Report to come back to town council on St. Arnaud St. building usage

The building was subject of a lengthy debate at the Feb. 23 meeting of town council with council members wanting to know further details about the site and its apparent change from a warehouse to a private arena.

A report will be coming back to town council regarding the proposed use of a building on St. Arnaud St. with a letter also to go out to residents within 120 metres of the site.

The building was subject of a lengthy debate at the Feb. 23 meeting of town council with council members wanting to know further details about the site and its proposed usage. Claimed uses shared by council and administration were a warehouse or private arena.

Several motions or attempts at motions were made, including referring the matter back to the accessibility advisory committee and committee of adjustment, with council settling on the report and the letter due to timing issues of when committees met and legal requirements to issue permits.

Councillor Diane Pouget made the initial motion, which was later modified and subsequently withdrawn, that called for all pertinent information to go before the two committees, with the advice to come back March 9. She also originally called for a report from the town’s planner and chief building official and did not want to see permits issued until all conditions were met.

Pouget outlined a timeline regarding the building, including nearby residents receiving a letter regarding a warehouse for the site in April 2025. No residents objected to that, she said. According to Pouget, residents starting seeing components of an arena going into the site. She expressed concerns over noise, traffic and parking.

Pouget said the accessibility committee and committee of adjustment looked at a proposal for a warehouse and no other plans went to the committees. She said the accessibility should be given a site plan for a new arena, and that the committee would ensure AODA requirements are met.

“I just want to make sure our residents are kept safe and no one could get hurt as a result of this proposed arena,” said Pouget.

Councillor Peter Courtney said it has been a file that has been going on for “a long time with a lot of controversy and a lot of confusion.” He wanted to know what the zoning was for the property with manager of planning services Christopher Aspila said it was light industrial.

Courtney was concerned over possible environmental impact. He also believed a zoning bylaw amendment meeting could be “of use.” He said he didn’t want to “rubber stamp this on a technicality” and wanted to do his due diligence on the matter.

“We’re stepping beyond what council can do,” said Mayor Michael Prue. “In 2022, the Province of Ontario has taken away our rights to deal with this information. This is all site plan approval of which council has no say.”

Prue indicated the town still has say over zoning matters. He said CAO Valerie Critchley shared a document on the matter with members of council. Critchley added under the Building Code, once a file has been completed, the town has 20 days to file a building permit.

“That building permit has to be issued on or before March 9,” she said. “There is no ability to direct the chief building official not to issue that permit. And not issuing that permit could attract liability.”

Regarding zoning, Critchley said it would have been the professional planning opinion that the use fit the zoning.

“Because of that, there is no further application triggered to the committee of adjustment. There is no requirement to recirculate to anybody,” the CAO stated. “There was no requirement to circulate the amended site plan to the accessibility committee.”

Critchley said she understood council members’ frustration, but it was a situation where a developer said they planned one use, changed their mind and because the use was allowable under the zoning bylaw, no further requirements were triggered under the Planning Act.

“It is not uncommon that we have developers who will start with one use and change to another and because there’s no zoning bylaw amendment required, there are no notifications that are triggered,” said Critchley.

Critchley said administration can send correspondence council directs “but at this point it’s for notification only because there is no legal authority to do anything further.”

Councillor Don McArthur said the town has committees to make recommendations “based on the most up-to-date facts possible and that doesn’t appear to have happened in this case for whatever reason.” McArthur asked why the accessibility committee, of which he is a member, couldn’t look at it again. He noted the Feb. 26 meeting but clerk Kevin Fox said the committee reviewed the site plan in December 2024.

“It is not uncommon we receive site plans where the use has not been identified for the space,” said Fox. “The site plan review that takes place, except for a few noted exceptions in legislation, takes place on the exterior components of the site. In this case, regardless of use of the facility, the exterior components are unchanged from requirements of law and from an accessible standpoint.”

Fox added “this happens all the time” with existing facilities where a use changes as long as the zoning is appropriate. Site plans aren’t recirculated, he said, unless a change to those has happened. Pouget said the inside of the building would be “completely different” for an arena versus a warehouse. Fox told council the use has changed from a warehouse, when the committee first viewed the plan, to a private commercial arena but added the regulations don’t comply the same as a public arena. Site plan requirements for the committee are mainly for the exterior elements and interior elements don’t require recirculation of the site plan.

Pouget said complaints continued from residents and were told it was a warehouse. She reiterated several concerns and called for “a full report” on the matter.

Courtney believed the matter should go back before the accessibility committee and wanted more information on why a zoning bylaw amendment wasn’t required. He also expressed concerns throughout the course of the roughly one hour discussion..

Prue emphasized “we are under a time constraint” from the province to approve applications within a 20-day time frame “whether we like it or not.” Critchley added the zoning allows for a commercial recreational use, which would allow an arena on site.

“Zoning Bylaw 1999-52 in the light industrial zone allows for a commercial recreational establishment,” added Aspila. “There’s no formal definition of an arena. My professional planning opinion is I would treat this no differently than other examples of uses in the zoning bylaw that exist within the commercial recreational establishment in the Town of Amherstburg.”

Courtney added an arena is “apples and oranges” as compared to other recreational uses.

Councillor Linden Crain said if there was anything an engineer didn’t disclose while looking at such a building as an arena, there could be consequences.

Deputy chief building official Rob Unis indicated engineers are qualified and put their licenses and liability on the line when making inspections.

Crain said he didn’t support Pouget’s original motion, citing concerns over over liability if a permit was not issued on time. He also cited provincial legislation and questioned whether the town would be “overstepping” its authority.

Regarding the alleged use of the property, Crain said “we can’t prove what their intention was from the get-go and that could create liability.”

“If the town felt a zoning bylaw amendment had to come before council, it would have,” he added.

Crain added he believed it should come back to the accessibiity committee.

Deputy Mayor Chris Gibb said he shared Pouget and Courtney’s concerns, stating “it really does not sit well with me.”

“It really is upsetting we can’t delve deeper into this,” said Gibb. “I have a real issue the way the province is more developer-friendly than it has ever been.”

Gibb agreed council needs a full report and the neighbours have to be notified about what is going on but had concerns with other portions of the initial motion.

“We can’t overrule provincial law. We have to issue that permit by the 9th (of March),” said Gibb.

Gibb added the public needs as much information as possible to see how the situation evolved, asking for all pertinent information released.

Pouget agreed to drop the portion of the motion where permits could not be issued. Prue said it was “a procedural nightmare,” noting the town had a legal requirement to issue the permit by March 9 but also an obligation to let the community know what is happening.

The mayor asked if it could have been added to the accessibility committee’s Feb. 26 agenda and suggested he could have called a March 2 special meeting.

Fox said he didn’t believe any direction could be added regarding site plans due to provincial legislation, with McArthur stating he didn’t see why it couldn’t go to the accessibility committee, saying “I don’t see the harm in letting people know what happened here.”

The clerk responded by stating the committee has a function with regards to site plans, but council doesn’t have authority to refer a matter and have it considered by the committee.

No special meeting ended up being called for March 2. Fox added it couldn’t go before the accessibility committee Feb. 26 due to notification requirements and the agenda already being issued.

Critchley added any comments the accessibility committee would make are totally non-binding with the town having no authority to insist the developer incorporate those plans. She said the plans meet Building Code requirements for accessibility.

The initial motion was withdrawn, with the new motion introduced. The successful motion calls for a report and a letter to the neighbours within 120 metres.

Report to come back to town council on St. Arnaud St. building usage

By Ron Giofu