Victoria Road wedding venue proposal garners neighbour concerns

By Sharon Harrison
An application for a zoning bylaw amendment for a proposed small-scale wedding event/corporate retreat facility on Victoria Road was recently before the County planning and development committee.

Toronto-based Brad Bamford Holdings Limited propose an event venue at 3131 Victoria Road in Ameliasburgh, the application of which seeks to permit the conversion of an existing barn, and the second storey of an existing garage, along with a new parking lot with 77 spaces.

The barn is expected to accommodate approximately 150 people, with the upper level garage around 40 persons, washrooms, additional storage and lounges. However, Shawn Legere with RFA Planning Consultant Inc. noted that it is not intended to operate both premises at the same time, “but our evaluation has been completed conservatively under the assumption that they can”.

The wedding event venue/corporate retreat is expected to be a year-round facility with events anticipated in the day and in the evening.

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

The 119 acre property, located on the western end of Victoria Road (adjacent to County Road 33/Loyalist Parkway), just south of Carrying Place, has a 2,653-foot frontage on the south side of Victoria Road, and 706-feet of frontage on the east side of Loyalist Parkway. The national defence receiver site is to the west.

The property comprises a four-bedroom single-detached house (built in 1926) and five outbuildings (house, barn and three accessory buildings). The intent is to convert the existing barn into a wedding venue reception area, with the existing outbuildings to be converted into complimentary buildings.

The owner intends to offer either the barn, or the second-floor lounge for any particular event/retreat. Use of the existing dwelling for accommodations, either stand-alone or in association with the event/retreat venue, is not proposed, notes the planning justification report.

Three members of the public spoke at the meeting, two of whom live opposite the proposed event venue property.

Rebecca Benson lives directly across from proposed venue, and operates equine services, and a private rescue for horses. She said she was worried about losing her business, worried about the noise, and also how the increased noise will affect the horses.

She expressed concern about property values, already difficult traffic conditions, also noting how there are no accommodations nearby for all the wedding guests.

“There has been talk of a phase two, that isn’t discussed here, if that goes forward, what impact would that have on the surrounding environment, the eco-system, wells, watering systems, etc.? she enquired.

Currently designated rural 3 (RU3) zone and environmental protection (EP) zone, the re-zoning application would need to change the zone to a site-specific rural 3 (RU-XX), with the EP zone to remain.

“The proposed development is an adaptive re-use of a barn and two-storey garage that is located on the same lot as, and will be secondary to, the principal agriculture use,” notes the planning justification report. “The owners have been in the process of restoring barn and garage and improving their structural integrity for many years.”

It is noted the proposed adaptive re-use would consist of less than two per cent of the lot area, with no single building on the property to exceed a gross floor area of 500-square-metres.

“A single-detached dwelling, barn, two-storey garage and other storage buildings have existed on the subject land for nearly 100 to 112 years, respectively, in what is considered a classic farmstead arrangement.”

Resident Catherine Catania owns property across the road from the venue and is opposed to the application in the rural residential community for various reasons, including loss of farmland, wildlife and environmental considerations, where she also addressed water concerns, noise issues, traffic and safety, property values and lighting impacts.

As well, she spoke to having headlights shining directly into her home, late-night activity, vehicle departures, idling of commercial vehicles, car horns, car alarms, crowd cheering and amplified music.

“Our property depends on a private well,” Catania said. “Run-off, waste and salt from commercial parking lots of large gatherings could put the water table at risk, and this could compromise the drinking water of nearby families that are also on private wells.“

She also raised the issue of paving over farmland.

“The parking lot over farmland for a commercial venue will destroy agricultural land, impact wildlife and increase pollutants, like oil, salt, anti-freeze into the soil and forever change the rural character of our community.”

“The disruption to our quality of life will be daily and permanent as the noise will be a major issue and concern.” she added. “No home owner reasonably expects to live across from a late-night entertainment venue.”

Resident Jerry Ingalls asked if the bar would be open to the public, where he also spoke to food service (would there be food served), water servicing concerns, traffic concerns and noise. He also enquired how five sinks and five water closets would be insufficient to service 160 people.

Councillor Janice Maynard spoke to the traffic impact report undertaken a few years ago, suggesting it would need to be updated.

“I would question that those traffic studies and when they were done are actually applicable to the times at this event venue would be operational… that corner is problematic.”

Legere said the traffic study was updated with more updated traffic counts. However, he said it did not change the conclusions, so they do stand. He again noted that it has been concluded that no appreciable impacts to traffic resulting from the development are expected.

Maynard also addressed the hydrogeological report noting the property is on municipal water, but added that all the surrounding house are on wells.

“When you start building parking lots and moving things around, that aquifer that does feed the wells to the houses to the south and the west, will not be in any way impacted?”

The noise impact study undertaken by Cambium Inc. notes as a reasonable worst-case scenario, the primary operations of the proposed development potentially include the following noise sources: heating, ventilation, air conditioning units, amplified event music in the bar and barn, and event vehicle movements and parking.

“Cambium concludes the site as presented can operate in compliance with provincial noise guidelines and municipal noise control bylaws and is therefore a feasible land use from a noise perspective.”

Speaking to noise abatement, Maynard said, “I understand that they are indoors, but it is a barn, so did you say that there would be no noise abatement from the noise emitting from the barn during an event with 150 people?”

Legere confirmed no physical mitigation measures were recommended by the engineer; the only recommendation was to have a noise meter on site to take regular readings.

Maynard once again sought clarification that day and evening events would be held indoors and there would be no outdoor activities, to which Legere confirmed there will be no use of outdoors for events as it is intended to be indoor only, for both structures.

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