Selwyn Council has officially approved a zoning by-law amendment to allow for a chiropractor business at a home occupation within the township which has become quite controversial over the last several weeks.
The issue first arose during a public meeting held at the February 24 council meeting. During the public meeting the zoning by-law amendment was presented to council. However, the recommendation from staff was that council defer any decision on the amendment to a future date, allowing for consideration of public comments
According to a report presented to council on Feb 24 from Per Lundberg, planner, the Township of Selwyn has received a complete Zoning By-law Amendment application to amend the Lakeshore Residential (LR) Zone applicable to the subject lands at 2731 Tedford Drive. The applicant proposes to utilize an existing accessory structure on the lot for a home occupation to provide chiropractic services. The facility will include chiropractic tables and a gym for treatment purposes intended to be used by one practitioner being the owner and resident of the property. A site-specific zoning by-law amendment is needed to permit the proposed use as the (LR) zone does not permit this type of home occupation and to permit a home occupation in an accessory structure. This facility has an area of 85.35 m2 (918.0 ft2).
Public comments that were heard during the meeting consisted of:
• Traffic increase and public safety for pedestrians
• Area not compatible with businesses
• Road maintenance including noise and dust & emergency access
• Increased boat traffic – safety and aquatic invasive species
• Parking space dimensions
• Water quality and quantityAt the public meeting Lundberg responded to the public’s concerns in order stating
• Home occupations are intended to be small in scale operated by homeowners without generating significant increased traffic. Motorists and pedestrians are required to follow the rules of the road keeping in mind that Tedford Drive is a narrow road without a sidewalk. The proponent has submitted details indicating that the chiropractic office will be operated 2 to 3 days per week for 3 hours.
• Currently the laws allow for a home occupation in the accessory structure.
• Individual property owners and the road association will need to coordinate on road maintenance.
• Parks Canada – Trent-Severn Waterway and Transport Canada are the authorities of jurisdiction regarding docks and navigation. Parks Canada submitted comments of no concern.
• The five required parking spaces for the home occupation, one being an accessible parking space, meet the dimensions required as shown on the site plan prepared by D.M. Wills.
• For smaller scale development, such as proposed, the Township implements a 30-metre shoreline setback rule in accordance with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.
At this point, council received the comments for information.
The issue then came back to council on March 24 with a recommendation from staff to approve the zoning by-law amendment.
During the March 24 council meeting, there was a delegation from Tedford Drive residents opposing the application with the main concern that this would be a precedent setting decision allowing for different sorts of businesses to pop up along Tedford Drive if this was approved.
Lundberg explained that each by-law amendment is considered on an individual basis and on their own merits. The township is not bound by any previous decision.
During question period, a submitted question was heard about the application requesting clarification on the difference between a Class A business and a Class B business.
The application is to allow for a Class B business to operate in an auxiliary structure of a home occupation on Tedford Drive.
Staff explained that a Class A business is strictly for a home occupation, small business focused around paperwork.
A Class B business would be a larger home occupation that would be more client based. Staff said that everyone is entitled to operate a Class A business but anyone wishing to have a Class B businesses would need special zoning in rural residential areas.
Council then had the opportunity to speak to the application and recommendation to approve it.
Deputy Mayor Ron Black stated that traffic increase is certainly a concern, however it is a private road, so the township cannot do much to help mitigate that. He said that if council does not support this application, it would go to the Land Tribunal where council would have to defend their position against the application with proof there is reason to deny it. However, Black went on to say, as the application sits now it does check all the boxes for council’s support.
Coun. Brian Henry said he felt that the information provided through reports by D.M Wills was incorrect and therefore he could not make a decision at that time. He said that neighbours had measured the set backs of the auxiliary structure which did not match up to the report set back numbers.
Coun. John Boyko said that the application, while it brings discomfort, is not illegal or has anything against it to deny the application. However, he said that with what Henry had said, he felt council needed time to revisit the application with more information.
Henry moved a motion to defer the decision ion the application until more detailed information was provided including correspondence on the application dating back to 2022 when it was approved.
Council was looking for more details on high restrictions, set back allowance, accurate measurements of square footage, and what mapping systems were used.
Lundberg clarified that in regards to the set back, there was verification of the as-built structure with a surveyor on site by the provincial authority on the matter.
Henry said that he would like to see the paper trail regardless.
Black said he agreed the process has not been transparent.
Henry moved the motion to defer the decision which was seconded by Black.
The matter was brought back a third time on April 14.
At this meeting, Amanda Timmermans, intermediate land use planner for DM Wills gave a delegation to council outlining the application and submitted a 30 page report containing their client correspondence.
Timmermans told council, “The information that we submitted as part of the applications is based on standard and accepted planning practice. All setbacks and spatial data relied on in our analysis was confirmed by an Ontario land surveyor, which is the only qualified authority to establish property boundaries and as built conditions.”
She said that DM Wills stands behind the accuracy of the materials submitted with our applications.
Timmermans went on to say, “Our planning work included a site visit, taking a look at the aerial imagery, GIS mapping, as well as the geo-reference survey data provided by JBF surveyors. These are standard tools used across the industry, including for large-scale developments and informal measurements or observations from third parties like we’ve seen are not a substitute for certified survey information. With respect to the road, we acknowledged and corrected the error in our initial reporting regarding the maintenance responsibility of Tedford Drive, this information that we provided in our report was based on the Township pre-consultation, the County GIS mapping, and all of our planning tools that we would typically use both externally and internally to assess these applications. Once the issue was raised, we did confirm directly with staff that approximately 75 to 100 m prior to the subject property is in fact privately maintained, while the road allowance itself does remain municipally owned. Since the public meeting Wills has also confirmed with the fire chief that the road meets the current emergency access requirements and the fire department raised no other further concerns.”
After her delegations Lundberg presented his report and once again recommended approval of this application.
Within his report, Lundberg included a completed chronology of the application which is available to view under the agenda package on the township’s website.
Council then had a chance to speak about the application before voting.
Black stated that he was really not happy with the transparency of this application from the start. He suggested that the township may need to look at creating a business licensing process to avoid these issues in the future.
However, he also said that this specific application did meet all the requirements so he reluctantly would have to support it. He said that should council deny the application it would result in hefty legal fees for the township.
Boyko moved the recommendation echoing Blacks comments that there was simply no legal reason to justify saying no at this time.
Black seconded the motion.
Mayor Senis called the vote with Black, Boyko and Senis in favour and Henry and Coun. Mary Coulas opposed.
The recommendation to approve the zoning by-law amendment was approved.
