BONFIELD – The Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) is expected to bring in a ruling early in 2009 on whether or not a zoning change will be permitted in Bonfield for the creation of a drag strip.

OMB member Joseph Sniezek heard arguments on the zoning change during a hearing held at the Bonfield Parish Hall on Nov. 19. The hearing was called after Bonfield council unanimously turned down a request earlier this year, from Roger Laclair and Clark North, to have property on Development Road rezoned from rural A2 to a special industrial zone. The new zoning would allow for the operation of a quarter-mile drag strip and auxiliary use including a chip truck, beer garden, washrooms and showers. The proposal called for the strip to host four major events a season, each lasting two to three days.

The proposal split the community as residents in the vicinity of the proposed drag strip argued about potential noise, environmental issues, increased road traffic and devaluation of their property.

Others spoke of the potential economic spin-offs from the operation.

"It became a very contentious issue that not only saw neighbours arguing with neighbours, but in some cases family members argued among themselves,"  said Bonfield deputy mayor Bob Dugard who chaired a public meeting on the rezoning issue earlier this year. "Council was well aware from the onset that if we turned the zoning change down, the proponents had every intention of appealing to the OMB."

Speaking on behalf of the proponents, North Bay area planner Paul Goodridge told Sniezek the drag strip, proposed on 197 acres of agricultural land currently licensed for operation as an aggregate extraction site, "meets all of the tests (requirements) of the provincial policy statement; the general intent of the (Bonfield) official plan; appropriate use of land; and, though more subjective, good planning principles."

He suggested the drag strip would provide " employment and spin-offs to the area and tax benefits to the municipality."  As the actual location of the quarter-mile strip on the property "is in a little saddle (valley)," he said sight line problems with adjoining and neighbouring properties, not already addressed by topography, could be eliminated by the construction of berms and planting of trees.

In terms of distance separation, Goodridge said, "distance separation is almost entirely contained on the subject property," and that based on historic population growth figures, "there's not a demonstrated need for expansion of the hamlet of Bonfield" to within the drag strip area.

He also argued that other impacts on neighbours were "already sterilized because of existing proximity to the aggregate resources on this property,"  indicating the aggregate operation could be enlarged under current zoning to include a crusher and cement operation. Goodridge said any other issues raised by the opponents could be addressed with a site plan control agreement with the municipality. This would include issues of traffic, noise and emissions.

The municipality's lawyer, Edward Veldboom of Orillia, in cross-examining Goodridge, asked if by relying on a site plan control "aren't you just pushing the fine details off to a later date?" He was concerned about septic systems large enough to accommodate racers and spectators.

"No calculations have been done, to my knowledge, on how much sewage capacity would be needed for (drag strip events). I don't even  think anyone has done any studies on the available water supply." 

Goodridge countered saying that "spending money on test wells to verify capacity at the outset would not have a good (investment) return. This is one of the differences I repeatedly point out between northern and southern Ontario. Studies can be done cheaper in southern Ontario because that's where most of the consultants live, and the property values are so much higher. It makes no sense here to spend $50,000 to $70,000 on various studies before any conditional approvals are given, when the property is only worth about that in the first place,"  he said.

Veldboom questioned how the community could be assured there would not be an increase in the number of events held at the track, nor an extension of hours, and said Goodridge's site plan control answers were not being supported by the Municipal Act. He also took aim at land use guidelines, pointing out a drag strip or race track "is not a use as outlined in the document."

While Veldboom  was aggressive in questioning Goodridge, he reserved his most vehement questioning for Tom Palangio, a Bonfield explosives consultant who had conducted noise tests at the drag strip property last spring. Palangio admitted he was not an acoustic engineer and told the hearing he had volunteered to do the test in order to give Bonfield council some assistance in making their re-zoning decision.

Using a 1970 Chev Camero with no exhaust system, running at the site of the future starting line, Palangio had taken a number of sound readings at neighbouring locations, determining that increased noise levels fell within Ministry of Environment (MOE) guidelines. However, Veldbloom produced page after page of MOE requirements, data, and prescribed measurement charts to show Palangio had not conducted tests that were up to ministry standards.

"You didn't even look at these documents," Veldboom said." How could you have followed (required MOE procedure) if you didn't even read these?"

About 60 area residents attended the hearing.

"I think those who attended were a good representation of both sides,"  said Dugard, "and I think it was a learning experience for a lot of community people."

While Dugard would not speculate on what he felt the OMB decision would be, he said "if it rules in favour of the zoning change a site plan control will still be required and it will be up to council to make sure all environmental and other concerns are addressed in that document."