Article content

The planning committee went against a staff recommendation and approved an application from a mining-related company to locate along the Highway 144 corridor.

Article content

Members of the planning committee voted this week in favor of an application for a vacant parcel of land located at 0 Municipal Road 35, owned by BMG Engineering Ltd.

BMG Engineering is a Sudbury-based engineering company providing engineering design services to mining clients.

The company was seeking to move from rural to rural special so that it could establish “a mining-related light industrial use in the form of an engineering and manufacturing shop, ancillary office and area storage and exterior accessory repair.

The land is partially served by municipal water services.

To the east, south and west are farms, agricultural fields, a carpentry shop and dwellings. To the north is the CP railway line.

The parcel itself is located “on the north side of RM 35, approximately 875 m east of the Chelmsford Settlement Area boundary. The lands are approximately 25.5 ha in size with approximately 337 m of frontage on RM 35. …The lands are located on a GOVA transit route with stops on both sides of RM 35 approximately 375 m to the west.

Article content

Article content

Staff recommended the planning committee reject the application, finding it did not fit with the city’s overall strategic plan.

“The proposed development to allow general industrial use within the rural land use designation would negatively impact the strategic goals and objectives associated with climate change and the adoption of CEEP that are identified in the Strategic Framework of the city,” the report said.

“The development would further contribute to development beyond the boundaries of settlement areas and create undue pressure to upgrade infrastructure, undermining the city’s ability to implement cost-effective service delivery with the aim of reducing costs net. »

Staff said the proposal was neither consistent with the provincial policy statement nor the city’s official plan. They said the application was not suitable for the proposed location because “the development is not resource-based and should be directed towards other areas”.

Article content

Staff also noted that reliance on partial water service “is not appropriate for new rural development of this magnitude” and that “the proposal does not maintain an orderly pattern of development within the rural designation.”

Staff also argued that there is no need for more industrial land, “and it is not appropriate in this rural area.”

The councilors, however, had a different opinion. Ward 4 County. Pauline Fortin specifies that there are several other industrial companies in the sector of the plot.

“It’s not irrelevant,” she commented. “There are other types of industries out there.”

Fortin also asked Bryan Guse, president of BMG, about the challenge of obtaining a suitable parcel of land.

“I have been working to find suitable land for several years,” he said.

Article content

He told the planning committee he had negotiated for years to obtain land, but without success.

The company has an engineering office in Chelmsford and a manufacturing plant in Levack, but “both are no longer suitable for us,” he noted.

Guse said the company is looking for space in Chelmsford because there are no other options along the Highway 144 corridor. He said all of its employees live near the existing facility. “So we think it makes more sense for us to be centrally located in Chelmsford, primarily to access the Sudbury mining sites. »

Guse said the location along the Highway 144 corridor allows for “easy ingress and egress access with larger vehicles without impacting travel within the community.”

Article content

Although the city received a letter of concern, no one showed up at City Hall Monday to address the planning committee.

“My wife and I purchased our property in October 2022 with specific consideration of its zoning and that of adjacent properties. We have horses, ducks, geese, dogs and cats,” wrote Mathieu Laforge, a resident of MR 35. “Our intention in purchasing this property was to continue to use it for agricultural purposes.

“The proposed change of use poses a distinct threat to the health and safety of our animals and land, and will hinder our ability to execute our plans.” »

Laforge said its water comes from a well, which could be affected by mining development. He also pointed out that he had safety concerns due to the increase in heavy traffic.

“Our property is very close to a municipal bus stop, which has very poor lighting and visibility. An increase in the number of large vehicles poses a safety risk to those using public transportation,” he wrote.

“Many families and children (including mine) live on our route; we often see young children riding bicycles. The daily entry and exit of heavy equipment would also put them at risk.

The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

[email protected]

X: @marykkeown

Facebook: @mkkeown

Article content