0
Stalemate over Cranberry
22 October 2009
[indent]
It seemed such a simple thing. Cranberry Resort wanted to extend its liquor licence so guests at the Bear Estate could go outside with a drink. Not to roam everywhere; the space was limited to a small area adjacent to the back of the building. Seems logical enough: on a nice summer afternoon, why would people at, say, a wedding, want to be indoors when beautiful Collingwood beckons just outside?
It wasn't an expansion of the activity space - the site plan agreement demands all events have to take place indoors, with the doors shut. That constraint was written in response to neighbour complaints about noise. This would just be a place for guests to get some fresh air, maybe smoke if they wanted, mingle, and converse. The doors would still be closed.
It wasn't a space to serve alcohol, either. Just a place outdoors for guests to get away from the crowd and enjoy a drink in the open air. Maybe watch the sunset, or gaze across the bay to the elevators. The motion called for it to be available only from noon* until 8 p.m., too, so it wouldn't mean a large group of people outdoors, late at night.
And it wouldn't mean an increase in the number of guests, either. This is an ancillary use to the existing conditions, not an added use, so the fire regulations would continue to govern the number of people allowed in the building (220 or 200, depending on type of food service).
Council was asked to support the application for an extended liquor licence, made to the Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario.
For me it was straightforward: supporting local business and trying to encourage economic viability.
Cranberry Resort depends on customers, and rents space in the Bear Estate for events, such as weddings. Having a small, licensed, amenity space outdoors, adjacent to the property would make it more customer-friendly and, I expect, more attractive to potential users. It might be the difference between someone holding an event in Collingwood and at Blue Mountain.
The motion was conditional on Cranberry living up to several covenants, including an approved site plan agreement, and the existing occupancy limits. For me, it seemed a small step to help one of our largest employers, and one of our most popular destinations, to provide a better, more competitive service. But others at the table felt quite different about it.
The motion read:
As Councillor Labelle somewhat wryly pointed out, Cranberry has a lot of restrictions on noise and activities, including this motion that proposed an end to outside alcohol consumption at 8 p.m. But neighbours - and any town event - can continue to party until 11 before any bylaw kicks in to curtail them.
Recognizing the neighbours' concerns about potential noise, Cranberry agreed to the time restrictions, limiting its potential but being a good neighbour. As the staff report noted:
But some of my colleagues didn't see it that way. Councillor McNabb argued that this was the thin edge of the wedge and if we supported this application, it would lead to open bar service, then live music and who knows what sort of activity (perhaps he was worried that a wedding might devolve into some sort of bacchanalia a la Animal House's toga party...).
The Deputy Mayor had declared a conflict of interest on this, so only eight of us voted. Four in favour (Edwards, Sandberg, Labelle and myself), four against (Carrier, Jeffrey, Foley,McNabb). In municipal politics, a tie means the motion is defeated. A blow, of course, to a local business trying to compete in a very challenging market (during a recession), but we've not been a terribly business-friendly** council to date, so no surprises*** there.
A second motion was then presented by the opponents:
Of course, that too was defeated because the vote was the same: 4-4 (just the sides reversed). But where does that leave Cranberry? Stalemated by an unsupportive council.
So what happens next? Cranberry will still apply to the AGCO for an extension of its licence, without town support. All the AGCO will get from the town is a letter - not showing support, but expressing the concerns raised at the meeting and requesting more information about the application under the Freedom of Information Act. I doubt the arguments made in favour of the application were included, merely the concerns.
Which all makes me think the 'nays' will win this one.
~~~~~
* Actually, the motion reads from "12 noon" - which, as I pointed out, is a redundancy. Noon is only 12 p.m. You can't have a "1 noon" or an "11 noon." The proper form is noon or 12 p.m., but both together is like saying "ATM machine" or "HIV virus".
** Think of all the decisions we've made this term that have been negative towards business and development this term: repealling the permits for the Admiral Collingwood development downtown, hiking development charges in a recession, the nuisance/noise/odour charges against Collingwood Ethanol, reducing the speed limit on Highway 26 without consulting a single local business or transportation company; and recommending an increase in downtown parking costs and parking-in-lieu charges. Plus there's the approval of 500,000-plus sq. feet of west-end commercial sprawl that will be a significant blow against downtown merchants.
*** Perhaps the only surprise is that Sandberg and Edwards voted against the mayor, which is unusual.[/indent]
It wasn't an expansion of the activity space - the site plan agreement demands all events have to take place indoors, with the doors shut. That constraint was written in response to neighbour complaints about noise. This would just be a place for guests to get some fresh air, maybe smoke if they wanted, mingle, and converse. The doors would still be closed.
It wasn't a space to serve alcohol, either. Just a place outdoors for guests to get away from the crowd and enjoy a drink in the open air. Maybe watch the sunset, or gaze across the bay to the elevators. The motion called for it to be available only from noon* until 8 p.m., too, so it wouldn't mean a large group of people outdoors, late at night.
And it wouldn't mean an increase in the number of guests, either. This is an ancillary use to the existing conditions, not an added use, so the fire regulations would continue to govern the number of people allowed in the building (220 or 200, depending on type of food service).
Council was asked to support the application for an extended liquor licence, made to the Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario.
For me it was straightforward: supporting local business and trying to encourage economic viability.
Cranberry Resort depends on customers, and rents space in the Bear Estate for events, such as weddings. Having a small, licensed, amenity space outdoors, adjacent to the property would make it more customer-friendly and, I expect, more attractive to potential users. It might be the difference between someone holding an event in Collingwood and at Blue Mountain.
The motion was conditional on Cranberry living up to several covenants, including an approved site plan agreement, and the existing occupancy limits. For me, it seemed a small step to help one of our largest employers, and one of our most popular destinations, to provide a better, more competitive service. But others at the table felt quite different about it.
The motion read:
Quote
RECOMMENDING THAT Council supports the Liquor Licence Application made by Law
Cranberry Resorts (Bear Estate) for the outdoor area provided the following conditions are met:
Cranberry Resorts (Bear Estate) for the outdoor area provided the following conditions are met:
- The Applicant applies for an amendment to the Site Plan Control Agreement to address, but not be limited to, the following: defined patio/serviced area, updated acoustical study, parking requirements and lighting all to the satisfaction and approval of Town Council;
- The appropriate capacities are established and approved by the Collingwood Fire Service; and
- Liquor service and/or consumption of alcohol outdoors be limited to between the hours of 12noon and 8pm.
As Councillor Labelle somewhat wryly pointed out, Cranberry has a lot of restrictions on noise and activities, including this motion that proposed an end to outside alcohol consumption at 8 p.m. But neighbours - and any town event - can continue to party until 11 before any bylaw kicks in to curtail them.
Recognizing the neighbours' concerns about potential noise, Cranberry agreed to the time restrictions, limiting its potential but being a good neighbour. As the staff report noted:
Quote
Presently, the Law Cranberry Resort Bear Estate (herein referred to as the "Bear Estate") Liquor Licence only permits the sales and consumption of alcohol within the building. Mr. Larry Law has approached senior staff with regard to this request.
Mr. Law has further indicated that if the outdoor licence was not supported, he would consider a restricted or conditional approval to permit liquor sales during certain timeframes (ie. Noon to 8:00pm) to ensure that any potential noise that may arise from liquor consumption after 8pm is mitigated to little or no impact to the neighbouring property owners. As the primary use of the facility is for weddings, these hours would accommodate toasting to a wedding party on summer afternoons and evenings.
Mr. Law has further indicated that if the outdoor licence was not supported, he would consider a restricted or conditional approval to permit liquor sales during certain timeframes (ie. Noon to 8:00pm) to ensure that any potential noise that may arise from liquor consumption after 8pm is mitigated to little or no impact to the neighbouring property owners. As the primary use of the facility is for weddings, these hours would accommodate toasting to a wedding party on summer afternoons and evenings.
But some of my colleagues didn't see it that way. Councillor McNabb argued that this was the thin edge of the wedge and if we supported this application, it would lead to open bar service, then live music and who knows what sort of activity (perhaps he was worried that a wedding might devolve into some sort of bacchanalia a la Animal House's toga party...).
The Deputy Mayor had declared a conflict of interest on this, so only eight of us voted. Four in favour (Edwards, Sandberg, Labelle and myself), four against (Carrier, Jeffrey, Foley,McNabb). In municipal politics, a tie means the motion is defeated. A blow, of course, to a local business trying to compete in a very challenging market (during a recession), but we've not been a terribly business-friendly** council to date, so no surprises*** there.
A second motion was then presented by the opponents:
Quote
THAT Council does not support the Liquor Licence Application made by Law Cranberry Resorts (Bear Estate) for the outdoor area as it is not in compliance with the currently approved Site Plan Agreement.
Of course, that too was defeated because the vote was the same: 4-4 (just the sides reversed). But where does that leave Cranberry? Stalemated by an unsupportive council.
So what happens next? Cranberry will still apply to the AGCO for an extension of its licence, without town support. All the AGCO will get from the town is a letter - not showing support, but expressing the concerns raised at the meeting and requesting more information about the application under the Freedom of Information Act. I doubt the arguments made in favour of the application were included, merely the concerns.
Which all makes me think the 'nays' will win this one.
~~~~~
* Actually, the motion reads from "12 noon" - which, as I pointed out, is a redundancy. Noon is only 12 p.m. You can't have a "1 noon" or an "11 noon." The proper form is noon or 12 p.m., but both together is like saying "ATM machine" or "HIV virus".
** Think of all the decisions we've made this term that have been negative towards business and development this term: repealling the permits for the Admiral Collingwood development downtown, hiking development charges in a recession, the nuisance/noise/odour charges against Collingwood Ethanol, reducing the speed limit on Highway 26 without consulting a single local business or transportation company; and recommending an increase in downtown parking costs and parking-in-lieu charges. Plus there's the approval of 500,000-plus sq. feet of west-end commercial sprawl that will be a significant blow against downtown merchants.
*** Perhaps the only surprise is that Sandberg and Edwards voted against the mayor, which is unusual.[/indent]
