new agenda - council meeting €€€€€€€€€€€ march 13, 2015 · 2016. 1. 26. ·...

A Regular Meeting of Council will be held on March 13, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Municipal Offices, Port Carling, Ontario.

AGENDA - COUNCIL MEETING March 13, 2015

Page

1. Call to Order

2. Adoption of Agenda

a. Consideration of a resolution to adopt the agenda.

3. Disclosure of Interest

4. Receipt / Adoption of Minutes

a. Consideration of a resolution to adopt the Council Meeting minutes held on February 13, 2015.

b. Consideration of a resolution to receive the draft Committee of the Whole Meeting minutes held on February 17, 2015.

5. Delegations and Petitions

a. The following delegations will be received at 11:00 a.m. Re: North Bala Falls Small Hydro Project

1. Mitchell Shnier, SaveTheBalaFalls.com 2. Deborah Ylanko, Moon River Property Owner's Association 3. Representative of Wahta Mohawks 4. Representative of Swift River Energy Limited

6. Business Arising from the Minutes

a. Report from the Clerk Re: Action Items from Committee of the Whole.

7. Public Meetings

a. Other Public Meetings

5-22

23-30

31-32

of 184

Page

b. Zoning Amendment Applications (in conjunction with PreviouslyHeard Consent Application)

c. Zoning Amendment Applications

1. By-law 2015-11, ZBA-48/14, Meiers, Part of Lot 5, Concession 12, Parts 2 & 3 on Plan 35R-11878, (Medora), Roll # 4-7-041

2. By-law 2015-12, ZBA-47/14, Guha, Part of Lot 10, Concession A, (Watt), Parts 4 to 6 on Plan 35R-8368, Roll # 2-1-001

3. By-law 2015-13, ZBA-01/15, Little, Part of Lot 15, Concession 5, (Medora) Part LOC CL15005 Part Bed of Lake Joseph, Parts 1 & 2 on Plan 35R-10144, Parts 1 & 4 on Plan 35R-22621, Roll # 4-1-021

8. By-laws

a. By-law 2015-11, Meiers, Part of Lot 5, Concession 12, Parts 2 & 3 on Plan 35R-11878, (Medora), Roll # 4-7-041

b. By-law 2015-12, Guha, Part of Lot 10, Concession A, (Watt), Parts 4 to 6 on Plan 35R-8368, Roll # 2-1-001

c. By-law 2015-13, Little, Part of Lot 15, Concession 5, (Medora) Part LOC CL15005 Part Bed of Lake Joseph, Parts 1 & 2 on Plan 35R-10144, Parts 1 & 4 on Plan 35R-22621, Roll # 4-1-021

d. By-law 2015-26, being a by-law to deem Lot 6 on Plan M-302 , (Wood), not to be a lot on a plan of subdivision, (The Spinks Cottage Trust Inc.), Roll # 8-13-003 (Original Shore Road Closing) By-law 2015-27, being a by-law to deem Lot 4 on Plan M-302, (Wood), not to be a lot on a plan of subdivision,(Jeffrey Spinks), Roll # 8-13-005 (Original Shore Road Closing) (Refer to Reports, items 9.a.1. & 9.a.2.)

e. By-law 2015-22 being a by-law to stop up, close and convey a portion of Original Shore Road Allowance lying in front of Lot 11, Concession 6 (Watt) Three Mile Lake, designated as Part 1 on 35R-24846, DRAKE, 2-14-084 By-law 2015-23 being a by-law to stop up, close and convey portions of Original Shore Road Allowance lying in front of Concession 15, Lot 16 (Wood) Nine Mile Lake, designates as Parts 1 and 2 on 35R-24711, SPINKS COTTAGE TRUST (8-13-003) and SPINKS (8-13-005) (Refer to item 9.a.2 for Declaration of Surplus Lands)

f. By-law 2013-21, a by-law to provide for rules and regulations for the care and control of all Municipal Cemeteries in the Township of Muskoka Lakes (Refer to Item 9.a.3. Report)

g. By-law 2015-24, a by-law to designate persons authorized to sign cheques issued by the Township of Muskoka Lakes. (Refer to item 9.a.4 Report)

33-77

78-107

108-128

129-132

of 184

By-laws

h. By-law 2015-25, a by-law to appoint a Treasurer for the Township of Muskoka Lakes. (Recommended at the February 13, 2015 Council Meeting)

i. By-law 2015-33, a by-law to appoint a Property Standards Officer for the Township of Muskoka Lakes. (Refer to item 9.a.6 Report)

j. By-law 2015-34, a by-law to appoint a By-law Enforcement Officer for the Township of Muskoka Lakes. (Refer to item 9.a.6 Report)

9. Senior Management Team Reports and Tenders

a. Senior Management Team Reports

1. Report from the Director of Planning, Re: Deeming By-laws 2015-26 & 2015-27 (The Spinks Cottage Trust Inc. & Jeffrey Spinks)

2. Report from the Clerk Re: Declaration of Surplus Land for portions of Original Shore Road Allowance lying on Three Mile Lake and Nine Mile Lake and consideration of By-laws 2015-22 (DRAKE) and 2015-23 (SPINKS COTTAGE TRUST/SPINKS) (Refer to Item 8.e. By-laws)

3. Report from the Interim Director of Public Works Re: Cemetery By-law 2013-21. (Refer to item 8.f. By-laws)

4. Report from the Clerk Re: By-law 2015-24, Cheque Signing By-law.(Refer to item 8.g. By-laws)

5. Report from the Clerk Re: Interview Committee Appointments.

6. Report from the Clerk Re: Flag Raising - World Autism Awareness Day.

7. Report from the Fire Chief Re: Appointment of By-law Officer and Property Standards Officer. (Refer to item 8.i. and 8.j. By-laws)

b. Tenders

10. New and Unfinished Business

a. Report from the Interim CAO Re: Bala Falls Hydro Project Working Committee.

b. District Municipality of Muskoka Update.

11. Future Meeting Schedule

a. Planning Committee of the Whole - The Monday, March 16, 2015 meeting at 9:00 a.m. was CANCELLED and RESCHEDULED to Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.

b. Committee of the Whole - The Tuesday, March 17, 2015 meeting at 9:00 a.m. was CANCELLED and RESCHEDULED to Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 1:00 p.m.

133

134-139

140-143

144-160

161-162

163-164165-171172-174

175-184

of 184

Future Meeting Schedule

c. Committee of Adjustment - A meeting will be held on Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.

d. Council - A meeting will be held on Friday, April 17, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.

e. Planning Committee of the Whole - A meeting will be held on Monday, April 20, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.

f. Committee of the Whole - A meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.

12. Council in Closed Session

a. Council in Closed Session to be held for litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board and a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board pursuant to Section 239(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

13. Confirming By-law

a. Consideration of a by-law to confirm the proceedings of Council.

14. Adjournment

a. Consideration of a resolution to adjourn.

of 184

Draft C

ounc

il Minu

tes

COUNCIL MINUTES - February 13, 2015 – Page 1

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES MINUTES - COUNCIL MEETING

Friday, February 13, 2015 A Regular Meeting of Council was held on Friday, February 13, 2015, at 9:00 AM in the Council Chambers, Municipal Offices, Port Carling, Ontario. COUNCILLORS PRESENT: OFFICIALS PRESENT: Mayor Don Furniss C. Harris - Interim CAO Jean Ann Baranik C. Mortimer - Clerk Linda Barrick-Spearn T. Guthrie - Clerk's Assistant Sandy Currie L. Forbes - Planning Assistant Allen Edwards, left at 4:00 pm D. Pink - Director of Planning Phil Harding L. Troup - Interim Director of Public Works Donelda Kruckel R. Hayes - Fire Chief Terry Ledger R. Allen - Senior Planner Ruth Nishikawa REGRETS: Gault McTaggart 1. Call to Order

a. Mayor Furniss called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 2. Adoption of Agenda

a. Consideration of a resolution to adopt the agenda, as amended.

Resolution Number C-1-13/02/15 Councillor Baranik - Councillor Edwards: Be it resolved that the Council Meeting agenda dated February 13, 2015 be adopted as amended to indicate Frank Belerique to attend as a delegate under item 5.a. rather than Karen McGhee.

Carried 3. Disclosure of Interest

a. Mayor Furniss disclosed a conflict of interest with items 8.d. and 10.b., By-law 2014-155, Flye, as the applicants are people that he knows socially.

Consideration of a resolution to adopt the Council Meeting

of 184

Draft C

ounc

il Minu

tes


4. Receipt / Adoption of Minutes

a. Consideration of a resolution to adopt the Council Meeting minutes held on January 16, 2015.

Resolution Number C-2-13/02/15 Councillor Edwards - Councillor Harding: Be it resolved that the Council Meeting minutes dated January 16, 2015 be adopted.

Carried

b. Consideration of a resolution to receive the draft Planning Committee of the Whole Meeting minutes held on January 19, 2015.

Resolution Number C-3-13/02/15 Councillor Nishikawa - Councillor Edwards: Be it resolved that the draft Planning Committee of the Whole Meeting minutes held on January 19, 2015 be received.

Carried

c. Consideration of a resolution to receive the draft Committee of the Whole Meeting minutes held on January 20, 2015.

Resolution Number C-4-13/02/15 Councillor Barrick-Spearn - Councillor Baranik: Be it resolved that the draft Committee of the Whole Meeting minutes held on January 20, 2015 be received.

Carried

d. Consideration of a resolution to adopt the Joint Muskoka Councillor Orientation Session Meeting minutes held on January 9, 2015.

Resolution Number C-5-13/02/15 Councillor Nishikawa - Councillor Ledger: Be it resolved that the Joint Muskoka Councillor Orientation Session Meeting minutes dated January 9, 2015 be adopted.

Carried 5. Delegations and Petitions

a. The following delegations attended at 10:40 am Re: North Bala Falls Small Hydro Project.

1. Frank Belerique, Vice President, Swift River Energy Limited attended the meeting. Karen McGhee did not attend.


of 184

Draft C

ounc

il Minu

tes


Frank Belerique provided a presentation to Council with respect to their request for the creation of a working group and resolution of entrance permits regarding the North Bala Falls Small Hydro Project. A copy of the presentation is attached. He also answered questions for Council regarding mitigation options for construction staging including leasing of municipal land and road widening of District Road 169.

2. Mary Grady attended the meeting. Mary Grady presented to Council requesting consideration of several items with respect to the North Bala Falls Small Hydro Project including road widening of District Road 169, entrance permits, use of public lands, and option 2. A copy of the presentation is attached. Mrs. Grady answered questions for Council with respect to her presentation.

3. Drew Cowern, Moon River Property Owners' Association, attended the meeting. Drew Cowern provided a presentation to Council requesting consideration of several items with respect to the North Bala Falls Small Hydro Project including tree removal, working committee composition and mandate and protection of heritage landscape. A copy of the presentation is attached.

4. Mitchell Shnier, SaveTheBalaFalls.com attended the meeting along with Tom Adams, TomAdamsEnergy.com.

Tom Adams provided information to Council regarding electricity price increases in Ontario in relation to new hydro projects. He indicated he would provide a summary of his remarks to the Township.

Mitchell Shnier provided a presentation to Council regarding the North Bala Falls Small Hydro Project status and consideration of requests including correspondence to the Ministry of Natural Resources, damage or removal of trees and working committee composition. A copy of the presentation is attached.

b. Margaret Walton, agent, Planscape, attended at 2:07 p.m. Re: items 10.a. & 8.c., By-law

2013-58, Denstedt (Refer to item 10.a.)

c. The following attended at 2:11 p.m., Re: Items 10.b. & 8.d., By-law 2014-155, Flye (Refer to item 10.b.) Melissa Cope, agent, and Allen Flye, applicant. Representative(s) from the District Municipality of Muskoka, were present, but did not

address Council.

d. The following attended at 2:15 p.m., Re: items 10.c. & 8.h., Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2014-14 (Refer to item 10.c.) Al Moran Geoff Ross Margaret Walton


of 184

Draft C

ounc

il Minu

tes


6. Business Arising from the Minutes

a. Report from the Clerk Re: Action Items from Committee of the Whole. A copy of the report is attached. Councillor Harding requested clarification regarding recommended action item # 4 from the January 20, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting and that it be considered separately. Council concurred.

Resolution Number C-6-13/02/15 Councillor Ledger - Councillor Nishikawa: Be it resolved that the following recommendations be enacted for action: - January 19, 2015 Planning Committee of the Whole meeting recommendations

2, 4 and 5; and

- January 20, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting recommendations 2, 3, 5 and 6.

Carried

Resolution Number C-10-13/02/15 Councillor Baranik - Councillor Edwards: Be it resolved that the following recommendation be enacted for action: - January 20, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting recommendation 4 (North

Bala Falls Small Hydro Project).

Carried

b. Report from the Interim CAO Re: North Bala Falls Small Hydro Project. A copy of the report is attached.

The Interim CAO introduced the report for Council and answered questions in this regard.

Councillor Currie advised of the receipt of correspondence to Council from Jeff Mole with respect to the North Bala Falls Small Hydro Project staff report. It was the consensus of Council for this correspondence to be forwarded to the Clerk for distribution to Council.

Councillor Nishikawa requested a recorded vote.

Resolution Number C-27-13/02/15 Councillor Harding - Councillor Barrick-Spearn: Be it resolved that Township Council approve the recommendations from the Council staff report dated February 13, 2015 as follows:


of 184

Draft C

ounc

il Minu

tes


That option 2 be selected with respect to the composition of the Working Committee.

Recorded Vote: NAYS YEAS Councillor Baranik (Deputy Mayor) X Councillor Barrick-Spearn X Councillor Currie X Councillor Edwards X Councillor Harding X

Councillor Kruckel X Councillor Ledger X

Councillor McTaggart, absent Councillor Nishikawa X Mayor Furniss X

TOTAL 4 5

Carried

Council requested a few minor amendments to the draft letter as presented. It was the consensus of Council for the Mayor to amend the draft and circulate to Council prior to issuing.

Resolution Number C-28-13/02/15 Councillor Nishikawa - Councillor Kruckel: Be it resolved that Township Council approve the recommendations from the Council staff report dated February 13, 2015 as follows: That the letter to Premier Wynne with respect to sharing provincial revenues be approved as modified.

Carried

Council requested a few minor amendments to the draft letter as presented.

Resolution Number C-29-13/02/15 Councillor Nishikawa - Councillor Kruckel: Be it resolved that Township Council approve the recommendations from the Council staff report dated February 13, 2015 as follows: That the letter to Transport Canada be approved as modified.

Carried


of 184

Draft C

ounc

il Minu

tes


Councillor Edwards left the Council meeting at 4:00 pm.

Resolution Number C-30-13/02/15 Councillor Harding - Councillor Barrick-Spearn: Be it resolved that Township Council approve the recommendations from the Council staff report dated February 13, 2015 as follows: That the information with respect to entrance permits be received.

Carried 7. Public Meetings a. Other Public Meetings

1. None. b. Zoning Amendment Applications (in conjunction with Previously Heard Consent

Application)

1. None. c. Zoning Amendment Applications

1. By-law 2014-137, ZBA-35/14, Rosseau Falls Estates Ltd., Part of Lots 31 & 32, Concession 9, (Watt), Roll #'s 2-24-070 & 2-24-071. A copy of the report is attached. Mr. Pink explained the history, nature, and location of the application/property. Submissions were received as follows: i) Letter from the District Municipality of Muskoka, Planning and Economic

Development Department. Mr. Pink reviewed the letter, a copy of which is attached.

ii) Letter from Peter & Katherine Seybold. Mr. Pink read the letter, a copy of which is attached.

iii) Letter from David Carroll. Mr. Pink read the letter, a copy of which is attached. iv) Letter from Carol & Harry Hergaarden. Mr. Pink read the letter, a copy of which

is attached. v) Letter from Lynne & Jim Walker. Mr. Pink read the letter, a copy of which is

attached. vi) Letter from Stuart & Jayne Schipper. Mr. Pink read the letter, a copy of which

is attached. Mr. Peter Neice, agent, Process Planning Associates Inc., 732 Clearwater Lake Road, Port Sydney, P0B 1L0, attended the meeting. He indicated the property owner, Jeffery O’Brien, consultants, Jamie Nairn of Beacon Environmental, and Bill Van Ryn of C.C.


of 184

Draft C

ounc

il Minu

tes


Tathum & Associates were also present. Mr. Neice provided a review of the lands and conditions of the approved consent applications. He requested that the minimum required lot frontage on Lot 6 be reduced to 470 feet to provide future flexibility. No one attended in support of the application. Mr. Stuart Schipper, 56 Hillhurst Boulevard, Toronto, ON, M5N 1N6, attended the meeting. Mr. Schipper indicated concern regarding potential negative impacts that future development of the subject lands may have on water quality in the bay. Mr. Peter Seybold, 296 Glencairn Ave., Toronto, ON, M5N 1T9, attended the meeting. Mr. Seybold requested Council consider the impact future development of the subject lands would have on Purdy Road. Ms. Angela Ghikadis, agent, Planscape, 104 Kimberley Avenue, Bracebridge, ON, P1L 1Z8, attended the meeting. Ms. Ghikadis indicated she was present to represent abutting property owners, Ron Lustig and Naomi Himel. She explained they are not opposed but have concerns, particularly with lot 1. Ms. Ghikadis requested that no structures be permitted behind her clients’ properties. She also pointed out that Schedule II to the by-law differs from the Environmental Impact Study submitted in support of the consent applications. Ms. Jayne Schipper, 5-1113 Golf Avenue Road, Windermere, ON, attended the meeting. Ms. Schipper requested Council consider the impacts to water quality. In response to Council’s questions, Mr. Pink and Mr. Troup indicated the purposes of development charges. Mr. Jamie Nairn was requested to address Council regarding water quality. Mr. Jamie Nairn, Beacon Environmental, 126 Kimberley Ave., Bracebridge, ON, P1L 1Z8, attended the meeting. Mr. Nairn reviewed the results of the Environmental Assessment and highlighted the recommendations within his report. He noted he did not feel that future development of these lots would impact water quality within the bay, and noted no concern with changes to development envelopes as shown on Schedule II to the by-law. Council held a lengthy discussion regarding water quality, dock length, building envelopes, and second tier development.

2. By-law 2014-151, ZBA-41/14, Sunley, Part of Lots 3 and 12 on Plan M6, Part 2 on Plan BR-1139, (Medora), Roll # 4-1-062. A copy of the report is attached. Mr. Allen explained the history, nature, and location of the application/property. Submissions were received as follows:


of 184

Draft C

ounc

il Minu

tes


i) Letter from the District Municipality of Muskoka, Planning and Economic Development Department. Mr. Allen reviewed the letter, a copy of which is attached.

Ms. Christie Hamilton, Muskoka Parry Sound Engineering & Design Services Inc., agent, 63 Joseph St., Port Carling, ON, P0B 1J0, attended the meeting. Ms. Hamilton provided a brief review of the proposed development. No one attended in support of or in opposition to the application. In response to Council’s questions, Mr. Pink indicated that drawings show the first floor of the boathouse would be brought into compliance with the zoning by-law.

8. By-laws

a. By-law 2014-137, Rosseau Falls Estates Ltd., Part of Lots 31 & 32, Concession 9, (Watt), Roll #'s 2-24-070 & 2-24-071 (Refer to item 7.c.1., Report)

Resolution Number C-7-13/02/15 Councillor Nishikawa - Councillor Edwards: Be it resolved that By-law 2014-137, to amend Comprehensive Zoning By-law 87-87, (Rosseau Falls Estates Ltd., Roll #'s 2-24-070 & 2-24-071), be read a first and second time.

Carried Council agreed to amend the by-law prior to third reading.

Resolution Number C-8-13/02/15 Councillor Baranik - Councillor Edwards: Be it resolved that the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes amend By-law 2014-137, (Rosseau Falls Estates Ltd., Roll #'s 2-24-070 & 2-24-071) and this amendment is minor in nature and does not require further public circulation and is hereby approved prior to third reading. These minor amendments include:

1. Revised building envelope on Lot #1 to remove a potential second tier of development.

2. The minimum required lot frontage on Lot #6 be reduced to 470' 3. The maximum permitted dock length of all severed and retained lots be

reduced to 65' 4. The minimum permitted front yard setback on Lot #3 be increased to 260'.

Carried


of 184

Draft C

ounc

il Minu

tes


Resolution Number C-9-13/02/15 Councillor Harding - Councillor Edwards: Be it resolved that By-law 2014-137, (Rosseau Falls Estates Ltd., Roll #'s 2-24-070 & 2-24-071) be read a third time and finally passed.

Carried

b. By-law 2014-151, ZBA-41/14, Sunley, Part of Lots 3 and 12 on Plan M6, Part 2 on Plan BR-1139, (Medora), Roll # 4-1-062 (Refer to item 7.c.2., Report)

Resolution Number C-14-13/02/15 Councillor Edwards - Councillor Harding: Be it resolved that By-law 2014-151, to amend Comprehensive Zoning By-law 87-87, (Sunley, Roll # 4-10-062) be read a first and second time.

Carried

Resolution Number C-15-13/02/15 Councillor Harding - Councillor Kruckel: Be it resolved that By-law 2014-151, (Sunley, Roll # 4-10-062) be read a third time and finally passed.

Carried

c. By-law 2013-58, Denstedt, Part of Lot 25, Concession 10, (Monck), Roll # 9-11-001 (Refer to item 10.a., Report) Third Reading Only Prior to third reading, Council amended Schedule I to the by-law to reflect the amended lot configuration of the severed lot.

Resolution Number C-16-13/02/15 Councillor Baranik - Councillor Barrick-Spearn: Be it resolved that the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes amend By-law 2013-58, (Denstedt, Roll # 9-11-001) and this amendment is minor in nature and does not require further public circulation and is hereby approved prior to third reading.

Carried

Resolution Number C-17-13/02/15 Councillor Nishikawa - Councillor Kruckel: Be it resolved that By-law 2013-58, (Denstedt, Roll # 9-11-001) be read a third time and finally passed.

Carried


of 184

Draft C

ounc

il Minu

tes


d. By-law 2014-155, Flye, Part of Lot 5, Concession 5, (Monck), Part 1 on Plan 35R-12072, Roll # 9-1-001 (Refer to item 10.b., Report) Mayor Furniss left the Council table at 2:10 pm as he had disclosed a conflict of interest with items 8.d. and 10.b., By-law 2014-155, Flye, as the applicants are people that he knows socially. He did not participate in the matter. Deputy Mayor Baranik assumed the chair.

Resolution Number C-18-13/02/15 Councillor Nishikawa - Councillor Edwards: Be it resolved that By-law 2014-155, to amend Comprehensive Zoning By-law 87-87, (Flye, Roll # 9-1-001) be read a first and second time.

Carried Prior to third reading Council amended the by-law to rezone the severed lot from Rural Estate Residential (RuER) and Environmental Protection (EP1) to Environmental Protection (EP1). The by-law was also amended to recognize the frontage and area of the retained lot.

Resolution Number C-19-13/02/15 Councillor Ledger - Councillor Currie: Be it resolved that the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes amend By-law 2014-155, (Flye, Roll # 9-1-001) and this amendment is minor in nature and does not require further public circulation and is hereby approved prior to third reading.

Carried

Resolution Number C-20-13/02/15 Councillor Ledger - Councillor Currie: Be it resolved that By-law 2014-155, (Flye, Roll # 9-1-001) be read a third time and finally passed.

Carried

Mayor Furniss returned to the Council table at 2:15 pm and assumed the chair.

e. By-law 2015-16, being a by-law to deem Lots 35 & 36 on Plan M-128 (Medora), not to be lots on a plan of subdivision, Sykes, Roll #'s 4-3-050/051 (Refer to item 9.a.1., Report)

Resolution Number C-24-13/02/15 Councillor Kruckel - Councillor Nishikawa: Be it resolved that By-law 2015-16, being a by-law to deem Lots 35 & 36, on Plan M-128 (Medora), not to be lots on a plan of subdivision (Sykes, Roll #'s 4-3-050/051), be read a first, second and third time and finally passed.

Carried


of 184

Draft C

ounc

il Minu

tes


f. By-law 2015-17, being a by-law to deem Lots 1 & 2 on Plan M-370 (Wood), not to be lots on a plan of subdivision, Land, Roll #'s 8-4-008/009 (Refer to item 9.a.2., Report)

Resolution Number C-25-13/02/15 Councillor Kruckel - Councillor Nishikawa: Be it resolved that By-law 2015-17, being a by-law to deem Lots 1 & 2, on Plan M-370 (Wood), not to be lots on a plan of subdivision (Land, Roll #'s 8-4-008/009), be read a first, second and third time and finally passed.

Carried

g. By-law 2015-18, being a by-law to amend By-law 2006-100 to designate lands described as Part of Lot 7, Concession A, (Medora) as being subject to site plan control (Gedge/Dosen, Roll #'s 4-28-050/051) (Condition of Consent B/23/14/ML)

Resolution Number C-26-13/02/15 Councillor Nishikawa - Councillor Kruckel: Be it resolved that By-law 2015-18, being a by-law to amend By-law 2006-100, to designate lands as being subject to site plan control, (Gedge/Dosen, Roll #'s 4-28-050 & 4-28-051) be read a first, second and third time and finally passed.

Carried

h. By-law 2014-14, being a comprehensive zoning by-law that regulates the use of all land and buildings in the Township of Muskoka Lakes. (Refer to item 10.c., Report)

Resolution Number C-21-13/02/15 Councillor Nishikawa - Councillor Ledger: Be it resolved that By-law 2014-14, being a comprehensive zoning by-law that regulates the use of all land and buildings in the Township of Muskoka Lakes be read a first and second time. Carried

Council agreed to amend the By-law prior to third reading.

Mayor Furniss requested a recorded vote.

Resolution Number C-22-13/02/15 Councillor Barrick-Spearn - Councillor Kruckel: Be it resolved that the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes amend By-law 2014-14, and this amendment is minor in nature and does not require further public circulation and is hereby approved prior to third reading.


of 184

Draft C

ounc

il Minu

tes


This amendment is to amend zoning on Beacon Island, Lake Rosseau, to more accurately zone Restricted Waterbody Boundaries. Recorded Vote: NAYS YEAS Councillor Baranik (Deputy Mayor) X Councillor Barrick-Spearn X Councillor Currie X Councillor Edwards X Councillor Harding X Councillor Kruckel (Acting Deputy Mayor) X Councillor Ledger X Councillor McTaggart absent Councillor Nishikawa X Mayor Furniss X TOTALS 1 8 Carried

Councillor Ledger requested a recorded vote.

Resolution Number C-23-13/02/15 Councillor Barrick-Spearn - Councillor Kruckel: Be it resolved that By-law 2014-14 be read a third time and finally passed. Recorded Vote: NAYS YEAS Councillor Baranik (Deputy Mayor) X Councillor Barrick-Spearn X Councillor Currie X Councillor Edwards X Councillor Harding X Councillor Kruckel (Acting Deputy Mayor) X Councillor Ledger X Councillor McTaggart absent Councillor Nishikawa X Mayor Furniss X TOTALS 3 6 Carried

i. By-law 2015-15, a by-law to appoint an Interim Director of Public Works for the Township of Muskoka Lakes. (Direction from the January 16, 2015 Council Meeting.)

Resolution Number C-31-13/02/15


of 184

Draft C

ounc

il Minu

tes


Councillor Ledger - Councillor Currie: Be it resolved that By-law 2015-15, a by-law to appoint an Interim Director of Public Works for the Township of Muskoka Lakes be read a first, second and third time and finally passed.

Carried

j. By-law 2015-19, a by-law to establish rates of pay for members of the Township of Muskoka Lakes Fire Department. The Fire Chief introduced the By-law for Council.

Resolution Number C-36-13/02/15 Councillor Currie - Councillor Ledger: Be it resolved that By-law 2015-19, a by-law to establish rates of pay for members of the Township of Muskoka Lakes Fire Department be read a first, second and third time and finally passed.

Carried

k. By-law 2015-20, being a by-law to establish and appoint members to the Parks and Trails Committee for the Township of Muskoka Lakes. (See Item 9.a.3.)

Resolution Number C-34-13/02/15 Councillor Harding - Councillor Ledger: Be it resolved that By-law 2015-20, being a by-law to establish and appoint member to the Parks and Trails Committee for the Township of Muskoka Lakes be read a first, second and third time and finally passed.

Carried 9. Senior Management Team Reports and Tenders 1. Senior Management Team Reports

1. Report from the Director of Planning, Re: Deeming By-law 2014-16, Sykes, Roll #'s 4-3-050/051. A copy of the report is attached. (Refer to item 8.e., By-law.)

2. Report from the Director of Planning, Re: Deeming By-law 2014-17, Land, Roll #'s 8-

4-008/009. A copy of the report is attached. (Refer to item 8.f., By-law.)

3. Report from the Clerk re: Committee Appointments. A copy of the report is attached. (Refer to item 8.k., By-law.)


of 184

Draft C

ounc

il Minu

tes


Resolution Number C-32-13/02/15 Councillor Ledger - Councillor Kruckel: Be it resolved that the following be appointed as members of the Township of Muskoka Lakes Grant Advisory Committee; Laurie Campbell Bruno Polewski R. David Sculati Maureen Webb Councillor Jean-Ann Baranik Councillor Linda Barrick-Spearn

Carried Resolution Number C-33-13/02/15 Councillor Ledger - Councillor Baranik: Be it resolved that the following be appointed as members of the Township of Muskoka Lakes Budget Committee; Doug Bryden Laurie Campbell Adele Fairfield Allan Turnbull Councillor Sandy Currie Councillor Donelda Kruckel

Carried 2. Tenders

a. None.

10. New and Unfinished Business

a. Report from the Director of Planning Re: By-law 2013-58, Denstedt, Part of Lot 25, Concession 10, (Monck), Roll # 9-11-001. A copy of the report is attached. (Refer to item 8.c. By-law.) Mr. Pink explained the history, nature, and location of the application/property. Ms. Margaret Walton, agent, Planscape, 104 Kimberley Avenue, Bracebridge, ON, P1L 1Z8, attended the meeting. Ms. Walton indicated she was available to answer questions. Council had no questions.


of 184

Draft C

ounc

il Minu

tes


b. Report from the Director of Planning Re: By-law 2014-155, ZBA-44/14, Flye, Part of Lot 5, Concession 5, (Monck), Part 1 on Plan 35R-12072, Roll # 9-1-001. Concurrent with Consent Application B/54/14/ML. A copy of the report is attached. (Refer to item 8.d. By-law.) Mayor Furniss left the Council table at 2:10 pm as he had disclosed a conflict of interest with items 8.d. and 10.b., By-law 2014-155, Flye, as the applicants are people that he knows socially. He did not participate in the matter. Deputy Mayor Baranik assumed the chair. Mr. Pink explained the history, nature, and location of the application/property. Ms. Melissa Cope, agent, 61 Joseph Street, Port Carling, ON, P0B 1J0, attended the meeting. Ms. Cope indicated applicants, Allan and Virginia Flye, were also present. Ms. Cope indicated she was available to answer questions.

Mayor Furniss returned to the Council table at 2:15 pm and assumed the chair.

c. Report from the Director of Planning, Re: Zoning By-law 2014-14. A copy of the report is attached. (Refer to item 8.h. By-law.)

Mr. Al Moran submitted and reviewed his submission, a copy of which is attached.

In response to Council’s questions, Mr. Pink indicated it was up to Council if they viewed the increased setback for sewage disposal systems minor in nature to amend the by-law in its current form. It was his opinion that a further Public Meeting should be held if Council wished to consider an increased setback for sewage disposal systems. He noted this is something that could be considered by Council as a future amendment to the by-law.

Mr. Geoff Ross submitted and reviewed his submission, a copy of which is attached.

Ms. Margaret Walton, Planscape, indicated she had personally worked on the draft by-law. She expressed her willingness to continue to work with staff and Council to address outstanding concerns outlined in her submission from November, 2014.

Mr. Pink indicated he had received a further submission of concerns from Alice Murphy regarding Communities, a copy of which is attached. The owner of property on Beacon Island also made a submission to request a portion of the lands not be included as part of the Restricted Waterbody zone. Mr. Pink reviewed the location of the island and agreed the schedule should be amended to show a portion of the island could be excluded from being within the area of a Restricted Waterbody zone. He felt this matter could be addressed by Council as a minor amendment to the schedule.

Following first and second reading of the by-law, Council requested Anne McCauley, Muskoka Lakes Association, to address Council regarding Mr. Moran’s request to include an increased setback for sewage disposal systems.

Ms. Anne McCauley, Muskoka Lakes Association (MLA), Box 298, Port Carling, ON, P0B 1J0, attended the meeting. Ms. McCauley indicated the MLA had requested an increased setback for sewage disposal systems and felt no further notice would be required. She suggested a meeting be held in the near future with the Director of Planning, Chief Building Official, Al Moran and herself to further discuss this matter.


of 184

Draft C

ounc

il Minu

tes


In response to Council’s question, Mr. Pink indicated he did not oppose the increased setback for sewage disposal systems, however, he was concerned whether the proposed restrictive provision could be viewed as minor in nature. He felt there should be further public consultation.

Consultant, Lorelie Spencer, Jones Consulting, concurred with Mr. Pink and felt the best approach would be to consider the increased setback for sewage disposal systems as a future amendment to the by-law.

Council requested staff bring forward a report regarding the proposed increased setback for sewage disposal systems for consideration at the next Planning Committee of the Whole meeting.

d. Report from the Clerk Re: Amendments to Township Council Policy C-GG-14 - Council and

Standing Committee Meeting Schedule. A copy of the report is attached.

Resolution Number C-35-13/02/15 Councillor Ledger - Councillor Baranik: Be it resolved that Township Council approves the amended Township Council Policy C-GG-14 – Council and Standing Committee Meeting Schedule as revised at the January 16, 2015 Council meeting.

Defeated

e. District of Muskoka Updates.

There were no significant updates from District Councillors at this time. 11. Future Meeting Schedule

a. Planning Committee of the Whole - The Tuesday, February 17, 2015 meeting has been CANCELLED.

b. Committee of the Whole - A meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 1:00 p.m.

c. Committee of Adjustment - A meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 9:00

a.m.

d. Planning Committee of the Whole - A meeting will be held on Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.

e. Committee of the Whole - A meeting will be held on Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 1:00 p.m.

f. Council - A meeting will be held on Friday, March 13, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.


of 184

Draft C

ounc

il Minu

tes


12. Council in Closed Session

a. Council in Closed Session was to be held at 11:00 a.m. for litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board, advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, and, for personal matters about identifiable individuals, including municipal or local board employees pursuant to Section 239(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

Resolution Number C-11-13/02/15 Councillor Nishikawa - Councillor Edwards: Be it resolved that Closed Session convene at 11:40 a.m. for litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board, advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, and, for personal matters about identifiable individuals, including municipal or local board employees affecting the municipality or local board pursuant to Section 239(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

Carried

Resolution Number C-12-13/02/15 Councillor Edwards - Councillor Baranik: Be it resolved that Council reconvene at 1:20 p.m. to report on matters arising from Closed Session.

Carried

The Mayor reported that the Township Solicitor and the Director of Planning were given direction with respect to litigation matters. The following resolution was considered upon arising from Closed Session.

Resolution Number C-13-13/02/15 Councillor Currie - Councillor Ledger: Be it resolved that the Interim CAO be authorized to negotiate an employment agreement, subject to satisfactory reference checks, pursuant to the Treasurer Interview Committee's recommendation; And That a new appointment by-law be prepared and brought forward to a future Council meeting.

Carried


of 184

Draft C

ounc

il Minu

tes


13. Confirming By-law

a. Consideration of a by-law to confirm the proceedings of Council.

Resolution Number C-37-13/02/15 Councillor Baranik - Councillor Ledger: Be it resolved that By-law 2015-21 to confirm the proceedings of Council be read a first, second and third time and finally passed.

Carried 14. Adjournment


Resolution Number C-38-13/02/15 Councillor Baranik - Councillor Ledger: Be it resolved that Council adjourn at 4:33 p.m. and the next regular meeting of Council will be held on Friday, March 13, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers, Municipal Offices in Port Carling, Ontario.

Carried

Mayor Don Furniss Cheryl Mortimer - Clerk ________________________________________ Deputy Mayor Jean-Ann Baranik


of 184

Draft

Committe

e of th

e Who

le

Minutes

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES - February 17, 2015 – Page 1

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING

Tuesday, February 17, 2015 A Regular Meeting of Committee of the Whole was held on Tuesday, February 17, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Municipal Offices, Port Carling, Ontario. COUNCILLORS PRESENT: OFFICIALS

PRESENT:

Mayor Don Furniss C. Harris - Interim CAO Jean Ann Baranik C. Mortimer - Clerk Linda Barrick-Spearn T. Guthrie - Clerk's Assistant Sandy Currie L. McMurray - Community Economic Development Coordinator Allen Edwards L. Troup - Interim Director of Public Works Phil Harding Donelda Kruckel, Chair Terry Ledger Ruth Nishikawa REGRETS: Gault McTaggart 1. Call to Order

a. Chair Kruckel called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. 2. Adoption of Agenda

a. Consideration of a resolution to adopt the agenda as amended.

Resolution Number COW-1-17/02/15 Councillor Harding - Mayor Furniss: Be it resolved that the Committee of the Whole agenda dated February 17, 2015 be adopted as amended to add item 6.c.6., Report Re: Correspondence from the Village of Merrickville-Wolford and item 9.a. Discussion Re: Meeting Schedule.

Carried 3. Disclosure of Interest

a. None

Consideration of a resolution to receive the draft

of 184

Draft

Committe

e of th

e Who

le

Minutes


4. Adoption of Minutes

a. Consideration of a resolution to adopt the Committee of the Whole Meeting minutes held on January 20, 2015.

Resolution Number COW-2-17/02/15 Councillor Baranik - Councillor Edwards: Be it resolved that the Committee of the Whole Meeting minutes held on January 20, 2015 be adopted.

Carried 5. Public Works a. Delegations and Petitions

1. Eleanor Kee Wellman attended at 1:03 p.m. Re: Oka Trail / Muskoka Lakes Snow Trails Association. Sylvia Geist and Steve Bellantoni did not attend the meeting.

Eleanor Kee Wellman delegated to request new gates be installed to replace the current three gates along the snowmobile train in her vicinity that are able to be closed in all snow conditions. She also requested additional gates being installed in two new locations. New gates are required to restrict use as soon as the snowmobile trails are closed for the season. Additionally, she indicated that there are trespassing issues on their private driveways that are a safety hazard. Ms. Wellman requested that the Township and the MLSTA form a plan to ensure safety. A copy or the presentation is attached.

Staff was requested to review the submission and report back to Committee with options.

b. Roads and Infrastructure

1. Consideration of a Resolution re: Waste Receptacles

Councillor Currie addressed Committee regarding this request. The Interim Director of Public Works answered questions in this regard.

Resolution Number COW-3-17/02/15 Councillor Currie - Councillor Edwards: With the exception of some municipal facilities, the municipal service level requires that waste receptacles be placed across the Township between the months of May to October. Now Therefore Be It Resolved That the Interim Director of Public Works be requested to review and report back to Committee of the Whole with respect to the implications of placing a limited number of waste receptacles in the


of 184

Draft

Committe

e of th

e Who

le

Minutes


Township on a year-round basis.

Carried 6. Corporate Services a. Delegations and Petitions

1. Walter Moon, President, Muskoka Lakes Chamber of Commerce, attended at 1:35 p.m. Re: 2015 Grants to Organizations Funding Request. (Finance)

Walter Moon provided an overview of the operations of the Chamber and requested consideration of funding during the 2015 budget deliberations. Three proposed options were outlined in the request, a copy of which is attached. The delegation answered questions for Committee.

2. Al Young, Walker's Point Garden Diggers - Communities in Bloom attended at 2:02

p.m. Re: 2015 Funding Request. (Finance)

Al Young provided a presentation to Committee requesting consideration for funding in the 2015 budget with respect to a landscaping and beautification plan for the Walker's Point area. A copy of the request is attached. The delegation answered questions for Committee.

The Interim Director of Public Works recommended that the group should share the plans with the District of Muskoka as works are proposed on District road allowances.

3. Bill Van Ryn attended at 2:10 p.m. Re: Presentation of Survey - Camp Ramah land

exchange. (Refer to Item 6.c.1. Report)

Bill Van Ryn, CC Tatham, delegated Committee on behalf of Camp Ramah. Further to the Camp’s 2013 Township approval, Mr. Van Ryn presented the draft survey with respect to the proposed road closing and exchange of land. A copy of the presentation is attached.

4. Josh Campbell, Rock Solid Consulting, attend at 2:17 p.m. Re: Request to change

land exchange details - COOPER, 9-8-044. (A copy of the June 2014 staff report is attached for background information.)

Josh Campbell, Rock Solid Consulting delegated Committee on behalf of David Cooper, applicant. He outlined the original request and tentative approval which was granted in 2014. Since receiving approval for the road closing and exchange of land, it has been determined that there is insufficient area on the north side of the property to accommodate the new road allowance and to meet setbacks. Due to this, his client is proposing alternative options in this regard. A copy of the presentation is attached.

The Clerk indicated that the revised proposal will be reviewed by staff with a report to be presented at a future Committee meeting.


of 184

Draft

Committe

e of th

e Who

le

Minutes


b. Finance

1. Correspondence from the Royal Canadian Legion - Ontario Command re: Military Service Recognition Book - Request for Support. A copy of the correspondence is attached.

Committee directed that the Legion's request move forward to the 2015 budget deliberations.

c. Administration

1. Report from the Clerk Re: Survey for Camp Ramah land exchange. A copy of the report is attached. (Refer to Item 6.a.4. Delegations and Petitions)

Resolution Number COW-4-17/02/15 Councillor Edwards - Councillor Baranik: Be it resolved that the Committee of the Whole recommend to Township Council that approval be given to the draft survey submitted by the Jewish Theological Society - Camp Ramah (2-22-001); AND FURTHER THAT once the Township of Muskoka Lakes receives registered copies of the survey, staff complete the exchange of Part 1 on said plan to the Township of Muskoka Lakes with Part 2 on said plan being stopped up, closed and conveyed to the Jewish Theological Society.

Carried

2. Report from the Clerk Re: Application to purchase a portion of Original Road Allowance lying in front of Concession 2, Lot 32 on Lake Rosseau, TIBBLES, 2-8-003. A copy of the report is attached.

Resolution Number COW-5-17/02/15 Councillor Harding - Mayor Furniss: Be it resolved that the Committee of the Whole recommend to Township Council that tentative approval be given to the request to purchase a portion of Original Shore Road Allowance submitted by Thomas and Adrienne Tibbles (2-8-033) lying in front of Concession 2, Lot 32 (Watt) on Lake Rosseau pursuant to the conditions provided in the February 17, 2015 staff report, as well as Township Council Policy C-LS-08.

Carried


of 184

Draft

Committe

e of th

e Who

le

Minutes


3. Report from the Clerk Re: Applications to purchase a portion of Original Shore Road Allowance lying in front of Concessions 11 and 12, Lots 31 and 32 on Lake Rosseau (Watt) LINDROS, 2-26-029. A copy of the report is attached.

Resolution Number COW-6-17/02/15 Councillor Harding - Mayor Furniss: Be it resolved that the Committee of the Whole recommend to Township Council that tentative approval be given to the request to purchase portions of Original Shore Road Allowance submitted by Eric Lindros (2-26-029) lying in front of Concessions 11 and 12, Lots 31 and 32 (Watt) Lake Rosseau pursuant to the conditions provided in the February 17, 2015 staff report, the recommendations of the Director of Planning as well as Township Council Policies C-LS-08 for the Sale of Original Shore Road Allowances and C-LS-09 for the Sale of Flooded Lands.

Carried

4. Report from the Interim CAO Re: Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Membership. A copy of the report is attached.

The Interim CAO highlighted the report for Committee. Committee discussed the current FCM membership benefits, conferences and the proposed cost sharing of the membership. Committee was not supportive of the proposed allocation of the area municipalities and the District and requested the Interim CAO to report back to Committee with alternative options.

5. Report from the Clerk Re: Correspondence from the Town of Mississippi Mills. A copy

of the report is attached.

Resolution Number COW-7-17/02/15 Councillor Edwards - Councillor Baranik: Be it resolved that the Committee of the Whole recommend to Township Council that the Township of Muskoka Lakes supports the January 13, 2015 resolution passed by the Council of the Town of Mississippi Mills requesting that the Province of Ontario grant Ontario municipalities the authority to control the design, placement, and scale of any structure related to hydro generation projects in its urban heritage core.

Carried

6. Report from the Clerk: Correspondence from the Village of Merrickville-Wolford. A copy of the report is attached.

Resolution Number COW-8-17/02/15 Councillor Currie - Councillor Edwards: Be it resolved that the Committee of the Whole recommend to Township Council that the Township of Muskoka Lakes supports the January 26, 2015 resolution passed by the Council of


of 184

Draft

Committe

e of th

e Who

le

Minutes


the Village of Merrickville-Wolford with respect to the Government’s desire to limit industrial wind turbine projects and further indicating that the Village of Merrickville-Wolford is not a “willing host” for industrial wind turbine projects. And Further that the Township of Muskoka Lakes advise the Province of Ontario that the Township is not a “willing host” for industrial wind turbine projects.

Carried 7. Community a. Delegations and Petitions

1. None b. Community and Volunteerism

1. Community Events Update

Committee members provided an update on local events taking place in the municipality.

c. Emergency Management

1. None d. Parks, Trails and Libraries

1. Minutes of the Volunteer Recreational Trails Committee meeting held on May 14, 2014. A copy of the minutes is attached for information purposes.

2. Minutes of the Public Library Board meeting held on November 27, 2014. A copy of

the minutes is attached for information purposes. 8. Visioning and Economic Development a. Delegations and Petitions

1. None b. Visioning

1. None


of 184

Draft

Committe

e of th

e Who

le

Minutes


c. Economic Development and Communications

1. None 9. New and Unfinished Business

a. Discussion Re: Meeting Schedule.

Further to the February 13, 2015 Council meeting, Committee members discussed the Council and Committee meeting schedule.

10. Committee in Closed Session

a. Committee of the Whole in Closed Session was held for litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board, personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees, and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; pursuant to Section 239 (2) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

Resolution Number COW-9-17/02/15 Councillor Baranik - Councillor Edwards: Be it resolved that Committee of the Whole in Closed Session convene at 3:15 p.m. for litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board, personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, pursuant to Section 239 (2) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

Carried

Resolution Number COW-10-17/02/15 Councillor Baranik - Councillor Edwards: Be it resolved that Committee of the Whole reconvene at 3:35 p.m. to report on matters arising from Closed Session.

Carried The following resolutions were considered upon arising from Closed Session.

Resolution Number COW-11-17/02/15 Mayor Furniss - Councillor Harding: Be it resolved that Committee of the Whole recommend to Township Council that the Township of Muskoka Lakes does not support or endorse the opening of the municipal road allowance between Concession G and 1, Lots 7 to 11, Medora by 1812640 Ontario Inc. (Brent);


of 184

Draft

Committe

e of th

e Who

le

Minutes


And Further That the Township of Muskoka Lakes continue to support September 11, 2012 Committee of the Whole resolution number COW-14-11/09/12.

Carried

Resolution Number COW-12-17/02/15 Councillor Ledger - Councillor Edwards: Be it resolved that a memorial plaque honouring the late Marjorie Elliott be placed at the Muskoka Lakes Sports Park in recognition of her many contributions to the community; And that the wording of the plaque be agreed to by the Director of Public Works and a representative of the Elliott family and / for the nominator. And that the location of the plaque be determine on site at the Park between the Director of Public Works and a representative of the Elliott family and / or the nominator. And Further That a staff report be brought forward prior to this expenditure being included in the 2015 Township Budget.

Carried 11. Adjournment


Resolution Number COW-13-17/02/15 Councillor Harding - Mayor Furniss: Be it resolved that this meeting adjourn at 3:40 p.m. and the next regular meeting of the Committee of the Whole will be held on Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. or at the call of the Chair in the Council Chambers, Municipal Office, Port Carling.

Carried

Councillor Kruckel, Chair Cheryl Mortimer, Clerk


of 184

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

TO: Mayor Furniss and Members of Council

MEETING DATE: March 13, 2015

SUBJECT: ACTION ITEMS FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

RECOMMENDATION: BE IT RESOLVED THAT the following recommendations be enacted for

action:

- February 17, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting recommendations 2 to 8, 11 and 12.

APPROVALS: Date Signature Submitted By: Teri Guthrie, 20/02/2015 Original signed by T. Guthrie Clerk’s Assistant

Approved By: Cheryl Mortimer, Clerk 05/03/2015 Original signed by C. Mortimer Acknowledged By: Clayton Harris, 05/03/2015 Original signed by C. Harris Interim CAO

SUMMARY: Based on the requirement of 8.e) of Township Procedural By-law 2006-11, as amended, it is recommended items 2 to 8, 11 and 12 from the February 17, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting be enacted for action. A Planning Committee of the Whole meeting was not held in February.

ORIGIN: The Committee of the Whole passed the following action resolutions on February 17, 2015 and they are recommended for approval by Council:

COW-2-17/02/15 Adoption of the Committee of the Whole meeting minutes

dated January 20, 2015

COW-3-17/02/15 Request for the Interim Director of Public Works to review and report back regarding the placement of waste receptacles in the Township on a year round basis

COW-4-17/02/15 Approval of the draft plan of survey for the land exchange

and road closing between the Township of Muskoka Lakes and the Jewish Theological Society – Camp Ramah (2-22-001)

COW-5-17/02/15 Approval for the application to purchase a portion of Original

Shore Road Allowance lying on Lake Rosseau – Tibbles (2-8-033)

Report from the Clerk Re: Action Items from

of 184

Action Items Report – March 13, 2015 COW-6-17/02/15 Approval for the application to purchase portions of

unflooded and flooded Original Shore Road Allowance lying on Lake Rosseau – Lindros (2-26-029)

COW-7-17/02/15 Support for the January 13, 2015 Town of Mississippi Mills

resolution requesting the Province of Ontario to grant municipalities the authority to control the design, placement and scale of any structure related to hydro generation projects in an urban heritage core

COW-8-17/02/15 Support for the January 26, 2015 Village of Merrickville-

Wolford resolution to limit industrial wind turbine projects and to advise the Province that the Township of Muskoka Lakes is not a willing host for such projects

COW-11-17/02/15 Resolution to not support or endorse the opening of a

municipal road allowance lying between Concessions G and 1, Lots 7 to 11, Medora requested by 1812640 Ontario Inc. and further that the Township continue to support the September 11/12 Committee of the Whole Resolution COW-14-11/09/12

COW-12-17/02/15 Support for a memorial plaque to be placed at the Muskoka

Lakes Sports Park in recognition of the late Marjorie Elliott, that the plaque wording and location be determined by the Director of Public Works and a representative of the Elliott family and/or the nominator; and further that a report be brought forward in this regard

BACKGROUND: We are recommending that the above referenced resolutions be enacted for action. This process is required under the Township’s Procedural By-law. At the beginning of each term of Township Council, a resolution is passed to authorize the circulation of zoning by-law amendments, including concurrent consent applications, prior to Council’s approval, therefore, they do not require action.

FINANCIAL: NA

Report from the Clerk Re: Action Items from

of 184

BY-LAW 2015-11

MEIERS

By-law 2015-11, ZBA-48/14, Meiers, Part of Lot 5,

of 184

EXPLANATION OF THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA-48/14, BY-LAW 2015-11, MEIERS, ROLL # 4-7-041 The lands affected by this amendment are described as Concession 12, Lot 5 (in the former Township of Medora) now in the Township of Muskoka Lakes, more particularly described as Parts 2 and 3, Plan 35R-11878, and known municipally as 12-8150 Lake Joseph Road. The lands are presently in the ownership of Jacqueline Meiers. An existing one-storey 1,200 square foot dwelling and a one-storey 1,150 square foot boathouse are present on the property. The applicant proposes to replace the one-storey boathouse with a new 2,400 square foot two-storey boathouse with a sleeping cabin and covered area on the second storey of the boathouse with an enlarged dock. The purpose of this by-law is to provide an exemption to Section 8.73 of By-law 87-87 as amended, being the definition of lot frontage to recognize the subject property as having 400 feet of frontage. The applicant proposes to construct a two-storey boathouse with a 650 square foot sleeping cabin, and 250 square feet of covered area on a lot with 242 feet of frontage where a minimum of 400 feet of frontage is required. Please note the actual frontage is 380 feet. The purpose of this by-law is also to provide an exemption to Section 3.1.2.e) of By-law 87-87, as amended, being the minimum required side yard setback of the existing setback to a minimum of 15 feet for a dock and 45 feet for a new two-storey boathouse. The existing dock and boathouse are located 0 feet from the side lot line extension and the minimum permitted setback is therefore 15 feet for the dock. The applicant proposes to construct a two-storey boathouse and dock with a western side yard setback of 0 feet where a minimum 45 foot side yard setback is required for a two-storey boathouse and a minimum 15 foot side yard setback is required for a dock. Please note that both structures project over the side lot line projection. This by-law will have the effect of recognizing the subject property as having 400 feet of frontage and a 0 foot western side yard setback to permit the construction of an enlarged dock and two-storey boathouse with sleeping cabin and covered area above.


of 184


of 184

of 13



MEETING DATE: March 13th 2015 SUBJECT: By-law 2015-11, ZBA-48/14 (MEIERS), Concession 12, Lot 5 (Medora), Parts

2 and 3, Plan 35R-11878, Roll #4-7-041, Civic Address: 12-8150 Lake Joseph Road

RECOMMENDATION: That By-law 2015-11 (MEIERS) be deferred until a revised site plan is

provided implementing the recommendations of the Fish Habitat Assessment and which reduces the impact on the abutting landowner.

APPROVALS: Date Signature

Submitted By: R. Allen, Senior Planner 09/03/15 Original signed by R. Allen

Approved By: D. Pink, Director of Planning 09/03/15 Original signed by D. Pink

Acknowledged: C. Harris, Interim CAO 09/03/15 Original signed by C. Harris

ORIGIN BACKGROUND Particulars of Property: Lot Frontage 242 feet (by-law) 580 feet (actual) Lot Area 1.15 acres Proposed Exemptions:

Section Description Requirement Proposed Exemption

Proposal

3.1.2.e Minimum frontage required for a two-storey boathouse with sleeping cabin and covered area above

400 feet 158 feet Construct a dock and a two-storey boathouse with a sleeping cabin and covered area above on a lot with 242 feet of frontage

3.1.2.e Minimum side yard setback for a two-storey boathouse

45 feet 45 feet Construct a two-storey boathouse with a 0 foot side yard setback

3.1.2.e Minimum side yard setback for an existing dock

15 feet 15 feet Reconstruct a dock with a 0 foot side yard setback


of 184

of 13

BACKGROUND PLANNING DATA Official Plan Designation: Waterfront By-law 87-87 Zoning: Waterfront Residential (WR) Schedule No.: 19 Access: 8150 Lake Joseph Road (Private) Lake: Lake Joseph (Category 1) Neighbouring Uses: Waterfront Residential Original Shore Road Allowance: Not Applicable Fisheries Resource: Type 1 Significant Fish Habitat & Type 2 General Fish Habitat Civic Address: 12-8150 Lake Joseph Road PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

1. Background

The purpose of this application is to permit the construction of a new 2,400 square foot two-storey boathouse with a 650 square foot sleeping cabin and 250 square feet of covered area on the second storey. The applicant proposes to replace an existing dock and ≈725 square foot one-storey boathouse at a zero foot side yard setback, with a new enlarged dock and a new two-storey boathouse at a zero foot side yard setback. The subject property has a straight line by-law frontage of 242 feet and an actual frontage of 580 feet. Two-storey boathouses with a sleeping cabin are permitted only on lots with more than 300 feet of straight line frontage. Two-storey boathouses with a sleeping cabin and additional covered area of 250 square feet are only permitted on lots with more than 400 feet of straight line frontage. Docks up to 75 feet in cumulative width are only permitted on lots with more than 300 feet of frontage.

2. Provincial Policy Statement

The Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. This application has been reviewed against the PPS, and is consistent with it.

3. District of Muskoka Official Plan

The subject site is designated Waterfront in the District Official Plan. Generally within the Waterfront Area recreation and the protection and enhancement of the environment are


of 184

of 13

important policy issues. What follows are some policy excerpts from the District Official Plan that relate to the application. D.20 The maintenance of the shoreline of lakes and rivers is key to preserving the quality of the natural and cultural heritage of Muskoka within the Waterfront designation. Tree cover, vegetation and other natural features are encouraged to be retained to uphold the visual and environmental integrity of the Waterfront. Where development is proposed, a natural, substantially undisturbed buffer is recommended at the water’s edge to generally meet a target of 8 metres (26 feet) in width for three-quarters of the water frontage. D.24 Shoreline development consists of single unit dwellings and accessory buildings and structures located on individual lots which are situated in a linear fashion along the shoreline. K.60 Buildings, structures, or works extending beyond the normal or controlled high water mark or located at the shoreline shall be designed and located in a manner which: a) does not have a significant detrimental effect on critical fish and wildlife habitat; b) does not have a significant detrimental effect on property by facilitating erosion; c) minimizes the obstruction to the natural flow of water; d) minimizes potential damage from flood and ice heaving; and e) implements shoreline and resource development and environmental policies of the affected agency.

4. Township of Muskoka Lakes Official Plan

The subject site is designated Waterfront in the Official Plan. Generally the policies of this Section encourage the protection of waterfront character, and the environment. One of the main objectives of the Waterfront designation is to ensure built form does not dominate the natural shoreline. Section B.2.4 of the Official Plan states that: Limiting density of buildings and structures in the Waterfront area is important in protecting the character of the Waterfront area. Many factors affect Waterfront character such as number of structures, setbacks, shoreline vegetative buffers, height, built size, built form, shoreline structures and the historical lake development. Strict adherence to policies limiting density related to these factors is paramount Section B.5.8 of the Official Plan states that: Waterfront lots should be of sufficient dimension and size to accommodate the use proposed, related structures, and services within acceptable standards. As such, a variety of lot sizes, water frontages, setbacks, and structural limitations are expected in recognition of the natural and built influences in the Waterfront. Section B.5.14.b) of the Official Plan states that: Sideyard setbacks shall be established in an implementing comprehensive zoning by-law in recognition of the following: in the case of shoreline structures, to allow for the ingress and egress of boats to dock spaces and boathouse slips, while maintaining reasonable views and separation for privacy between neighbouring properties. Section B.5.18 of the Official Plan states that: Redevelopment of existing properties shall be encouraged to follow current development standards, as closely as possible, to be compatible with and consistent with sound planning principles including environmental considerations. In addition, encouragement shall be given to restoring and preserving natural shorelines. Section B.5.47 of the Official Plan states: Structurally high profile development shall generally not be permitted. The height of any structure should be appropriate to its setting and terrain,


of 184

of 13

including slope, tree cover, setbacks, and architecture and generally not exceed the height of the tree canopy.

Section B.9.2 of the Official Plan states that: The following special polices apply to Category 1 (Large) lakes: a) Two storey boathouses are permitted subject to all other provision relating to them in this

Plan (Section B13.7) b) The maximum lot coverage shall be 10% of the lot area based on that portion of the area of

the lot within 60 metres (200 ft) of the normal water’s edge; and c) The maximum width of docks shall be 25% of the lot frontage up to a maximum of 23 metres

(75 feet). Boathouses are subject to further restrictions. Section B.10.1 of the Official Plan states that: Development on the waterfront must be carefully controlled and monitored to maintain the character of the Waterfront area. Character of the Waterfront is not only a result of built size and form but also the number of habitable buildings, setbacks, shoreline vegetative cover, height, shoreline structures, and historical lake development. Section B.13.2 of the Official Plan states that: Standards regulating shoreline structures shall be detailed in the implementing comprehensive zoning by-law. Section B.13.3 of the Official Plan states that: Buildings, structures, or works extending beyond the normal or controlled high water mark or located at the shoreline shall be designed and located in a suitable manner so as to have regard for the following matters: a) critical fish and wildlife habitat; b) the natural flow of water; c) potential damage from flood and ice heaving; d) privacy; and, e) other shoreline, resource development, and environmental policies. Section B.13.5 of the Official Plan states that: Shoreline structures shall not impede the immediate view of surrounding properties, as defined by the extension of property lines onto the water. Section B.13.6 of the Official Plan states that: The primary use of docks is for the docking and berthing of boats as well as access to the lake for swimming. Large docks, used as decks over the water, shall be discouraged. Section B.13.7 of the Official Plan addresses two storey boathouses. Section B.13.7 of the Official Plan states that: New two storey boathouses shall generally meet the following requirements: a) located on Category 1 Lakes, provided the structure is not located on a narrow waterbody

and significant fish habitat is protected, as defined in this Plan; b) located on a lot with a minimum water frontage of 90 metres (300 feet); c) may include a second floor sleeping structure not exceeding the floor area permitted for a

sleeping cabin; d) may include a covered deck up to 23 square metres (250 square feet); and, e) an increased setback from the projected side lot line.

Section F.1.6.6 of the Official Plan states that: When considering alterations/additions to non-complying structures which require a by-law exemption/variance, the structure shall be brought into compliance with the by-law as much as possible.


of 184

of 13

Section F.18.2 of the Official Plan states that: When redevelopment is proposed of a non-complying structure(s), every effort shall be made to comply with the Comprehensive Zoning By-law.

5. Zoning By-law 87-87

The required exemptions from Zoning By-law 87-87 are outlined in the introductory section of this report. The exemptions are necessary because the existing zoning provisions do not permit a two-storey boathouse. As the existing and proposed boathouse encroach over the projected side lot line, exemptions are also necessary for side yard setbacks.


Comprehensive Zoning By-law 14-14 was passed by Council on February 13, 2015. Zoning By-law 14-14 made a number of changes to the zone mapping and provisions. The zoning of the subject property has changed from ‘Waterfront Residential’ (WR) to ‘Waterfront Residential – Highly Sensitive or Over Threshold Lakes’ (WR4) under Zoning By-law 14-14. The change in zoning is due to the location of the property on Lake Joseph which is identified by the District of Muskoka as a highly sensitive lake. While the zoning for the subject property has changed as a result of new Zoning By-law 14-14, the boathouse and dock provisions (i.e. width, length, height, etc.) in the Waterfront Residential zones have not changed compared to Zoning By-law 87-87.

7. Site Characteristics

A site visit was conducted on January 29th 2015. The site is generally well-treed with the exception of an open area in front of the dwelling extending east to the shoreline and a driveway and parking area to the rear of the dwelling. The site rises approximately 3 metres from the shoreline and slopes towards the lake on three sides. Existing structures on the property include a one-storey dwelling and a one-storey boathouse with associated dock. The subject property is a ‘thumb-shaped’ point of land located at the eastern end of Greens Bay on Lake Joseph. The existing one-storey boathouse and dock are located on the western side of the property in Greens Bay. A two-storey boathouse is located on the neighbouring property to the north and is not visible from Greens Bay. Multiple properties on Greens Bay have very long docks, however, with the exception of the existing one-storey boathouse on the subject property there are no other boathouses.


of 184

of 13

Front of one-storey boathouse viewed from Lake Joseph looking east

One-storey boathouse and neighbouring dwelling viewed from Lake Joseph looking north

One-storey boathouse and neighbouring dwelling viewed from Lake Joseph looking northwest


of 184

of 13

One-storey boathouse viewed shoreline looking west across Greens Bay towards neighbouring docks

Rear of one-storey boathouse viewed shoreline looking west


of 184

of 13

One-storey boathouse viewed shoreline looking southeast

View of neighbouring boathouse looking north


of 184

of 13

8. Straight-Line Vs. Actual Frontage

As noted above, the applicant proposes to remove an existing one-storey boathouse and replace it with a new enlarged two-storey boathouse with a 650 square foot sleeping cabin and 250 square foot covered area on a lot with less than 400 feet of frontage. The applicant also proposes to remove an existing dock and replace it with an enlarged 75 foot wide dock. The Zoning By-law only permits two-storey boathouses with a 650 square foot sleeping cabin on a lot with a minimum of 300 feet of lot frontage. A minimum 400 feet of frontage is required to permit a two-storey boathouse with 250 square feet of covered area in addition to a 650 square foot sleeping cabin. Docks up to 75 feet wide are only permitted on lots with a minimum of 300 feet of frontage. The subject property is a ‘point of land’ with distinct eastern and western shorelines with an actual shoreline distance of 580 feet, however, the straight line by-law frontage is 242 feet. An exemption is required to permit a two-storey boathouse and 75 foot wide dock. If the lot frontage in the Zoning By-law was based upon the actual shoreline frontage, an exemption to the minimum lot frontage requirements would not be needed. The purpose of utilizing straight-line frontage as opposed to the actual shoreline measurement is that when viewed from the lake at a distance, the shoreline appears as a flat, straight-line, and small or moderate indentations/irregularities of the shoreline are not visible. Extreme points of land (a peninsula/bay) on the other hand, should be treated differently as they do appear as two separate frontages. In this case, the subject property has ≈250 feet of straight line frontage on the eastern side and ≈170 feet of straight line frontage on western side of the point respectively. The eastern and western frontages total ≈420 feet. The Official Plan was amended during the ‘Waterfront Density’ exercise to require 300 feet of frontage for two-storey boathouses. At the time it was felt that 300 feet of lot frontage was necessary to address concerns of visual impact, privacy, and intensity of use at the waterfront. The 300 foot requirement is meant to prevent a crowded appearance along the shoreline and to maintain a low density, natural shoreline. The natural form must continue to dominate over the built form. There is also more activity associated with a two-storey boathouse, which can negatively impact privacy and fish and wildlife habitat. Exercises were completed at the time that illustrated the cumulative visual impact of two-storey boathouses on lots of less than 300 feet, which resulted in built form dominating the shoreline. Council has been consistent in maintaining a 300 foot requirement for two-storey boathouses. However, Council has permitted two-storey boathouses on lots with less than 300 feet of frontage if the lot is a point of land, has distinct shorelines, and where the actual frontage greatly exceeds 300 feet. Considering the actual frontage of the subject lot is 580 feet, and the lot has distinct east and west frontages that collectively exceed 400 feet, staff believe it is appropriate to identify the lot as having 400 feet of frontage instead of 242 feet. Four hundred feet of frontage would permit a two-storey boathouse with sleeping cabin and covered area above. Alternatively, Council could choose to recognize the lot as having 300 feet of frontage, which would eliminate the permission of an additional 250 square feet of covered area but would continue to permit the two-storey boathouse and dock at the widths proposed. It should be noted that in addition to permitting a two-storey boathouse, identifying the subject lot as having more than 300 feet of frontage also increases the maximum permitted dock width. The maximum cumulative dock width on Category 1 Lakes is 25% of the frontage up to 75 feet. Lots with 300 or more feet of frontage achieve the 75 foot maximum dock width before 25% maximum width has been reached.


of 184

of 13

It should be noted that Official Plan policies do not differentiate between straight line frontage and actual frontages. The proposed frontage generally meets Official Plan policies.

9. Proposed Boathouse Width The Zoning By-law limits the cumulative width of the first storey of a two-storey boathouse on a lot with more than 300 feet of frontage located on a Category 1 Lake up to 16% of the frontage, up to a maximum of 75 feet, and the second storey is limited to 13% of the frontage, up to a maximum of 75 feet. In this case, the applicant is proposing to replace an existing one-storey ≈22 feet wide boathouse with a new two-storey boathouse with a first storey width of 48 feet and a second storey width of 32 feet. Using the straight line by-law frontage of 242 feet the proposed boathouse results in cumulative first and second storey widths of 20% and 13% respectively. Therefore the first storey width of the boathouse does not comply, but the second storey width does comply. If the subject lot was deemed to have 300 or 400 feet of frontage both the first and second storey widths of the two-storey boathouse comply as proposed.

10. Proposed Boathouse Side Yard Setback The shape of the shoreline, the shape of the lots on Greens Bay, combined with how the side yard setback is measured in the Zoning By-law, results in a ≈35 foot side yard between the western shoreline of the subject property and the projection of the western side lot line. This narrow side yard results in a situation where little room is available to satisfy the minimum side yard setback requirements for shoreline structures in this area. It is because of this situation the existing boathouse and dock have no side yard setback and cross the lot line projection. The Zoning By-law regulates side yard setbacks of existing boathouses constructed prior to January 2005. Existing non-complying one-storey boathouses are required to be setback at their existing setback, to a minimum of 15 feet from the side lot line projections. Existing non-complying two-storey boathouses are required to be setback at their existing setback, to a minimum of 30 feet from side lot line projections. Where a two-storey boathouse does not exist, the Zoning By-law requires a 45 foot side yard setback for two-storey boathouses. In this case, the applicant is proposing to replace the existing one-storey boathouse with a new enlarged two-storey boathouse. The existing one-storey boathouse has a 0 foot side yard setback and the two-storey boathouse also has a 0 foot side yard setback. An exemption of 45 feet is required because no two-storey boathouse previously existed. In addition to the 0 foot side yard setbacks, the existing boathouse encroaches ≈14 feet over the western lot line projection, and the first storey of the proposed boathouse encroaches ≈10 feet over the western lot line projection. No part of the second storey of the proposed boathouse encroaches over the lot line projection. The proposed two-storey boathouse will decrease the encroachment by ≈4 feet compared to the existing boathouse. Staff have concerns with the proposed 0 foot side yard setback of the proposed two-storey boathouse due to the impact upon the abutting property to the west. Input from this neighbour will be important. Official Plan policies state that an increase setback is desired for two-storey boathouses and that views, as defined as the extension of property lines, not be impacted. Staff have less concern with encroachment of the proposed boathouse over the lot line projection given that the existing boathouse is encroaching and the encroachment is decreasing by ≈4 feet which is considered to be an improvement over the existing situation.


of 184

of 13

11. Proposed Dock Width

The Zoning By-law limits the cumulative width of docks on a Category 1 Lake to 25% of the shoreline, up to a maximum of 75 feet. In this case, the applicant is proposing to replace an existing ≈30 foot wide dock with a new enlarged dock 75 feet wide. The new dock is significantly wider, is located much closer to the shoreline, and extends further into the lake compared to the existing dock. Using the By-law frontage of 242 feet the current dock has a cumulative width of 12% and the proposed dock has a cumulative width of 31%. The maximum dock width permitted on a lot with 242 feet of frontage is 60.5 feet. If the lot was deemed to have 300 feet or 400 feet of frontage a 75 foot wide dock would comply.

12. Proposed Dock Side Yard Setback

The Zoning By-law regulates side yard setbacks of existing docks constructed prior to January 2005. Existing non-complying docks are permitted at their existing setback to a minimum of 15 feet. New docks are required to be setback a minimum of 30 feet from lot line projections. As mentioned above, the shape of the shoreline, the layout of the lots along Greens Bay, combined with how the side yard setback is measured in the Zoning By-law limits the room available to satisfy the side yard requirements on the subject lot. In this case, a zero foot side yard setback exists and zero foot setback is proposed. An exemption of 15 feet is required because the existing dock has a side yard setback less than 15 feet. In addition to the zero foot side yard setback the existing dock also encroaches ≈19 feet over the side lot line projection, and the proposed enlarged dock encroaches ≈26 feet over the projection of the side lot line. The proposed dock encroaches an additional ≈7 feet over the side lot line which indicates that the dock is increasing in length. Staff have concerns with the request for reduced side yard setback and consequently the additional encroachment of the proposed longer dock due to the impact upon the abutting neighbour to the west. Input from this neighbour will be important.

13. Dock and Boathouse Location

Compared to the location of the existing boathouse, the proposed boathouse is moving closer to the shoreline on the neighbouring lot to the west. More specifically, the distance of the existing boathouse from the neighbouring shoreline is ≈30.7 feet and is proposed to decrease by ≈1.2 feet to ≈29.5 feet. There is ≈100 feet of separation between the existing boathouse and nearest dock. In addition to the proposed boathouse moving closer to the neighbouring shoreline, the distance offshore is also reducing. The existing boathouse is located ≈20 feet offshore and the proposed boathouse is zero feet offshore. It appears that in order to create a larger boathouse and to limit encroachment over the side lot line projection, due to the narrow side yard, the boathouse was located directly adjacent to the shoreline. The distance of the existing dock from the shoreline on the neighbouring lot to the west is ≈28.9 feet. This distance is proposed to decrease by ≈3.1 feet to ≈25.8 feet. In addition to the change in location the shape of the dock is also changing. The existing dock consists of a ≈320 square foot area to the south of the boathouse that is connected to the shoreline by a narrow (≈7.5 foot) walkway. The proposed enlarged dock connects to the shoreline along its entire 75 foot width


of 184

of 13

and removes the narrow walkway. The proposed dock is also becoming longer and significantly increases the dock area beside the boathouse to ≈2,000 square feet. Staff have concerns the proposed boathouse will be located closer to the shoreline (i.e. front lot line) on the neighbouring lot to the west compared to the existing boathouse. Input from this neighbour will be important. Staff also have concerns with substantially increasing the size of the dock on the southern side of the boathouse to ≈2,000 square feet because the Official Plan specifically discourages large docks that can function as decks over water. However, if the lot is deemed to have 300 or 400 feet of frontage a 75 foot wide dock up to 66 feet in length would comply.

14. Fish Habitat Assessment

The subject property has Type 1 Significant and Type 2 General Fish Habitat along the shoreline of Lake Joseph. The western shoreline (.i.e. the location of the existing boathouse and where the new boathouse is proposed) is classified as Type 1 - Fish Habitat by MNR mapping. A Fish Habitat Assessment completed by RiverStone Environmental Solution Inc. has been submitted in this regard. The RiverStone report identifies a suitable envelope for development that is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, Township Official Plan, and Department of Fisheries and Oceans and includes recommendations regarding dock/boathouse design and construction in this area. The Fish Habitat Assessment confirmed that the existing boathouse is located within Type 1 Significant Fish Habitat which suggests that critical habitat exists and extends from the northern shoreline to the western edge of the boathouse. The assessment indicated Type 2 General Fish Habitat exists in the location of the proposed boathouse and extends further south and east. The area identified as a suitable location for a new and expanded boathouse includes the area of the existing boathouse extending to the southeast. The assessment also identified a preferred building envelope for the proposed boathouse and dock shown as Type 2 General Fish Habitat and stated that covering nearshore areas can have a negative impact on fish habitat. A key recommendation from the Fish Habitat Assessment indicates that:

“The boathouse should be located offshore a similar distance as the current boathouse, connecting to the shoreline with a narrow walkway... Should the boathouse be moved further south or on the opposite side of the property the rear of the boathouse could be moved closer to the shore.”

The proposed boathouse and dock do not appear to conform to the Fish Habitat Assessment because of the following: 1) the structures are not located within the preferred building envelope and areas identified as Type I habitat are proposed to be covered, 2) The proposed boathouse and dock are not located a similar distance offshore as the current boathouse; and, 3) The narrow walkway connection to the shoreline has not been maintained. Staff have concerns that the location and design of the boathouse and dock as proposed are not in keeping with the recommendations described in the Fish Habitat Assessment.

15. Site Plan Agreement

Boathouse and docks are exempt from Site Plan Control, however, given that a Fish Habitat Assessment was completed that recommended a number of mitigative measures to minimize impact and protect fish habitat, and that Lake Joseph is identified as a highly sensitive waterbody, Council may consider imposing Site Plan Control to ensure construction of the


of 184

of 13

proposed structures mitigates any possible negative effects or impacts on water quality or fish habitat.

16. By-law Administration There are several approaches to drafting a Zoning By-law amendment to permit the proposed two-storey boathouse and enlarged dock. One approach is to recognize the lot as having 400 feet of frontage which would allow the shoreline structure zoning provisions for lots with +400 feet of frontage to be utilized that permits two-storey boathouses with a sleeping cabin and covered area above. The other approach is to maintain the existing by-law lot frontage and instead provide specific exemptions for each aspect of the proposed development that does not conform to the Zoning By-law. In this case, multiple exemptions would be required for a two-storey boathouse, boathouse height, first and second storey boathouse width, dock width, and dock and boathouse side yard setbacks. The proposed boathouse reduces the encroachment over the projection of the side lot line projection by ≈4 feet, will be located ≈1 foot closer to the front lot line of the neighbour to the west. The proposed dock increases the encroachment over the projection of the side lot line by ≈7 feet, and will be located ≈3 feet closer to the neighbouring front lot line. Staff support recognizing the subject lot as having 400 feet of frontage that would permit a two-storey boathouse including a sleeping cabin and covered area above. However, staff object to the design and location of the proposed boathouse and dock given that the recommendations in the Fish Habitat Impact Assessment have not been followed, the dock further encroaches across the side lot line projection and a substantially larger boathouse structure is located within the permitted side yard setback. If the proposed boathouse was moved to the eastern or southern side of the lot, and followed the recommendations in the Fish Habitat Impact Assessment, staff would be supportive of this application.


of 184

DRAFT


of 184


of 184

1-310 Taylor Road, Bracebridge Ontario, P1L 1K1 / T 705.645.9887 / F 888.857.4979 / E [email protected]

September 7, 2014 RS#2014-021 Jacqueline Meiers 100 South Drive Toronto, ON M4W 1R6 SUBJECT: Fish Habitat Assessment – Meiers Property, Lake Joseph,

Township of Muskoka Lakes

Dear Jacqueline: RiverStone Environmental Solutions Inc. (hereafter RiverStone) is pleased to provide our Fish Habitat Assessment for your property is located at 8150 Highway 69, Foot’s Bay and is legally described as Part Lot 5, Concession 1s, in the geographic Township of Medora, Township of Muskoka Lakes.

INTRODUCTION

It is our understanding that you are proposing to construct a new boathouse along the shoreline of your cottage on Lake Joseph, while expanding on the footprint of your existing one slip boathouse. In discussions with Township planning staff, the existing boathouse is location is within an Environmental Protection (EP) zone and a fish habitat assessment is required to support any application to change the structure size or location. RiverStone was retained to complete the fish habitat assessment to determine if the location and size of the new boathouse can be supported based on potential impacts to fish habitat.

The a portion of the frontage has been established as Type 1 (Critical) fish habitat based on historical habitat mapping completed by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). Based consultation with Steve Scholten (Fish Habitat Biologist with the MNR in Bracebridge) the habitat fronting the subject property has partially been identified as Type 1 habitat based on the presence of emergent and submerged aquatic vegetation suitable for spawning, rearing, and feeding of various fish species. All areas of dense aquatic vegetation are consistently identified as critical habitat for fish because of the many biological functions of vegetation. Even beyond fish habitat, vegetation can function to maintain and improve water quality and provide habitat for animals other than fish. It should be noted that assessments of fish habitat, where aquatic vegetation is a component, should be completed during the standard timing window between June 15 to September 15, unless climate conditions justify earlier or later surveys. Our survey was completed within the standard timing window.

SITE ASSESSMENT / EXISTING CONDITIONS

Our site visit was conducted on July 2, 2014 by RiverStone staff (Joel Ketch - Fish and Wildlife Technician and Al Shaw Senior Ecologist) to document existing fisheries conditions, as well as assess the suitability of potential measures to mitigate impacts of development on the adjacent fish habitat. Prior to visiting the site, relevant background information, including site-specific spatial information (e.g., topography, fish habitat mapping), was reviewed using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Aerial photography was also reviewed for the subject and adjoining lands.


of 184

RIVERSTONE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS INC.

Fish Habitat Assessment – Meiers Property, Township of Muskoka Lakes 2

The subject lands are bounded to the south and east by Lake Joseph, and to the north and west by similar shoreline residential lots and upland forest. No permanent or intermittent tributaries or drainage features were noted on the property that would be considered habitat for fish or contribute to fish habitat. The shoreline fronting the subject lands was evaluated for its potential to function as fish habitat. The three key habitat types recognized by the MNR (OMNR 2010) are described in Table 1. Classifications of habitat differ based on their sensitivity and limitation to overall fish productivity.

Table 1. Classification of Fish Habitat Types (OMNR).

Classification Type

Fish Habitat Description

Type 1 Habitats have high productive capacity, are rare, in space and/or time, are highly sensitive to development, or have a critical role in sustaining fisheries (e.g., spawning and nursery areas for some species, and ground water discharge areas for summer and/or winter thermal refuges).

Type 2 Habitats are moderately sensitive to development and, although important to the fish population, are not considered critical (e.g., feeding areas and open water habitats of lakes).

Type 3 Habitats have low productive capacity or are highly degraded, and do not currently contribute directly to fish productivity. They often have the potential to be improved significantly (e.g., a portion of a waterbody, a channelized stream that has been highly altered physically).

The shoreline habitat fronting the subject lands varied across the property, with evident changes in aquatic vegetation presence, substrates and nearshore slopes. Fish habitat characteristics along the western portion of the shoreline were characterized by sparse to moderately dense aquatic vegetation, dominated by Floating-leaved Pondweed (Potamogeton natans), Yellow Pond Lily (Nuphar variegatum) and Fragrant White Water Lily (Nymphaea odorata) (Photograph 1). Substrates are primarily sand and organic material with some larger woody debris and sparse boulders (Photograph 2). Water depths were shallow within 3.5 m to 4 m of the shoreline, resulting in the rear of the current boathouse being located offshore. Riparian vegetation was moderately well vegetated with Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis), Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga

canadensis), dominating the canopy and Sweetgale (Myrica gale) with Royal Fern (Osmunda regalis) as the primary shoreline shrub (Photograph 3). This area has been identified as Type 1 Fish Habitat by the MNR, and our assessment confirms this designation (Figure 2). The presence of aquatic vegetation and additional structural elements makes this habitat suitable for spawning by a variety of species as well as food production.

Photograph 1. Aquatic vegetation along the western shoreline of subject property adjacent to the existing boathouse (2 July 2014).


of 184



Photograph 2. Existing boathouse located offshore in primarily sandy and organic substrates (2 July 2014).

Photograph 3. Western shoreline riparian vegetation adjacent to sand substrates and sparse boulders (2 July 2014).

The southern and eastern shoreline of the subject property varies significantly from the western frontage. Water depths increase greatly and the substrates change to have more boulder and bedrock near the shoreline with sand (Photograph 4). This results in the loss of aquatic vegetation entirely. The riparian area is still well vegetated with similar species dominating the canopy and shrub layers (Photograph 5). These conditions exist essentially from the southeastern edge of the boathouse east through the remainder of the frontage. Based on our assessment, the habitat along this portion of the frontage is best described as Type 2 (Figure 2), which matches that of the MNR mapping.


of 184



Photograph 4. Shoreline adjacent to the southeastern edge of the existing boathouse with no aquatic vegetation (2 July 2014)

Photograph 5. Riparian vegetation and shoreline of southern portion of frontage (2 July 2014).

IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The subject lands are comprised of an existing cottage, and single slip boathouse. The proposed development includes the reconstruction of an expanded boathouse (Figure 2). The boathouse is currently located within Type 1 Fish Habitat, which was partially confirmed by our assessment, which suggests that critical habitat occurs to the western edge of the boathouse. The purpose of our assessment was to identify natural features related to fish habitat, determine the potential impacts of the development proposal on significant fish habitat features, and provide recommendations to mitigate impacts where possible.

Covering critical fish habitat within the nearshore area can certainly have a negative impact. Our assessment of shoreline fish habitat suggests that Type 2 habitat exists at the location of the boathouse and extends further


of 184



south and east through the remainder of the property. Therefore, the area suitable for construction of a new and expanded boathouse includes the location of the current structure and to the southeast. Locating the boathouse in this area will help minimize the impacts and protect significant fish habitat.

New policies and regulations from Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) do not allow a project to cause serious harm to fish. To determine if an authorization from DFO is required for a project, it must be determined if the activity falls within the list of waterbodies or project activities / criteria that are exempt from further evaluation by DFO. In regard to docks, all new construction, repair or rebuild of a floating, cantilever or post dock are exempt from DFO review. For boathouses, new construction, repairs or rebuilds are also exempt, with the condition that there is no new fill placed below the high water mark. Given the habitat assessed on the property and the proposed development, it is our opinion that the proposed boathouse is considered a project that is exempt from further DFO review and will not cause serious harm to fish. DFO regulations do provide a list of measures to avoid harm, which must be met completed in order to comply with the Fisheries Act, including projects that are exempt. These measures to avoid are included as Appendix 1, with several key recommendations included below. It should be noted that recommendations are provided that relate to activities, such as blasting, that may not apply to the project.

Based on the above assessment, as well as the applicable policies governing fish habitat (Township of Muskoka Lakes Official Plan, 2014 Provincial Policy Statement and the Fisheries Act), the following items are recommended as mitigative measures;

The boathouse reconstruction and expansion be restricted to the preferred envelope shown on Figure 2, shown as Type 2 habitat identified by RiverStone.

The boathouse should be located offshore a similar distance as the current boathouse, connecting to the shoreline with a narrow walkway. This is appropriate based on the water depth required for boating. Should the boathouse reconstruction be moved further to the southeast or on the opposite side of the property the rear of the boathouse could be moved closer to shore.

The riparian zone is currently vegetated outside of the existing dock area where the boathouse is proposed. The remaining riparian vegetation should be left undisturbed, maintaining a vegetation buffer and minimizing potential for erosion.

It is fully expected that the construction of the boathouse will be completed from the water, in order to avoid removal of riparian vegetation. Should construction materials and equipment access the shoreline area at all during construction, disturbed areas should have appropriate sediment and erosion control measures in place, prior to work commencing, to prevent the movement of exposed soils into the nearshore area.

Any areas of the property that are disturbed should be re-vegetated to match the current conditions or better.

The DFO measures to minimize harm to fish and fish habitat (Appendix 1) be reviewed and applied. It should be noted that not all measures are suitable for all projects.


of 184



SUMMARY

Based upon the evaluation detailed herein, it is the opinion of RiverStone that the potential risk of negative impacts on significant fish habitat is low and acceptable. That said the above recommendations should be implemented to ensure any negative impacts to fish habitat are minimized.

We trust that the information provided in this letter report satisfies your requirements and provides useful recommendations to protect the site’s significant natural features. Please do not hesitate to call should you have any questions.

Best regards, RiverStone Environmental Solutions Inc. Al Shaw, M.Sc. Joel Ketch Dipl. F.W. Senior Ecologist/Principal Fish and Wildlife Technician


of 184

By-law

2015-11, ZB

A-48/14,

Meiers, P

art of Lot 5, P

age 69 of 184

230

235

Sc a le RS Pro jec tNo .

Da te La stUp da ted By

2014-008 JKSep 7, 2014

0 5 10Metres

Figure 2. Location of boathouse anf fish habitatclassification. Part Lot 5, Concession 1,Geographic Township of Medora, Township ofMuskoka Lakes.

Prep a red fo r Ja c quelin e Meiers

Ortho rec tified a eria l p ho to - sp rin g 2008

ÜLegendPlanning Boundaries (Approximate)

Subjec t Pro p ertyFish Habitat Mapped by OMNR

Typ e 1 Typ e 2

Fish Habitat Mapped by RiverStone in the fieldTyp e 1 Typ e 2

Man-made Features Existing at Time of Site Visit (July 2 2014)

Bo a tho useDo c kCo tta ge

Disclaimers: • the sc a le text o n this figure (e.g., 1:1000) is ba sed o n a 11x17" p rin t. If this figure ha s been p rin ted o n a differen t p a ge size, then o n ly the sc a le ba r is a c c ura te.

• figure sho uld n o t be used in p la c e o f a p ro fessio n a l survey

1:350

Lake Joseph

By-law

2015-11, ZB

A-48/14,

Meiers, P

art of Lot 5, P

age 70 of 184

Appendix 1. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Measures to Avoid Harm.


of 184


of 184


of 184

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/measures-mesures/index-eng.html#wb-cont

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/measures-mesures/index-eng.html#wb-nav

http://www.canada.ca/en/index.html

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/home.shtml

http://www.canada.ca/en/gov/dept/index.html

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/scripts/language.asp

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/index-eng.htm

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/otw-am/index-eng.htm

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fisheries-peches/index-eng.htm

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/research-recherche/index-eng.htm

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ecosystems/index-eng.htm

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/index2-eng.htm

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/index-eng.htm

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/regions/index-eng.htm

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/index-eng.htm

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/index-eng.html

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/pol/index-eng.html#ch82

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/pol/index-eng.html#ch82

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-14/

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/timing-periodes/index-eng.html



http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/measures-mesures/index-eng.html

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/reviews-revues/index-eng.html

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/fpp-ppp/index-eng.html

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/reviews-revues/provincial-provinciale-eng.html

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/changes-changements/index-eng.html

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/fpp-ppp/guide-eng.html

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/rfcpp-ppcpr/index-eng.html

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/fcsap-pascf/index-eng.htm

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/contact-eng.html

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/violation-infraction/index-eng.html


of 184


of 184

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/timing-periodes/index-eng.html

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/terms-conditions-avis-eng.htm

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/transparency-transparence/index-eng.htm

By-law

2015-11, ZB

A-48/14,

Meiers, P

art of Lot 5, P

age 76 of 184

By-law

2015-11, ZB

A-48/14,

Meiers, P

art of Lot 5, P

age 77 of 184

BY-LAW 2015-12

GUHA/ REED

By-law 2015-12, ZBA-47/14, Guha, Part of Lot 10,

of 184

EXPLANATION OF THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA-47/14, BY-LAW 2015-12, GUHA, ROLL # 2-1-001 The lands affected by this amendment are described as Part of Lot 10, Concession A, (in the former Township of Watt), now the Township of Muskoka Lakes, more particularly described as Parts 4 to 6 on Plan 35R-8368. The lands are presently in the ownership of Rabin Daniel Guha. The subject lands are currently vacant and are zoned Rural (Ru1) and Environmental Protection (EP1). The purpose of this by-law is to rezone a portion of the subject lands from Environmental Protection (EP1) to Rural (Ru1) to allow for the construction of a driveway/access onto Raymond Road (District Road #4) to permit the construction of a new dwelling on the existing Ru1 zoned lands. Any future development must comply with By-law 87-87. This by-law will have the effect rezoning a portion of the Environmental Protection (EP1) zoned lands to Rural (Ru1) to facilitate the construction of a driveway.


of 184


of 184

of 6



MEETING DATE: March 13, 2015 SUBJECT: By-law 2015-12, ZBA-47/14 (GUHA), Concession A, Lot 10 (Watt), Parts 4 to

6 on Plan 35R-8368, Roll #2-1-001

RECOMMENDATION: That By-law 2015-12 (GUHA) be given three readings.


Submitted By: R. Allen, Senior Planner 05/03/15 Original signed by R. Allen



ORIGIN BACKGROUND Particulars of Property: Lot Frontage 1,299 feet Lot Area 42.3 acres BACKGROUND PLANNING DATA Official Plan Designation: Rural (Area 3 – Country Residential) By-law 87-87 Zoning: Rural (Ru1), Environmental Protection (EP1) Schedule No.: 25 Access: Raymond Road (District Road #4) Neighbouring Uses: Rural Civic Address: Not Assigned


of 184

of 6

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1. Background

The purpose of this application is to rezone a portion of the subject lands from Environmental Protection (EP1) to Rural (Ru1). The applicant is proposing to construct a new dwelling on the Rural (Ru1) zoned portion of the subject lands, however, due to the location of lands zoned Environmental Protection (EP1) abutting the roadway, construction of a driveway and access from Raymond Road (District Road #4) is not permitted. The Site Alteration By-law does not allow alterations to areas zoned Environmental Protection (EP1), however a Site Alteration Permit could have been obtained to permit the construction of the driveway. The Environmental Protection (EP1) zoned lands proposed to be rezoned are understood, through discussions with the applicant’s agent, to be mapped in error because no environmental features (i.e. wetlands) exist in this location. It is believed this mapping error is related to the historic realignment of Raymond Road which did not remove the old road bed following construction on the new road alignment. No environmental features are understood to be located on the lands to be rezoned.



3. District of Muskoka Official Plan The subject property is designated Rural in the District Official Plan. The Rural designation is identified as those lands in the District not directly identified as being subject to any other strategic land use designation specified in this Plan. The rural area is a community generally comprised of a mix of resource related activities, single unit residential and other small scale or space extensive developments. The character of the community is for the most part an expansive, aesthetically pleasing, and predominantly open landscape with large tracts of land remaining in a natural state. A key consideration for development in the rural area will be the ability of the site to sustain private services. D.31 Permitted uses in the Rural designation include resource management, wildlife management, recreation and low density development. D.32 Rural lots should be of sufficient size to accommodate the use proposed, related structural requirements and private individual services. D.34 Rural residential development will consist of single unit dwellings and accessory buildings and structures located on individual lots and be encouraged to locate:

a) In proximity to existing rural residential uses in order to create a sense of community; b) In areas that do not preclude the use or exploitation of resource values; c) In areas that do not have a significant detrimental effect on the natural or cultural systems of Muskoka; d) In areas that optimize the demand on public services such as fire, police and home care;


of 184

of 6

e) In areas that have reasonable access to community facilities such as schools, and recreation centres; f) In areas accessible by year round roads; and, g) In areas that do not consist of hazard lands.


The subject lands are designated Rural in the Official Plan. The strategy for Rural lands is to ensure that development is compatible with the rural landscape and can be sustained by rural service levels, and the goal is to protect the natural and manmade environment, enhance the rural area’s unique character, beauty and appeal, protect the resource base for ongoing and future use, protect scenic vistas, and accommodate the demand for a rural lifestyle.

5. Zoning By-law

The mapping of zone boundaries is not a precise exercise. In many cases historic zoning is carried forward over time without confirmation of the precise zone boundary for every property and/or environmental feature in the Township. The boundaries of environmental zones are also less precise than other zones because environmental features do not follow property lines, are not linear features, and were mapped at a scale larger than the subject property. General cartographic principals suggest the mapping of any area or feature will always be more precise at a larger scale versus a smaller scale. Staff believe that minor alignment and mapping errors exist across the Township’s zone mapping due to the limitations mentioned above. It is also understood, based on discussion with staff from RiverStone Environmental Solutions, that the wetlands in question were mapped using aerial photography during changes to the Zoning By-law and were based on the presence of a wetland feature from the Ontario Base Mapping. It is believed the original wetland feature was smaller than the Environmental Protection (EP1) zone and was expanded following a review of the aerial photography, which suggested a larger wetland than originally outlined on the Ontario Base Mapping.


The area in question on the subject lands is located adjacent to Raymond Road. The old bed of Raymond Road is clearly evident and does not appear to contain any wetland features, however, significant snowfall accumulation covered the area in question. An old logging road extends from Raymond Road north to the rear of the property. A review of the subject lands using 2013 aerial photography clearly illustrates the old Raymond Road bed is located within the Environmental Protection (EP1) zone. The yellow arrows identify the location of the road bed of Raymond Road (see below).


of 184

of 6

Air photo showing location of ‘old Raymond Road bed’ and EP1 Zone

Location of proposed driveway off of Raymond Road looking south east

7. Access In order to obtain a building permit to construct a dwelling on the subject lands access is required. The applicant is proposing to access the property using the existing old logging road off of Raymond Road and construct a driveway to a building site located within the Rural (Ru1) zoned portion of the property. The applicant has provided a copy of the approved entrance permit onto Raymond Road from the District of Muskoka Area Road Superintendent which included conditions that the entrance

Image Date: October 2012 Source: Google Maps


of 184

of 6

is to be constructed to current District specifications. This access permit would allow the old logging road to be used as a driveway off of Raymond Road. It should be noted that it appears that the Environmental Protection (EP1) zone does not extend to the south-east extent of the frontage of the subject lands and an entrance could be constructed there, however, this would result in a significantly larger driveway requiring the removal a number of trees, and would not utilize the existing old logging road.

8. Environmental Features

RiverStone Environmental Solutions Inc. completed an environmental protection zone assessment on the subject land on December 16, 2014. The RiverStone report confirms that there are no environmental (i.e. wetland) features in the area proposed to be rezoned given the historical use in the area of the proposed driveway, the existing tree communities, and the topographic slopes. RiverStone indicated in their report that a due to the time of year a detailed assessment of the true wetland boundary to accurately delineate the location of the wetland boundary was not possible. RiverStone concluded however, that the area of the proposed driveway to be rezoned is located outside of the wetland and should not form part of the Environmental Protection (EP1) zone. RiverStone recommended that sediment and erosion control measures be installed as needed, at the driveway construction stage, to ensure that exposed soils or other material does not move downslope towards the wetland to the east.

9. Area to be Rezoned The area to be rezoned from Environmental Protection (EP1) to Rural (Ru1) is located at the most western side of the subject property. The area to be rezoned extends ≈98 feet along the frontage of Raymond Road and also extends ≈36 feet to ≈85 feet northwest towards the lands zoned Rural (Ru1). The sinuous shape of the existing logging road, which is intended to be used as the driveway to reduce the removal of trees and vegetation, necessitates a need to rezone almost 100 feet of land along Raymond Road. As mentioned above, RiverStone confirms that there are no wetland features in this area.

10. Site Plan Control

The proposed development is not currently subject to Site Plan Control. Council can consider implementing Site Plan Control to retain vegetation and ensure that recommendations of RiverStone Environmental are complied with.

11. Zoning By-law Administration/Applications Fees

From time to time it is expected that mapping issues and errors will occur given the nature of how zone mapping is created and the process in which it is updated over time. Zone boundary adjustments which are technical in nature or are rectifying an existing mapping error should only be made following a detailed assessment and confirmation that a boundary adjustment is indeed valid.


of 184

of 6

The applicant’s agent has requested that 50% of the application fee be refunded in recognition of a mapping error in the Zoning By-law on the subject lands. Council can decide whether or not a refund of the application fee is acceptable. The Planning Committee members decided not to refund any fees.

12. Supporting Documentation

A planning report by Terry D. Sararas Development Services and an Environmental Protection Zone Assessment by RiverStone Environmental Solutions Inc. have been submitted and are attached to the current agenda.


of 184

DRAFT


of 184

o o TERRY D. SARARAS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Terry D. Sararas, B.E.S, MeIP, RPP 421 Lindgren Road East, Huntsville, On., PIH 1 Y6

Phone: 705-789-8332 Email: [email protected]

PREPARED FOR:

PREPARED BY:

DATE:

PROPERTY:

PURPOSE

PLANNING REPORT

Jim Reed and Jane Derbyshire

Terry D. Sararas Development Services

December 12, 2014

Part Lot 10, Concession A, geographic Township of Watt, Township of Muskoka Lakes

The purpose of this report is to provide a planning summary and analysis in support of an application to rezone a part of lot on District Road #4 in Zoning By-law 87-87, Township of Muskoka Lakes, to permit private road access to the building site.

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

Legal

The subject lands are known legally as Part of Lot 10, Concession A, geographic Township of Watt, Township of Muskoka Lakes. The roll number of the property is 4453-02-001-001. A copy of a map showing the subject lands is attached as Appendix "A".

Physical

The subject lands comprise 16.9 ha (42 acres) with 395.9 m (1,299 feet) offrontage on Raymond Road. The lands are presently vacant. Access is proposed off Raymond Road (District Road #4).

1


of 184

Proposed Development

The subject lands are presently vacant and well treed with a mixed hardwood bush on the upper lands. A small pond exists at the front of the property with a small stream through the centre of the lands flowing to a large wetland (Coopers Pond) at the rear.

The new owners propose to build a single family dwelling on the high plateau along the northerly property boundary. An existing logging trail near the northerly comer of the subject lot will be used as the private driveway to the dwelling. Reference should be made to Appendix "B" Proposed Building Site. Access off ~istrict Road #4 (Raymond Road) has been approved by the District of Muskoka at the location shown on the attached mapping. Full development of the dwelling and access is planned over the next three years.

PLANNING BACKGROUND

District and Township OffIcial Plans

A) ~istrict and Township Official Plan • The subject lot is designated Rural in both the District and

Township Official Plans. Both Plans speak to protecting wetlands. The proposed building site and access driveway do not impact on either of the wetlands at the front and rear of the lot. (refer to appendix "0")

B) Zoning By-law 87-87 • Appendix "C" illustrates the existing zoning on the lot. The owners

propose to construct the single family dwelling in the north-east corner of the lot (refer to Appendix "Bj. The access driveway is proposed to cross the EP1 zoned lands and follow the existing logging trail to the building site. A zoning amendment to remove a small portion of the EP1 zone in the north-east comer is required to permit the private driveway.

Once the small area is rezoned from EP1 to RU1 all provision of the RU1 will be complied with.

PLANNING ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY

The only Zoning By-law provision prohibiting a building permit to be issued on the subject lands is the existence of a small portion of the EP1 zone adjacent ~istrict Road #4 preventing a private driveway to be constructed to the building site.

Site inspection with District Public Works staff and Riverstone Environmental Solutions confirmed that the small portion of the EP1 zone in the north east comer of the lot

2


of 184

9 8

should not fonn part of the EP1 zone but rather is part of the old Raymond Road .. Construction of District Road #4 moved the new road allowance to the east, however the old road surface was left intact. Mapping of the EP 1 in the Zoning By-law failed to recognize this road movement and designated the old Raymond Road as EP1 in error (refer to Appendix "Bj. The attached photographs show the old road bed and logging trail.

Based on the request of Township staff Riverstone Environmental Solutions have been engaged to prepare an environmental report confinning that this north-easterly portion of the lot and road allowance is not part of what should be considered within the EP1 zone. A copy of the environmental report is attached Appendix "0".

The site inspections and report from Riverstone Environmental Solutions confinn that the north-east comer of the subject lot and old road bed do not fonn part of the EP1 zone. Also as stated the lands proposed to be removed from the EP1 zone do not impact the wetland area and correspondingly an application is requested to rezone a portion of the EP1 zone to RU1 to pennit construction of a private driveway to the building site. The lands proposed to be rezoned from EP1 to RU1 is illustrated on Appendix "E". As confinned by Riverstone Environmental Solutions the lands proposed to be removed by the rezoning is not part of the wetland and is really part of the old Raymond Road bed. The zone mapping was drawn in error.

It is therefore my professional opinion that the proposed zoning amendment has merit and represents good planning. Furthennore as confirmed by the environmental report the lands proposed to be rezoned from EP1 zone to RU1 does not fonn part of the EP1 wetland area and therefore will not have a significant negative impact on the wetland.

It is therefore respectfully requested that the proposed zoning amendment be approved.

Prepared and Submitted by:

Terry Sararas, BES, MCIP, RPP Planner

-attachments

3 By-law 2015-12, ZBA-47/14, Guha, Part of Lot 10,

of 184

, ,

"

(

LOT1i\

CONA ')

j '

\

\.

, I , , . , ,

c

~ I I

/ APPENDIX "A" Subject Lands

\. "\

\ ) .

I r ,

; I

"'~


of 184

.. £ _. !- &

u

I. " • ROAD ALLOWANCE a1s .. ,.a· e .. ,.c.l

2Ies. •• • ' •• AL'

"0." - . ~----c- .os., .•• '

s .-W C) c:: '-- "C fD=

- :J ~co Q"C zG> Wen Q.8.. Q.e «Q.

\1 • ........

PART 4 42 . 015 Acl. !

..,

-. ~' ,

--

...,. .., ~ .,

'1-

- --OIlPF£1<

.1' ....... 0·. '.T.c.l "1'S· • .,· •• ·1: e ...... "'.1" , ..... , ",.. l' •• 1'1 • C .. T. oJ, ' I --

It •• • 0.' £ 3.1 ' .15' 0:::::0=: 0

., ,. SII •• • · .a •.•• · .. ....

, , ,!),.

/, . ~

I. ;" "j'

••••••••

•• 0. 00,,0·' h.04:. " .,.,10110.,4:'

,.1.,.'.

PART 3 49, 7 14 ACI.1

.,

. 1 • ~

R.71"'D-' ••••. eo· c •••.•• • NIIO·,I',,·.

.".74'

It. 7& • •• zal c: • I.' .. s.·.s·

... o·o.·!: (- •••. ) ;::::::Q 52Z1 :Ss ' .o--cu... . _. =:::Q-- ---.. T T 2 •• ' 0 . , ~ T • . • . , II .• ) . . ... "1.8.

.... 1 . .. ' . • 1 .

By-law

2015-12, ZB

A-47/14,

Guha, P

art of Lot 10, P

age 93 of 184

(

APPENDIX "e" Existing Zoning


of 184

December 16,2014 RS#20 14-154

Mr. Jim Reed c/o Terry Sararas

o 0 APPENDIX "D"

RIVERSTONE Environmental Report

ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS INC .

Terry D. Sararas Development Services

Via email: [email protected]

SUBJECT: Environmental Protection ZAlne Assessment-Reed Property, Township of Muskoka Lakes

Dear Mr. Sararas:

RiverStone Environmental Solutions Inc. (hereafter, RiverStone) is pleased to provide our assessment of the Environmental Protection Zone (EPI) on the Reed Property in the Township ofMuskoka Lakes. The property is located on Raymond Road, legally described as Lot 10 Concession A, Geographic Township of Watt, in the Township of Musk ok a Lakes (Figure 1).

INTRODUCTION

It is our understanding that Mr. Reed has an offer to purchase the subject property, which is contingent on being able to gain access to a building site with a driveway. The property is currently zoned a combination of Rural- Country Residential (RUI) and Environmental Protection (EPI). The location of the EPI zone is entirely along the frontage of the property along Highway 4 (Raymond Road). Therefore, any driveway entrance to the property would require a crossing of the EPI; however, a driveway is not an approved use in an EPI zone. A large portion at the rear of the lot (west) is also covered by an EPI, which is part of Coopers Pond Wetland. The entire property also resides within the Coopers Pond Wetland Natural Heritage Area.

Through discussions with Township planning staff, it was determined that an assessment of the boundary of the EPt zone would be required to determine the extent of the EPI zone in the area of the proposed driveway. Should the characteristics of the EPI zone truly extend across the frontage, an alternative route for access to the property would be required to further development on the property.

SITE ASSESSMENT / EXISTING CONDITIONS

A site visit was conducted on December 4,2014 by AI Shaw, Senior Ecologist, to review the site conditions and map the location of the proposed access driveway and buildings. Prior to visiting the site, relevant background information, including site-specific spatial information (e.g. topography, vegetation communities, aerial photography, wetland mapping), was reviewed using Geographic Information System (GIS). Based on consultation with Township staff, the EPt zone was delineated by aerial photography during changes to the Zoning Bylaw and was based on the presence ofa wetland polygon from Ontario Base Mapping. The original polygon was smaller than the EPt zone and was expanded after reviewing the aerial photography, which suggested a larger wetland community than

1-310 Taylor Road, Bracebrldge Ontario, PH 1K1 / T 705.645.9887 / F 888.857.4979 / E [email protected] By-law 2015-12, ZBA-47/14, Guha, Part of Lot 10,

of 184

OERSTONE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS J:::"

originally outlined on the OBMs. Given the late time of year and snow cover, we did not expect to be able to definitively identify the boundary of the wetland and EPl Zone. Akhough wetland communities have distinct vegetation types and soil conditions, the transition between upland and wetland can be difficuk to accurately delineate even during optimum conditions in the summer. At this time of year, our assessment could only be expected to review the location of the proposed road and determine if the conditions and characteristics clearly indicated that there was no potential for indicators of the wetland, and therefore, the EPt zone.

On site, the location of the proposed driveway was mapped in the field using survey-grade GPS technology and is shown on Figure 2. The proposed driveway accesses Raymond Road at a location of exposed bedrock (Photograph 1). The driveway is in the northernmost comer of the property that allows proper sightlines for safe access and does not require extensive blasting.

The same location is shown in Photograph 2, which clearly shows the bedrock outcropping and hardwood forest in the background. This location is also where the old Raymond Road differs in its position with the new Raymond Road. Historically, Raymond Road was located immediately west of the current road, with the old road bed visible on aerial photography (Figure 2). The section of driveway adjacent to Raymond Road will be located on the old road bed. Pavement from the old road bed was visible during our site visit after clearing the snow. Limited blasting will be required in this location to properly access a driveway into the lot as Raymond Road was reconstructed lower.

Adjacent to the old road bed, the proposed driveway enters a hardwood bush (Photograph 3), dominated by Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum). An old trail is the basis for the proposed driveway, which can be seen on aerial photography (Figure 2), akhough it is somewhat overgrown. Understorey vegetation was not visible with the exception of some regenerating saplings.

The topography surrounding the proposed driveway also gives an indication of the potential for the wetland habitats. The lands clearly slope downhill from north to south in this area of the property.

Environmental Protection Assessment - Reed Property, Township of Muskoka LClkes 2 By-law 2015-12, ZBA-47/14, Guha, Part of Lot 10,

of 184

QERSTONE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS 10

Photograph 2. Proposed driveway entrance location (Unknown date 2012, taken from Google Street View).

Topographic contours from OBMs show a declining elevation from the northern portion of the lot, through the proposed driveway and toward the wetland location. Photographs 4 and 5 also give further indication that a moderate slope exists on site between the wetland and proposed driveway. Measurements on site with a manual clinometer showed an average downward slope of 15% as taken from three locations along the proposed driveway toward the wetland.

Environmental Protection Assessment - Reed Property, Township of Muskoka Lakes 3 By-law 2015-12, ZBA-47/14, Guha, Part of Lot 10,

of 184

C~ERSTONE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS 10

Photograph 4. Downward slope between proposed " .. "" .. u,,,,,,, (December 4,2014).

Photograph S. Downward slope visible from proposed driveway entrance toward wetland (Unknown date 2012, taken from Google Street View).

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ZONE ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The proposed driveway is within an EPI Zone, which does not permit roadways. Given the EPI Zone is based on a wetland feature, a detailed assessment of the true wetland boundary would generally be required for zoning purposes; however, as noted above, the time of year does not permit the accurate delineation ofa wetland boundary as this requires the assessment of vegetation communities and soil characteristics during summer. Our assessment would only support the altering of the EPI boundary if conditions in the location on the proposed driveway were such that we could be certain that the wetland did not occur in that location.


of 184

QERSTONE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS 10 Our assessment considered three items, which provide clear evidence that the proposed driveway is not part ofa wetland feature and therefore should not be zoned as EPl:

I. historical use in the area of the proposed driveway, 2. existing vegetation community (trees), and 3. topographic slopes.

Aerial photography, as well as the most recent land survey, indicate that within the current EPI Zone, the proposed driveway is on the old roadbed for Raymond Road. The old roadbed is clearly visible on aerial photography and could be seen onsite (pavement was accessible under the snow) and could not be considered a wetland community. A minority of the area of the proposed driveway within the EP is characterised as Sugar Maple forest, which is also not indicative of a wetland. Finally, the location of the proposed driveway slopes downward toward the wetland at approximately 15% slope. This grade would not permit the formation of a wetland, unless the wetland is blocked, such as a beaver dam, and the water level rises to covers the slope. There is no indication from the vegetation community that water levels have been high enough to reach the proposed driveway, which would also cause Raymond Road to be flooded. Even at this late time of year there is clear evidence that the wetland feature does not extend to the location of the proposed driveway or further north.

For the purposes of rezoning, a new boundary must be established to show the location of the EPI Zone and wetland. The time of year for our assessment only allowed us to show that the EP Zone does not exist at the location of the proposed driveway and did not permit an accurate determination of the wetland edge.

If the Township would consider changing the EPI boundary based on the evidence presented above, we would suggest the following recommendations be implemented;

• As a conservative approach, RiverStone would recommend that the EPI Zone be reestablished on the downslope edge of the proposed driveway (existing trail). We can be certain that the wetland does not exist in the location of the driveway and would not be directly disturbed in this location.

• Sediment and erosion control measures be installed as needed, at the driveway construction stage, to ensure that exposed soils or stockpiled material does not move downslope toward the wetland and EPI Zone.

Summarv

Based upon the evaluation detailed herein, it is the opinion of RiverS tone that the proposed driveway is located outside of the wetland and therefore outside of the EP Zone. There is little risk of negative impacts on the adjacent wetland based on implementing the recommendations noted above. We trust that the information provided in this letter report satisfies your requirement and provides useful recommendations to protect the site's significant natural features. Please do not hesitate to call should you have any questions.

Best Regards, ruverSfJ1DYironrnen/al Sohrtions Inc.

A~~ Senior EcologistIPrincipal


of 184

· .

o

~PnlII8l1Id for Jin Reed c/o Teny s...

By-law

2015-12, ZB

A-47/14,

Guha, P

art of Lot 10, P

age 100 of 184

•

'lPt!.~'I'!:~' . . 0 .v (f~~~Dt~!"!"'!"''''''

o By

AS

for Jim Reed c/o Teny Sanns

By-law

2015-12, ZB

A-47/14,

Guha, P

art of Lot 10, P

age 101 of 184

(

APPENDIX "E" Proposed Rezoning


of 184

o o

PHOTOS


of 184

c G

Proposed Entrance looking South on District Road #4

Proposed Entrance looking North on District Road #4


of 184

c c

Old Road Bed looking South to Pond

Old Road Bed in front of Lot looking from Pond Northerly


of 184

c c ..

Proposed Private Road off Old Road Bed

Old Road Bed with Pond on Right (marked with an orange ribbon)


of 184

By-law

2015-12, ZB

A-47/14,

Guha, P

art of Lot 10, P

age 107 of 184

BY-LAW 2015-13

LITTLE

By-law 2015-13, ZBA-01/15, Little, Part of Lot 15,

of 184

EXPLANATION OF THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA-01/15, BY-LAW 2015-13, LITTLE, ROLL # 4-1-021 The lands affected by this amendment are described as Part of Lot 15, Concession 5, Part Loc CL15005, Part of Lake Joseph Bed (in the former Township of Medora), now in the Township of Muskoka Lakes, more particularly described as Parts 1 and 2 of 35R-10144 Plan and Parts 1 and 4 of 35R-22621 Plan, known municipally as 1060 Redwood Road. The lands are presently in the ownership of Mary Lou Little. A 2,815 square foot dwelling (main cottage), a 1,497 square foot dwelling with attached garage, a 1,252 square foot two-storey boathouse with habitable space above, a 621 square foot two-storey boathouse with habitable space above, two sheds, and a carport are present on the property. The applicant proposes to replace the larger of the two dwellings with a new 4,348 square foot dwelling, replace the larger of the two boathouses with a new 2,017 square foot two-storey boathouse with 650 square feet of habitable space above, and replace the smaller boathouse with a new one-storey boathouse of similar dimensions in the same location. Please note that By-law 2012-156 was passed on March 15, 2013 and permits an expansion to the main dwelling where more than one dwelling exists, and two sleeping cabins where two dwellings exist on a lot, among other site specific exemptions. The applicants no longer wish to pursue this approved development and have submitted a new zoning by-law amendment application. The purpose of this by-law is to provide an exemption to Section ii) of By-law 2012-156, as amended, to alter the defined building envelope for the larger dwelling (main cottage). The applicant proposes to construct a new dwelling with a different building envelope than is shown in By-law 2012-156, where more than one dwelling exists. The purpose of this by-law is also to provide an exemption to Section iii) of By-law 2012-156, as amended, being the minimum 45 foot front yard setback for an addition to a dwelling (main cottage). The applicant proposes to construct a new dwelling with a minimum front yard setback of 56 feet where By-law 2012-156 permits a minimum front yard setback of 45 feet specifically for an addition to the existing dwelling. This by-law will have the effect of permitting the construction of a new dwelling in a different building envelope, and increasing the minimum front yard setback for the larger dwelling (main cottage). All other provisions of By-law 2012-156 will continue to apply.


of 184


of 184

of 9



MEETING DATE: March 13, 2015 SUBJECT: By-law 2015-13, ZBA-01/15 (LITTLE), Concession 5, Part of Lot 15, Part Loc

CL15005, Part of Lake Joseph Bed (Medora), Parts 1 and 2 of Plan 35R-10144 and Parts 1 and 4 of Plan 35R-22621, Roll #4-1-021, Civic Address: 1060 Redwood Road

RECOMMENDATION: That By-law 2015-13 (LITTLE) be given three readings.


Submitted By: R. Allen, Senior Planner 06/03/15 Original signed by R. Allen .



BACKGROUND Particulars of Property: Lot Frontage 423 feet Lot Area 132,968 square feet (3.05 acres) Proposed Exemptions:

Section Description Requirement Proposed Exemption

Proposal

Section 1.ii) of By-law 2012-156

Number of dwellings permitted on a lot

No more than one dwelling is permitted on a lot

Permit a new dwelling where more than one dwelling exists on a lot

Construct a new dwelling where more than one dwelling exist

Section 1.iii) of By-law 2012-156

Minimum front yard setback of a dwelling

45 feet as shown on schedule to By-law

+11 feet in a different envelope

Construct a new dwelling with a 56 foot minimum front yard setback


of 184

of 9

BACKGROUND PLANNING DATA Official Plan Designation: Waterfront By-law 87-87 Zoning: Waterfront Residential (WR) Schedule No.: 27 and 28 Access: Redwood Road Neighbouring Uses: Waterfront Residential Original Shore Road Allowance: Not Applicable Fisheries Resource: Type II General Fish Habitat Civic Address: 1060 Redwood Road PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

1. Background

The purpose of this application is to amend existing By-law 2012-156 to permit 2 dwellings and 1 sleeping cabin on a lot, increase the minimum front yard setback of a dwelling to 56 feet, and to change the location and extent of the building envelope for the main dwelling. The applicants are proposing to remove an existing two-storey main dwelling and construct a new enlarged one-storey dwelling with a 56 foot front yard setback. The applicants are also proposing to convert a two-storey boathouse with a sleeping cabin above into a one-storey boathouse. A new two-storey boathouse with sleeping cabin is under construction that replaced a former boathouse with a second storey dwelling. By-law 2012-156 currently permits an expansion to a dwelling where more than 1 dwelling and 1 sleeping cabin exists on a lot, permits a 45 foot minimum front yard setback for an addition to a dwelling, defines the location and extent of the building envelopes, and includes other exemptions related to the maximum width of shoreline structures.



3. District of Muskoka Official Plan

The subject site is designated Waterfront in the District Official Plan. Generally within the Waterfront Area recreation and the protection and enhancement of the environment are important policy issues. What follows are some policy excerpts from the District Official Plan that relate to the application.

D.18 The Waterfront is a major recreation resource area that should be made accessible to both public and private users.


of 184

of 9

D.20 The maintenance of the shoreline of lakes and rivers is key to preserving the quality of the natural and cultural heritage of Muskoka within the Waterfront designation. Tree cover, vegetation and other natural features are encouraged to be retained to uphold the visual and environmental integrity of the Waterfront. Where development is proposed, a natural, substantially undisturbed buffer is recommended at the water’s edge to generally meet a target of 8 metres (26 feet) in width for three-quarters of the water frontage.

D.24 Shoreline development consists of single unit dwellings and accessory buildings and structures located on individual lots which are situated in a linear fashion along the shoreline.


The subject property falls within the Waterfront Designation. One of the main objectives of the Waterfront designation is to ensure that built form does not dominate the natural shoreline. The policies encourage low-density residential development to achieve this objective. Official Plan Policies are quite firm with respect to density. Section B.2.4 states that limiting density of buildings and structures in the Waterfront area is important in protecting the character of the Waterfront area. Strict adherence to policies limiting density related to these factors is paramount. Section B3.1 indicates that a Goal of the Official Plan is to protect the character of the waterfront in recognition of the different character of individual lakes. Section B4.4 notes that an objective of the Official Plan is to identify the character of individual lakes through a classification system and assign appropriate limitations in an effect to protect this character. Section B4.18 directs that another objective of the Official Plan is to control development on the waterfront such that it does not dominate the natural shoreline. Section B.5.2 states that natural form should dominate the character of the Waterfront. Natural shorelines may visually screen development viewed from the water and buffer uses. Shorelines shall be encouraged to be maintained in a predominantly natural state with tree cover and ground vegetation retained as development occurs. Section B.5.4 states that where development occurs in the Waterfront, it should complement the natural and built form and should enhance and protect those qualities that contribute to character. Section B5.8 indicates that waterfront lots should be of sufficient dimension and size to accommodate the use proposed, related structures, and services within acceptable standards. As such, a variety of lot sizes, water frontages, setbacks and structural limitations are expected in recognition of the natural and built influences in the Waterfront. Section B.5.12 states that shorelines of all lakes listed in Schedule J to the Official Plan are considered significant within the context of Section 34(1) of the Planning Act. As such, the locating or using of buildings or structures is generally prohibited in such areas. The front yard setbacks, as detailed in an implementing comprehensive zoning by-law, are established in recognition of:

a) Requirement of a shoreline vegetative buffer; b) Minimizing the dominance of the built form on the natural environment;


of 184

of 9

c) Maintenance of privacy and noise attenuation especially on properties fronting onto a narrow waterbody; d) Maintenance of aesthetic qualities of the waterfront; and, e) Protection of natural habitat and minimizing environmental impact in the foreshore area.

Section B.5.13 states that Land based buildings and structures (unless otherwise specified in the Plan) shall be located a minimum of 20 metres (66 feet) from the normal or controlled high water mark of a waterbody with the exception of the following:

a) minor accessory buildings or structures and marine related facilities, which shall be located as detailed in an implementing comprehensive zoning bylaw; b) septic tile bed and mantle, which shall not be permitted within 30 metres (100 feet) of the waterbody; c) buildings and structures proposed on vacant lots that abut or are adjacent to Natural Areas described in Section B.7, which shall be located as detailed in an implementing comprehensive zoning by-law; d) existing development as defined in an implementing zoning by-law; and, e) consideration may be given to alternatives where such setbacks are not possible due to terrain or other constraints.

Section B.5.18 indicates that redevelopment of existing properties shall be encouraged to follow current development standards, as closely as possible, to be compatible with and consistent with sound planning principles including environmental considerations. In addition, encouragement shall be given to restoring and preserving natural shorelines. Section B.6.5 states that The role of natural vegetated shorelines in buffering waterbodies from erosion, siltation and nutrient migration adjacent to the sensitive littoral zone is critical to the protection of water quality. Preservation and restoration, where appropriate, of shoreline buffers is therefore required. The frontage of a lot will be maintained in a natural state to a target depth of 15 metres (50 feet) from the shoreline where new lots are being created and where vacant lots are being developed. Where lots are already developed and further development or redevelopment is proposed, these targets should be achieved to the extent feasible. Where these targets cannot be met, a net improvement over the existing situation is required. Section B.10.1 notes that development on the waterfront must be carefully controlled and monitored to maintain the character of the Waterfront area. Character of the Waterfront is not only a result of built size and form but also the number of habitable buildings, setbacks, shoreline vegetative cover, height, shoreline structures, and historical lake development. Section B.10.1 states that one dwelling and one sleeping cabin shall be permitted per residential property, where the lot dimensions are appropriate. Section B.10.9 states that the policies and implementing zoning by-law provisions regarding density shall be strictly adhered to in accordance with Section F.1.6 of the Official Plan. Section B.13.3 provides that buildings, structures, or works extending beyond the normal or controlled high water mark or located at the shoreline shall be designed and located in a suitable manner so as to have regard for the following matters:

a) critical fish and wildlife habitat; b) the natural flow of water; c) potential damage from flood and ice heaving; d) privacy; and e) other shoreline, resource development, and environmental policies.


of 184

of 9

Section F.1.6.4 states that in considering applications, the potential impact of similar approvals will be considered. The cumulative impact of amendments on this and other lands will be considered to have greater weight than site specific considerations.


The subject property is zoned Waterfront Residential (WR). The required exemptions from Zoning By-law 87-87 are outlined in the introductory section of this report. The amendments are necessary because the existing permissions in By-law 2012-156 do not permit the new proposal on the subject property which includes reconstruction of the new main dwelling with a greater front yard setback than the existing dwelling, where 2 dwellings exist on the lot.


Comprehensive Zoning By-law 14-14 was passed by Township Council on February 13, 2015. Zoning By-law 14-14 has made a number of changes to both the zone mapping and the zone provisions. The zoning of the subject property is changing from WR to WR4 under By-law 14-14. This zone change is due to the location of the property on Lake Joseph which is identified by the District of Muskoka as a highly sensitive lake. While the zoning of the subject property has changed under By-law 14-14, the changes do not impact the development proposed on the subject property.


Staff inspected the subject property on January 29, 2015. A the time of the site visit, the property contained a two-storey main dwelling, a smaller one-storey dwelling with attached garage, a small two-storey boathouse, and a large two-storey boathouse that was under construction. The property slopes towards the shoreline from a level area behind the main dwelling that extends back to Redwood Road. A small foot bridge leading towards the neighbouring property crosses a stream on the eastern side of the lot. The east and west sides of the property are well-treed and contain a mix of mature vegetation. The area in front of the one-storey dwelling with attached garage has an extensive open lawn and few trees are present with the exception of several trees located on the slope adjacent to the main dwelling. The front yard between the main dwelling and shoreline also contains few trees, has a limited natural shoreline buffer, and is visually open to the lake.


of 184

of 9

Main dwelling and side yard viewed from driveway looking northeast

Two-storey boathouse (under construction), two-storey boathouse (to be converted into one-storey), and neighbouring boathouse viewed from front yard looking east

Two-storey boathouse (to be converted into one-storey), two-storey boathouse (under construction), main dwelling and neighbouring boathouse viewed from point of land looking northwest


of 184

of 9

Second dwelling with attached garage viewed from side yard looking south

Second dwelling with attached garage viewed from parking area looking southeast


of 184

of 9

Carport and other small accessory structure viewed from parking area looking north

Bridge and two-storey boathouse (to be converted into one-storey) looking north


of 184

of 9

8. By-law 2012-156

By-law 2012-156 was passed in 2013 as a condition of consent application B/50/12/ML which added 0.3 acres to the subject property from the lot to the east. Following the severance, 4 dwellings were located on the subject property. By-law 2012-156 provided exemptions to Zoning By-law 87-87 to permit 2 dwellings and 2 sleeping cabins on a lot (a reduction from 4 dwellings), an addition to the main dwelling at a 45 foot front yard setback, conversion of the dwelling above the larger two-storey boathouse to a 650 square foot sleeping cabin, required the conversion of the dwelling above the smaller two-storey boathouse to a sleeping cabin, and limited the maximum width of shoreline structures. More specifically, By-law 2012-156 allows for an addition to an existing dwelling where more than one dwelling and more than one sleeping cabin exists a lot, permits a minimum 45 foot front yard setback for the main dwelling, permits 110 feet of cumulative width for shoreline structures, and permits a maximum cumulative width of 97 feet for boathouses. A site plan is also attached as a schedule to the By-law that defines the location and extent of building envelopes on the lot. By-law 2012-156 also repealed By-law 99-76.

9. Amended By-law 2012-156

The proposed amendments to Sections 1.ii) and 1.iii) of By-law 2012-156 will permit a new dwelling where more than one dwelling exists, permit a minimum 56 foot front yard setback for a reconstructed dwelling, and alter the location and extent of the building envelope. Staff believe that the changes proposed to By-law 2012-156 represents an improvement over the development currently approved on the subject property. The main dwelling is proposed to increase in size from 1,925 square feet to 5,038 square feet, however, the height of the dwelling will decrease from two storeys to one storey, and the front yard setback is to increase from 45 feet to 56 feet. The number of sleeping cabins on the property is proposed to be reduced from 2 to 1 through the conversion of the smaller two-storey boathouse to a one-storey boathouse. The second dwelling with attached garage, the car port and the 2 sheds will remain. The maximum cumulative width of 110 feet for shoreline structures and the maximum width of 97 feet for boathouses in By-law 2012-156 will continue to apply.

10. Site Plan Agreement

By-law 2013-39 applies Site Plan Control to the subject property only for the proposed development shown in By-law 2012-156. The Site Plan Control requirements will continue to apply following the amendments to By-law 2012-156 proposed in this application, however as Lake Joseph is automatically subject to Site Plan Control and the dwelling footprint is proposed to more than double in size.

11. By-law Administration

While there are portions of this proposed application that do not satisfy the provisions of the Zoning By-law, this proposal does however, bring the subject property into closer conformity compared to the development currently approved. Staff support the reduction in the number of sleeping cabins, the increased front yard setback of the main dwelling, and the decreased height of the main dwelling. Staff are also supportive of the Site Plan Control requirement which will help to re-establish the natural shoreline buffer and screen the property from Lake Joseph.


of 184

DRAFT


of 184

By-law

2015-13, ZB

A-01/15,

Little, Part of Lot 15,

of 184

DRAFT

By-law 2015-22 being a by-law to stop up, close and

of 184

Draft

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES

BY-LAW NUMBER 2015-25

Being a by-law to appoint a Treasurer for the Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes.

WHEREAS Section 286 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, Chapter 25, as amended, provides that a municipality shall appoint a Treasurer who is responsible for handling all of the financial affairs of the municipality on behalf of and in the manner directed by the Council of the municipality; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes deems it expedient to appoint a Treasurer; NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes enacts as follows: 1. That Shannon Johnson be and is hereby appointed as Treasurer for the

Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes. 2. That the appointment of Shannon Johnson as Treasurer shall be effective upon

the 16th day of March, 2015. 3. That By-law 2011-104 and By-law 2014-80 shall hereby be repealed upon the

16th day of March, 2015. Read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 13th day of March, 2015. _________________________ Mayor, Don Furniss ___________________________ Cheryl Mortimer, Clerk

By-law 2015-25, a by-law to appoint a Treasurer for the

of 184

DEEMING BY-LAWS 2015-26 & 2015-27

Report from the Director of Planning, Re: Deeming By-

of 184


of 184

of 2


TO: Mayor Furniss and Members of Council MEETING DATE: March 13, 2015 SUBJECT: Deeming By-law 2015-26, The Spinks Cottage Trust Inc., Part of Lot 16,

Concession 14, (Wood), Lot 6, Plan M-302, Roll # 8-13-003

RECOMMENDATION: That Deeming By-law 2015-26 (The Spinks Cottage Trust Inc.) be given

three readings. APPROVALS: Date Signature

Submitted By: D. Pink, Director of Planning 09/03/15 Original signed by D. Pink

Acknowledged By: C. Harris, Interim CAO 09/03/15 Original signed by C. Harris

ORIGIN Particulars of Property: Lot Frontage (assessed): 291 feet Lot Area (assessed): 2.0 acres PLANNING DATA Official Plan Designation: Waterfront By-law Zoning: 87-87: Waterfront Residential (WR5) 14-14: Waterfront Residential (WR3-7) Schedule No.: 52 Access: Water Neighbouring Uses: Waterfront Residential Original Shore Road Allowance: Open Fisheries Resource: Not Assessed Civic Address: 251 Nine Mile Lake


of 184

of 2

ANALYSIS A Deeming By-law Application has been received to deem Lot 6 on Plan M-302, in the former Township of Wood, as no longer being a lot on a plan of subdivision. The applicants are nearing completion on an application to purchase the Original Shore Road Allowance (OSRA), and the Deeming By-law will allow the lot to merge upon closure and conveyance. According to assessment information the property exceeds the existing lot of record criteria prior to acquisition of the OSRA. Staff recommends approval of the Deeming By-law so as not to create a stand-alone lot of the OSRA upon conveyance.


of 184

of 2


TO: Mayor Furniss and Members of Council MEETING DATE: March 13, 2015 SUBJECT: Deeming By-law 2015-27, Spinks, Part of Lot 16, Concession 14, (Wood),

Lot 4, Plan M-302, Roll # 8-13-005

RECOMMENDATION: That Deeming By-law 2015-27 (Spinks) be given three readings. APPROVALS: Date Signature

Submitted By: D. Pink, Director of Planning 09/03/15 Original signed by D. Pink

Acknowledged By: C. Harris, Interim CAO 09/03/15 Original signed by C. Harris

ORIGIN Particulars of Property: Lot Frontage (assessed): 310 feet Lot Area (assessed): 1.75 acres PLANNING DATA Official Plan Designation: Waterfront By-law Zoning: 87-87: Waterfront Residential (WR5) 14-14: Waterfront Residential (WR5-7) Schedule No.: 52 Access: Water Neighbouring Uses: Waterfront Residential Original Shore Road Allowance: Open Fisheries Resource: Not Assessed Civic Address: Not Assigned


of 184

of 2

ANALYSIS A Deeming By-law Application has been received to deem Lot 4 on Plan M-302, in the former Township of Wood, as no longer being a lot on a plan of subdivision. The applicant is nearing completion on an application to purchase the Original Shore Road Allowance (OSRA), and the Deeming By-law will allow the lot to merge upon closure and conveyance. According to assessment information the property exceeds the existing lot of record criteria prior to acquisition of the OSRA. Staff recommends approval of the Deeming By-law so as not to create a stand-alone lot of the OSRA upon conveyance.


of 184



MEETING DATE: March 13, 2015

SUBJECT: Declaration of Surplus Land for portions of Original Shore Road Allowance lying on Three Mile Lake and Nine Mile Lake and consideration of By-laws 2015-22 (DRAKE) and 2015-23 (SPINKS COTTAGE TRUST/SPINKS)

RECOMMENDATION 1: It is recommended that Township Council declare the following land surplus:

A portion of Original Shore Road Allowance lying in front of Lot 11, Concession 6 (Watt) designated as Part 1 on Registered Plan 35R-24648, Three Mile Lake, DRAKE, 2-14-084 Portions of Original Shore Road Allowance lying in front of Concession 14, Lot 16 (Wood) designated as Parts 1 and 2 on Registered Plan 35R-24711, Nine Mile Lake, SPINKS COTTAGE TRUST – 8-13-003 and SPINKS – 8-13-005

And further that the Clerk is hereby instructed to dispose of the said property pursuant to Sections 8, 9 and 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

RECOMMENDATION 2: It is recommended that the following by-law be given three readings and finally be passed:

By-law 2015-22 being a by-law to stop up, close and convey a portion of Original Shore Road Allowance lying in front of Lot 11, Concession 6 (Watt) designated as Part 1 on Registered Plan 35R-24648, Three Mile Lake, DRAKE, 2-14-084 By-law 2015-23 being a by-law to stop up, close and convey portions of Original Shore Road Allowance lying in front of Concession 14, Lot 16 (Wood) designated as Parts 1 and 2 on Registered Plan 35R-24711, Nine Mile Lake, SPINKS COTTAGE TRUST – 8-13-003 and SPINKS – 8-13-005

APPROVALS: Date Signature Submitted By: Teri Guthrie, Clerk’s Assistant 06/03/15 Original signed by T. Guthrie

Approved By: Cheryl Mortimer, Clerk 06/03/15 Original signed by C. Mortimer Acknowledged By: Clayton Harris, 06/03/15 Original signed by C. Harris Interim CAO

Report from the Clerk Re: Declaration of Surplus

of 184

Surplus Resolution/By-laws 2015-22 and 2015-23 Report SUMMARY: Based on Standard 1 of Township Policy C-LS-01 (Sale and Other Disposition of Land) and the Standards of Township Policy C-LS-08 (Sale of Original Shore Road Allowances) it is recommended that the Township declare the above referenced lands to be surplus.

ORIGIN: The Township is in the position to declare the following lands surplus and pass the related road closing By-laws 2015-22 (DRAKE) and 2015-23 (SPINKS/SPINKS COTTAGE TRUST INC.) as per Township Council Policy C-LS-01.

BACKGROUND: DRAKE – 2-14-084 An application for the purchase of a portion of Original Shore Road Allowance on Three Mile Lake lying in front of Lot 11, Concession 6 (Watt) was received from Gerald and Helen Drake. The application was given tentative approval at the Committee of the Whole meeting on July 22, 2014 and was subsequently ratified by Council on August 13, 2014.

Part 1 on Registered Plan 35R-24648 will be stopped up, closed and conveyed to Gerald and Helen Drake.


of 184

Surplus Resolution/By-laws 2015-22 and 2015-23 Report

SPINKS COTTAGE TRUST – SPINKS (8-13-003/005) Applications for the purchase of portions of Original Shore Road Allowance on Nine Mile Lake lying in front of Concession 14, Lot 16 (Wood) were received from the Spinks Cottage Trust and Jeffrey Spinks. The applications were given tentative approval at the Committee of the Whole meeting on July 22, 2014 and were subsequently ratified by Council on August 13, 2014.

Part 1 to be stopped up, closed and conveyed to Jeffrey Spinks. (8-13-005). Part 2 to be stopped up, closed and conveyed to Spinks Cottage Trust Inc. (8-13-003).


of 184

Surplus Resolution/By-laws 2015-22 and 2015-23 Report RECOMMENDATIONS: RECOMMENDATION 1: Township Council declare the following land surplus and direct the Clerk to dispose of said land pursuant to Sections 8, 9 and 11 of the Municipal Act 2001:

A portion of Original Shore Road Allowance lying in front of Lot 11, Concession 6 (Watt) designated as Part 1 on Registered Plan 35R-24648, Three Mile Lake, DRAKE, 2-14-084 Portions of Original Shore Road Allowance lying in front of Concession 14, Lot 16 (Wood) designated as Parts 1 and 2 on Registered Plan 35R-24711, Nine Mile Lake, SPINKS COTTAGE TRUST – 8-13-003 and SPINKS – 8-13-005

RECOMMENDATION 2: Township Council give the following by-laws three readings: By-law 2015-22 being a by-law to stop up, close and convey a portion of Original Shore Road Allowance lying in front of Lot 11, Concession 6, (Watt) designated as Part 1 on Registered Plan 35R-24648, Three Mile Lake, DRAKE, 2-14-084.

By-law 2015-23 being a by-law to stop up, close and convey portions of Original Shore Road Allowance lying in front of Concession 14, Lot 16 (Wood) designated as Parts 1 and 2 on Registered Plan 35R-24711, Nine Mile Lake, SPINKS COTTAGE TRUST – 8-13-003 and SPINKS – 8-13-005

FINANCIAL:

Consideration for the Drake Original Shore Road Allowance is $5,734.50 ($0.75 x 7,646 square feet). Consideration for the Spinks Original Shore Road Allowance is $16,266.75 ($0.75 x 21,689 square feet) and $14,450.25 ($0.75 x 19,267 square feet) for the Spinks Cottage Trust Inc Original Shore Road Allowance.


of 184


TO: Mayor Furniss and Members of Council MEETING DATE: March 13, 2015 SUBJECT: Cemetery By-law 2013-021 RECOMMENDATION: That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the Municipal

Cemeteries By-law 2013-021. APPROVALS: Date Signature

Submitted By: L. Troup, Interim 16/02/2015 Original signed by L. Troup Director of Public Works


ORIGIN: On July 1, 2012, Ontario’s Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002,

came into force. At the December 17, 2013, Committee of the Whole Meeting, resolution number COW-3-17/12/13 was passed:

“Be it resolved that the Committee of the Whole recommend to Township Council that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the Municipal Cemeteries By-law Number 2013-021 at the January 17, 2014 meeting of Council.”

BACKGROUND: The Township of Muskoka Lakes operates a number of cemeteries and is

thereby required to enact a by-law reflecting the new Provincial Regulations. Advertising of the proposed by-law was required at each cemetery and in a local newspaper. Draft By-law 2013-021 was then forwarded to the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services for approval. These steps have been completed and Ministry approval of the by-law is dated November 20, 2014.

All previous Cemetery By-laws (1992-202, 2000-013 and 2002-025) will be

repealed with the passing of By-law 2013-021. FINANCIAL: None.

Report from the Interim Director of Public Works

of 184

Draft


BY-LAW NUMBER 2013-021

Being a by-law to provide for rules and regulations for the care and control of all Municipal Cemeteries in The Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes pursuant to The Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act 2002, S.0. 2002. c.33.

WHEREAS pursuant to The Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, O.Reg. 30/11, s. 150 (1), a cemetery operator may make by-laws governing the operation of the cemetery and, in particular, governing rights, entitlements and restrictions with respect to interment and scattering rights; AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to revise and establish certain standards for the operation and control of cemeteries under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ENACTED by the Municipal Council of The Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes as follows: 1. That the General Regulations of Municipal Cemeteries in The Corporation of The

Township of Muskoka Lakes, as set out in Schedule "A", and attached hereto, is hereby adopted and made part of this by-law.

2. That the list of cemeteries under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of The Township

of Muskoka Lakes, as set out in Schedule "B", and attached hereto, is hereby adopted and made part of this by-law.

4. That the Contract for Purchase of Interment Rights or Cemetery Supplies or

Services, attached hereto, is hereby adopted. 5. That the Certificate of Interment Rights, attached hereto, is hereby adopted. 6. That the Notice of Permission for Interment, attached hereto, is hereby adopted. 7. That all cemetery charges for lots and services shall be established in the Cemetery

Price List, attached hereto, is hereby adopted. 8. That this by-law shall be known as the “Cemetery By-law”. 9. That By-laws 92-202, 2000-013 and 2002-25 are hereby repealed. READ a first, second third time and finally passed this day 13th of March, 2015. ______________________ Mayor Don Furniss ______________________ Cheryl Mortimer, Clerk


of 184

Draft

Schedule A to By-law 2013-021 Page 1 of 7

SCHEDULE "A" Attached to and forming part of By-law 2013-021

GENERAL REGULATIONS FOR CEMETERIES OWNED BY


1. DEFINITIONS a. Burial is the opening and closing of an in ground lot or plot for the disposition of

human remains or cremated human remains.

b. Burial Plot means an area of land in the cemetery containing or set aside to contain one (1) regular interment and four (4) cremated human remains, including space for a marker or monument.

c. By-laws are the rules and regulations under which the Cemetery operates.

d. Care and Maintenance Fund is a requirement under the FBCSA (Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act 2002) that a percentage of the purchase price of all Interment Rights, and set amounts for marker and monument installations is contributed into the Care and Maintenance Fund. Interest earned from this fund is used to provide care and maintenance of plots, lots, markers and monuments at the Cemetery.

e. Contract for purposes of these by-laws, all purchasers of interment rights must sign a contract with the cemetery, detailing obligations of both parties and acceptance of the cemetery by-laws.

f. Corner Posts mean any stone or other land markers set flush with the surface of the ground and used to indicate the location of a lot or plot.

g. Cremation Plot means an area of land in the cemetery containing or set aside to contain two (2) cremated human remains, including space for a marker or monument.

h. Grave (Also known as Lot) means any in ground burial space intended for the interment of a child, adult or cremated human remains.

i. Interment Rights are the right to require or direct the interment of human remains or cremated human remains in a grave or lot and direct the associated memorialization.

j. Interment Rights Certificate is the document issued by the Cemetery to the purchaser once the interment rights have been paid in full, identifying ownership of the interment rights.

k. Interment Rights Holder is any person designated to hold the right to inter human remains in a specified lot.

l. Lot for the purposes of these By-Laws a lot is a single grave space.

m. Marker means any permanent memorial structure that is set flush and level with the ground, and used to mark the location of a burial lot.

n. Monument is any permanent memorial projecting above the ground installed within the designated space to mark the location of a burial or lot.

o. Niche: An individual compartment in a columbarium for the entombment of cremated human remains.


of 184

Draft


p. Plot: For the purposes of these by-laws, a plot is a parcel of land, sold as a single unit, containing multiple lots.

2. ADMINISTRATION a. The Town reserves full and complete control and management of the land, buildings,

plantings, roads, utilities, books and records of its cemeteries and complete authority to administer these by-laws in accordance with the Act.

b. The Clerk shall be authorized to execute on behalf of the Town, those documents necessary to undertake the daily operation of its cemeteries.

c. No person except authorized personnel or peace officers shall enter or be within the cemetery grounds outside of daylight hours.

d. No person shall allow or permit any animal to enter the cemetery unless on a leash.

e. Hours of Operation - Visitors are welcome in all cemeteries from sunrise to sunset. Generally, it is advisable that visitors refrain from entering the cemeteries at all other times in the interest of the public safety or if the gates are closed.

f. All visitors are prohibited from taking flowers, plants or other materials from plots in the cemetery other than from their own plots. No person shall pick flowers, either wild or cultivated, break any tree, shrub or plant, or write upon or deface or injure any monument, fence or other structure in or belonging to the cemetery.

g. To ensure the correctness of records of ownership and interments, a transfer of any interment rights or any interest therein shall not be binding upon the Corporation until notice in writing has been given to the Clerk of the Corporation specifying the name, address and occupation or other description of the proposed transferee and date, and such particulars shall be kept in a register for that purpose. Upon receipt of notice, and the payment of a fee, the transfer shall be made.

h. The purchase of interment rights for the sole purpose of reselling the rights to make a profit i.e. financial gain is prohibited.

i. The Corporation recommends interment rights holders to bequeath their plots and to mention the plot number in their will. Rights holders, or their legal heirs or representatives, only are allowed to sign for any interment in the plot. In the event of the death of a rights owner, The Corporation will require that letters of probate, of administration or other sufficient proof of inheritance be submitted to the Corporation by the estate of the deceased before the Ownership of the Rights is assigned or transferred to any beneficiary, heir or next of kin of the deceased Rights Owner.

j. Pets, including cremated animal remains, are not allowed to be buried on cemetery grounds.

3. SALE AND TRANSFER OF INTERMENT RIGHTS (Lots) a. Interment rights (lots) may be purchased from the Municipality according to the Price

List and according to the plans approved by the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services on file in the Office of the Township of Muskoka Lakes.

b. Interment rights (lots) sold shall include a rate for the Care and Maintenance Fund as set in the Price List, to ensure proper maintenance in perpetuity.


of 184

Draft


c. Each purchaser of Interment Rights within the Cemetery shall receive a copy of the; Contract for Purchase of Interment Rights or Cemetery Supplies or Services, the cemetery by-law, the Ontario Government’s Consumer information Guide and upon payment in full, a Certificate of Interment Rights. This Certificate of Interment Rights shall specify the name of the purchaser, the location, dimensions and capacity of the lot purchased, the date of purchase, the sale price and the proportion of the sale price set aside for the care and maintenance fund.

d. The Township of Muskoka Lakes permits the Interment Rights holder to transfer their interment rights to a third party, as long as the transfer is conducted through the Township of Muskoka Lakes and the purchaser meets the qualifications and requirements as outlined in the Township of Muskoka Lakes by-laws. The original Interment Rights Certificate that was issued to the interment rights holder(s) must be returned along with the written notice requesting the transfer. A new Interment Rights Certificate will be issued to the third party Purchaser upon receiving full payment and registration of the transfer.

The resale of Interment Rights by the purchaser is prohibited. They must be sold back to the Corporation at the current market value, minus the amount paid into the care and maintenance fund in relation to those rights. The purchase of interment rights for the sole purpose of reselling the rights to make a profit is prohibited.

e. Purchasers of interment rights holders acquire only the right to direct the burial of

human remains and the installation of monuments, markers and inscriptions, subject to the conditions set out in the cemetery by-laws. In accordance with cemetery by-laws, no burial or installation of any monument, marker, inscription, or memorialization is permitted until the interment rights have been paid in full. An interment rights certificate will be issued to the interment rights holder(s) when payment has been made in full. The purchase of interment rights is not a purchase of Real Estate or real property.

f. A purchaser has the right to cancel an interment rights contract within thirty (30) days of signing the interment rights contract, by providing written notice of the cancellation to The Township of Muskoka Lakes. The cemetery operator will refund all monies paid by the purchaser within thirty (30) days from the date of the request for cancellation.

g. Upon receiving written notice from the purchaser of the interment rights, after thirty (30) days of signing the interment rights contract, the cemetery operator will cancel the contract and issue a refund to the purchaser for the amount paid for the interment rights less the appropriate amount that is required to be deposited into the Care and Maintenance Fund. This refund will be made within thirty (30) days of receiving said notice. The original Interment Rights Certificate that was issued to the interment rights holder(s), must be returned to the cemetery operator along with the written notice of cancellation.

h. If any portion of the interment rights has been exercised, the purchaser, or the interment rights holder(s) are not entitled to cancel the contract or re-sell the interment rights.

i. As required by sections 166 and 168 of Regulation 30/11, a percentage of the purchase price of all interment rights and a prescribed amount for monuments and markers is contributed into the care and maintenance fund. Income from this fund is used to provide only general care and maintenance of the cemetery. Contributions to the care and maintenance fund are not refundable except when interment or scattering rights are cancelled within the 30 day cooling off period.


of 184

Draft


j. The Township reserves the right to limit the ownership of Interment Rights (lots) of an individual to eight.

4. INTERMENT AND DISINTERMENT

a. Interment rights holder(s) must provide written authorization prior to a burial taking

place. Should the interment rights holder be deceased, authorization must be provided in writing by the person authorized to act on behalf of the interment rights holder i.e. Personal Representative, Estate Trustee, Executor or next of kin.

b. In each case of an interment a Notice of Permission for Interment, giving the name, birth place, last place of residence, age, date of death, place of death, name and address of nearest relative, time of interment, lot interred within, name of funeral director and medical attendant, must be furnished so that an accurate record can be entered in the Cemetery Records.

c. A burial permit issued by the Registrar General or equivalent document showing that the death has been registered with the province must be provided to the cemetery office prior to a burial taking place. A Certificate of Cremation must be submitted to the cemetery office prior to the burial of cremated remains taking place.

d. Payment must be made to the cemetery before a burial can take place.

e. The cemetery shall be given 48 business hours of notice for each burial of human remains or cremated human remains.

f. The opening and closing of graves may only be conducted by cemetery staff or those designated to do work on behalf of the cemetery.

g. Precise and proper instructions in writing shall be given regarding the location of every interment. The Township of Muskoka Lakes cannot be held responsible for any errors resulting from wrongful or lack of specific information.

h. Where orders are given by telephone for interment, the Municipality will not be responsible for any errors or misunderstandings that may arise. Such verbal instructions shall be confirmed by completion of a Notice of Permission for Interment.

i. For regular cemetery lots, not more than one interment shall take place in a single lot, unless for the placing of cremated remains. Four cremated remains may be placed on/in a single lot or a lot already containing a casket. A casket interment may not be carried out in a lot which contains cremated remains. For cremation lots, not more than two cremated remains may be placed in a single lot.

j. For Columbarium Niches, there is a limit of two (2) cremation interments in each niche. Niches are of a standard inside size of eleven and one half inches by eleven and one half inches by eleven and one half inches (11 ½” X 11 ½” X 11 ½”). The conditions of any urn on subsequent openings and oversize urns that may not be accommodated in the niches are not the responsibility of the Corporation.

No embellishment may be attached to any niche front and only the approved style of inscription of the Corporation will be allowed. The price of the Columbarium niche includes the inscription work and the opening and sealing of niches and will be performed by employees of the Corporation only. Overtime charges will be extra as well.

Columbarium decorations will be permitted in the appropriate area only. Please contact Supervisor for details.


of 184

Draft


k. The winter season shall be considered to be November 1st - April 30th, and no interments shall take place during this period unless specifically authorized by the Director of Public Works or their designate.

l. The Director of Public Works or their designate shall be in attendance at each interment.

m. All funerals arriving at any cemetery later than 3:45 p.m. on weekdays will be subject to an extra overtime charge as set out in the Price List. Interments on Saturdays and Sundays and Statutory Holidays will be subject to this charge as well.

n. Human remains may be disinterred from a lot provided that the written consent (authorization) of the interment rights holder has been received by the cemetery operator and the prior notification of the medical officer of health. A certificate from the local medical officer of health must be received at the cemetery office before the removal of casketed human remains may take place. A certificate from the local medical officer of health is not required for the removal of cremated remains.

o. In special circumstances the removal of human remains may also be ordered by certain public officials without the consent of the interment rights holder and/or next of kin(s).

5. CARE OF PLOTS AND LOTS

a. A portion of the price of interment or scattering rights is trusted into the Care and

Maintenance Fund. The income generated from this fund is used to maintain, secure and preserve the cemetery grounds. Services that can be provided through this fund include:

i. Re-levelling and sodding or seeding of Lots

ii. Maintenance of cemetery roads, sewers and water systems

iii. Maintenance of perimeter walls and fences

iv. Maintenance of cemetery landscaping

v. Maintenance of mausoleum and columbarium

vi. Repairs and general upkeep of cemetery maintenance buildings and equipment

b. No person other than cemetery staff shall remove any sod or in any other way change the surface of the burial lot in the cemetery.

c. No person shall plant trees, flower beds or shrubs in the cemetery except with the approval of the Director of Public Works or their designate.

d. Flowers placed on a grave for a funeral shall be removed by the Director of Public Works or their designate after a reasonable time to protect the sod and maintain the tidy appearance of the cemetery.

e. The location on a plot or lot for flowers, flower holders, artificial flowers, wreaths and urns should not exceed two feet past the head of the lot and they may be removed by the Director of Public Works or their designate, should they become unsightly.

f. No plot or lot shall be altered without prior approval of the Director of Public Works and the Director of Public Works or their designate may restore the plot or lot to its original condition at the expense of the owner.


of 184

Draft


g. The Director of Public Works or their designate may remove all or part of any tree or shrub situated within a cemetery which become detrimental to adjacent plots or lots, monuments, driveways or walkways, or prejudicial to the general appearance of the grounds, or inconvenient to the public.

6. MONUMENTS AND MARKERS

a. No monument or other structure shall be erected or permitted on a lot until the purchase price of the lot and accrued charges and expenses have been paid in full.

b. Corner markers may be purchased from and installed by the Director of Public Works or their designate with the initial purchase of the plot or lot. The corner markers will be placed at each corner of the plot or lot and be set flush with the ground.

c. Foot markers shall be set flush with the ground.

d. Monuments shall be of standard marble or granite. No artificial or perishable material such as sandstone or limestone will be permitted. A contribution for monument care and maintenance will be collected by the municipality from the supplier and deposited into the cemeteries care and maintenance fund prior to a monument being installed.

e. Monuments must be a minimum thickness of 6" and a maximum height of 4' on a base no more than 3" larger on all sides than the monument itself. Foundations for monuments are to be 5'0" deep or the depth of the lot, whichever is greater.

f. The minimum thickness for flat markers including footstones is 4 inches or 10 cm.

g. Application must be made to the Director of Public Works in writing, at least 48 hours prior to a foundation for a monument being constructed. The Township will inspect the foundation to determine compliance with requirements.

h. When any monument or marker is to be removed for cleaning and or inscription, notification of such removal must be made to the Director of Public Works.

i. The Corporation shall keep all monuments in a state of good repair and safety and do whatever is necessary by way of repairing, resetting or laying down the marker so as to remove any risk. Such repairs shall come under the monument care and maintenance fund of the cemetery.

j. The Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes shall take reasonable precaution to protect the property of rights owners, but it assumes no liability or responsibility for the loss of, or damage to, any monument, marker, or part of any article of any type that may be placed on any plot.

k. The Corporation of the Township of Muskoka shall not be liable if, due to incorrect or improperly authorized instructions, a marker is installed on or removed from a plot; or lettering or carving on any marker or other structure is improperly carried out.


of 184

Draft


of 184

Draft

Schedule B to By-law 2013-021 Page 1 of 1

SCHEDULE "B" Attached to and forming part of By-law 2013-021

CEMETERIES OWNED BY

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES CEMETERY CONCESSION LOT WARD CIVIC ADDRESS

** Doherty

Cemetery

2 18 Watt Doherty Road

Foot's Bay

10 3 Medora 1036 United Church Road

Glen Orchard

3 18, 19 Medora 1017 West Whites Road

Milford Bay

11 27 Monck 1000 Old Lakeshore Road

* Morinus

11 29 Medora 1227 Morinus Road

Port Carling

3 31 Port Carling 46 Joseph Street

Torrance

7 23 Wood 1026 East Bay Road

Ufford

3 18 Watt 1450 Doherty Road

** Ufford United

5 15 Watt 1570 Windermere Road

** Ufford Anglican

4 13 Watt 1520 Windermere Road

Ullswater

A & B 31 Watt 1289 Old Parry Sound Road

Ziska

5 10 Monck 1139 Ziska Road

Note * Within the Morinus Cemetery, all lots have been sold; however, burials are still carried

out in the purchased lots, therefore, the Cemetery cannot be considered closed. ** Ufford, United, Ufford Anglican and Doherty Cemeteries are closed.


of 184

Draft

February 10, 2015 \\MLT6\Dept\Clerk\Cemeteries\By-laws\2013-021 Final

Page 1 of 3

CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF

INTERMENT RIGHTS OR CEMETERY SUPPLIES OR SERVICES

Owner of Cemetery The Township of Muskoka Lakes

Owner's Address Box 129, Port Carling, Ontario, P0B 1J0

Purchaser's Name(s)

Purchaser's Address

Telephone Number Home: Other:

Email Address

Name of Cemetery

Description of Services and Supplies: • Interment including Name, Date, Lot

number and outer container • Sale or Transfer of Lot including Section,

Number & Dimensions • Purchase of Corner Markers

Service or Supply $

$

$

$

Amount to Care and Maintenance $

HST (Harmonized Sales Tax) $

Total Price $

Date of Purchase Day Month Year

It is agreed between the parties that the contract is subject to the Township of Muskoka Lakes By-Law 2013-021. The purchaser hereby acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Cemetery By-law and the Ontario Government’s Consumer information Guide, and that the Conditions of Contract on the reverse have been read and understood.

Signature of purchaser

Signature of provider Personal information contained on this form is collected under the authority of the Cemeteries Act (Revised), R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.4, and will be used to determine eligibility of the sale of interment rights or cemetery supplies or services. Questions about this collection should be directed to:

The Clerk, Township of Muskoka Lakes,

Box 129, Port Carling, Ontario, P0B 1J0, (Telephone 705-765-3156)


of 184

Draft


Page 2 of 3

CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT Contract Terms and Conditions

Written consent of all surviving Rights Holder(s) and any other required documentation as set out in the cemetery by‐laws is required for interment, disinterment, and the placement of markers or monuments.

Each purchaser of Interment Rights within the Cemetery shall receive a copy of the Contract for Purchase of Interment Rights or Cemetery Supplies or Services, attached as Schedule “C”, the cemetery by-law, the Ontario Government’s Consumer information Guide and upon payment in full, a Certificate of Interment Rights, attached as Schedule “D”,. This Certificate of Interment Rights shall specify the name of the purchaser, the location, dimensions and capacity of the lot purchased the date of purchase, the sale price and the portion of the sale price set aside for the care and maintenance fund.

Memorialization:

Care and Maintenance Fund Contribution for Marker and Monument Installation: In accordance with the FBCSA and Ontario Regulation 30/11, the following contributions will be made to the Care and Maintenance Fund for every installation of a marker or monument;

In the case of installing a flat marker measuring less than 1,116.3 sq.m. (173 sq.in.) $0.00 In the case of installing a flat marker measuring over 1,116.3 sq.m. (173 sq.in.) $50.00 In the case of installing an upright monument measuring more than 1.22 m. (4 ft.) Or less in height or length, including the base $100.00 In case of installing an upright monument measuring more than 1.22m. (4 ft.) either In height or length, including the base $200.00

Interment Rights Holder(s) request to remove memorialization: A marker, monument, or memorialization purchased and/or installed by anyone other than the Rights Holder(s) may be removed by the cemetery staff on the written request of the Rights Holder(s).

PAYMENT TERMS

Payment must be made to The Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes before a burial can take place.

All funerals arriving at any cemetery later than 3:45 p.m. on weekdays will be subject to an extra overtime charge as set out in the List of Municipal Fees. Interments on Saturdays and Sundays and Statutory Holidays will be subject to this charge as well.

Cancellation of contract within 30 days

A purchaser has the right to cancel an interment rights contract within thirty (30) days of signing the interment rights contract, by providing written notice of the cancellation to The Township of Muskoka Lakes. The cemetery operator will refund all monies paid by the purchaser within thirty (30) days from the date of the request for cancellation.

If any portion of the interment rights has been exercised, the purchaser, or the interment rights holder(s) are not entitled to cancel the contract or re-sell the interment or scattering rights.

Cancellation of contract after 30 Days

Upon receiving written notice from the purchaser of the interment rights, after thirty (30) days of signing the interment rights contract, the cemetery operator will cancel the contract and issue a refund to the purchaser for the amount paid for the interment rights less the appropriate amount that is required to be deposited into the Care and Maintenance Fund. This refund will be made within thirty (30) days of receiving said notice. If the interment rights certificate has been issued to the interment rights holder(s), the certificate must returned to the cemetery operator along with the written notice of cancellation.

If any portion of the interment rights has been exercised, the purchaser, or the interment rights holder(s) are not entitled to cancel the contract or re-sell the interment or scattering rights.


of 184

Draft


Page 3 of 3

Transfer of Interment Rights

The Township of Muskoka Lakes permits the Interment Rights holder to transfer their interment rights to a third party, as long as the transfer is conducted through the Township of Muskoka Lakes and the purchaser meets the qualifications and requirements as outlined in the Township of Muskoka Lakes by-laws. The original Interment Rights Certificate that was issued to the interment rights holder(s), must be returned along with the written notice requesting the transfer. A new Interment Rights Certificate will be issued to the third party Purchaser upon registration of the transfer.

The resale of Interment Rights by the purchaser is prohibited. They must be sold back to the Corporation at the current market value, minus the amount paid into the care and maintenance fund in relation to those rights. The purchase of interment rights for the sole purpose of reselling the rights to make a profit is prohibited.

Subdivision of Interment Rights: No Rights Holder(s) may sub‐divide and sell or transfer a portion of an Interment Rights.

Consumer Information Guide and cemetery price list: By initialling below, the purchaser acknowledges receiving a copy of the the Ontario Government’s Consumer information Guide and the cemetery price list (List of Municipal Fees) at the time of entering into this contract.

{__} I hereby acknowledge I have been offered and/or received a copy of the Ontario Government’s Consumer Information Guide and the Cemetery Price List.

I have reviewed the Contract’s terms and conditions and hereby confirm that the Interment Rights, and specified in this contract (including the attached payment schedule, if applicable) are complete and correct. I direct the operator to proceed with the sale of the Interment Rights, as identified in the contract in accordance with the cemetery by‐laws which are now or at any time hereafter in force.

{__} I hereby acknowledge I have received and reviewed a copy of the cemetery’s by‐laws.

The Terms and Conditions set out in this contract expire on (state period of time) unless executed by the purchaser and the operator. The contract date set out below is the date on which this contract is accepted by the operator.

I acknowledge having received a copy of this contract, and will assume full responsibility for payment of the total contract amount to the operator in accordance with the contract’s terms and conditions.

Purchaser: _______________________________________ Date:

Accepted on behalf of The Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes by:

Providers Name: License #: 3287635

Providers Signature:

Personal information contained on this form is collected under the authority of the Cemeteries Act (Revised), R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.4, and will be used to determine eligibility of the sale of interment rights or cemetery supplies or services. Questions about this collection should be directed to:

The Clerk, Township of Muskoka Lakes,

Box 129, Port Carling, Ontario, P0B 1J0, (Telephone 705-765-3156)


of 184

Draft


CERTIFICATE OF INTERMENT RIGHTS

Certificate Number <Certificate Number> PURSUANT TO The Funeral Burial and Cremation Service Act, 2002, Ontario Regulation 30/11, s.126

The Interment Rights Holder(s) listed below have the right to direct/consent to the burial, and memorialization associated with the Interment Rights in conjunction with the cemetery by-laws.

Rights Holder(s) Name: <Owner><Owner First Name> <Owner Middle Name> <Owner Last Name><Owner>

Address: <Owner Address1>, <Owner Address2>

City: <Owner City>, Province: <Owner Province/State>

Postal Code: <Owner Postal/Zip Code>

Cemetery Name: <Cemetery Name>, <Cemetery Address1>, <Cemetery City> 705-765-3156

Interment Right Location: <Site> <Site Name> </Site> Interment Right Type:

Price: <Site Price> Area: (<Site Length> X <Site Width>)

Care & Maintenance: <Care and Maintenance> Capacity Burials <Traditional Capacity>

Harmonized Sales Tax: <Tax1> Cremations <Cremation Capacity>

For regular cemetery lots, not more than one interment shall take place in a single lot, unless for the placing of cremated remains. Four cremated remains may be placed on/in a single lot or a lot already containing a casket. A casket interment may not be carried out in a lot which contains cremated remains. For cremation lots, not more than two cremated remains may be placed in a single lot. For Columbarium Niches, there is a limit of two (2) cremation interments in each niche. Niches are of a standard inside size of eleven and one half inches by eleven and one half inches by eleven and one half inches (11 ½” X 11 ½” X 11 ½”). The Township of Muskoka Lakes permits the Interment Rights holder to transfer their interment rights to a third party, as long as the transfer is conducted through the Township of Muskoka Lakes and the purchaser meets the qualifications and requirements as outlined in the Township of Muskoka Lakes by-laws. The original Interment Rights Certificate that was issued to the interment rights holder(s) must be returned along with the written notice requesting the transfer. A new Interment Rights Certificate will then be issued to the third party Purchaser upon receiving full payment and registration of the transfer. The Purchaser by the acceptance of this Indenture indicates that the BY-LAW governing the operation of the Cemetery has been received and read, and agrees to be guided by the said BY-LAW as well as the provisions of The Cemeteries Act as if these were included as a part of this Indenture. With respect to the erection or installation of markers, the Purchaser agrees to abide by By-Law 2013-021 of The Township of Muskoka Lakes, wherein restrictions on the erection or installation of markers are given, the By-Law is attached. Signed this <Rights Transfer Effective Day> day of <Rights Transfer Effective Month>, <Rights Transfer Effective Year> Cheryl Mortimer, Clerk <Owner><Owner First Name> <Owner Last Name>

<Owner Organization Name> </Owner>


of 184

Draft


NOTICE OF PERMISSION FOR INTERMENT

I, HEREBY, GIVE MY PERMISSION FOR THE INTERMENT OF:

FULL NAME AND LATE RESIDENCE ADDRESS

MAIDEN NAME AGE MALE OR FEMALE

CEMETERY LOT NUMBER

TIME OF INTERMENT TYPE OF INTERMENT

DATE OF INTERMENT DAY MONTH YEAR

DATE OF BIRTH DATE OF DEATH

PLACE OF BIRTH PLACE OF DEATH

MARITAL STATUS OCCUPATION

RELIGION CAUSE OF DEATH

NEXT OF KIN / CONTACT PERSON NAME AND ADDRESS

PHONE NUMBER & EMAIL ADDRESS

PERSON GIVING PERMISSION FOR INTERMENT (PLEASE PRINT)

RELATIONSHIP TO DECEASED

SIGNATURE

ADDRESS

CLERGY

FUNERAL HOME

CREMATORIUM

COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF INTERMENT RIGHTS ATTACHED ( )

COPY OF BURIAL PERMIT OR CERTIFICATE OF CREMATION ATTACHED ( )

Personal information contained on this form is collected under the authority of The Funeral Burial and Cremation Service Act, 2002, Ontario Regulation 30/11, s.126 and will be used to allow for interments. Questions about this collection should be directed to the Clerk Administrator, Township of Muskoka Lakes, Box 129, Port Carling, Ontario, P0B 1J0, (Telephone 705-765-3156).


of 184

Draft

February 10, 2015

\\MLT6\Dept\Clerk\Cemeteries\By-laws\2013-021 Final Page 1 of 2

CEMETERY PRICE LIST

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES 1. Sale of Interment Rights on Burial Lots and C&M (Care and Maintenance)

Residents of the Township of Muskoka Lakes

Lot Size Price Section Full Cremation Full Lot C & M Total Sale

Foot's Bay 10' X 4' $ 350.00 $ 250.00 $ 600.00 Glen Orchard 10' x 5' or 10' x 4' $ 350.00 $ 250.00 $ 600.00

5’ x 5’ $ 210.00 $ 150.00 $ 360.00 Milford Bay 10' x 4' $ 350.00 $ 250.00 $ 600.00 Port Carling 5’ x 5’ $ 210.00 $ 150.00 $ 360.00 Torrance 10' x 4' $ 350.00 $ 250.00 $ 600.00

5’ x 5’ $ 210.00 $ 150.00 $ 360.00 Ufford 10' x 4' or 8' x 4' $ 350.00 $ 250.00 $ 600.00 Ullswater 8' x 4' $ 350.00 $ 250.00 $ 600.00 Ziska 8' x 4' $ 350.00 $ 250.00 $ 600.00

Non-Residents of the Township of Muskoka Lakes

Lot Size Price Section Full Cremation Full Lot C & M Total Sale

Foot's Bay 10' X 4' $ 650.00 $ 260.00 $ 910.00 Glen Orchard 10' x 5' or 10' x 4' $ 650.00 $ 260.00 $ 910.00

5’ x 5’ $ 390.00 $ 160.00 $ 550.00 Milford Bay 10' x 4' $ 650.00 $ 260.00 $ 910.00 Port Carling 5’ x 5’ $ 390.00 $ 160.00 $ 550.00 Torrance 10' x 4' $ 650.00 $ 260.00 $ 910.00

5’ x 5’ $ 390.00 $ 160.00 $ 550.00 Ufford 10' x 4' or 8' x 4' $ 650.00 $ 260.00 $ 910.00 Ullswater 8' x 4' $ 650.00 $ 260.00 $ 910.00 Ziska 8' x 4' $ 650.00 $ 260.00 $ 910.00

2. Sale of Interment Rights in Niche and C&M (Care and Maintenance)

Level Interment Rights Care & Maintenance Total Sale

A $ 900.00 $ 135.00 $ 1135.00B $ 900.00 $ 135.00 $ 1135.00C $ 725.00 $ 108.75 $ 833.75D $ 545.00 $ 100.00 $ 645.00


of 184

Draft

February 10, 2015

\\MLT6\Dept\Clerk\Cemeteries\By-laws\2013-021 Final Page 2 of 2

3. Marker/Monument Care and Maintenance

A Care and Maintenance fee will be collected prior to installation of a marker/monument.

a. Flat marker measuring less than 1,116.3 sq.m. (173 sq.in.) $ 0.00 b. Flat marker measuring over 1,116.3 sq.m. (173 sq.in.) $ 50.00 c. Upright monument measuring more than 1.22 m. (4 ft.)

or less in height or length, including the base $100.00 d. Upright monument measuring more than 1.22m. (4 ft.) \

either In height or length, including the base $200.00

4. Interment (Charge to open and close lot)

a. Adult $500.00 b. Child (up to the age of 12 years) $300.00 c. Cremated remains $150.00

5. Extra Charges (for interment)

Interments for Adults, Children or Cremated Remains, on Saturdays or after 3:45 p.m. on weekdays shall be an additional charge of: $200.00

6. Disinterment & Reinterment

a. Disinterment and reinterment within the same cemetery $1150.00 b. Disinterment and reinterment in another Township cemetery $1300.00 c. Disinterment only (reinterment by others) $ 600.00

7. Transfer Fee $100.00 Transfer fee to be $100.00 per lot for all services and documents in connection with transfer of ownership of plot or lot and issuance of new Certificate of Interment Rights.

8. Corner Markers $140.00

Installation of 6" x 6" x 4" corner markers by the Township, including supply:

NOTE * All fees are subject to HST (Harmonized Sales Tax).


of 184

woliver

Cross-Out


TO: Mayor Furniss and Members of Council MEETING DATE: March 13, 2015 SUBJECT: Municipal Cheque Signing – By-law 2015-24 RECOMMENDATION: That By-law 2015-24, a by-law to designate persons authorized to sign

cheques issued by the Township of Muskoka Lakes, be given three readings.


Submitted By: Cheryl Mortimer, Clerk 05/03/2015 Original signed by C. Mortimer

Acknowledged: Clayton Harris, Interim CAO 05/03/2015 Original signed by C. Harris

SUMMARY: That By-law 2015-24 be given three readings. ORIGIN: Filling of Treasurer vacancy. BACKGROUND: Due to the former vacancies of the CAO and Treasurer positions, By-law 2014-

78 was passed to include an additional senior management staff member, being the Development Services Coordinator, to assist with the signing of cheques issued by the Township. This was recommended to increase the designated persons from four to five on an interim basis for efficiency purposes.

Now that the vacancy for the position of Treasurer has been filled, this temporary authorization can be removed.

Attached for your reference is draft By-law 2015-24, that designates four persons (Treasurer, Clerk, CAO and Mayor), with the authority to sign cheques issued by the Township of Muskoka Lakes.

FINANCIAL: NA.

Report from the Clerk Re: By-law 2015-24, Cheque

of 184

Draft

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES BY-LAW NUMBER 2015-24

Being a by-law to designate persons authorized to sign cheques issued by The Corporation of The Township of Muskoka Lakes.

WHEREAS pursuant to Sections 8, 9 and 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, Chapter 25, as amended, the Council of a municipality may pass by-laws respecting financial management of the municipality and its local boards; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of The Township of Muskoka Lakes deems it expedient to designate persons authorized to sign cheques issued by The Corporation of The Township of Muskoka Lakes; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of The Township of Muskoka Lakes deems it expedient that every cheque issued by The Corporation of The Township of Muskoka Lakes shall be signed by two of the designated persons authorized to sign cheques; NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of The Township of Muskoka Lakes enacts as follows: 1. That the following be designated as persons authorized to sign cheques issued

by The Corporation of The Township of Muskoka Lakes:

a) Treasurer b) Mayor c) Clerk d) Chief Administrative Officer

2. That every cheque issued by The Corporation of The Township of Muskoka Lakes shall be signed by two of the designated persons, as outlined in Section 1. of this By-law, as authorized to sign cheques issued by The Corporation of The Township of Muskoka Lakes.

3. That this by-law shall come into full force and effect upon the date of passing. 4. That By-law 2014-78 be and the same is hereby repealed. Read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 13th day of March, 2015. ___________________ Mayor Don Furniss ___________________ Cheryl Mortimer, Clerk

Report from the Clerk Re: By-law 2015-24, Cheque

of 184


TO: Mayor Furniss and Members of Council MEETING DATE: March 13, 2015 SUBJECT: INTERVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS RECOMMENDATION 1: That the following be appointed as members of the Township of

Muskoka Lakes CAO Interview Committee;

- Mayor Don Furniss, - Councillor Jean-Ann Baranik, - District CAO, and - Township Clerk.

RECOMMENDATION 2: That the following be appointed as members of the Township of

Muskoka Lakes Director of Public Works Interview Committee;

- Mayor Don Furniss or Designate, - Councillor Linda Barrick-Spearn, - Councillor Terry Ledger, and - Township CAO.


Submitted By: C. Mortimer, Clerk 05/03/2015 Original signed by C. Mortimer


SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 2.k) of Township Procedural By-law 2006-11, as

amended, and based on the recommendations provided by Mayor Don Furniss, it is recommended that the above referenced appointments be approved.

ORIGIN: Senior Management vacancies.

BACKGROUND: Section 2.k) of the Township Procedural By-law 2006-11, as amended, provides as follows; “The Mayor shall annually select, or when deemed necessary, members who are to serve on Standing Committees and other Committees, including the selection of the Chair, Vice Chair, Deputy Mayor and Acting Deputy Mayor. These appointments shall be confirmed by by-law or by resolution of Township Council.”

Report from the Clerk Re: Interview Committee

of 184

Report – APPOINTMENTS

In light of upcoming interviews for the vacancies of CAO and Director of Public Works, it is recommended that Township Council confirm the above referenced recommendations for the CAO Interview Committee and the Director of Public Works Interview Committee.

FINANCIAL: NA.

Report from the Clerk Re: Interview Committee

of 184


TO: Mayor Furniss and Members of Council MEETING DATE: March 13, 2014 SUBJECT: FLAG RAISING – WORLD AUTISM AWARENESS DAY RECOMMENDATION: That Option __________ be approved as per the recommendation

outlined in the March 13, 2015 staff report regarding the request submitted by the Muskoka Autism Group to acknowledge World Autism Awareness Day on April 2, 2015.


Submitted By: C. Mortimer, Clerk 10/03/2015 Original signed by C. Mortimer


SUMMARY: That direction is provided to staff with respect to the flag raising request. ORIGIN: The attached request was received from the Muskoka Autism Group with respect

to a proclamation and flag raising for World Autism Awareness Day. BACKGROUND: A request has been received from the Muskoka Autism Group to acknowledge

World Autism Awareness Day on April 2, 2015 by making a municipal proclamation and by raising the Autism Ontario’s Flag. This request has been presented directly to Council due to the timing of the event.

With respect to the municipal proclamation request, standard 3 of Township Council Policy C-CAO-14, Directive on Fundraising Campaigns, provides that “Township Council will not make public proclamations for any fundraising campaign or promotion of social causes”. This policy was reviewed in 2013 during the previous term of Council. At that time, no amendments were made to the policy. Further to a request received in 2014 from the Muskoka Pride Community, Council supported the Muskoka Pride Community by raising the Pride Flag during the July 21 to 27, 2014 Muskoka Pride Week, Council also accepted the offer of a flag pole that was affixed to the side of the municipal office to accommodate community flag raisings. At that time, it was noted that if approved, policy would require amendment. This will be presented at a future meeting.

Report from the Clerk Re: Flag Raising - World Autism

of 184

Report Re: World Autism Awareness Day

Following this, Council also approved a request received from Big Brothers Big Sisters of Muskoka to raise a flag for Big Brothers Big Sisters month in September 2014.

The following options are available for Council’s consideration.

Option 1: Deny the request for both a municipal proclamation and the flag

raising. Option 2: Now that the Township has been accommodated with an

additional flag pole at the municipal office, Council could approve the request to raise a flag by the Muskoka Autism Group on April 2, 2015 to acknowledge World Autism Awareness Day. Deny the request for a municipal proclamation.

FINANCIAL: Staff time to raise and lower the flag.


of 184

1

Mortimer, Cheryl

From: Tricia Hunter <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 12:46 PM

To: Mortimer, Cheryl

Cc: [email protected]

Subject: Fwd: Raise the Flag: Municipality Invite & Next Steps

Attachments: PROCLAMATION_WAAD_ ENFR_2015.docx; ATT00001.htm;

MunicipalityInvite_RTF2015.docx; ATT00002.htm

Re: Invitation to participate in Autism Ontario’s “Raise the Flag” campaign on April 2nd 2015 in celebration of World Autism Awareness Day.

Dear Sir / Madam,

April 2, 2015, will mark a historic day in Canada for the autism community. For the third year, Canadians will officially recognize World Autism Awareness Day.

To formally acknowledge the day, Autism Ontario is inviting all municipalities to proclaim April 2, 2015 as World Autism Awareness Day and raise Autism Ontario’s Flag.

Enclosed, please find a formal invitation as well as a proclamation for your review.

I understand that your next council meeting will be on March 13, which is wonderful as that coincides with the deadline.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Tricia Hunter Muskoka Autism Group

705 646 3019


of 184

January 21, 2015

Municipality

Street Address

City, Province

Postal Code

Re: Invitation to participate in Autism Ontario’s “Raise the Flag” campaign on April 2nd 2015 in

celebration of World Autism Awareness Day.

Dear Sir / Madam,

April 2, 2015, will mark a historic day in Canada for the autism community. For the third year,

Canadians will officially recognize World Autism Awareness Day.

To formally acknowledge the day, Autism Ontario is inviting all municipalities to proclaim

April 2, 2015 as World Autism Awareness Day and raise Autism Ontario’s Flag.

By participating in our 2015 “Raise the Flag” campaign, you are increasing public awareness

about Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), and the day‐to‐day issues faced by people with autism

and their families.

If your community is interested in supporting autism awareness by participating in Autism

Ontario’s “Raise the Flag” campaign on April 2, 2015, please register your municipality at

http://bit.ly/MunRTF2015, on or before March 13, 2015.

Last year we requested that municipalities keep the flag for future use. We have a limited

number of flags available for those who require one; please make note when completing the

online registration if you require one.

The March 13, 2015 registration deadline will allow us to mail out flags to those who need it,

and to advertise through our communication channels that your municipality will be

participating. We recognize municipalities have a formal approval process for recognizing

charitable proclamations and may not be able to register by the deadline; if this is the case we

still invite you to proclaim the day and raise a flag, if you have one. Please notify us of your

participation by emailing [email protected].


of 184

We are also excited to share with you that in mid‐February 2015 we will be launching a new

website that will enable Ontarians to share their stories of inclusion and opportunities. Please

visit www.raisetheflagforautism.com in the coming weeks and share your story!

For questions regarding participation, please contact Kavitha Krishnaswamy at 1‐800‐472‐7789

extension 238.

Sincerely,

Autism Ontario’s Raise the Flag Committee

1179 King Street west, Suite 004

Toronto, Ontario

M6K 3C5

416‐246‐9592 ext. 238

[email protected]

About Us Autism Ontario is the leading source of information on autism and one of the largest collective

voices representing the autism community in Ontario. Today, 1 in 94 children are diagnosed

with autism in Canada. Through improved public awareness, Autism Ontario strives to

increase opportunities and acceptance for over 100,000 people living with Autism Spectrum

Disorder in Ontario, ensuring that each person with ASD is provided the means to achieve

quality of life as a respected member of society.

Learn more at www.autismontario.com

Enclosure:

Proclamation

Follow us on Twitter! @AutismONT and tweet your Raise the Flag photos with #RaisetheFlagforAutism


of 184

PROCLAMATION

I, (name of Mayor or designate) of the city of (city name) do hereby proclaim

April 2 as World Autism Awareness Day

WHERE AS: World Autism Awareness Day will be recognized on April 2nd, 2015, in

Canada thanks to Liberal Senator Jim Munson’s Bill S‐206, An Act

Respecting World Autism Awareness Day; and

WHERE AS: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) affects more than 100,000 Ontarians.

Autism Spectrum Disorder is now recognized as the most common

neurological disorder affecting 1 in every 94 children, as well as their

friends, family and community; and

WHERE AS: ASD is a spectrum disorder, which means it not only manifests itself

differently in every individual in whom it appears, but its

characteristics will change over the life of each individual as well. A

child with ASD will become an adult with ASD; and

WHERE AS: Autism Ontario (formerly Autism Society Ontario) is the leading

source of information and referral on autism and one of the largest

collective voices representing the autism community. Since 1973,

Autism Ontario has been providing support, information and

opportunities for thousands of families across the province; and

WHERE AS: Autism Ontario is dedicated to increasing public awareness about

autism and the day‐to‐day issues faced by individuals with autism,

their families, and the professionals with whom they interact. The

association and its chapters share common goals of providing

information and education, supporting research, and advocating for

programs and services for the autism community; and

THEREFORE: I (Mayor Name or Designate), do hereby declare April 2nd as World

Autism Awareness Day.

Dated at (municipality), Ontario this 2nd day of April, 2015


of 184

PROCLAMATION

Je, (nom du maire ou de son représentant désigné) de la ville de (nom de la ville), proclame,

par la présente,

le 2 avril Journée mondiale de sensibilisation à l’autisme

ATTENDU : Que la Journée mondiale de sensibilisation à l’autisme sera reconnue

officiellement au Canada, le 2 avril 2015, grâce au sénateur libéral Jim

Munson qui a présenté et fait adopter le projet de loi S‐206 instituant la Loi

sur la Journée mondiale de sensibilisation à l’autisme;

ATTENDU : Que le trouble du spectre de l’autisme affecte plus de 100 000 personnes en

Ontario. Qu’il est maintenant admis que le trouble du spectre de l’autisme

est le trouble neurologique le plus courant puisqu’il touche un enfant sur

94 ainsi que leurs amis, leurs familles et la collectivité;

ATTENDU : Que le trouble du spectre de l’autisme (TSA) se manifeste différemment

chez chaque personne qu’il touche et que ses caractéristiques se

modifieront tout au long de la vie de chacun. Autrement dit, qu’un enfant

ayant un TSA deviendra un adulte ayant un TSA;

ATTENDU : Qu’Autisme Ontario (auparavant Autism Society Ontario) est la principale

source dʹinformation et de référence sur l’autisme et l’une des plus

importantes voix collectives qui représentent la communauté autiste. Que,

depuis 1973, Autisme Ontario fournit un soutien, de l’information et des

possibilités à exploiter à des milliers de familles, dans l’ensemble de la

province;

ATTENDU : Qu’Autisme Ontario ne ménage aucun effort pour sensibiliser le public

aux troubles du spectre de l’autisme et aux difficultés quotidiennes

auxquelles sont confrontés les personnes autistes elles‐mêmes, leurs

familles et les professionnels qui interviennent auprès d’elles. Que

l’association et ses sections locales partagent des buts communs

d’information et d’éducation, de soutien à la recherche et de revendication

de programmes et de services pour la communauté autiste.

POUR CES

MOTIFS :

Je, (maire de la ville ou son remplaçant désigné), déclare, par la présente,

que le 2 avril devient Journée mondiale de sensibilisation à l’autisme.

Fait à (nom de la municipalité), Ontario, ce deuxième jour d’avril 2015.


of 184


TO: Mayor Furniss and Members of Council MEETING DATE: Friday March 13, 2015 SUBJECT: Appointment of a By-Law Officer and Property Standards Officer RECOMMENDATION 1: The Township Council of Muskoka Lakes repeal By-Law By-Law 2013-

125 and By-Law 2013-126 RECOMMENDATION 2: That Township Council of Muskoka Lakes provides three readings for

By-Law 2015-33, By-Law 2015-34. APPROVALS: Date Signature Submitted By: Richard Hayes, Fire Chief March 4, 2014 Original Signed By R. Hayes

Acknowledged: Clayton Harris, Interim CAO March 4, 2014 Original Signed By C. Harris

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The corresponding By-Laws to this report allow the Emergency Services Department to continue the operations for By-Law and Property Standards enforcement.

ORIGIN: Emergency Services Department

BACKGROUND:

Last year the FT Fire Prevention/By-Law Officer tendered his resignation. The hiring of his replacement commenced and finally concluded February 2015. The search for a replacement was an internal and external competition. The posting for the position brought in over fifty applications. With the aid and expertise of the Human Resources Coordinator, the applicants were graded with the outcome being interviews for seven candidates. Of this group, two individuals were selected for a second interview. This second interview led to the selection of a new Fire Prevention/By-Law Officer.

Douglas Holland is a certified Fire Prevention Officer with seven years of experience as a firefighter with the Huntsville Fire Department. Douglas’ training and experience makes him a good fit for the position with the Township of Muskoka Lakes Emergency Services Department. His first day will be Monday March 30, 2015.

FINANCIAL:

This is a personnel replacement and is accounted for within the budget.

Report from the Fire Chief Re: Appointment of By-law

of 184

Draft

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES BY-LAW #2015-33

Being a by-law to appoint a Property Standards Officer for The Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes

WHEREAS pursuant to Section 3(2) of the Building Code Act, s.o. 1992, Chapter 23, as amended, provides that the council of each municipality shall appoint such inspectors as are necessary for the purposes of the enforcement of the Act in the areas in which the municipality has jurisdiction; AND WHEREAS The Building Code Act, s.o. 1992, Chapter 23, as amended, requires that officers be assigned for the administration and enforcement of by-laws passed under Section 15.1 of the Act; AND WHEREAS Council deems it expedient to appoint Douglas Holland as a Property Standards Officer for the Township of Muskoka Lakes; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes hereby enacts as follows: 1. That Douglas Holland be and is hereby appointed a Property Standards Officer for The

Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes.

2. That the appointment of Douglas Holland as Property Standards Officer shall be effective upon the 30th day of March, 2015.

3. That By-law 2013-126 be and the same is hereby repealed.

Read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 13th day of March, 2015. Donald Furniss, Mayor Cheryl Mortimer, Clerk


of 184

Draft

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES BY-LAW #2015-34

Being a by-law to appoint a By-law Enforcement Officer for The Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes

WHEREAS Section 5(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that a municipal power, including a municipality’s capacity, rights, powers and privileges under Section 9 of the Act, shall be exercised by by-law unless the municipality is specifically authorized to do otherwise; AND WHEREAS Section 227 of the Municipal Act 2001, as amended, allows for the municipality to assign duties to its officers and employees; AND WHEREAS Council deems it expedient to appoint Douglas Holland as a By-law Enforcement Officer for the purposes of enforcing by-laws for the Township of Muskoka Lakes; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes hereby enacts as follows: 1. That Douglas Holland be and is hereby appointed a By-law Enforcement Officer for The

Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes.

2. That the appointment of Douglas Holland as By-law Enforcement Officer shall be effective upon the 30th day of March, 2015.

3. That By-law 2013-125 be and the same is hereby repealed.

Read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 13th day of March, 2015. Donald Furniss, Mayor Cheryl Mortimer, Clerk


of 184


TO: Mayor Don Furniss and Members of Council MEETING DATE: March 13, 2015 SUBJECT: Bala Falls Hydro Project Working Committee RECOMMENDATION: That Council confirm the following Council representatives on

the Working Committee: The Mayor or his alternate (Deputy Mayor Baranik), Councillor Currie and Councillor Barrick-Spearn; and

That the report be received for information purposes. APPROVALS: Date Signature Submitted By: C. Harris, Interim CAO March 10/14 Original signed by C. Harris

ORIGIN: At the February 13, 2015 Council meeting, Council established a Bala

Falls Hydro Project Working Committee. There is an administrative matter to address and a concern has been raised with respect to the Working Committees Mandate. These are addressed in the following report.

BACKGROUND: At the December 16, 2014 Committee of the Whole, the Township

received a number of requests from various individuals and organizations with respect to the proposed Bala Falls Hydro Project. One of the requests was from SREL to establish a Working Committee.

At the January 20, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting the creation of

the Working Committee was passed by Resolution Number COW-4-

Report from the Interim CAO Re: Bala Falls Hydro Project

of 184

20/01/15 and was subsequently ratified by Council Resolution Number C-10-13/02/15 on February 13, 2015. At that meeting Committee requested staff to further report on options for the composition of the Working Committee. At the February 13, 2015 Council meeting, option 2 was approved by Resolution Number C-27-13/02/15 for the composition of the Working Committee.

Working Committee Chair – The mandate included an independent Chair.

Mr. Mike Fitton’s name was put forward by Mr. Harold Elston, the Township solicitor. Mr. Fitton is a retired lawyer and practiced law in Bracebridge for 38 years. During that time he was the municipal solicitor for a number of municipalities, including the Township of Muskoka Lakes. He currently resides in Bracebridge. Mr. Fitton was confirmed as Chair by the Working Committee.

SREL has agreed to cover the cost of the Chair if SREL and the Township

are unable to reach an agreement on the use of Township lands for a combination of monetary and/or other considerations. If a subsequent agreement between SREL and the Township is approved by Council it would be appropriate for the Township to share the cost of the independent Chair.

Working Committee Composition – At the February 13, 2015 Council

meeting four options for the composition of the Working Committee were presented. The options considered included additional Members of Council, representatives from the Bala community and various representatives from the First Nations.

Option 2 for the composition of the Committee was approved by Council

and included three (3) members of Council. The Mayor has requested Councillor Currie and Councillor Barrick-Spearn be appointed to the Working Committee in addition to himself or his alternate, Deputy Mayor Baranik.

MNRF Representative – Staff spoke with the MNRF regarding the

appointment of a representative to the Working Committee. Due to staff resource constraints the Ministry was unable to commit an individual to sit on the Working Committee. They did indicate however that they would make staff technical resources available to the Committee as required.

Working Committee Mandate – A staff report was placed on the January

20, 2015 Committee of the Whole agenda in response to the requests from SREL and others. SREL had requested the establishment of a Working Committee. The mandate of the Working Committee was discussed in the report and a proposed mandate was provided as Attachment 2. The composition of the committee was part of the mandate. At that meeting staff were asked to report back with respect to options for the composition of the Working Committee. Staff provided a further report to the February Council meeting.


of 184

On February 25, 2015 a letter from Aird & Berlis addressed to the Mayor

and Members of Council was received. It was with respect to the Working Committee. A copy of the letter is provided as Attachment 2. The Townships solicitor, Mr. Elston has prepared a response to the Aird & Berlis letter. A copy of his response is provided as Attachment 1. Mr. Elston does not agree with the criticisms in the Aird & Berlis letter and, instead, recommends that the Committee proceed as constituted, and pursuant to its mandate, as presented to Council. In addition Mr. Elston states “with little or no “approval” or “permitting” authority in the Township, it is not correct to suggest that Council is engaged in a “fast-tracking” of the project or an “accelerated” construction process. In fact, in my view, the establishment of the Committee demonstrates Council’s commitment to remain an effective participant in the design and construction of the project and to protect the public interest.”

FINANCIAL: Any financial implications will depend on future recommendations coming

forward from the Working Committee and if they are adopted by Council.


of 184

PLEASE RESPOND TO: THE ADMIRAL BUILDING, ONE FIRST STREET, SUITE 224, COLLINGWOOD, ON. L9Y 1A1

March 9, 2015 BY EMAIL ONLY: [email protected] PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Mr. Clayton Harris Chief Administrative Officer Township of Muskoka Lakes P.O. Box 129 1 Bailey Street Port Carling, ON P0B 1J0 Dear Mr. Harris: RE: BALA FALLS HYDRO PROJECT WORKING COMMITTEE – FEBRUARY 25, 2015, LETTER ON BEHALF OF

“FRIENDS OF MUSKOKA” FROM AIRD & BERLIS - OUR FILE NO.45737 This will provide you with my comments and advice on Mr. Mascarin’s letter of February 25, 2015, addressed to Mayor Furniss and Members of Council, regarding the Bala Falls Hydro Project Working Committee (the “Committee”). The stated purpose of Mr. Mascarin’s letter is to make Council aware of the concerns of the “Friends of Muskoka” with the Committee’s “vague and ambiguous terms of reference” and, more generally, the group’s suggestion that the Committee has been improperly constituted and will undertake a process that is not “open and transparent”. Mr. Mascarin asks that his client’s concerns be taken into consideration by Council and that a “meaningful working committee”, open to public attendance and accountable, be struck. With respect, I do not agree with Mr. Mascarin’s criticisms and, instead, recommend that the Committee proceed as constituted, and pursuant to its mandate, as presented to Council. In particular, I note that, rather than its terms of reference being vague and ambiguous, the Committee of the Whole Agenda Report for the January 20, 2015 meeting provides a detailed discussion of the mandate of the Committee and its composition, with “Attachment 2”, describing the Committee’s mandate, terms of reference, term and composition.


of 184

mailto:[email protected]

woliver

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT 1

woliver

Typewritten Text

Attachment 2 ensures an open and transparent process with its suggestion that all working committee recommendations must be approved by Council, and that the committee’s recommendations will be presented to the Committee of the Whole. In adopting the Report’s recommendation, Committee of the Whole and, subsequently, Council, have clearly turned their minds to and approved detailed terms of reference for the Committee and provided for its recommendations to be considered and acted upon by Council in an open session. Moreover, with little or no “approval” or “permitting” authority in the Township, it is not correct to suggest that Council is engaged in a “fast-tracking” of the project or an “accelerated” construction process. In fact, in my view, the establishment of the Committee demonstrates Council’s commitment to remain an effective participant in the design and construction of the project and to protect the public interest. Yours very truly,

Per: Harold Elston [email protected] cc: Cheryl Mortimer, Clerk


of 184

AIRD & BERLIS LLP Barristers and Solicitors

John Mascarin Direct: 416.865.7721

E-mail: [email protected]

February 25, 2015

BY EWIAIL

Mayor Don Furniss and Members of Council The Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes 1 Bailey Street Port Carling, Ontario ROB 1J0

Attention: Ms, Cheryl Mortimer, Clerk

Your Worship and Members of Council:

Re: Bala Falls Hydro Project Working Committee

We are legal counsel to the Friends of Muskoka, a group of concerned residents of the Township of Muskoka Lakes (the "Township").

Our client is troubled by a recent decision made by the Council for the Township on February 13, 2015 which seeks to constitute a working committee for the proposed Bala Falls Flydro Project ("Project") to be developed by Swift River Energy Limited ("SREL") to facilitate how the Project will be implemented. The Project will impact our client as well as the surrounding Bala community and the Township at large.

The purpose of this letter is to make Council aware of our client's concerns respecting its decision to establish the Bala Falls Hydro Project Working Committee ("Working Committee") with a vague mandate and ambiguous terms of reference.

As Council is undoubtedly aware, the Project has been a very controversial proposed development that has been before Council numerous times in the past decade. The Project has engendered significant public opposition, particularly with respect to the use of public lands. The Project has also raised concerns with respect to the safety of residents, its detrimental impact on heritage preservation and the degradation of scenic flow, and the real potential to negatively impact the economic well-being of the Bala community.

It is clear that the Project is being fast-tracked for development by Council since the recent municipal elections notwithstanding many unresolved public concerns.

Mayor Don Furniss stated prior to the election: "This project is moving forward." In furtherance of this statement, the developer, SREL, has sought to implement an accelerated construction and permitting process, which is now being pushed forward by the Township via a newly-established Working Committee and a compressed meeting agenda.

Brookfield Place, 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800, Box 754 Toronto, ON MBJ 2T9 Canada 416.863.1500 416.853.1515

www.airdberlis.com


of 184

woliver

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT 2

February 25, 2015

One of the hallmarks of local government is that it is the level of government that is the closest to its residents and the one that most immediately and directly impacts the daily lives of its citizens. For this reason, municipalities must operate in an open and transparent manner in order to provide good government for their residents. Unlike other levels of government, a municipality must make all of its decisions in an open and public forum, subject to limited exceptions. Public consultation and public input is imperative for democratically-elected members of council to make proper and informed decisions.

Good governance demands that a municipal council consider and deliberate openly and constructively. When controversial issues arise, good governance dictates that a municipal council consider the views and input of all persons and entities that have or may have concerns. To this end, our client seeks a public consultation process that is accessible to all interested parties, one that identifies stakeholders, such as community organizations and impacted First Nations.

Preferential treatment should not be provided to any person, including SREL. To do so would be contrary to the standard practices and workings of Council and to the principles of fairness and natural justice.

As noted above, at its meeting on February 13, 2015, Council adopted a resolution to establish the Working Committee. The accompanying Staff Report references a letter from SREL dated December 17, 2014 that was circulated to members of Council purportedly as part of their decision-making process but which has not been made available to the public nor attached to any subsequent Council meeting minutes or agenda.

It is our understanding that this letter provides specific details regarding SREL's request to the Township to widen shoulder of Muskoka Road 169 and to re-purpose and permanently alter Township lands that are currently actively used by the public for recreation and parking purposes.

We question why this letter has not been made publicly available or provided to the District of Muskoka and its council. This is of vital concern as the District Council modified and passed a resolution on February 17, 2015 on the basis that SREL no longer sought a widening of Muskoka Road 169, even though that very request was detailed in the correspondence sent by SREL to the Township (but was not distributed by the Township).

Had SREL's letter been circulated in the normal course, members of the public would have been in a position to present a delegation to the District Council last month and request that existing protections respecting the shoulder be considered by District Council prior to passing any resolutions related thereto.

Our client also has a number of additional specific concerns regarding the Working Committee which we set out as follows:

Absence of Mandate for the Working Committee

There is no Council-approved mandate for the Working Committee. A draft mandate was included in the Committee of the Whole Agenda for January 20, 2015. This draft was never discussed nor ratified by Council.

AIRD & BERLIS LLP

Barristers and Solicitors


of 184

February 25, 2015

Terms of Reference

As set out in the Interim CAO's Staff Report, there are no specified terms of reference. The wording under the heading Terms of Reference merely notes that "[t]he terms of reference will include the following construction and post construction matters." It is improper for a committee to not be given clear and cogent terms of reference.

Accelerated Time Frame

It is our understanding that a series of Working Committee meetings have been scheduled, all to occur in advance of the next round of Council and Committee meetings. In our view, this serves to deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity for consultation and discussion.

Furthermore, we point out that a number of regularly-scheduled Committee meetings in March have been cancelled and have been brought forward in advance of Council's meeting of March 13, 2015. The purported basis for the rescheduling is an apparent lack of quorum for the regularly-scheduled meeting dates. We have learned, however, that members of Council have not in fact been polled as to their availability. At the very least, they should be. More problematic, however, is the implication that principles of good governance have been avoided to accommodate personal vacation schedules or to achieve a differently-constituted Council composition to facilitate the fast-tracking of a report from the Working Committee, through Committee of the Whole and to a final resolution from Council on a back-to-back basis.

Composition of the Working Committee

The composition of the Working Committee specifically excludes key and known stakeholders, including community and First Nations representatives, despite their well-known ongoing requests to be consulted. Approvals required by the Ministry of the Environment related to the Project expressly mandated further public consultation. To date, the extent of public consultation has involved the creation of some kind of scenic flow committee and a design committee, the details of which are not known and whose meetings are not announced to or open to the general public. In our view, there has been no meaningful public consultation.

Council's representation on the Working Committee has been reduced to only three members, being the Mayor and two councillors. The implication of the reduction in Council representation is that it has been done to avoid the open meeting requirements in s. 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

Furthermore, we also understand that the Mayor has removed himself from participation in the Working Committee and has made a unilateral appointment of an alternate member of Council, without any input from Council itself. We submit that such a delegation is beyond the authority of the Mayor, and is not addressed by Council's resolution respecting the Working Committee.

We also note that Ward A, in which Bala is located, is inadequately represented on the Working Committee (only a single Councillor representative).

AIRD & BERLIS LLP



of 184

February 25, 2015

Function and Operation of Working Committee

The Working Committee should be contrasted to the working committee established by Council with respect to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 14-14 where members of that committee were selected from entities having competing perspectives, meetings were held in the Council Chambers in an open forum, and divergent viewpoints were developed and brought forward through the Planning Committee process for further debate and discussion in advance of being placed on the Council agenda for consideration.

Undisclosed Involvement of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

Recent correspondence from Premier Kathleen Wynne to a constituent indicated that the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry Bill Mauro recently had a private conversation with Mayor Furniss regarding the Project. Mayor Furniss was questioned by Council as to the nature and details of this discussion but the Mayor has to date refused to provide any specifics, choosing instead to characterize his discussion with Minister Mauro as "personal".

We submit that this type of direct and off-the-record communication is troubling given that it is our client's understanding that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry has declined to participate in the Working Committee.

Independence of the Chair

There has been no public vetting as to the independence of the Chair.

Procedural Regime re Working Committee

The procedural rules under which meetings of the Working Committee will be conducted is unknown.

Decision-Making Authority

It would appear from the Staff Report prepared by the Interim CAO that all members of the Working Committee have the ability to vote and that recommendations will then be brought forward to Council for consideration. The Staff Report notes that "legal advice with respect to establishing the working committee is being sought." We submit that it is improper and highly unusual for a developer to have representation on a committee that votes on its own project. The primary goal of any publicly-constituted committee is to act with the public interest clearly in mind. It is difficult to imagine how the developer's own representatives of the Working Committee would be able put aside their private interests in the Project.

We trust that Council will consider its responsibilities to its residents, to the Bala community and to all affected stakeholders in this matter. It is imperative that the requirements of openness, accountability and transparency be adhered to with respect to the constitution, operation and deliberations of the Working Committee considering this fundamentally important proposed development project.

AIRD & BERLIS LLP



of 184

February 25, 2015

Our client asks that Council put in place a meaningful working committee, one that will be open to public attendance, and accountable and respectful of the views of all concerned persons and entities. Council needs to establish a clearly-defined process which will be carried out in the public domain with a properly-constituted working committee that has a clear and discernable mandate and terms of reference that are evident and comprehensible.

Thank you for your consideration of our client's concerns respecting this matter.

Yours truly,

JM/dc

c. District of Muskoka Wahta Mohawks First Nation Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

21865579.3

AIRD & BERLIS LLP



of 184

new agenda - council meeting €€€€€€€€€€€ march 13, 2015 · 2016. 1. 26. ·...

Documents