Uni­for could ap­peal plan­ning re­jec­tion by Saugeen Shores coun­cil

Shoreline Beacon - - News -

no word if uni­for (union Build­ing cor­po­ra­tion of canada) will ap­peal a nov. 19 de­ci­sion by the Saugeen Shores coun­cil to deny plan­ning ap­pli­ca­tions to rec­og­nize a le­gal non-con­form­ing use for an ex­panded park­ing lot at its Fam­ily Ed­u­ca­tion cen­tre on Ship­ley ave., gob­bles grove.

the de­ci­sion af­firms an aug. 20 plan­ning com­mit­tee de­ci­sion - against staff ’s ad­vice - to re­ject uni­for’s re­zon­ing and of­fi­cial Plan ap­pli­ca­tions to rec­og­nize the ex­ist­ing use of a park­ing area, and re­des­ig­nate the lands from Shore­line res­i­den­tial to En­vi­ron­men­tal haz­ard – Ex­cep­tion and in­sti­tu­tional, and al­low light­ing and a three ve­hi­cle elec­tric charg­ing sta­tion.

town staff asked for an in­de­pen­dent ex­pert opin­ion of coun­cil­lors’ re­fusal to ap­prove the ap­pli­ca­tions, and fol­low­ing an on-site visit and re­view, plan­ning con­sul­tant mark dorf­man con­cluded that there is “no com­pelling rea­son to amend the town of Saugeen Shores of­fi­cial Plan and Zon­ing By­law in order to le­gal­ize an il­le­gal park­ing area with elec­tri­cal charg­ing sta­tions.”

in a re­port to Saugeen Shores coun­cil­lors sit­ting as the plan­ning com­mit­tee nov. 19, dorf­man said the pro­posed devel­op­ment “is not good plan­ning and is not in the pub­lic in­ter­est ” and that amend­ing the of­fi­cial Plan and Zon­ing By­law to al­low the devel­op­ment does not make it com­pa­ra­ble within the com­mu­nity.

“Fur­ther, there is no com­pelling need to turn an ex­ist­ing il­le­gal use into a le­gal use,” door­man said.

he noted that the use of the land for park­ing is pro­hib­ited by the town’s Zon­ing By­law, and that the land was not law­fully used for a pro­hib­ited use, and that four ex­ist­ing park­ing spa­ces are wholly or par­tially lo­cated within the pub­lic road right-of-way.

at the au­gust meet­ing, area res­i­dents filed an 88-name pe­ti­tion in op­po­si­tion to the plan. uni­for’s plan­ner don david­son sug­gested the com­mu­nity op­po­si­tion, re­sent­ment and po­lit­i­cal dis­ap­point­ment over the “not good” re­la­tion­ship be­tween uni­for, the town and some res­i­dents, stemmed from the on-go­ing prob­lems with uni­for’s wind tur­bine op­er­a­tions at the same lo­ca­tion.

area res­i­dents were mainly con­cerned with safety for walk­ing, bik­ing and driv­ing if the uni­for plan was ap­proved as there are no side­walks on the busy neigh­bour­hood road.

orig­i­nally, a house for the di­rec­tor of the for­mer caW cen­tre (now uni­for) was on the prop­erty and when it was torn down in 2001, uni­for in­stalled turf-stone to ac­com­mo­date four ve­hi­cles. it said now, op­er­a­tionally, it needs ad­di­tional park­ing, mainly for peo­ple at the cove res­i­dence, west of the Ed­u­ca­tion cen­tre.

in the past, uni­for won an on­tario mu­nic­i­pal Board (now the lo­cal Plan­ning ap­peal tri­bunal) fight against Saugeen Shores’s at­tempts to stop the tub­ing from be­ing built.

uni­for has 20 days from the de­ci­sion date to ap­peal coun­cil’s re­fusal ap­prove its plan­ning ap­pli­ca­tions. at press time, uni­for’s plan­ner had not re­sponded to a re­quest for com­ment.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.