Milverton gun club aimed concerns at proposed housing development next door

The Milverton and District Rod and Gun Club is raising noise and drainage concerns about a housing development proposed for a neighboring property just outside of Milverton.

Perth County council hosted a public meeting Thursday morning for an official plan amendment that would, if approved, expand the Milverton settlement area to include developable portions of this property on Perth Road 131 between Perth Line 61 and Wilfred Street. This would allow for the rezoning and construction of a planned subdivision with 72 residential dwellings – 27 single detached, 28 semi-detached and 17 townhouses – as well as two new commercial blocks, two industrial-commercial blocks, five streets and one walkway.

“Noise. The rod and gun (club) has known that there’s been many clubs closed. … The Tavistock club has suffered economic impact from having one range closed and having to build a concrete gun-shooting house to contain the noise. They were an existing club, a property owner bought and moved into the property next door, objected and caused the issue. We’d like to pre-empt that. We don’t want to get into that,” Milverton and District Rod and Gun Club treasurer William Miller said at Thursday’s meeting.

In a letter written to the councils of both Perth East and Perth County last December, the gun club opposed the proposed amendment to Milverton’s official plan, noting the gun club has been in its current location since 1967 when adjacent lands were zoned for agricultural or natural resource and environment uses. The club’s letter also pointed out that Milverton’s bylaws have since allowed for the noisy, yet lawful, discharge of firearms on its property.

While the letter states the gun club does its best to respect its neighbors and keep the property clean and well-maintained, its members remain concerned with this kind of residential development would lead to noise complaints from future residents.

“We certainly don’t want people sitting on their balcony being disturbed (by gunfire) or their kids being disturbed,” Miller said. “There’s a suggestion by (planning consulting firm) Baker Group for putting a berm up for sound. If that’s the goal, you need a guarantee that will contain the sound. The preferred, but probably a little more expensive solution, is to build a shooting house that would contain the noise in the first place, but we’re a non-profit organization. We don’t have the financial resources to do it.”

Miller also raised concerns around how the runoff from the planned development – ​​proposed to be graded so it flows toward a drainage pond dug on the gun-club side of the property – will impact both the club, a nearby swamp within a protected wood lot and neighboring agricultural lands.

“The implications of changing the water flow changes the flow of water across the environmentally protected lands and into the rod and gun (club). … The question is, without a hydrological study, are we going to dry up the swamp? Are we going to affect the ecology of the swamp? … What we really need to do is ensure is (nearby drains and ditches) are at the proper capacity so there isn’t an economic impact to agriculture. … I believe the process of changing agricultural land into any type of structure currently is flawed. It looks specifically at the site, but does not necessarily gauge the impact around the site,” Miller said.

Speaking on behalf of the property owners, Baker Planning Group founder and professional planner Caroline Baker said the consulting group had commissioned a number of technical studies currently being peer reviewed by the county’s planning department that responds to concerns from the gun club and other neighboring property owners .

Those studies include an environmental study of the protected woodlot and wetland, a traffic study of Perth Road 131 that already determined no roadway improvements would be needed, and a servicing and storm-water management study, among others required by provincial legislation.

“We do note and are in receipt of the comments from the gun club,” Baker said. “Certainly the (property) owner has reached out on several occasions to try and meet and discuss their concerns with them, and is open to continuing forward with them to look at solutions and options to address their concerns.

“Of note though, the gun club is about 285 meters from the (closest) residential lot. This is a very sizeable distance when we look at ministry requirements for separation of what we would call industrial or noxious uses to a sensitive land use.”

Baker confirmed to council that a noise study will be required for the industrial and commercial blocks of the proposed development once its uses are identified. She clarified, however, that a noise study is not required in relation to the proximity of the gun club to the residential portion of the proposed development.

“My understanding is (the gun club is) requesting a noise study as part of the application that’s before (council) today to permit the designation of these lands. … A noise study is not required for this development to assess the gun club,” Baker said.

[email protected]