Noise concerns over another Cherry Valley wedding venue

Cherryvale entrance

By Sharon Harrison
Cherryvale Farm was before this month’s planning and development committee meeting with an application to amend the existing zone to allow the permitted use of a banquet/meeting centre at its Cherry Valley property at 1927 County Road 10, in Athol ward.

The zoning bylaw amendment application (first submission) intends to expand the event venue use to a seasonal tent, which is located outside of any existing buildings on site.  The current zoning allows for the use of a meeting/banquet centre to only those buildings that have existed as of October 2011.

The property has been owned by David Raistrick since 2016, and is farmed by his son, with his daughter running the existing event venue.

It is noted in the planning rationale report that the owner’s daughter operates the event/meeting venue where a large seasonal tent was erected (without permissions) to accommodate the growing size of the weddings, where the family claim they didn’t understand that such permissions were needed.

“The Raistricks were unaware that the current zoning restricted the use of the event/meeting venue within buildings existing as of 2011, meaning no new buildings could be erected for the site-specific uses (i.e. tourist accommodations, restaurant or event/meeting venue), said agent for the applicant, Dale Egan with RFA Planning Consultant Inc.

Under the two-step planning process, no decision on this planning application is made by council at this first statutory overview meeting which is intended as information-gathering only. A decision by council will happen at a future second statutory public meeting where staff will provide a report and recommendation.

Meeting chair and Athol councillor Sam Branderhorst, excused herself from this portion of the meeting declaring a conflict of interest.

There were five members of the public who spoke for and against the proposed application, where those opposed cited noise concerns mostly, along with traffic and safety issues.

Cherry Valley residents Karen Budden, John Carnahan and Paul Nethercott each presented objections to the re-zoning, which included comment on the County’s overall planning process for wedding venues where it was suggested more regulation needs to be implemented.

They also addressed the increased traffic issue (confusion over the two-way County Road 10 and 18 intersection, and speeding in a 40 km/h zone), and noise (loud music) concerns.

“It seems in the last few years, we have seen a vast increase in the number of wedding venues popping up in the County, particularly in Cherry Valley. We would ask the planning committee to consider whether the County becoming a Niagara Falls/Las Vegas model of transient wedding groups is a positive future for either residents or the council’s tax base,” shared Budden.

She noted how it used to be that STAs (short-term accommodations) were the big issue facing the County until strict regulations were implemented, thereby calming the situation.

“The wedding venue issue seems to have replaced the STA problem and we suggest the County implement strict regulation around wedding venues to have a consistent approach to the increased amount of applications,” suggested Budden.

She noted that Lakecroft previously, and Cherryvale now, say, “we are only hosting a few weddings in the summer”. “Unfortunately, given the lack of structure around these types of applications, once they are approved to be an event venue, there are no restrictions on the number or type of events that are held.”

She outlined a prime example of the lack of regulation, with wedding venues collecting maybe $50,000 a night for a wedding are subject to the same noise bylaw penalties as STAs that are collecting say a few hundred dollars a night.

“While it may be an appropriate penalty for an STA, a $200 penalty for a noise violation means nothing to a wedding venue,” she said.

John Carnahan raised the issue of noise, saying how he and his neighbours are really concerned about the noise emanating from the venue when events are being held.

“If approved, we will be subject to amplified noise from both Cherryvale and Lakecroft venues; the distance between these two venues is minimal, and we know from past experience the resulting sound can be excessive in both,” stated Carnahan, who explained how he and his neighbours are sandwiched between the two locations.

He said the music is not always necessarily all about the bass and its accompanying vibrations.

“I can distinctly hear every note, every lyric on my deck from the Lakecroft venue as it exists now, and in the past have been able to do the same from Cherryvale.”

“This proposed outdoor venue will exist in what used to be a quiet residential area, where other ambient noise and other noise is naturally low. This means sound travels further and without being absorbed by buildings and other competing urban noises,” shared Carnahan.

Prince Edward County needs more rules and regulations going forward regarding all events, he said, noting how the County gets nothing from wedding venue operators, compared to the $200 per year licensing fee for STAs, plus the four per cent municipal accommodation tax charged for each stay.

“Please enact some similar and appropriate laws and fees required regarding these event venues,” expressed Carnahan, “and especially associated with bylaws, and please give these laws some teeth. Use the proceeds to fund the program, the same way you do it with the STAs.”

Councillor Kate MacNaughton said she supports on-farm diversification, but noted there would be a limit to what she would be comfortable with if it starts to exceed a certain amount of land usage.

“It’s looks to me like the percent is growing and there is a bit of a creep happening,” said MacNaughton, “and I do have concerns about permissions being unfettered”. But she did like the idea of an event business licensing of some sort, saying it is an interesting idea because it could be used as a tool for providing guidance.

“I do in this particular case have concerns about any amplified noise happening outside of a building, so if there was going to be a positive planning recommendation, I would want to see the evidence,” where she reminded planning staff that sound is different in rural and urban areas.

It would be helpful to see limits on either frequency or type of use, including limits on amplification of music, limits on duration and limits on frequency, added MacNaughton.

The property is located directly south of the hamlet of Cherry Valley, and fronts onto County Road 10 to the west. The irregular-shaped property is bounded on the north by the Cherry Valley Cemetery, and to the east by wooded areas and agricultural fields.

It has an area of approximately 50.89 hectares, with 594.53 metres of frontage on the east side of County Road 10, with access from a main entrance on County Road 10.

Wannett Reynolds and Jean Fraser were both in support of the venue, with Reynolds noting how the Raistricks are a “very respectful family”; “I feel that it is a very respectful venue, I fully support the venue, I support this family”.

Fraser lives six or seven minutes from the venue.

“If I wasn’t told there was a wedding there, I wouldn’t know there was a wedding. I hear nothing, traffic is no different, the tourists is worse and there is a bit more traffic with trailers, but I don’t see that with this wedding,” said Fraser. “I support this venue, it’s beautiful.”

A Raistrick family member also spoke, adding to the conversation surrounding noise.

Bruce Reynolds, who is engaged to the applicant’s daughter, and helps out with the weddings, said he walks into Cherry Valley on a weekly basis with a decibel meter.

“The noise that comes off the venue cannot be heard [by a decibel meter], and there is no additional production produced by the venue over just the sounds of the bugs and the crickets,” explained Reynolds, saying his decibel meter cannot decipher between the two noises.

The proposed venue would permit weddings and other cultural, educational and entertainment events and private functions to occur within the seasonal tent.

Currently zoned Special Rural 2 (RU2-53) and Environmental Protection (EP), the amendment proposes a zone change to expand the permitted use to host events on-site within a seasonal tent, which is considered outside of any existing buildings on-site, as an on-farm diversified use.

The RU2-53 Zone specifically permits a restaurant to a maximum of 30 seats, a tourist inn to a maximum of 12 bedrooms, a meeting/banquet facility for cultural, educational and entertainment events and private functions, and one accessory apartment unit for an on-site employee, notes the planning rationale report.

The previous zoning bylaw amendment required that the restaurant, tourist inn and banquet/meeting facility shall be located within the buildings as existed on the date of passing of the previous bylaw (October 2011). The RU2-53 zone covers the entire property with the exception of the Environmental Protection (EP) zone.

The official plan designation for the property is agricultural area, rural and hamlet.

Discussion involving several council members included how many events would be held, would it be year-round, and how many days a week would events occur.

While events (weddings) are currently held one day per week (one per weekend), Egan said, “there wouldn’t be a restriction on how often it could operate”, where councillor Roy Pennell asked if the venue could be used for other events rather than letting the building sit unused.

Egan said that could certainly be explored.

“They could operate as a wedding venue, also as a meeting and banquet centre, they do have that flexibility in the zoning if that’s what they want to do,” explained Egan. “But they do cater towards weddings and that is the primary business.”

The issue of amplified music in the tent was raised by councillor Sam Grosso who asked how the music will get controlled.

Egan replied saying the Raistrick house is the closest dwelling (250 metres) from the tent… “they control the music from their house, and if they can hear it, they will turn it down, so they make sure that they can’t hear it, so in theory none of the neighbours can hear it”.

He explained that while they are already permitted to have a wedding and banquet centre inside, he said where the wedding tent is there was a previous greenhouse, “and their understanding was that it could occur in an existing building. However, they replaced it, slightly larger within the seasonal tent, and they have discovered that that was not a permitted use, and therefore they are going through the process in order to rectify that”.

MacNaughton asked if more than one event would take place at the same time (in the other buildings on the site), to which Egan said it was his understanding that there would be one meeting/banquet centre and it was intended just to be one single [event at a time].

“You are aware that not even maybe 800 metres to the north we’ve just provided approval for a development [Lakecroft] to have events that have to remain inside because of sound restrictions and consideration of the rural area,” stated MacNaughton, where Egan noted the nearest residential dwelling to Cherryvale was 350 metres away.

The planning rationale report indicates the current RU2-53 zone allows for multiple agri-tourism uses (on-farm diversified uses) and the zoning bylaw amendment application seeks to expand a permitted use on the subject property.

“This application will permit an active farm to continue to host events (such as weddings) on-site within a seasonal tent, which is considered outside of any existing buildings on-site, as an on-farm diversified use,” notes the report.

“The use of a meeting/banquet centre is a permitted use on the property, but restricted to buildings which existed as of October of 2011. The primary use of the property will continue to be a farm and the increased event area will remain as a secondary use to the farm.”

“When the owner’s daughter, Teila, returned to the farm from school, she began operating the event/meeting venue and offering a location for weddings with on-going restrictions from the coronavirus pandemic. The wedding venue began at a small-scale on the terrace overlooking the pond,” notes the report.

“However, with the removal of gathering restrictions, the weddings grew in size and it was not feasible to use the existing building for weddings due to average wedding sizes. The owners had then decided to erect a temporary event tent to host weddings and offer flexibility for wedding sizes.”

The tent is removed in the winter as it is not a permanent structure and is not designed for snow loads.

The proposed use will occupy 1.14 per cent (5,816 square metres) and the gross floor area of all buildings will be 17.98 per cent (1046 square metres). The maximum permitted area for an on-farm diversified use is two percent of the lot area.

“The subject property has been used for existing on-farm diversified uses and active agricultural crop production. The proposed expanded event venue is intended primarily for weddings which would occur in a seasonal tent. The proposed expanded use is an on-farm diversified use and is therefore permitted in the agricultural area designation.”

Planning documentation relating to this application can be found on the County’s website.

Proposed East Lake wedding venue denied at planning now approved at council meeting