going to make an indecision, and then we are going to do this all again in September?” Shepley pointed out. “We are just playing games here. This is ridiculous. We need to make a decision tonight, I think.”

  Council then moved into a closed session.

  When the meeting resumed, McGuire-Blais motioned to table the ZBA, which passed in a recorded vote of 6-2, with Garon and Matyi opposed.

  Director of Legal and Legislative Services, Joe Malandruccolo, explained a motion to table puts the motion on hold, until Council brings it back. Council will have to make a motion to un-table the motion at some point to resume discussion, if they choose to bring it back for discussion.

  Shepley noted the biggest concern he heard was from surrounding residents regarding noise. He saw significant changes to how the event venue was operated initially, as the Hearn Group made steps to improve the noise concerns. He took the residents’ concerns to heart. The temporary ZBA will allow more data to be collected. He had to go with the information provided from the experts.

  Councillor Verbeek had concerns with the process taken in getting the ZBA. She also empathized with the residents’ noise concerns and the need to preserve wetland.

  Councillor Joe Garon spoke of noise concerns, and noted that is why the Town has a By-Law Department and By-Law to regulate noise. If any complaints were to come after approval, the By-Law Department would handle them accordingly.

  Mayor Bondy said she got to hear the noise herself. That changed her opinion on the matter, which was at first in support. She said the roads, traffic, dust, and noise are an issue. She believed more information was needed.

  McGuire-Blais acknowledged the concerns heard, including those of noise. The question before Council was not whether or not it is louder than before, it is should a rezoning be allowed to permit the events to take place. She said the Hearn family has gone above and beyond to be by-law compliant.  

  After the meeting, Steve Hearn, owner of the property, said they will continue to look at the file and move forward with it.  

  Brian Chillman, Legal Counsel for the applicants, added they were a little bit disappointed with the outcome. They are hoping to connect with Town Council and Administration before the September 16 deadline to put a deal together.

  “The idea is we would really like to get something everyone could live with. We just obviously couldn’t get there tonight. If it happens by September 16, it does. If it doesn’t, then we will be in a position to appeal at that time,” Chillman added.       

  Chillman said the applicants have been working with the Town for over a year-and-a-half on this file.

  Most disappointingly, there were many experts in their field who looked at the application and they essentially, with the opposition, were ignored, Chillman added.

  Previously, Planning Manager Jabbour noted that with the temporary ZBA application, the applicants had to submit a Planning Rationale Report from a registered Land Use Planner, a Noise and Vibration Assessment, and an Ecological Policy and Regulatory Compliance Memo conducted by processionals.

  The Planning Rationale Report concluded the proposal is consistent with the PPS and conforms to both OPs. The Noise and Vibration Assessment expected worst case noise emission would comply with provincial guidelines and the Town’s Noise By-Law, and the biologist found the ZBA is focused on events within an area that is far from Provincially Significant Wetlands involving no intrusion.

  The Town further hired third parties to conduct the noise test and environmental memo, at the applicant’s expense through the application deposit, and the findings supported the original results.

  During the July 21 special meeting, and the “Share Your Thoughts with the Mayor” event hosted at the Harrow Portuguese Club on August 5, which Bondy noted then was not a meeting of Council, an array of concerns from residents were heard. They included potential concerns of safety with the additional traffic, and possible noise impact on neighbours and wildlife.

  Others questioned if the ZBA could still be in violation of the Town of Essex’s Noise By-Laws as they interpreted it, if the calculation of the On Farm Diversified Use was accurate, or if the request meets the On Farm Diversified Use requirements.

  There were also concerns heard for the environment and potential impacts on wildlife (including possible species at risk) in the area, and the need to protect nature.