Questions remain regarding The Church Brewery proposal in Wolfville
Wolfville’s review process of The Church Brewery (TCB) project has been marred by planning missteps, flawed arguments and significant unanswered questions.
The initial plans for TCB included a restaurant, retail shop and brewery. The Town’s Land Use Bylaws (LUB) does not permit a brewery in the C-1 zone where TCB is located.
A brewery might be permitted in the C-1 zone if it was determined to be an “accessory use” to the restaurant/retail shop. However, an accessory use, according to the LUB, must be “exclusively devoted to” the main uses.
By May 2017, Town planning staff were aware that the TCB owners were thinking about producing two million (M) litres (L) of beer in brewery’s first year of production. Yet in subsequent reports, staff states that “[t]he brewery proposes to be brewing beer that would be sold in the restaurant as well as the retail space and would be subordinate to the restaurant/retail use.” That would mean that the equivalent of slightly over 16,000 bottles of beer would have to be sold at the restaurant/retail space each and every day of the year.
At the time planning staff learned of TCB’s plans, it should have made inquiries about the size of the proposed brewery and whether the brewery was intended to be “exclusively devoted to” the restaurant and retail shop. Staff should have been asking questions about the propriety of placing what amounts to a light industrial use in the Town’s downtown core, off a residential street in a residential neighbourhood. Instead, staff states in three reports from late 2017 and early 2018 that the proposed restaurant, retail shop and brewery were permitted in the C-1 zone.
In May 2018, the Town’s Development Officer (DO) issued TCB a development permit that allows the brewery as an “accessory use.” The permit contained the conditions (1) that beer production would be limited to 1.5 million litres annually, and (2)“the accessory use beyond that of the main restaurant and retail use is not permitted.” In other words, TCB would not be allowed to sell beer off-site. The second condition, based upon the “exclusively devoted to” clause, indirectly places a limit on the size of the brewery since it would make no sense to have a brewery capable of producing more beer than could be sold on-site.
After the issuance of the development permit, TCB owners began to construct a brewery that appears capable of producing a quantity of beer that far exceeds the amount that could be sold on-site.
The Town is now considering amendments to its Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS) and LUB applicable to the C-1 zone that would remove the requirement that accessory uses must be “exclusively devoted to” main uses and would place a cap of 1.5 million litres for breweries in the C-1 zone. In other words, the proposed amendments will eliminate the second condition imposed on TCB by the development officer.
Several council members, including Mayor Jeff Cantwell, have expressed the view that the economic benefits that will flow from the TCB justify removing the on-site sale limitation. The mayor has referenced the jobs to be created by the entire project and money already spent on the church’s renovation. But no one has questioned the right to operate the restaurant and retail shop. The issue is the size/capacity of the brewery.
The economic argument ignores one of the reasons municipalities have zoning: to reduce conflicts between different types of land uses. The Town’s draft of the new MPS states at s. 5.4.1: “It shall be the policy of Council . . . 19. To encourage intensive commercial development to locate in established commercial areas and to minimize potential land use conflicts by carefully regulating commercial land uses that abut residential areas.”
Council members who favour the elimination of the “exclusively devoted to” clause are taking a position without having the benefit of any detailed information concerning potential adverse impacts (such as odours, truck traffic, road infrastructure, parking, noise and treatment of wastewater) the proposed TCB brewery may have on the nearby neighbourhood and town. Fortunately, on Dec. 12, the Planning Advisory Committee recommended to council that this information be obtained.
Why are the MPS/LUB amendments being considered at this time? Why not wait and consider them in the course of the town’s approval of new MPS and LUB that are near completion? In other words, what is the rush? Issues of enforcement and the recent court decision that ruled the development officer’s permitting decision is reasonable do not justify the urgency.
Why is staff using the 1.5 million litres figure in the proposed MPS/ LUB amendments? That figure comes from the NSLC’s classification of breweries. However, how NSLC classifies breweries has nothing to do with land use planning. Why hasn’t staff researched how the physical size of the brewery and production capacity relate to potential impacts, and then figure out what size would be appropriate for the downtown commercial core?
Finally, will the town be subject to a legal challenge by TCB if the town does not permit off-site beer sales? If the answer is “yes” or “maybe,” then has the potential legal challenge influenced the TCB review process?
David A. Daniels Wolfville