Heavy debate over heavy equipment at CBS council

By Craig Westcott

An application Tuesday from a Foxtrap construction company to repair heavy equipment from other companies at its private garage off the Access Road sparked the longest debate at CBS council in some time.

The issue turned tangly because the longstanding business is surrounded by a residential zone.

In the end, council, in a 4-3 vote, decided to send the application back to the planning committee to see if it can find a way to accommodate the company’s request by setting conditions on it. But that didn’t happen without a protracted debate.

It began with planning committee chairman and Ward 3 councillor Gerard Tilley making a motion on behalf of his committee to reject the application while noting he disagreed with the recommendation and intended to vote against it.

Deputy Mayor Andrea Gosse and Ward 4 councillor Melissa Hardy, meanwhile, declared conflicts of interest; Gosse because she has close business relations with the applicant company, Eric Taylor Limited, and Hardy because she has family members who work for the company.

As part of his motion, Tilley cited two Town regulations against Taylor’s application to “alter or expand the existing use of a building at 40A Foxtrap Access Road from a private garage to a commercial garage and inspection station… as the proposal is contrary to the private aspect of the maintenance garage and may negatively impact the surrounding residential property owners.”

The motion was seconded by fellow planning committee member, Ward 1 councillor Shelley Moores, who, unlike Tilley, supported the recommendation.
“I’ll be voting against this proposal this evening,” Tilley said. “The property has been an industrial business in Conception Bay South for as long as I can remember – I’d say 50 years. The proposal was for the proponent to allow for some inspections of heavy equipment on their property in an existing garage, and I believe that’s something we could accommodate.”

Fellow committee member, and councillor-at-large, Rex Hillier, pointed out the property was rezoned several years ago to recognize its commercial and industrial status after the company applied to increase the size of its garage as a non-conforming use in a residential zone.

“We couldn’t do it under the non-conforming use policy and therefore it was recommended that it be rezoned,” Hillier said. “And as part of the rezoning, one of the conditions was that it remain as a private garage and not carry out commercial activity there by bringing customers onto the site. Basically, that’s the reason why we’ve come forward with this motion tonight to refuse that, because it goes against that private aspect of the maintenance garage.”

That brought councillor-at-large Paul Connors into the debate who, like Tilley, said he was voting against the committee’s recommendation to refuse the application.

“As mentioned by councillor Tilley, this site has been a commercial industrial site probably for as long as the town has been incorporated, or longer,” said Connors, who argued the property was improperly zoned when the Town’s first bylaws came into place. “The last council, I think it was, rectified that by rezoning it and allowing it to be changed to an industrial commercial site, which was the right thing to do. But for some reason there was a private (aspect) there, but it is an industrial commercial site. The addition of one or two vehicles coming into the lot on a weekly basis is not, in my opinion, going to have a negative impact on the surrounding area, which has been operating with heavy equipment coming in and out for a long time. I feel we could easily accommodate this… It’s not opening this to (work on) personal vehicles, it is opening it to a small number of commercial vehicles. So, it’s not like you can bring your car in there to get repaired, or anything. It’s to do inspections on commercial vehicles, heavy equipment.”

Moores defended the committee’s recommendation, pointing out that when the property was rezoned, it was with the stipulation that the garage remain private. That arrangement, she argued, respected the neighbours, while allowing the company to expand its operations.

“I feel if we go against that now, we’re not considering the neighbours and the surrounding area,” Moores said. “And we won’t be able to control it, because we can’t guarantee that there will only one or two (more) vehicles in there.”

Councillor-at-large Christine Butler said she too supported the committee’s recommendation, because of the arrangement made several years ago. That arrangement, she pointed out, allowed Taylor’s to expand the garage to fix its own machinery and heavy equipment while leaving the company’s residential neighbours “undisturbed as much as possible.”

Prompted for his opinion by Mayor Darrin Bent, Councillor-at-large Joshua Barrett said he too was voting for the recommendation “because of the way that our development regulations are articulated and that it specifically says this is for private use.”

Barrett said if the motion was to amend the regulations, that might be another matter.

That led Bent to try striking a middle ground. He began by asking planning director Corrie Davis whether the Town received any public feedback on Taylor’s application.

“No, this didn’t require any manner of public notification or consultation at this time,” Davis said.

Bent said since the matter was discussed privately by council at its committee of the whole meeting, he has felt a nagging concern about the people in the area and how they might be affected. “I think there’s been an indication that it’s one or two vehicles a week, but we have no way of limiting that in any way, do we, or can we put a stipulation on it, that if it becomes something that is unbearable for the neighbours that we can revoke that?

Davis said council does have “broad authority” to revoke conditions to any approvals.

“If, for example, in this case there was a condition to approve subject to a maximum number of external vehicles or pieces of equipment coming to the site, and if council felt that ultimately that had been contravened, you’d have the ability to revoke any such approval,” Davis said.

“That would require deferring this motion to come back to council (later), is that right?” Bent asked.

“If you wanted to articulate a condition of that variety, it certainly would,” Davis replied.

“Well, to be honest with you, that’s really kind of where I am,” said the mayor. “I agree with councillor Tilley and councillor Connors that this has been a longstanding business in this area doing pretty much the very same work. If it were one or two vehicles, I’m not sure anybody would ever notice it. If it becomes much more than that and grows into a bigger commercial operation, then it becomes something else.”

Bent said he would vote against the application as it stood, but if it was to come back before council with conditions attached, he’d look at it again. He then called the vote on Tilley’s motion to reject the application. But before he could take the count, Connors intervened with a question, asking for a clarification of the process for reconsidering the application should it be rejected on this particular vote.

Bent allowed it would have to go back to the planning committee to consider any conditions it might want to attach before presenting it again to council. “I don’t think it would need to go back to square one,” said the mayor.

Planning director Davis added that if the application was rejected, as recommended, and council later wanted to approve it with conditions, it would have to rescind the rejection at a future meeting.

Bent then asked staff if he could call a vote on his motion to send the application back to committee, instead of holding the vote on the original motion. He was given the go-ahead.

Connors seconded the mayor’s motion.

However, the recording of the vote was interrupted again, this time by a question from councillor Butler. She wanted to know how the Town would control the number of vehicles using the garage, if it eventually approves the application with a condition to limit the number. “How does that all work?” she said. “I wouldn’t be against (it) if it was only two or three vehicles a week doing this, but I certainly would be against it if it’s like 10, or 11 or 12 going up and down the road, because this is heavy equipment we’re talking about going to the residential area.”

That led to another round of arguments from both sides. After several more minutes of debate, Mayor Bent called the vote on the motion to defer the decision and send the application back to committee. The motion carried with Bent, Tilley, Connors and Butler in favour, and councillors Barrett, Moores and Hillier against.
The Shoreline requested an interview with a spokesperson for Eric Taylor Limited, but nobody complied.

Meanwhile, in an unrelated development, council did agree Tuesday to award Eric Taylor Limited a $2.98 million contract to upgrade a section of the town’s main water transmission line. The motion to award the contract was made by councillor Hillier. It passed unanimously, with councillor Hardy and Deputy Mayor Gosse again declaring conflicts of interest.

“This water main expenditure is the replacement for the major break we had earlier this year in that whole area (inside Anchorage Road) that needed to be replaced,” Mayor Bent noted. “It’s now going to finally be replaced and there’s the money to do it.”