Sudbury councillors ignore advice, approve mining business move

Article content

The planning committee has gone against a staff recommendation and approved an application for a mining-related outfit that wishes to establish a presence along the Highway 144 corridor.

Article content

Planning committee members this week voted in favour of an application that pertained to a vacant parcel of land at 0 Municipal Road 35, owned by BMG Engineering Ltd.

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

The company was seeking rezoning from rural to rural special so it can establish “a mining-related light industrial use in the form of an engineering and fabrication shop, accessory office, and accessory outdoor storage and repair area.”

The lands are partially served by municipal water services.

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

The parcel itself is located “on the north side of MR 35, approximately 875 m east of the Chelmsford settlement area boundary. The lands have an area of approximately 25.5 ha with approximately 337 m of frontage on MR 35. … The lands are located on a GOVA transit route with stops on both sides of MR 35 approximately 375 m to the west.”

Article content

Article content

Staff recommended the planning committee deny the application, as they said it did not fit with the city’s overall strategic plan.

“The development proposal to permit a general industrial use in the rural land-use designation would negatively impact strategic goals and objectives associated with climate change and the adoption of the CEEP that are identified within the city’s strategic lan,” the report said.

“The development would contribute further to development that is beyond settlement area boundaries and create undue pressure to upgrade infrastructure, which undermines the city’s ability to implement cost-effective service delivery with the intent being to reduce net costs.”

Staff said the proposal was neither compliant with the provincial policy statement nor the city’s OfficialPplan. They indicated the application was unsuitable for the proposed location because “the development is not resource-based and should be directed to other areas.”

Article content

Staff also noted the use of a partial water service “for new rural development of this scale is not appropriate” and “the proposal does not maintain an orderly pattern of development in the rural designation.”

Staff also argued there is no need for more industrial lands, “nor is it appropriate in this rural location.”

Councillors felt differently, however. Ward 4 Coun. Pauline Fortin said there are lots of other industrial outfits in the area of the parcel.

“This isn’t out of character,” she commented. “There are other types of industrial right there.”

Fortin also asked Bryan Guse, president of BMG, about the challenge to secure an appropriate parcel of land.

“I’ve worked for several years now to find a piece of property that’s suitable,” he said.

Article content

He told the planning committee he had negotiated for years to secure land, but had been unsuccessful.

The company maintains an engineering office in Chelmsford and a manufacturing facility in Levack, but “both are becoming unsuitable for us,” he noted.

Guse said the company has been looking for space in Chelmsford, as there are no other options along the Highway 144 corridor. He said all of his employees live near the existing facilities, “so we think it makes more sense for us to be centrally located in Chelmsford, primarily for access to mining sites within Sudbury.”

Guse said locating along the Highway 144 corridor allows “easy access in with larger vehicles and out without impacting travel within the community.”

Article content

While the city received one letter of concern, no one attended city hall on Monday to address the planning committee.

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

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

Laforge indicated his water comes from a well, which could be impacted by mining-related development. He also noted he had safety concerns due to an increase in heavy traffic.

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

“There are many families and children (including my own) who live on our road; we often see young children riding their bikes. Having heavy equipment coming in and out on a daily basis would be putting them in danger, as well.”

The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

[email protected]
X: @marykkeown
Facebook: @mkkeown

Article content