Minto considers zoning change for proposed repair shop

MINTO – Town council here is considering whether to allow an automobile and small farm equipment repair shop to operate from an existing building on Ayton Road, despite concerns from planning staff that the use does not conform with agricultural zoning and applicable planning policies.

The issue came to council during a Sept. 22 public meeting regarding a zoning amendment application from Darcy and Renita Martin for their property at 9511 Ayton Rd. 

The 2.48-acre (one hectare) property contains an existing dwelling and accessory buildings, including a roughly 2,000-square-foot shop. 

The proposed amendment would permit a limited home-industry service and repair business in the shop, with no outdoor storage or sale of vehicles or equipment.

It would involve safety inspections and certifications, tire changes, general equipment repair and welding, and occasional repairs and maintenance of small agricultural machinery. 

Planning concerns

Wellington County planner Jamie Barnes told council the primary use proposed for the property – automobile repair and services – is not an agriculture-related use, and is “therefore not permitted in the ag. zone as per the zoning bylaw.”

The  county designates the property as prime agricultural. 

A county planning report notes agricultural equipment repair may potentially qualify as an agriculture-related use, but automobile repair generally does not, citing provincial guidance. The report also notes the property does not meet the minimum 20-hectare size generally required for a farm operation to establish an on-farm diversified use under the county’s planning framework. 

The property is currently zoned agriculture exception (A-51) by the township. That zoning permits a home industry and bulk food retail store, but automobile service and repair is specifically not permitted as a home industry.

The town’s planning staff therefore said they could not support the application as submitted. 

Planning coordinator Sama Haghighi told council the town has received several similar inquiries in recent years, but none proceeded after applicants were advised that staff would not support the proposed uses.

“Although each rezoning application is considered on its own merits ... this application could be viewed as setting a perceived precedent for similar requests,” Haghighi said.

Applicant’s case

Rob Stovel, a planner representing the Martins, presented the applicants’ case to council.

Stovel said they are seeking a site-specific use that would allow Darcy to operate as a mechanic and repair and maintain automobiles and agricultural equipment from the existing shop.

He said it’s a small parcel with an unusual triangular shape created in part by a hydro line running through the property. 

“The site comprises no farmland. There are no agricultural livestock buildings on the site, and no infrastructure related to agriculture,” Stovel said.

He  then turned to provincial policies governing rural areas, particularly provisions dealing with rural character and economic diversification, arguing those policies are relevant to the proposed operation.

“[Martin] wants to maintain a resilient business that will service people within the municipality, and this is his way from a private business standpoint of trying to accomplish that goal,” Stovel said.

He added the characterization of the property is “more in line with what you would find in the secondary ag. area than it would be in the prime ag. area.” Behind the hydro line is a wetland/woodland system that effectively separates it from large areas of active agricultural use, he noted. 

“If the area was secondary ag, we wouldn’t have an issue on it,” Stovel said.

He added the county’s official plan contains a policy that has “inherent flexibility” and reads, “‘No official plan can hope to anticipate all the varied circumstances that may arise in a changing community. To ensure that the public interest and to prevent undue hardship, flexibility may be used to allow minor deviations from the text or map. 

“This flexibility is to be exercised keeping in mind the intent of the plan and sound community planning principles.’” 

Letters of support

Three letters from neighbouring residents express support for the application. 

Nelson Bowman wrote that he understood the proposal to involve a small-scale home-industry service and repair business for automobiles and small farm equipment and he did not anticipate unreasonable traffic, noise, outdoor storage or other adverse impacts from the proposed use.

Stuart Brubacher said he did not anticipate unreasonable traffic, noise, outdoor storage or other adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

Nathan and Sharon Bauman said they understood the Martins were seeking permission for a small repair business using the existing building and they believed the property would be suitable for a repair shop and supported the proposed zoning amendment.

The property is located within both the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority (SVCA) and Maitland Conservation watersheds. The SVCA confirmed that there are no natural hazard features or regulated areas on the property and that an SVCA permit is not required.

The conservation authority also indicated it had no concerns with the proposal and considered it consistent with the natural hazard policies of the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement.

Darcy Martin said Stovel covered the proposal well and emphasized that the business would make use of existing infrastructure.

“I’m not trying to build 20,000 square feet out in the middle of a cornfield here. We’re trying to use existing infrastructure and just make use of it,” Martin said.

“I did talk with all the adjoining neighbours, and either received letters of support, or basically they said they have no opposition to it.”

Council discussion

Council discussed the proposal and the distinction between automobile use and agricultural-related activity.

Councillor Ron Elliott said there could be a connection between vehicle repair and agricultural operations, pointing to the role trucks and other vehicles play in farming.

“My daughter has quite a farm group and she’s constantly on the road picking up parts, using the truck for different farming equipment, so I guess that it could be … a vehicle needed for the farm,” he said.

Elliott pointed to a need for additional vehicle repair services in the community.

“I know myself when I try to book my vehicle to get something done, I’ve got to wait in line, and I don’t think there’s any shop in our community that doesn’t have that,” he said.

“So … there’s probably a need for an extra one. I would support that.”

Councillor Paul Zimmerman said he reviewed the town and county reports, and the information provided by Stovel.

“As a councillor, my responsibility is to follow the information presented and decide whether there is a reasonable next step,” Zimmerman said.

He said information about how limited the proposed operation would be led him to support moving the application forward for further consideration.

“I believe it is reasonable to ask staff to prepare a carefully restricted site-specific bylaw that would allow council to see the exact conditions and receive further advice on the outstanding policy questions before making a final decision,” he said.

Zimmerman moved to proceed with Option B, which would direct staff to prepare a site-specific zoning bylaw.

Deputy Mayor Jean Anderson said: “I agree with what councillor Zimmerman says, but I am conscious of the concerns raised by our staff that it can be seen as a precedent, and ... that could be concerning.”

Anderson said her final decision would depend on what restrictions could be included in the agreement. 

She also acknowledged the support from neighbours while raising the possibility that demand could cause the business to grow.

Mayor Dave Turton indicated support for moving the application forward, while emphasizing the limited nature of the proposed operation.

“You’re not looking at big expansion. You’re not looking at having a half a dozen or a dozen cars sitting out beside your building. You’re going to be orderly,” Turton said.

He also commended Martin for seeking approval before proceeding with the business.

“I admire your transparency here. I mean, sometimes you go ahead and do stuff and get permission later. In this particular case, you’re trying to do it the appropriate way and get permission,” Turton said.

No final zoning decision was made at the public meeting.

Staff was to consider the comments at the public meeting before preparing a final report and drafting a zoning bylaw that was to be brought to council on  Oct. 6 (results not known by press time).