Increased usability

County staff to work on Site Plan Control for Lakeside Motel

At last week’s council meeting, the horseshoe heard from staff and the community regarding potential bylaw infractions and a requirement for a Site Plan Control Agreement for the Lakeside Motel, which is zoned Highway Commercial and is located on Main Street Wellington in the west end of the village.

Last year, Amy Bodman, along with other neighbours of the Motel, raised concerns about noise, light, parking, smoke and possible zoning violations of the establishment, which is nestled in the middle of a residential neighbourhood. At the time, Council directed staff to return with a report regarding the issues, including zoning, as it relates to the two properties at 349 and 351 Main Street. The Site Plan Control would review concerns such as lighting, noise, fencing, traffic, and garbage amongst other things, and also request a noise impact study, a functional servicing report and a storm water report, at the expense of the Lakeside Motel.

Bodman was back in front of Council with a deputation. She claims some things have been resolved, but there are still questions surrounding whether the motel and bar/restaurant conform to its current Commercial Highway zoning, whether the patio has been built in accordance with its permit, whether 351 Main Street, which is a residential building is being used illegally as an extension of the motel and what triggers a site plan and why has it not been done.

Bodman said although she can verify that there are no more spotlights shining on her property, the report relies far too much on the word of the motel owner, when it comes to compliance of by-laws. She shared that the report states the motel owner has ensured 351 Main Street will function only as a residence, but she questions whether that is true. “The stairwell by the hotel patio that provides access between the two properties is still being used as a service entrance. Both patrons and staff can often be seen using the access to get to one property from the other. This year an additional cargo container has been placed adjacent to the one used as a patio pantry last year. I don’t think the word of the motel owner is sufficient to ensure that 351 is not being used as an extension of the motel,” said Bodman.

As for the lakefront patio, Bodman said she was disappointed County By-law has chosen to ignore the issue of the Quinte Conservation patio permit. “Twice I have gone before this council and stated what Quinte Conservation permitted— two open decks 24 feet by 30 feet to be constructed near the top of the bank of both the east and west ends of property. “I want to remind you that a portion of the County’s budget goes to Quinte Conservation every year to protect the County’s interests. Quinte Conservation does good work to protect our shoreline, wetlands and water courses, which are essential to the health of where we live,” said Bodman.

Bodman also shared that many live events have been taking place at the motel, and the music and noise travels to her property. “What upsets me most about the Lakeside isn’t the live music, but the amplified sound that is constantly projected every day. Last night as I cleaned our cottage for our upcoming guests, I could hear the bass coming through the floor,” she said,adding that the amplified music plays for 14 hours straight from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m.

Lakeside Motel owner and operator Renda Abdo shared her perspective, and told Council her understanding is that a Site Plan is triggered when applying for permits, not nearly four years later. “From the moment I took possession of this incredibly beautiful piece of land I began improving the property. Restoring the rooms, adding the deck and pool and hired an amazing local contractor and his entire crew committed three years and counting to the project. During the process of restoring the property and creating the finished product, Lakeside was issued nine permits. During this time I was never asked to submit a site plan application. My question tonight is, what am I being asked to do specifically, and why am I being asked to do it now?” asked Abdo.

Abdo also claimed that by-law, fire inspectors, health inspectors and liquor inspectors have all visited the property and she has had no issues. “Last year I had visits from inspectors. Some several times. Not one infraction or fine was issued. The report submitted confirms I have been cooperative and have solved issues as soon as they were brought to my attention without the need for followup,” said Abdo, who is concerned with whether the complaints are fair and warranted. “Let’s look at infractions, not the number of calls. It upset me to hear two people paint such a negative picture, but I trusted the system would find in my favour. No rules broken, permits issued and I knew that I was a responsible operator. It’s easy for two people with a personal agenda to pick up the phone and make a complaint. What an easy way to hurt a business,” she added.

Ultimately, Abdo is worried about committing thousands of dollars to what she calls a ‘moving target’. “I don’t want to pay anymore lawyers to ask the same questions over and over. I can’t afford it.”

Councillor Ernie Margetson asked Abdo about the storage containers on site. She noted they are used to store patio equipment in the winter. “The residential property is used for staff housing. I do have storage containers and by-law has indicated that as long as there is no preparation and not immediately used for sustaining the operation, storage is permissible. That is what they are used for,” she said.

Many employees and neighbours gathered at the Lakeside to provide words of support and encouragement for Renda and the Lakeside. Most of the comments were that Abdo conducts her business professionally and the noise isn’t an issue.

Ruth Promislow owns the property at 347 Main Street, which sits beside the motel. She says she spent a substantial amount of time at the property this past summer and fall, and noise was not an issue. “We are best positioned to comment on noise, and I can tell you I will have to stop a conversation in my back yard if I wanted to hear the music. I’ve read the complaints and I am baffled,” said Promislow.

County Planner James Griffin told Council that Section 41 of the Planning Act states that Site Plan Control can be triggered by development or the increased usability of the site. “The usability of this site has increased significantly since the ownership change. It was a motel and now it has a number of different uses in which Site Plan Control could help control the development for not only the owner but the neighbours,” said Griffin.

Chief By-law Office Andy Harrison told Council he had personally been on-site and there have been no charges or violations. “I was on-site myself a couple of times with by-law, dealing with the lighting issues and checking into the use of the home as part of the business, to confirm It was being used as a residence by staff. Anything we have asked for, she has obliged staff and there has been no charges of violations,” said Harrison.

Councillor Phil Prinzen asked why it took four years to come to the conclusion a Site Plan was needed

Manager of Planning Michael Michaud told Council that there has been a constant addition of features at the motel that can trigger Site Plan Control. “We had a number of conversations with Renda, and we and our lawyers had a chance to talk about the need for site plan approval. It has been an addition of this and an addition of that. When you add additional uses to the property— the restaurant, the pool, the mobile restaurant, the glamping tents—you end up with this creep and then that’s what’s required under section 41 of the planning act,” said Michaud. “Without having full knowledge of what is being proposed you get this incremental creep of the commercial uses, then you get into a position where we are today where we don’t know exactly what is going on on the property. Once we found out what is happening then we realize site plan approval is required,” added Michaud, who also explained that Site Plan Control doesn’t just provide safety for the neighbours, it also provides safety for the business owner because once you have site plan approval, it indicates the conditions under which you are able to work and utilize the property.

Councillor John Hirsch was in support of the Site Plan Control. “We have heard very different views of the same situation from different people. There is little question that the Lakeside has become a very popular and successful business. It’s a commercial venture in the midst of a residential neighbourhood. There are some vocal residents who feel they are feeling they are suffering the consequences of a dramatically expanded commercial enterprise infringing on their purely residential life,” said Hirsch, who then asked what the proper approach would be for the two small decks that have morphed into one large patio.

Andy Harrison explained that the permit was issued by Quinte Conservation so it would be its responsibility to check in. “If the deck is not attached to a building and is not over two feet above grade, then we have treated them like landscaping and have not required a building permit. For any deviation from the conservation authority permit, that would be something they would have the ability to regulate,” said Harrison.

Councillor Ernie Margetson thought a Site Plan was the proper approach. “It’s best for the business and if they are operating within an agreement they execute with the County and it’s registered on title. This business owner has said they want to do the right thing and the right thing is a site plan agreement. It protects future neighbours and I am hoping this can be resolved for everyone,” said Margetson.

After hearing the support from some neighbours, and that they had been delivered plans from Abdo four years ago, Councillor Brad Nieman put forward a motion to leave things be and not enter a Site Plan Control Agreement. “I can only assume four years ago she took the same package to Planning. Now all of a sudden we get a couple complaints and it triggers the site plan agreement. We heard from Andy Harrison and there have been no complaints. Any issues they have taken care of them. For four years they have had no issues. Now we are asking them to get through a site plan with a whole bunch of studies. We should have asked for it at the start. That might have changed the way these owners grew their business. We can’t change the rules halfway through the game,” said Nieman.

Councillor Phil Prinzen seconded the motion. “Mr. Michaud says we had no idea what was going on. Mr Harrison says we were there multiple times. I think we have a communication issue amongst our departments. One can’t say we didn’t know and the other say we have been multiple times. That bothers me. I think we have bigger issues and we better start dealing with them before we start dealing with stuff like this,” said Prinzen.

Councillor MacNaughton said that this is a normal process that should not be seen as harmful, but beneficial. “This is typical. We do this all the time. When a use on the property alters, there is usually a site plan agreement for a commercial property. It is a requirement. This is not personal or punitive. This is one of those things when you look to alter your business, or look to evolve as a business, you frequently have to go through processes to do that. Particularly when it is a business with uses that could be impacting the land, the neighbours and the roadways,” she said.

Councillor Jamie Forrester, who had been listening to the discussion, wondered how it came to this point. He asked what the tipping point was to trigger a Site Plan Control if the Lakeside was operating within its current zoning and had no violations. He asked Harrison whether the operations the Lakeside was carrying out were permitted.

“We got an interpretation through our planners, and I believe there was also a legal interpretation that a restaurant was permitted under Highway Commercial Zoning. A bar was permitted and some of the other accessory uses were permitted. So at the time their uses were permitted,” said Harrison.

Michaud shared that according to the County’s bylaw and the Provincial Planning Act, the Site Plan Control would now be mandatory. “Council has the opportunity to make whatever decision it prefers to make. If it is contrary to the Planning Act then I guess there is the option for somebody to lawyer up if they feel they have been wronged by Council’s decision,” he said.

Nieman’s motion failed, and Council asked staff to continue work on a Site Plan Control Agreement with The Lakeside Motel in accordance with the Site Plan Control by-law and Planning Act.