September 7th council meeting includes a public meeting for an application for a business on Hwy 9 between concession 10 and 11. I believe this is an application motivated by a desire to be in compliance to the zoning bylaw as there has been business activity, already, at the site which is not permitted. It’s difficult to to assess this application with an open mind when the property owner showed no respect for our policies until they were caught because citizens made complaints. As reviewed there are several important issues which need to be addressed. The report suggests that the site is classified as prime agriculture; if this is correct the question is whether the proposed business is permitted. This is the statutory public meeting; no decision are made; it is the opportunity for the public to ask questions and/or make comments. Public can register with clerks@ king.ca to make a deputation and/or they can send their questions and comments in via email. Requests for deputations and emails for council review should be sent in by Tuesay noon hour.
The application is for a zoning amendment. As our new rural zoning bylaw is not yet approved the application will be assessed against the zoning bylaw 74-53 as amended. I will be interested to hear how it is determined if the proposed zoning of RU2 is appropriate.
Finally, I don’t understand why there is not an application for an official plan amendment as I don’t see how the application complies with either the current in force OP or the new one “Our King.” The current OP designates a portion of the property as rural where the predominant use shall be for agriculture or conservation purposes. From the description provided in the report I don’t see how this application fits.
Rules are rules for a reason, I would hope. Is there a good reason for this property to remain agriculture? I, too, don’t like to “reward” people who have already flouted the rules, but I also think that King needs and has been begging for more tax revenue from businesses. My bottom line: at the very least the business should be fined, if not outright closed (even tho’ I do like and need their products).
1—Looks like this is the first round. A zoning amendment or somethings seems to be needed first.
Then comes the agriculture bit.
2—“The property owner showed no respect for our policies until they were caught because citizens made complaints.” Why do the citizens catch the policy error. Do these submissions not get vetted by staff with a subsequent report to council?
3—Looks like we (public) will have to stand with you in good numbers, for a ‘full court press’.
Cheers
Hans