ALCOHOL AND GAMING COMMISSION OF ONTARIO
IN THE MATTER OF The: Liquor Licence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19, as amended
B E T W E E N:
Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario
Registrar
-and-
Law Cranberry Resort Ltd. operating as
Law Cranberry Resort (Bear Estate)
Applicant
-and-
Town of Collingwood
Objector
-and-
Carol Cooper
Objector
-and-
Wayne Pitman
Objector
AMENDED DECISION
Panel: Beryl Ford, Board Member
Joan Lougheed, Board Member
Decision Date: , 2010
Hearing Location: Collingwood, Ontario
Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario
90 Sheppard Avenue East, Suite 300
Toronto, Ontario M2N 0A4
Phone: (416) 326-0366 Fax: (416) 326-5566
Toll Free In Ontario: 1-800-522-2876
Website: www.agco.on.ca
Appearances
Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission ) Rena Khan, Representative
Law Cranberry Resort Ltd., Applicant ) Lawrence Law, Representative
Town of Collingwood ) Mark Bryan, Representative
Carol Cooper ) Objector, On her own behalf and on
) behalf of the resident objectors
Wayne Pitman ) Objector, On his own behalf and on
) behalf of the resident objectors
Exhibits
Exhibit #1: Letters of Objection
Exhibit #2: Photos and Karl Payne letter
Exhibit #3: Material from Mr. Russel
Exhibit #4: Letter, Police report, CD of wedding event on August 11, 2010
Exhibit #5: Map of Area
Exhibit #6: Documents from the Town of Collingwood
Exhibit #7: Various documents submitted by the Applicant
The Application
- The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (“AGCO”) issued Notice of Proposal number 17956 dated March 22, 2010 to review an application for additional licensed areas for liquor licence 813507 made by Law Cranberry Resort Ltd. (the “Applicant”) operating as LAW CRANBERRY RESORT, 300 Balsam Street, Collingwood, Ontario L9Y 3Y6, (the “establishment” or the “premises”), on the basis the AGCO has received one or more written objections to the Application. A hearing of the application was held on September 8, 2010 in the Town of Collingwood.
Decision
- The Board has carefully reviewed the evidence and the submissions of the parties. The Board DENIES the application for an additional licensed area.
Preliminary Matters
The Applicant waived its right and elected to proceed without counsel or other representative.
Ms Khan, Registrar’s counsel, stated that the Registrar is not taking a position.
The Registrar’s Counsel advised the Board that the AGCO has received a revised application reducing the patio occupancy from 600 to 220 persons, in total, for the areas indoors and outdoors. The change would be subject to a municipal review.
On consent of all parties, Mrs. Carol Cooper, Wayne Pitman and the Town of Collingwood, represented by Mark Bryan, a Community Planner with the Town, were all granted party status.
Objectors’ Evidence
Gordon H. Russell is a land use planner, retained by Mr. Pitman of Mariners Haven and the resident objectors. He was retained to review the application in the context of the Official Plan, zoning, registered site plan agreement on title, and to review the licensing application.
Mr. Russell stated that the Applicant had just told him that he was changing the application from a 600 person patio to 220 persons for total inside or outside the premises.
The witness asked that a number of conditions be considered if the Board was considering approving the application. The conditions to provide a detailed plan of the outdoor serving area; submission of a detailed plan of other controls to include:
on site manager at the location of the outdoor serving area, in addition to the banquet hall
additional on site security personnel
physical containment of the outdoor serving area, complete with fencing, and landscaping
set up a protocol for a contact person during all outside external events
hours of operation for outdoor serving area be restricted to the hours of 12 noon and 6 p.m., 7 days a week
Mr. Russell stated that an existing site plan agreement states that any modification to the outside of the building would have to be presented to the Town of Collingwood, to ensure that the residents, north and south of the site would not be disturbed by noise levels.
He indicated that Mr. Law has respected this agreement, and has drastically reduced the number of events. Any change would need further studies, including acoustics and require a public process in order to modify the agreement.
Mr. Russell concluded, asking that, if the licence is granted, that there be a one year pilot to ensure compliance with all the conditions.
On cross-examination, the witness stated he was not aware of any complaints being submitted. He confirmed that he was retained by Mr. Pitman of Mariners Haven and reviewed the issues with him.
Wayne Pitman stated that each of the communities in proximity to the Bear Estate have slightly different problems. In general the problems relate to noise levels which improved when the outside events in a tent ended and a sound-proof building was constructed.
Mr. Pitman stated that before the building, the noise was unbelievable and became worse with wind direction across the water. The noise would go on until 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. Police have been called several times. He lives 1/8^th^ km away and indicated that condo owners dreaded summer.
He indicated that there was a noticeable improvement in the situation with the building of the banquet hall, moving the events indoors and with the doors closed.
He expressed concern that this outdoor application would mean a repeat of the way it was, even with restricted hours. He felt that a security ratio of 1:75 persons is not adequate, stating that when people are outside at a wedding and have been drinking, a situation can get out of hand quickly.
He indicated that an application with some conditions may be acceptable.
On cross-examination he stated that there needed to be a way to resolve issues when people get out of hand, rather than calling police. He said that there needed to be an action plan with a contact person to go to.
In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Pitman confirmed that he was a condo owner, on the Board of Directors, reporting to residents at the Annual General Meeting of the Condominium.
Lee Bertouche, a resident of Mariners Haven, stated that the building of the New Bear Estate has been positive. She stated that before this, we would have to get up in the morning hours to close windows due to noise. Police and their property manager were called. She admitted that they did not call Mr. Law.
She stated that the noise ruined summers. Noise carried clearly over the water and conversations and music could easily be heard.
Ms Bertouche stated that to have 220 people congregating outside would destroy their quality of life and said that it would be impossible for security guards to check every glass throughout the evening, after the allowable 6:00 p.m. hour. She stated that Mr. Law was not able to control the premises now.
If there were controls within the law, and if there was complete assurance that there would be no liquor outside after 6:00 p.m., then she could live with this. She agreed that a one year trial was a good idea.
On cross-examination she stated that some of the information about problems may be hearsay and suggested that some of the other people present may be able to corroborate the issues.
Ed Moscoe lives at 10 Mariner and faces the New Bear Estate, a couple of hundred yards away, across the harbour.
He stated that before the new building, the situation was a disaster and they could not have a window open. He stated things have been better with the new building, until people walk outside the venue. He asked what it would be like with 200 people outside and entertainment.
He stated that even if a person left liquor inside, having 200 persons outside and partying outdoors would be impossible conditions to live with. Noise would still be an issue.
Understand that a condition would not prevent a person walking out and partying, while leaving liquor inside.
He declared that the issue is one of control over liquor, saying that the chances of someone drinking properly and never going outside, is impractical.
Police had been called previously but did not readily respond.
On cross-examination, he said that the walls of the building contain the noise, but if people are outside, the noise cannot be contained. Even without a licence there is a problem with noise; to add liquor will only make the situation worse.
Carole Cooper, agreeing with the previous comments, added that the police only give warnings. Police told her that there are different guests every week and therefore are not concerned about the noise disturbances.
She stated that the existing noise by-law is old, dating back to 1978.
In 2007, at a Town Council meeting, she was told that a new by-law would be coming out soon. A recent check with the town indicated that nothing has been done.
She noted, on one occasion, an empty liquor bottle and three beer containers outside on the property stating this is evidence that people are wandering outside the building with alcohol.
Mrs. Cooper stated she was confused about the hours on the application and the venues that could occur.
There are 26 townhouses in her complex. She said they fought hard before the new building was constructed and they all thought the fight was over, but now it seems like the whole thing is opened up again.
She expressed concern that once licensed, it is difficult to take it away. There can be fines and suspensions, but actual removal is difficult. Anything that creates more noise is something that we do not want to put up with again.
On cross-examination she admitted that she could not say for certain that the beer cans came from the Bear Estate. She stated that it was easy to assume that the noise problems would get worse with an outdoor liquor licence.
She stated that the present situation is good; it has been a difference like night and day from the previous outdoor venue
John Dunsford stated that he is the second closest resident to Bear Estate and the issues have been significant. There have been times, at 2:00 a.m., with windows closed, they are still subjected to the thumping and banging noise that prevents sleep.
For over two years, there have been thirty people coming together in frustration. Repeated requests for action resulted in no response from the Applicant. There was no response from police. By-law officers told him they could do nothing.
Mr. Dunsford stated he lives 100 to 150 feet from the Estate and could not enjoy a reasonable conversation with his own guests when Bear Estate patrons are outdoors. He expressed concern with this new application. Past remedies did not work and the past history must be considered with review of the new application.
He stated that this licence allows potentially 200 people to party 200 feet from his deck.
Although a cocktail or two outside sounds nice, there could be further disruption from microphones, and speeches being amplified across the water.
He indicated that he knows there are liquor inspectors, but stated they are not around all the time and do not come ‘at the drop of a hat’. He wanted to know who to call for help, if there were problems. He did not feel the Town or Council would be responsive.
The reality is that the control mechanisms are virtually impossible to enforce. The rules in place were hard fought after two years of aggravation and during the rezoning process.
He stated that it was hard to believe that they are back in the position of fighting for something. He did not feel that a trusting agreement could be reached with the Applicant.
Mr. Dunsford indicated that this is not a downtown bar area, but a business adjacent to a residential community. Even with restrictions, there is a risk that approval would make it possible to have parties everyday and residents would be at risk.
On cross-examination Mr. Dunsford stated that Mr. Law has not heard complaints lately because things have been better.
In response to the Panel, he stated that he could support conditions if there was a way to enforce them, but did not see that there would be recourse for enforcement that works.
Greg Geen, lives at Cranberry Surf, the most northerly property from the Bear Estate and is a member of the Board. He said that their balconies and windows face the harbour between their property and the Bear Estate.
Residents have complained. The Board has met and do not support the application. He asked how 200 people can be on a tiny peninsula and not cause a disturbance. He pointed out that even loud conversation is disruptive.
Kevin Spreitz, stated that it was crucial that the Board be aware of the history of this property. He stated that originally the Bear Estate was an outdoor tent, used for weddings and other functions. The events grew to having weddings six times a week for six months of the year.
With the growth in the number and size of weddings and events, the residents were unable to enjoy their balconies and this led to them getting organized. The site as it stands now was purpose built and sound-proofed as a direct result of resident complaints. Further, all the concerns have been addressed in writing in Town agreements, and through statements made by Mr. Law to Town Council in 2007.
Mr. Spreitz pointed out that Mr. Law keeps suggesting that we are obligated to call him directly. Our obligations end when we let a representative of the organization know of our complaints.
It has been mentioned today that it is better with the building, but on occasion controls have not been followed and we have called Cranberry security. They do not do much. There have been calls to police over the years. Mr. Spreitz indicated that he has not been able to get copies of the police records.
The witness presented examples of problems, stating that a week ago he called the police because a wedding party was conducting a sound check for more than 20 minutes in the afternoon. Recently, on a Sunday, he personally went to the site to speak to the Manager.
With this history, Mr. Spreitz stated he is completely against the application regardless of the hours. He stated that the residents had fought long and hard for the sound-proof building and they do not want to return to the same state as existed in the past, or to continue to have problems with trespassers coming onto private property.
He indicated that a fence is needed.
He expressed frustration, stating that with the Town agreements and the sound-proof building, they thought the issue was over. It appears that Mr. Law is trying to grow the site, and increase the functions and activities.
On cross-examination, Mr. Spreitz stated that there are controls in place but they are not always followed. He stated that there should be log books kept to monitor the problems and that there should be more enforcement. He responded to questions stating that the daytime licensing is still a problem since there will be noise and still be a negative impact.
Mr. Spreitz confirmed that he had called the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”) on occasion during the past two years. He also called the condominium property manager. Although he cannot see the guests at the Bear Estate, he stated that he can clearly hear the noise.
In response to questions from the Panel, Mr. Spreitz stated that, although the outdoor area is used now as an unlicensed area, he expressed that with a liquor licence, there would be a return to the previous problems with significant late night noise and disruption to the area residents. He stated that the building was constructed to stop the previous problems that occurred with outdoor activities relating to special events at the site.
Sam Cooper presented a video as part of Exhibit #4. He indicated that the video, taken from his patio in August of 2010, illustrates how clearly sound carries from the premises. He stated that sound is carried and amplified due to the location of the patio on a bay.
Referring to a diagram, he indicated that his condominium unit is approximately 164 metres from the Bear Estate.
Mr. Cooper stated that it does not matter how many people are on the patio, because the concern remains that noise will be generated and the service of alcohol will add to the problem.
Concern with location – it does not matter how many people are on the patio - the noise will continue to be a concern.
In response to questions from the Panel, Mr. Cooper stated that there was no music on the patio, just people talking and socializing.
Mark Bryan, representing the Town of Collingwood stated that as a Community planner with Planning Services with the Town, he is familiar with zoning and site plan approvals.
Referring to Exhibit #6, he stated that Town Council objected to the application because the property is not in site plan compliance.
He indicated that a conditional approval would be supported, if the Applicant applies for an amendment to the existing site plan agreement.
The approval should include conditions that would require:
Updated acoustical study
Defined patio service area
Parking requirements and lighting
All to the satisfaction and approval of Town Council
He stated that conditions of approval should ensure that the outdoor licensed area does not provide additional capacity, and that the capacity currently approved for the hall be equated to the entire property reflecting the recommendation of the Collingwood Fire Service.
He also asked that, if approved, the liquor service and consumption outdoors be limited to hours between noon and 8 p.m.
On cross-examination, Mrs. Cooper asked the witness about acoustical guidelines for the study. Mr. Bryan stated that he did not have familiarity with the guidelines and that the Town would accept the study by a professional with expertise in those areas. He stated he was not familiar with standards.
He stated that he could not comment on the level of noise on the video (exhibit #6) since he does not know what is an appropriate level of noise.
Point #4 in the site plan agreement in Exhibit #6, there are a number of clauses that refer to an acoustical study by professional and peer review.
Mr. Bryan stated that the Town was looking at a minor site plan amendment and it would be conditional on Council approving it.
When asked if he understood that the site agreement in May 2008 was put together because noise was disturbing and unbearable, the Town addressed the concern with a requirement for a building with sound-proofing. He replied that he was not employed with the Town at the time and could not speak to the nature of the acoustical studies done.
He stated that Mr. Law has applied for the expansion, and if he wants to do that, he needs to amend the site plan agreement and the noise issue would be considered as part of the review.
He indicated that no formal application has been received, and no studies have been done. The process could take three to six months.
Mr. Bryan confirmed that the zoning permits the proposed use, but a site plan agreement is required. Although a noise study would be a requirement for the Applicant, it would be peer reviewed.
In response to questions from Mr. Pitman, Mr. Bryan stated that there is a noise by-law, dated 1987. He stated that the by-law is being updated but did not have information about the timing for completion.
When asked if the application should be delayed until the noise by-law is updated, he replied that the site plan amendment process is adequate to address the noise issue.
When asked if the building required sound-proofing, and there were provisions that had to be built in, would it not seem to be a digression to allow a patio, he responded that the circumstances around approvals at that time set conditions, but now there are details that are different. An applicant can make the application and we must review it.
Applicant’s Evidence
Oscar Perez, a Food and Beverage Manager at the Bear Estate, stated the procedure for events is to instruct parties about smoking areas, drinking, patio use and music. The doors must stay closed, drinks to remain inside if going on patio, and patrons must exit by the front door, not patio.
He stated that when there is a wedding outdoors, there may be a PA system in place with some simple music. Guests are instructed to keep the volume to a level that can only be heard by people on the patio.
Normal operation includes the ceremony, photos and a reception before dinner. By 7:00 p.m. the guests are seated in the hall.
He indicated that he is a new employee, but with the sound-proofing and keeping doors closed, there have not been complaints.
On cross-examination by Mr. Pitman, the witness stated that he has been employed at the Bear Estate for four months. He indicated that the fence is permanent and is a rope line, not a solid fence.
In response to questions from Mrs. Cooper, he stated that there is security on site, plus the manager to oversee and ensure people respect neighbouring private property.
He indicated that they have one or two security and are only asking for a licence until 6:00 p.m. He anticipated that people would not be drinking more than 1 to 1½ drinks in the time on the patio.
Larry Law, the Applicant, stated that he has been in business since the 1970s.
The unique venue has been a favoured choice for years for weddings and events.
Before the building there were noise complaints relating to loud dancing music late into the night. Music problems were resolved when he built a permanent banquet hall while preserving the outside scenic area for ceremonies, with soft background music.
Since the major structural changes, the issues have been resolved. There have been no noise complaints since 2008. Referring to Exhibit #7, he indicated the area that is roped off for events.
Current applications and conditions is for obtaining a liquor licence for receptions in the outside area between noon and 6 p.m.
He stated that clients have expressed a desire for alcohol outside and as a resort company we are obligated to meet reasonable demands of guests.
He indicated that he is prepared to accept conditions that would include:
Capacity of outdoor area to match occupancy of indoor area, being a total of 220 persons
Outdoor area to be fenced or roped off to restrict movement about the site
Identify external area of service
Limit hours so people are not outside all evening
Provide an acoustical report
Need Town Council approval
He stated that the proposal was supported by some nearby neighbours using the boat slips.
He emphasized that this proposal would not cause noise concerns as the licence is only for cocktail receptions which is different from a party with dancing. Outdoor cocktails would be served in the afternoon, mostly between 4 and 5 p.m. The additional time requested is to address wedding times.
He stated that he wanted to remind all parties that the application is not about late night service on the patio. Daytime noise heard from houses, is not so disturbing.
He asks that with the conditions, approval be granted.
On cross-examination by Mr. Pitman, Mr. Law stated that he built many of the near-by residences. He confirmed that the hall was built to address the noise concerns. He confirmed that the request was for alcohol service until 6:00 p.m., not the 8:00 p.m. as stated earlier.
In response to Mrs. Cooper, Mr. Law stated that the petition he presented as an exhibit was taken by the operator of the marina, who is in his employ.
He stated that he checked police reports and there have been no complaints since 2008.
In response to Mr. Bryan, Mr. Law confirmed that he understood that any approval would also require an amendment to the existing site plan approval.
Objectors’ Submissions
Mr. Pitman stated that if the licence was granted, it would not just be for weddings, but could be for other events, seven days a week. Residents are concerned for noise that could erupt from 200 people beside the water, drinking outside.
The many noise complaints in the past resulted in the construction of a building, approval being given with conditions that included:
No one can be served alcohol outside
Event confined to indoors with doors closed
Sufficient parking, washroom, lighting be provided
Event supervised by security
Events end at 1 a.m.
With these conditions having been met, the Bear Estate presents no real problems with noise, such as it did in the past.
As seen in the video, taken from approximately 180 yards from the Bear Estate, in full daylight, the sample of the noise associated with an outdoor event during the day is loud and intrusive. To allow the serving of alcohol would be a reincarnation of the past.
The application to serve alcohol should be denied and the Town should continue to ensure adherence by the Licensee to all conditions that were set out in granting the previous approval.
Mrs. Cooper stated that the opposition stems from the noise generated by the presence of 100, 150 or 220 people gathered in one area. Making the situation worse would be the consumption of alcohol by patrons. She stated that the residents are concerned about patrons straying from the property to the back of their homes; we have seen it in the past. Residents have posted “No Trespassing” signs but guests at Bear Estate ignore them.
Mr. Law states that his guests want this opportunity to have a drink outside. But why would the request of 220 people there for one occasion have precedence over the requests of the residents who live there all the time. We would become prisoners in our own home, during an event.
She stated she has read e-mails and letters, between 2005 and 2007; some of the strongest complaints come from the furthermost parts of Cranberry Shores.
The new site agreement, currently in place, ensures that the business interests of Cranberry are taken into the account and looks after the rights of the residents in the area. We have demonstrated in the video, the sound of a gathering of people at the Bear Estate. The first part deals with the sound of people only. There is no music until later on. I am sure you can agree that the situation creates excessive, disturbing noise.
One of our concerns, raised in a staff report by the Town, is that a restaurant could be situated in that area. It is with that notion that we also worry about other things that could come about.
The notice posted by the AGCO states the licence may be issued unless pursuant to the Act, it is not in the public interest, and having regard to the needs and wishes of residents.
The residents are once again speaking out against the issuance of an outdoor liquor licence at the Bear Estate and asking that you turn down the Applicant.
Mr. Bryan stated that Mr. Law has confirmed that he is willing to follow the conditions that Collingwood has identified, willing to submit his application for a site plan amendment and obtain final approval from Council.
Accordingly it appears that staff will support the application, with conditions. I am not able to say if Council would say yes or no but Mr. Law has indicated he is willing to address the issues.
Applicant’s Submissions
Mr. Law stated that he has been in business for a long time, since the early 70’s and respects the relationship with the neighbours. Whenever there is an issue, we try to resolve that knowing that the end result may not be perfect. We do not own the whole thing and we are here to share. We have the right to apply for approval.
He stated that he is prepared to accept more conditions, hoping for cooperation with the neighbours.
We cannot live in the past. Problems before were from late night music and dancing.
Now we are only talking about afternoon events. We must learn to live together, be friends with each other; nothing hurts more than if I have an enemy. I am asking for compromise.
Reasons/Analysis/Findings
The Board has carefully reviewed and considered the evidence, reviewed the exhibits and submissions of all parties in this matter. The Board found all the parties to have given their evidence in a clear and direct manner.
Public interest hearings often raise difficult issues that requires a balance of the interests of those who live in the community and those who provide a service and make a living there.
Under the Liquor Licence Act there is a qualified right to apply for a liquor licence, subject to the considerations of the ‘public interest’. The Act also recognizes the very real impact that a licensed premises may have on the surrounding community, and local residents are provided the forum and opportunity in which to voice their concerns.
The Board, in giving consideration, looked at the changes now being proposed in relation to the original application as set out in the Notice of Proposal and to the concerns of the objectors, who live in close proximity to the Law Cranberry Estate (the Bear Estate). The Board gave further consideration to the conditions and agreements reached at the time of the building of the Bear Estate banquet facility in 2008.
The Board accepted the oral submissions from Registrar’s Counsel and the Applicant that the application is being modified to a 220 person occupancy total for both the inside and outside areas.
Although a site plan application has not yet been made to the Town of Collingwood, Mr. Bryan indicated that staff are prepared to initiate the review as soon as it is submitted. Mr. Bryan outlined all the studies and requirements that would have to be met for presentation to the Town
Council and final approval. The Board agrees with Mr. Bryan, that the noise and acoustical study is important and the Board is of the view that such a study should address the primary concern of the residents, which is noise and that the study results should be available to all parties prior to approval of a liquor licence.
The Board received undisputed evidence that the outdoor noise was intrusive and of major concern to nearby residents until a sound-proof building was constructed. With events moving indoors, residents consistently stated that noise is less of a problem, although there is still intrusive noise when guests of Bear Estate are outside. The residents consistently stated that they thought the issue had been addressed in 2008 and expressed dismay that they are now addressing their concerns with outdoor noise again.
Given the information received in evidence, there appears to be a need to address security and fencing issues. Undisputed evidence suggests that, with the lack of true fencing between Bear Estate and private property, there has been trespassing of guests on neighbouring private property.
The evidence indicates that the doors of the building exit onto an open lawn area, adjacent to private boat slips and condominium homes.
The Board is concerned that the patio area is not a permanently defined area and the Applicant is only using a rope marker to outline the area being used by guests. There was no information presented on the size of the area to be the licensed area.
Although the Applicant has the right to make an application, it is the view of the Board that this application for an outdoor licence is premature.
There are numerous issues that require more detail to ensure that a licence for the outdoor area addresses the needs and wishes of the local residents, as well as for the Town of Collingwood. The original application was changing as the hearing progressed. The Board heard that the occupancy was being reduced significantly, that the proposed hours of operation were changing and that the application is now for a combined indoor and outdoor occupancy.
The Board heard concerns relating to numerous issues that are the responsibility of the Applicant to address usually prior to an application being considered. These matters include, but are not limited to: restricting access to neighbouring private property; defining the boundaries and limitations of the patio on the grassed outdoor area; and detailing the security plan for the outdoor area to ensure the hours of liquor service are respected by guests.
The Board must have respect and regard for the Council decision of 2008. This recent decision reflects municipal concern for the outdoor noise concerns of the residents. Noise studies have not been submitted for review and yet this is integral to dealing with the past problems and present concerns of the objectors in relation to this application.
It is clear that the fears and concerns of the residents are genuine and follow from previous noise problems relating to an outdoor licensed area. The Board heard from all parties that the noise concerns were so severe, that the Applicant built a sound-proof building to address the neighbours’ concerns. The Board is not prepared to approve any change that may be contrary to the existing site plan agreement and /or that might, again, escalate the noise concerns of nearby residents.
The Applicant is to be commended for his past initiatives in responding to residents - enclosing the event location in a sound-proof building, while still offering his guests a lakeside location for special events. As well, his suggestion of possible conditions indicate that he is prepared to respond and work with the Town of Collingwood and residents.
However, the Board remains concerned that the details of the application were being modified during the course of the hearing without all parties having benefit of a fulsome review with the people they represent and without fully understanding all of the changes and proposed conditions, including a clearly defined licensed area on the open outdoor lawns of the property.
Giving consideration to the close proximity of the residential units and private vessels in nearby boat slips, the existing 2008 site plan approval, and until such time as the Town of Collingwood amends the approved site plan and the various unresolved issues mentioned above, the Board concludes that at the present time it is not in the public interest to grant approval for the requested licensed outdoor area.
Order
- For the above reasons, the Board DENIES the application made by Law Cranberry Resort Ltd. operating as LAW CRANBERRY RESORT, 300 Balsam Street, Collingwood, Ontario, L9Y 3Y6.
DATED AT TORONTO, THIS 16 day of 12 , 2010.
BERYL FORD, BOARD MEMBER JOAN LOUGHEED, BOARD MEMBER