THUNDER BAY — A local couple’s proposal to host weddings and other events at their Government Road property has been put on hold after vocal objections from several neighbours.
City staff had recommended approving the application only in part, allowing it to host outdoor activities like hiking for a fee — but not events, which staff reasoned could bring noise levels incompatible with the neighbourhood’s rural character.
Joseph and Paula Sklazeski applied for a zoning amendment to host events like weddings, birthday parties, sports team celebrations, and photoshoots on their roughly 45-acre treed property, as well as outdoor recreation activities like skating or hiking.
The Sklazeskis said they’ve hosted family weddings and small sports events on the picturesque property in the past with no complaints.
The couple emphasized the modest nature of their plans, saying they couldn’t envision hosting more than 16 sizable events per year.
That didn't allay neighbours' serious concerns over increased noise and traffic, as well as the possibility the zoning change would open the door to a larger operation in the future.
“They could do almost anything out there” if their full request were approved, said one resident. “They could put a skateboard park here, they could put a centre for skidoos… They could have a wedding every day of the summer that they can get one in.”
Another resident called the Sklazeskis good neighbours and friends, but added “we don’t know what will happen in the future.”
The couple sought to add “recreational facility” and “event venue” as secondary uses on the property, allowing buildings of up to 700 square meters and 16 meters of height associated with those uses.
The couple said they had no intention to build now, but could consider something like a “rustic barn” in the future.
The broad definition of recreational facility — allowing anything from a cross-country trail network to a mini golf course or sauna — was one concern for neighbours, who said while the current owners might not exploit that, future owners could.
Staff recommended against the allowing the “event venue” use, which generated the most controversy over noise and traffic concerns.
The couple said an assessment by a sound technician had indicated decibel levels remained reasonable even when music was played loudly from the proposed site.
“We’ve got a 46-acre piece of property, we’re in the forest. I truly don’t believe sound will give you an issue,” said Paula.
Coun. Albert Aiello said he’d toured the property, which sits in his McIntyre Ward, and appeared to agree.
“It’s very well-wooded, so in regards to the noise complaint… I don’t think it would be that much of a concern,” he said.
“I don’t really see it being that much of a noise issue,” agreed Coun. Trevor Giertuga.
One nearby resident said the road is used frequently by youth despite its lack of sidewalks, paved shoulders, or street lights.
“Having hundreds of additional vehicles travelling along this section of rural road certainly holds the potential for an increase in collisions,” he said.
“My son and all of our neighbourhood children should be able to sleep with their windows open and be able to play outside without community noise pollution... They should be able to safely travel on their bikes in the area without the increased likelihood of encountering an impaired driver or massive increase in traffic.”
In addition to the residents who spoke Monday, the city received 40 written responses to a notice of application for the zoning amendment. Four were supportive, with the rest expressing opposition or concern.
Two abutting neighbours were supportive, saying they hadn’t been bothered during previous social events held at the property.
A staff report suggested most objections could be addressed, but advised “noise is still a concern” and could exceed levels “reasonably expected in the rural area.”
Staff added the city has limited options to impose conditions around things like operating hours or noise levels.
Council ultimately referred the proposed zoning amendment back to administration, directing staff to confirm plans for any structures, narrow down the list of approved “event venue” uses, and report back on tools the city could use to apply conditions.
“I think it gives the residents and the proponents an opportunity to get together, discuss, and tighten this up a bit more, because there are some [concerns] about what may happen, and I don’t think that’s the intent of the proponent,” said Giertuga.
“I think we could come to a compromise here where the residents will be satisfied, and the proponents will be satisfied as well.”
Correction: An earlier version of this article stated that city planning staff expressed concerns with the proposed zoning amendment over traffic and noise issues. In fact, staff raised only noise concerns.
An earlier version of this article misspelled the name of applicant Joseph Sklazeski. TBnewswatch apologizes for the error.
