A proposal for a market garden and restaurant at the old Arkell general store has divided the Arkell community.
Puslinch councillors saw nearly a dozen delegations on Nov. 23 regarding the proposal by Stephen and Jessica Goyda. The Goydas were before council asking that the site plan for 599 Arkell Road be approved so renovations can begin.
According to staff, a review of the site plan is satisfactorily completed.
As delegations began, Mayor Dennis Lever stressed they would be limited to 10 minutes, after which council might or might not have questions.
Agent Jeff Buisman, of Van Harten Surveying, discussed various improvements such as the removal of wooden decks. He outlined how proposed changes would improve parking, buffering, views for neighbours and replace the aging septic system with a modern tertiary system. A new type of advanced tertiary septic system which meets the Ontario Building Code is being installed, he said.
Buisman said the property has served as a restaurant and store in the past.
During the peer review, Buisman said the site plan was reviewed and recommended by the township hydrogeologist, township engineers, fire department, ecologist, planners and road authority.
Councillor Matthew Bulmer was glad to see controls on lighting. He also hoped curbing around the parking area would be considered to alleviate issues related to snow removal.
Councillor Susan Fielding appreciated the changes to make the proposal more palatable to the neighbours, sating, “I’d like to see this as least disruptive as possible.”
Both councillors John Sepulis and Ken Roth wanted assurances that drainage would not be negatively impacted in regards to neighbouring properties.
Jessica Goyda stated “when we began the idea of reopening the Arkell store almost two years ago … we had no idea what the road ahead of us would look like.”
At that time, the proposal was for a small restaurant and market and much of the concern in the community was about the proposed liquor licence application.
Jessica added it appeared most councillors were supportive but they wanted to ensure all the technical details were addressed and resolved with township staff ahead of time.
“We understand there are still concerned citizens and we have worked really hard to address those concerns by removing the outdoor patio, replacing the septic system, moving the Sloot office and implementing a landscape design … and putting a temporary hold on the liquor licence application,” she said.
Stephen Goyda added he too was hoping for township approval “to take the next big step” and see their vision “come to light.”
“We’ve gone on record that we will put the (liquor licence) application on hold until the site opens and we can show the community that we are not a bar … it is going to be a market and a small restaurant.”
Bulmer still supported the idea but stressed “it is trust which lubricates change.” He suggested some of that trust has been undermined within the community and his goal was to restore trust.
Roth stated, “as long as everything is in compliance, you have my full support.”
Resident Michael Oosterveld offered his support of the project, saying, “If there was any place I would choose to live, it would be in Arkell.” He backed the entrepreneurship of the Goydas, and spoke of what the community can be and how it can serve new residents of the area.
Resident Luke Kukovica also supported the site plan and the project. “I’m really looking forward to having a nice fine dining restaurant and market just a walk away from my house.”
Gay Kukovica added she also supported the restaurant. “It’s been a while since we’ve had a store or a place to stop in and get food.”
Resident Wayne Hodges spoke against the proposal as it stands, stating, “there is no such a thing as a (liquor licence) suspension.”
Hodges said residents are concerned there is a history surrounding the property that includes not abiding by rules or respecting regulations. He advocated council’s rejection of the site plan agreement “so all concerned residents of Arkell can resume the normal cooperative lifestyle they are used to.”
Neighbour David Prior also spoke on why he believed council should reject this proposal.
Prior said he has felt victimized by the municipality and property owner John Sloot for more than a decade. He referred to situations he said endangered his health and safety – due to the septic system and location of the parking lot.
Prior stated he was prepared to allow the municipality one more opportunity “to make things right” before proceeding with legal action.
He stated all the requirements for this agreement have not been met. Prior said the nitrate impact analysis has yet to be signed off – as required. He also suggested the proposed septic system does not come close to building code requirements.
He contended the mapped location of the well on his property was incorrect – in spite of sending documents with the correct location.
Prior is concerned setback requirements do not take the grade of the land into account. He said those differences may result in deficiencies in the design … even if a permit was approved.
“It is totally unacceptable that an engineer can say no elevations are needed because there will be no significant change,” Prior said.
He added a septic system required for the capacity cannot be installed on a property of that size – “It is impossible to meet the building code requirements.” Prior added his information suggests any septic system should be 30 metres from his well.
Geraldine McCauley lives across the street from the proposed business. She too was concerned with the sewage system.
“We feel the township’s job is to meet the appropriate codes so we don’t have to deal with the stink again … (that) we’ve had to endure in the past.”
McCauley stressed, “we do not resent Jessica and Stephen having a restaurant … if it was in any other location … we would wish them well and every success.”
Property owner John Sloot said “it is clear there is still a lot of frustration with this application. He added, “We have tried to do everything we can to make it comply to the bylaw guidelines.”
Sloot apologized to the neighbours who have lost faith in them.
“We are trying to create a community where we can all work and live together,” said Sloot. He noted the liquor licence application seemed to upset people so the proponents are willing to hold off on proceeding with that until they can prove themselves to the community. He stressed the application is only for 20 seats.
Following the presentation, council still had a number of questions – specifically related to the nitrate impact.
Stan Denhoed of Harden Environmental said two of the recommendations included a nitrate analysis and a water well survey. The survey was to determine the location of nearby dug wells.
Because Prior’s well is a drilled well, the 30-metre setback does not apply – only a 15-metre setback.
“We are satisfied that none of the nearby wells are particularly susceptible to groundwater contamination,” said Denhoed.
He agreed this is a small site … and would be difficult to meet the nitrate attenuation without a specialized septic treatment system.
While it is required for all new development, this is an existing lot. He said if such studies were done nearby – those properties would also likely fail – because of the small lot sizes.
Denhoed noted the Arkell area is near the Guelph wellhead boundary areas.
Council deferred approving the site plan pending further information, including the determination of the exact location of the Prior well.
Also included was a requirement for curbs at the south edge of the parking area, along with a review of the stormwater management plan.
