The District Municipality of Muskoka
Planning and Economic Development Committee
Agenda
Meeting PED-4-2017 Thursday, April 20, 2017 9:00 a.m. Council Chamber, District Administration Building ______
1. Call to Order
2. Declaration of Pecuniary Interests
3. Assigned Functions
a) Approval of the Adopted Official Plan of the Town of Gravenhurst Report PED-4-2017-3
Recommendation
THAT the Town of Gravenhurst Official Plan, as adopted by Town By-law 2016- 118, be modified in accordance with the modifications as detailed in Schedule “A” appended to staff report PED-4-2017-3, and approved as modified.
b) Background for a Public Meeting Subdivision File S2017-1 (Donaldson) Town of Bracebridge Report PED-4-2017-4
Recommendation
This report is provided for information.
4. Planning Programs
a) 2017 Second Home Study Update Report PED-4-2017-2
Recommendation
THAT the Second Home Study Update be initiated and proceed as outlined in the work plan appended to staff report PED-4-2017-2.
5. Federal or Provincial Initiatives
a) 2016 Census – Permanent Population and Total Private Dwellings Report PED-4-2017-1
Recommendation
This report is provided for information.
6. Information Items
a) New Plans of Subdivision/Condominium Description Files
i. Plan of Subdivision File S2017-1, “Donaldson Subdivision”, located in the Town of Bracebridge, was submitted on March 10, 2017 and deemed complete on April 4, 2017.
b) Delegated Staff Approvals, Amendments and Extensions
i. Condominium Description File C2006-1, “Echo Valley”, located in the Township of Lake of Bays, was amended by authorization on March 21, 2017 and granted a one-year extension to March 21, 2018.
ii. Condominium Description File C2008-2, “Rosseau Developments – 2253100 Ontario Inc.”, located in the Township of Muskoka Lakes, was amended by authorization on March 24, 2017 and granted a two-year extension to March 24, 2019.
iii. Plan of Subdivision File S2005-8, “Inveraray”, located in the Town of Bracebridge, was amended by authorization on March 13, 2017 and granted a two-year extension to March 13, 2019.
iv. Plan of Subdivision File S2000-1, “Muskoka Highlands”, located in the Town of Bracebridge, was amended by authorization on March 13, 2017 and granted a two-year extension to March 13, 2019.
v. Certificate of Approval for Lifting of Part Lot Control By-law 2011-140, “Muskoka Bay Villa Corp.”, located in the Town of Gravenhurst, was amended on March 16, 2017 and granted a one year extension to March 16, 2018.
c) Final Approved and Registered Plans
i. Plan of Subdivision File 44T-89007, “Settler’s Ridge – Phase 5”, located in the Town of Huntsville, was final approved on March 30, 2017 and submitted to the Land Registry Office for registration.
7. New Business
8. Adjournment
Recommendation
THAT the Planning and Economic Development Committee adjourns to meet again on Thursday, May 18, 2017 or at the call of the Chair.
This agenda can be viewed in a larger font by increasing the magnification of the page. Please note that hearing-assistive devices are available in the Council Chamber.
70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) 645-2231 / Fax (705) 645-5319 / 1-800-461-4210 (705 area code) www.muskoka.on.ca
To: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee
From: Sam Soja Manager of Planning
Date: April 20, 2017
Subject: Approval of the Adopted Official Plan of the Town of Gravenhurst
Report: PED-4-2017-3 ______
Recommendation
THAT the Town of Gravenhurst Official Plan, as adopted by Town By-law 2016-118, be modified in accordance with the modifications as detailed in Schedule “A” appended to staff report PED-4-2017-3, and approved as modified.
Origin
The Town of Gravenhurst adopted a new Official Plan on December 20, 2016 and submitted the record on January 12, 2017 for approval by Muskoka District Council.
Analysis
Background and Purpose
In June of 2015, the Town of Gravenhurst Council retained Planscape to undertake a 5-year review of its Official Plan, as required by the Planning Act to ensure the policies are updated to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), to be in conformity with the Muskoka Official Plan (MOP), and continue to reflect the interests of the community. Between July 2016 and December 2016, three drafts of the Gravenhurst Official Plan were released to the public for review and comment. District staff participated on the Town’s official plan review advisory committee and provided advice to ensure the new policies address Provincial and District of Muskoka interests. Technical guidance was also provided.
The adopted Town of Gravenhurst Official Plan is the result of this comprehensive review process and is intended to replace the existing Official Plan, along with all schedules and appendices. The Official Plan sets out updated goals, objectives and land use policies to guide decision-making affecting physical change and land use throughout the Town over the next twenty years.
Page 1
Circulation and Public Meetings
The Town undertook an extensive public consultation process which exceeded the minimum requirements of Sections 17 and 26 of the Planning Act and associated regulations. This consultation process included two online surveys, one statutory open house, one special meeting of Council, two public workshops, one special Official Plan Review meeting, two statutory public meetings, advisory committee working sessions, as well as meetings with individuals, lake associations and other community stakeholders. Notices of public meetings were circulated to the required agencies and the public. Copies of notices and background information such as policy discussion papers, presentations, draft versions of the Official Plan, and summaries of the public comments were posted on the Town’s website.
During this review period, the Town received comments from a variety of individuals and organizations both verbally at meetings and through written submissions. Throughout the process, District staff provided written comments on the drafts of the Official Plan in order to ensure consistency with the PPS and conformity to the MOP. Town and District staff met on several occasions to discuss these comments and resolve outstanding issues. This collegial process has resulted in minimal modifications being proposed to the adopted Official Plan.
Since the time of adoption, a few additional comments have been submitted directly to the District of Muskoka. A summary of the comments and a response to each is attached as Appendix “I”. Copies of the submitted comments are attached as Appendix “II”.
Modifications
Modifications to the adopted Official Plan have been recommended to ensure consistency and conformity to planning documents, as requested by Town staff and/or to address technical matters.
Proposed modifications to ensure consistency with the PPS, as listed in Schedule “A”, Part A, Modifications 1-8, can be grouped under the following headings:
Allocation Targets for Residential Growth
In accordance with the 2009 and 2013 Muskoka Growth Strategy reports, the percentage of permanent residential growth within municipally serviced urban centres compared to rural areas is projected to increase over time. Although the projections from the Growth Strategy have been included in the adopted Official Plan, this shift in residential growth is intended to occur incrementally. To achieve these projections, the Growth Strategy recommends setting a long-term minimum allocation target of 80% permanent urban residential growth and 20% permanent rural residential growth. The proposed modifications add this target to the Official Plan.
Fish Habitat
The PPS protects fish habitat by ensuring development and site alteration are not permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements and are not permitted on adjacent lands unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts. The fish habitat policies went through several rounds of revisions prior to adoption and the additional proposed modifications clarify the overall intent and ensure consistency with the PPS, while providing flexibility in implementation where possible. Significant Wildlife Habitat
Page 2 The adopted Official Plan contains policies that require protection of significant wildlife habitat. To ensure appropriate implementation, a modification is proposed which provides a general definition of wildlife habitat and how its significance is determined.
Environmental Impact Statements
In accordance with the PPS, development and site alteration is only permitted within or adjacent to certain types of natural heritage features where it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts. While several policies in the adopted Official Plan require the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to determine if proposed development can proceed, the requirement for a study can be waived or scoped by Town and/or District staff in certain situations where there is a relatively low risk of negative environmental impact. The proposed modifications clarify that exemptions to the completion of a full EIS would only be provided where the development proceeds in accordance with applicable regulations and best management practices in consideration of site specific circumstances.
Adjacent Lands
Where development or site alteration is proposed on lands which are located adjacent to natural heritage features, the PPS typically requires a certain level of environmental review. Guidance on the extent of the adjacent lands is provided in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual, published by the Ministry of Natural Resources in 2010. As justification for lessor distances has not been provided, the proposed modifications change the extents of adjacent lands as defined in the adopted Plan to be consistent with the distances recommended by the Province.
Proposed modifications to ensure conformity with the MOP, as listed in Schedule “A”, Part B, Modifications 9-20, can be grouped under the following headings:
Shoreline Development in the Gravenhurst Urban Centre
The adopted Official Plan requires new waterfront development in the Gravenhurst Urban Centre designation to be subject to many of the same provisions as development in the Waterfront designation with necessary modifications to reflect the urban scale and nature of the development. Since the environmental policies of the MOP only permit a lesser setback in an Urban Centre where a net improvement over the existing situation is achieved, a modification is proposed which adds this requirement.
Secondary Dwelling Units
The proposed modifications include revised policies which ensure secondary dwelling units are consistently defined throughout the Official Plan and that the terminology used is reflective of the secondary dwelling unit policies in the MOP.
Existing Undersized Lots
The MOP outlines that an existing lot which does not meet the minimum lot frontage and area standards may only be recognized as a developable lot if it has been determined that it is a viable building lot. The proposed modifications clarify that such lots must be able to support development, including the accommodation of appropriate services.
Page 3 Waste Disposal Sites
Prior to development proceeding in proximity to an active or inactive waste disposal site, an assessment of the property’s suitability for development in consideration of human health and safety is required to meet the Provincial requirements of the D4 Guideline: Land Use on or Near Landfills and Dumps. The adopted Official Plan provides an exemption for development that involves the construction of new accessory buildings that are not to be used for human habitation and renovations to existing habitable buildings. Since such development is not exempt from the requirements for an assessment, a modification is proposed to remove the exemption.
Provision of Services on Private Roads
The proposed modifications clarify that since private roads are not maintained by a public authority, the Town and/or District are not responsible for the provision of road access to new lots fronting on such roads, emergency services, or waste collection and other municipal services to the property may be limited.
Municipal Water and Sewer Connection Exemptions
Although connection to municipal water and sewer services is compulsory within an Urban Centre, the MOP provides exemptions in certain circumstances. To ensure conformity, the proposed modifications clarify that one of the criteria under which such exemptions can be considered is where the development represents limited infilling as defined in the Gravenhurst Official Plan.
Proposed modifications requested by Town staff to address PPS consistency or technical matters are listed in Schedule “A”, Part C, Modifications 21-33. These modifications generally provide additional clarity or resolve minor inconsistencies and technical oversights. In addition, five site specific amendments to the existing 2008 Official Plan that should still apply were not carried forward into the new adopted Official Plan. The proposed modifications incorporate these previous amendments into the adopted Plan.
Proposed modifications to address minor technical revisions are listed in Schedule “A”, Part D, Modifications 34-43. These modifications are required to ensure the policies which address Provincial or District interests are clearly articulated.
Proposed modifications to make minor technical updates to the Official Plan Schedules are listed in Schedule “A”, Part E, Modifications 44-46. These modifications are required to accurately show the locations of municipal waste disposal sites, Lake Trout Lakes, and the properties to which site specific amendments apply.
Planning Analysis Summary
The PPS and the MOP were considered in the review of the adopted Official Plan. Subject to the recommended modifications, the document is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the MOP. The policies appropriately consider and integrate environmental, economic and social community interests.
Financial Considerations
No impacts on the 2017 Tax Supported Operating Budget and Capital Budget and Forecast are anticipated as a result of this report.
Page 4 Communications
The notice of Council’s decision will be circulated in accordance with the Planning Act.
Strategic Priorities
Click on icons below to view strategies under each priority area:
S 1.3, S 1.4, S 2.5 S 3.1, S 3.3 S 4.4 S 5.2 S 1.5
Respectfully submitted,
Original signed by Original signed by
Sam Soja Christy Doyle BA, MES (PI), MCIP, RPP Manager of Planning Director of Environmental and Watershed Programs
S:\DEVELOPMENT\Dev Applications\GRA\OP\2015 GH OP Review\Internal Reports\2017 04 07 PED Report - Approval Of New GR Official Plan.Docx
Page 5 Schedule "A" – PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
TOWN OF GRAVENHURST OFFICIAL PLAN
A. PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT CONSISTENCY MODIFICATIONS
1. Modify Subsection B1.2 d) by:
i. replacing the words “in accordance with the following guidelines” with the text:
“by targeting an allocation of 80% of new permanent residential dwellings to the municipally serviced Urban Centre and 20% to designations which rely on private water and sewer services. It is forecasted that these targets will achieve the projections noted below.”; and
ii. in the title of the table, replacing the word “Allocation” with the word “Projection”.
2. Replace Subsections I6.3.4, I6.3.5 and I6.3.6 with the following subsections:
I6.3.4 A Fish Habitat Assessment is not required in Type 1 or Unknown habitat where the development satisfies Federal and Provincial requirements or has been specifically authorized by the appropriate approval authority (e.g. MNRF, DFO, Parks Canada).
I6.3.5 A Fish Habitat Assessment will not generally be required for inland development provided the setback, vegetation buffer, stormwater management and slope- related policies of this Plan are satisfied and the proposal involves the following:
• Single or two-lot severance; • Construction of a single-detached dwelling and/or accessory buildings on an existing lot; • Minor site alterations; • Minor changes in existing land use; or, • Other types of development or site alteration occurring over 100 m away from the natural features, which will not produce off-site impacts on the feature through servicing requirements or other related activities.
I6.3.6 A Fish Habitat Assessment shall generally be required where the development would not meet applicable provincial and federal requirements or exemptions listed in I6.3.5 and where:
a) Shoreline structures are proposed within identified Unknown or Type 1 Fish Habitat; b) Development is proposed on adjacent lands to identified Unknown or Type 1 Fish Habitat; or, c) Confirmation of the actual location, extent and classification of the fish habitat is requested based on a site inspection of the property.
Page 6 3. Modify Subsection I6.4.5 by inserting the words “and to demonstrate that the development can proceed in accordance with provincial and federal requirements,” after the second occurrence of the words “endangered species”.
4. Modify Subsection I6.5.1 by inserting the following sentence after the first sentence:
“Wildlife habitat generally includes areas where plants, animals and other organisms live and find adequate amounts of food, water, shelter and space needed to sustain their populations. Significance is generally identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and is determined by the ecological importance of the habitat in terms of features, functions, representation or amount, and contributing to the quality and diversity of an identifiable geographic area or natural heritage system.”
5. Modify Subsection I6.27.5 by replacing the words “from the development.” with the words:
“and the development and/or site alteration is completed in accordance with applicable regulations and best management practices. Lower risk activities may be defined in a guideline document but could include additions to a single detached dwelling, construction of accessory buildings, minor site alterations, or minor changes in existing land use.”
6. Delete Subsection I6.27.6.
7. Modify Subsection I6.29.1 b) by inserting the words “and 120.0 metres inland” after the word “shoreline”.
8. Modify Subsection I6.29.1 d) by replacing the number “50.0” with the number “120.0”.
B. MUSKOKA OFFICIAL PLAN CONFORMITY MODIFICATIONS
9. Modify Subsection C5.9 by inserting the text “provided a net improvement over the existing situation is achieved where a reduced shoreline setback is proposed” after the words “nature of the development”.
10. Modify Subsection C6.3.2.3 by replacing the word “second” with the word “secondary”.
11. Modify Subsection C6.3.3.1 by:
i. replacing the word “accessory” with the word “secondary”;
ii. deleting the words “within a single detached dwelling”; and
iii. inserting the words “A secondary dwelling unit will be defined as a separate accessory dwelling unit, which is contained within a single detached, semi- detached or row dwelling or within an ancillary structure to those residential uses.” after the final sentence.
12. Modify Subsection C6.4.2 by:
i. replacing the words “An accessory apartment or” with the word “A” and capitalizing the first letter in the word “Secondary”; and
Page 7 ii. inserting the words “as a separate accessory dwelling unit, which is contained within a single detached, semi-detached or row dwelling or within an ancillary structure to those residential uses” after the words “residential lot”.
13. Modify Subsection D3 b) by deleting the word “significant”.
14. Modify Subsection D13.1 by inserting the words “is a viable building lot where appropriate services can be accommodated if required, and” after the words “provided the site”.
15. Modify Subsection F5.4 by:
i. replacing the second occurrence of the word “residential” with the word “dwelling”;
ii. inserting a period “.” after the word “properties”;
iii. replacing the words “either within a single detached dwelling or as a secondary dwelling on the property, provided” with the words “A secondary dwelling unit will be defined as a separate accessory dwelling unit, which is contained within a single detached, semi-detached or row dwelling or within an ancillary structure to those residential uses.”
iv. inserting the words “A secondary dwelling unit will only be permitted where” before the words “the site”; and
v. inserting the word “and” after the words “water systems,”.
16. Modify Subsection I6.14.2 by deleting the last sentence.
17. Modify subsection J2.3.6.4 by:
i. inserting the words “and/or District of Muskoka” after each of the two occurrences of the word “Town”; and
ii. replacing the words “or other emergency services to the property” with the words “and that the provision of emergency services, waste collection and other municipal services to the property may be limited”.
18. Modify Subsection J3.1.3 by inserting the words “which do not” after the words “waste water, or".
19. Modify Subsection J3.2.8 by replacing the words “limited lot creation may be permitted” with the words “limited infilling”.
20. Modify Subsection K23.1.1 c) by replacing the word “and” with the words “and/or”.
C. MODIFICATIONS REQUESTED BY TOWN STAFF TO ADDRESS PPS CONSISTENCY OR TECHNICAL MATTERS
21. Insert the following new subsection after Subsection A.4.6
Page 8 “A.4.7 REPEAL OF PRIOR OFFICIAL PLAN
A.4.7.1 “Upon approval of this Official Plan, the prior Official Plan approved by the Council of The District Municipality of Muskoka on July 2, 2008 and all subsequent amendments to that Official Plan are repealed.”
22. Modify the Table of Contents under the Appendices heading by deleting the words “Appendix 2 – Existing Built Heritage Resources and Protected Heritage Properties”.
23. Renumber Subsection C6.3.1.5 to C6.3.1.6 and insert the following new subsection after Subsection C6.3.1.4:
“C6.3.1.5 The gross density for low density development shall not exceed 20 units per hectare. Low density development generally includes single-family detached dwellings.”
24. Insert the following new subsections after Subsection C6.4.4:
“C6.4.5 Part of Block C, Plan 8 Muskoka (Park Drive, Muskoka Beach) (OPA 27, 2006)
C6.4.5.1 Except for Lots 3, 4 and Part of Block C, Plan 8, Muskoka and shown as lands subject to the provisions of “Section C6.4.5” on Schedule A-1, new development shall be required to front upon roads which are owned and maintained year round by a public authority and are in a condition appropriate for the use proposed.
C6.4.5.2 Vacant lots on Plan 8, to the east of Lakeshore Drive, (District Road #17) may be developed provided that:
a) they are serviced with a piped municipal water supply;
b) except for Lots 3, 4 and Part of Block C, Plan 8, Muskoka, the roads are upgraded and developed to full municipal standards;
c) except for Lots 3, 4 and Part of Block C, Plan 8, Muskoka, the lots are realigned to meet the following requirements:
i) Where only a municipal water supply is available, the minimum lot size shall be 2,000 square metres (0.5 acres) and the minimum road frontage shall be 30 metres (100 feet): or
ii) Where private individual services are provided, the minimum lot size shall be 4,000 square metres (1 acres) and the minimum road frontage shall be 60 metres (200 feet).”
25. Insert the following new subsections after Subsection C6.5.2:
“C6.5.3 Part of Lots 24 and 25, Con 4, Gravenhurst (Musquash Road) (OPA 5, 2011)
C6.5.3.1 The property described as Part of Lots 24 and 25, Con 4, Gravenhurst, being Part of Lot 6 and Part of North Street, Plan 15, Part 7, Plan 34R-21189, Part 1, Plan 34R21178 and Parts 1 and 2, Plan 34R-22224 (Musquash Road), and
Page 9 shown as lands subject to the provisions of “Section C6.5.3” on Schedule A-1 are subject to the provisions of this section.
C6.5.3.2 In addition to the range of land uses described in Section C6.5, the property may be used and developed with a model home sales office, a personal service shop, retail and office uses subject to Section C7.3 of this Plan.”
26. As Subsections C7.3.2.1 through to C7.3.2.5 are intended to apply to all General Commercial Development, renumber Subsections C7.3.2.1 through to C7.3.2.5 as Subsections C7.3.3 through to C7.3.7.
27. Insert the following new subsections after Subsection D5.8:
“D5.9 Family Compound on Driftwood Island (OPA 4, 2010)
D5.9.1 The property described as Parcel 9148 Driftwood Island, former Township of Muskoka, and shown as lands subject to the provisions of “Section D5.9” on Schedule A are subject to the provisions of this section.
D5.9.2 Driftwood Island shall be developed as a Family Compound to be used for residential uses only. Driftwood Island shall remain in single ownership in order for the site-specific policies of this section to apply. The development and residential use of Driftwood Island shall only occur as long as the mainland parcel described as part of Lot 20, Concession 7, Muskoka in the Town of Gravenhurst and located at 1052 Brydon’s Bay Road remains in the same ownership as Driftwood Island.
D5.9.3 The development of Driftwood Island shall take place in accordance with all recommendations of the Environmental Impact Study prepared by RiverStone Environmental Solutions and dated 15 March 2010. Prior to any further development or site alteration of the Island, the owners of Driftwood Island shall be required to enter into a Site Plan Agreement with the Town. The Site Plan Agreement will implement the recommendations of the Environmental Impact Study and identify specific building locations as well as paths to the shoreline and any outdoor amenity areas. All development shall be sympathetic to the natural environment and should complement and enhance natural features. Docks and boathouses shall be prohibited along the entire eastern shoreline of the Island and, in all other locations, shall be required to maintain a minimum 10.0 metre setback from fish habitat areas.
D5.9.4 The maximum lot coverage permitted on Driftwood Island shall be 6.5 percent. The maximum number of single detached dwellings located on Driftwood Island shall be six (6). The maximum number of sleeping cabins shall be six (6). The maximum number of boathouses shall be six (6). The maximum number of docks shall be six (6). The maximum number of septic systems shall be six (6). The maximum shoreline development and shoreline development width permitted for each of the six individual residential areas shall be 232.0 square metres and 23.0 metres respectively.
D5.9.5 An implementing Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Agreement shall identify development areas that are located in a manner that conforms with the lot creation policies of this Plan. A maximum of one (1) dwelling, together with one (1) accessory sleeping cabin, boathouse, dock and septic system shall be
Page 10 permitted within each identified development area.
D5.10 Family Compound on Part of Lot 30, Con 4, Morrison (OPA 7, 2012)
D5.10.1 The property described as Part of Lot 30, Con 4, former Township of Morrison, and shown as lands subject to the provisions of “Section D5.10” on Schedule A are subject to the provisions of this Section.
D5.10.2 The lands shall be developed as a Residential Compound and shall remain as one lot. An implementing Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Agreement shall identify development areas that are located in a manner that conforms with the lot creation policies of this Plan. A maximum of one (1) Dwelling, together with one (1) Accessory Sleeping Cabin and Sewage System shall be permitted within each identified development areas. Given that the proposal involves three (3) development envelopes, the following shall be permitted on the lands:
(i) Additional Permitted Uses:
a. A Residential Compound.
(ii) Regulations:
a. The maximum number of Single Detached Dwellings shall be three (3).
b. The maximum number of Sleeping Cabins shall be three (3).
c. The maximum number of Sewage Systems shall be three (3).
d. Boathouses are prohibited.
e. The maximum number of accessory docks shall be one unless the Province of Ontario confirms that additional docking may be permitted.
D5.10.3 The development shall take place in accordance with all recommendations of the Environmental Impact Statement, prepared by RiverStone Environmental Solutions Inc. and dated December 2012. Prior to any further development or site alteration, the owners shall be required to enter into a Site Plan Agreement with the Town. The Site Plan Agreement will implement the recommendations of the Environmental Impact Statement.
D5.10.4 The location of development and site alteration shall be identified and controlled through an implementing Zoning By-law Amendment and/or Site Plan Agreement and shall be generally limited to those locations identified on a plan prepared by Gary Stein, Architect, dated February 21, 2013, as amended, on file at the Town offices.”
28. Insert the following new subsection after Subsection E2.7.4:
E2.8 Part of Lot 26, Con 10, former Township of Ryde (OPA 6, 2012).
Page 11 E2.8.1 The property described as Part of Lot 26, Con 10, former Township of Ryde, and shown as lands subject to the provisions of “Section E2.8” on Schedule A are subject to the provisions of this Section.
E2.8.2 A Recreational Educational Retreat and Camp is permitted. The Retreat and Camp would provide facilities for passive recreation, education, and accommodation.
E2.8.3 The location and scale of the development shall be limited through a site- specific Zoning By-law Amendment. Any substantial increase to the scale of the development may require an amendment to this Plan; minor increases may proceed by way of Zoning Amendment. Background information in support of such an amendment may include but not be limited to:
• A Stormwater Management Report; • An updated Environmental Impact Study; • A Site Servicing Study; and • A Traffic Study.
E2.8.4 The location of development and site alteration shall be identified through an implementing Site Plan Agreement and shall be generally limited to those locations identified on Schedule B to the Planning Report submitted by Wayne Simpson and Associates, dated April 2012, as amended.
29. Modify Subsection I6.2.5 by inserting the words “outside of the Urban Area or Rural Settlement Area designations” after the words “Deer Wintering Areas”, in the first sentence.
30. Modify Subsection I6.3.7.3 c) by replacing the word “and” with the word “or”.
31. Modify Subsection I6.17.6 by deleting the words “are identified in Appendix 2 to this Plan. Such resources” after the words “protected heritage properties” in the first sentence.
32. Insert the following new subsection after Subsection K6.2.1 k):
“l) Promote the provision of affordable housing.”
33. Modify Subsection K6.3.1 by inserting the words “or intensification in the Gravenhurst Urban Centre” after the words “underutilized space”.
D. TECHNICAL MODIFICATIONS
34. Modify Subsection C5.3 by inserting the word “condominium” after the word “private”.
35. Modify Subsection D1.2 by inserting the word “general” after the first occurrence of the word “The”.
36. Modify Subsection E4.1 by inserting the words “as shown on Schedule A” after the second occurrence of the words “Airport Industrial Area”.
Page 12 37. Modify Subsection I6.3.7.1 by replacing the words “Schedule B identifies lakes that” with the words “Lake Muskoka and Clearwater Lake”.
38. Modify subsection I6.11.1 by inserting the word “considerations” after the first occurrence of the words “recreational water quality”.
39. Delete Subsection I6.16.1 and replace it with the following text:
“Except for separation of existing uses, the potential for discovery of archaeological resources on individual lots will be identified by the Town at the time development is proposed, and will be based on the Archaeological Master Plan prepared for The District Municipality of Muskoka. Archaeological assessments may be required in support of a development application where areas of specific, moderate to high, or high to very high archaeological potential, would be affected.”
40. Modify Subsection K23.2.1 a) by replacing the text “K25.1.1” with the text “K23.1.1”.
41. Renumber all sections accordingly and adjust punctuation and page formatting as needed.
42. Insert the following text at the end of the Table of Contents after the “Appendices” section:
“Schedules
Schedule A: Land Use
Schedule A-1: Land Use
Schedule B: Natural Heritage and Development Constraints”
43. Modify the Table of Contents as needed to reflect all modifications.
E. TECHNICAL MODIFICATIONS TO SCHEDULES
44. Replace Schedule A: Land Use, revised November 3, 2016, with the Schedule A: Land Use, revised April 10, 2017, attached as Appendix “III”.
45. Replace Schedule A-1: Land Use, revised November 9, 2016, with the Schedule A: Land Use, revised April 10, 2017, attached as Appendix “IV”.
46. Replace Schedule B: Natural Heritage and Development Constraints, revised November 3, 2016, with the Schedule B: Natural Heritage and Development Constraints, revised April 10, 2017, attached as Appendix “V”.
Page 13 Appendix “I”
Summary of Written Submissions Received by the District of Muskoka since Adoption of the Gravenhurst Official Plan
Organization Comments Response or Individual South Muskoka - Concerns with potential conformity issues that - This is an inherent risk within a two tier process and Lake could arise between the Gravenhurst and any resulting conformity issues would be resolved Community Muskoka Official Plans when a new Muskoka through future amendments to the Gravenhurst Association Official Plan is approved. Official Plan. (SMLCA) - Requested clarification of consolidation of - Although not all previous amendments were
previous Official Plan Amendments into the consolidated prior to adoption, Town staff have since adopted Official Plan. worked with District staff to ensure the previous amendments will be included through modifications to - Suggested that the development rights that were the adopted Plan. granted for the Taboo Resort properties through various approvals dating back to the 1980’s - Town staff met with the SMLCA prior to adoption and have not been consistently carried forward and District staff also discussed this concern with the applied over time, particularly as it relates to SMLCA and Town staff. It appears that any potential density and height permissions. issues would be related to the Town’s comprehensive zoning by-law and not directly related to the approval of the Gravenhurst Official Plan. The policies that apply to these lands have been carried forward from the previous Official Plan without any revisions and the policies related to the permitted density and height have not changed. - No additional modifications are proposed at this time.
Sheldon - Suggested several site specific policy revisions - District staff have spoken to Mr. Godfrey and although Godfrey, also related to properties on Three Mile Lake to a clear planning rationale has not been provided to representing recognize special circumstances. support his requested policy revisions, staff have Judy Godfrey offered to facilitate a meeting as part of alternative - Suggested a policy should be added to and Duke & dispute resolution should this be required. encourage the use of new private roads for George access to privately owned lands on Three Mile - No additional modifications are proposed at this time. Restorations Lake. Ltd.
Page 14
Appendix “I”
Summary of Written Submissions Received by the District of Muskoka since Adoption of the Gravenhurst Official Plan
Muldrew Lakes - Concerned that the adopted Official Plan may - While the Official Plan has been revised to provide Cottagers’ provide an overall reduction in environmental some additional flexibility, the policies remain in Association protection with respect to waterfront conformity with the MOP and are consistent with the (MLCA) development when compared to the previous PPS. 2006 Official Plan. - Wording was added to the Official Plan prior to - Stated that the policies specific to the Muldrew adoption stating that the special character of these Lakes do not adequately capture the unique lakes is recognized. The existing policies provide characteristics of these lakes and that the greater limitations for shoreline development than on recreational and social qualities should be most other waterbodies in the Town. further protected through additional limitations - Although the Official Plan does not specify the size of on shoreline development. such structures, size limitations could be appropriately - Suggested that the Official Plan should control established through the Comprehensive Zoning By- sizes of ancillary buildings, particularly to ensure law. that sleeping cabins do not evolve into - MLCA has advised that they would like to continue secondary dwelling units over time. working with Town and District staff to ensure future - Expressed other concerns related to potential development on these lakes is sustainable. impacts on the character of the Muldrew Lakes - No additional modifications are proposed at this time. through increased development and related boat traffic.
Page 15
Appendix “II”
Written Submissions Received by The District of Muskoka Since Adoption of the Gravenhurst Official Plan
1. South Muskoka Lake Community Association
2. Sheldon Godfrey, also representing Judy Godfrey and Duke & George Restorations Ltd.
3. Muldrew Lakes Cottagers’ Association
Page 16 1
SOUTH MUSKOKA LAKE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
MEMORANDUM FROM: Stan Stein TO: Sam Soja, Manager of Planning District of Muskoka
March 20, 2017
Dear Mr. Soja
Re: SMLCA/New Gravenhurst Official Plan
I am writing on behalf of the South Muskoka Lake Community Association (the "SMLCA") in response to your recent e-mail to our President, Catherine Guffey. Your e-mail, sent on February 24, 2007, raises questions about the June, 2000 OMB hearing, and we are glad to respond. I was personally involved throughout the history of the OMB process as legal counsel for private land owners near the Taboo lands, the SMLCA, and the Muskoka Lakes Association (the "MLA"). I am therefore familiar with the history and relevant documents. I still have copies of materials related to the OMB hearing and some of the key staff reports that I have included in a chronology which I hope will assist you.
Our previous letters to the Town and District related to the proposed Gravenhurst Official Plan outlined our concerns for consistency between the new Official Plan and the historic planning in OP A and zoning documents approved for the "Taboo" area of the Town. In particular, the proposed OP does not fully implement the density and height principles that were part of the settlement of appeals in June, 2000 by the Ontario Municipal Board. This settlement was on consent of the Renaissance Leisure Group - Great Gulf (the owner), the SMLCA, the MLA, the Town and other interested parties. As noted below, the Town was a major "player" in putting the settlement together (in fact some of the documentation was prepared by its own planner, Ian Sugden) and its counsel was involved in the negotiations and OMB process. So ... it is difficult to understand why the Town avoids the full "planning package" for the Taboo lands, as previously approved by the Ontario Municipal Board without consent of our Association and other "parties" to the OMB proceedings.
Page 17 2
Overall, our Association is concerned about the density that might be permitted on the Taboo lands under the proposed new Gravenhurst OP. Changes to the OP as proposed could change the unit count and height provisions applicable to the Taboo site, particularly in the area of the proposed hotel, thereby increasing the total permitted density beyond what was intended at the time of the June, 2000 OMB hearing. By-law 2000-39, approved by the Board at that time, includes regulations for the maximum number of Resort Units and a definition of "resort unit". The ultimate development of the property is to consist of 102 townhouses and an expanded hotel up to approximately 109 units. Changes in the definition of unit counts indicate that the number of units now proposed will exceed the number permitted.
There are also regulations for the "Maximum Height of Principal Buildings", which vary across the site but have a maximum of 15 metres ( about 49 ft.) The problem we face, however, is to understand what height is in fact proposed for the Taboo Resort. Some of the plans we have seen are up to 21.3 metres (69.8 ft). There are also issues related to the locations at grade from which the height is measured. In the absence of a complete zoning check we cannot provide more detail about inconsistencies.
There is also a concern that some of the by-law history of this matter includes by laws that are illegal because they purport to operate retroactively. In theory, such by-laws could breathe life and validity into by-laws that were invalid when passed. Such retroactive by-laws are generally considered to be against public policy, and therefore void unless specifically authorized by the applicable legislation. I raised this issue in discussions with staff and was told that the Town was looking into this issue. Apparently, the Town staff have a legal opinion on this issue, but they have not permitted me to review their information. The legal status of these by-laws is relevant to the OPA and zoning approved by the Board in 2000 and now to the District as approval authority for the proposed new OP. The District, as approval authority, should be aware of this problem and the public should be advised of any technical problems. However, without better information, we have not addressed this issue in this letter.
Your letter is correct in noting that members of the Town staff have met with me and other representatives of our Association, and we have made written and verbal submissions. However, there have been no modifications to the Gravenhurst Official Plan that fully recognize the underlying OMB - approved planning regulations. We are therefore glad to learn that you are seeking "additional clarity on this matter, primarily with regards to the OMB Decision" .
Page 18 3
As requested, we have organized copies of the OMB Decision and also we have some reports and some letters relevant to the June, 2000 OMB hearing. l.OPA 10 OP A 10 was adopted on October 20, 1980 and was approved by the Minister on February 18, 1981. (see letter from R. List at Document Book Tab 3). See also Gravenhurst Council Recommendations and modifications attached as Schedule A, dated October 14, 1980. and OPA 10 to Official Plan ofMuskoka Planning Area all at Document Book, Tab 1).
Commentary: Note amendments in Schedule A at items 2, 3 and 5 related to density (number of hotel units) and height.
In OP A 10, see s. 4.1 which anticipates an amendment to the District Official Plan in order that a specialized proposal - referred to as the Muskoka Sands Inn development - can be processed. It is stated that in the absence of an approved Secondary Plan, the District Official Plan itself should be amended. This indicates that at the senior OP level, the project details were to be managed through an amendment to the District Plan.
It is stated that such OP A will serve the purpose stated in s. 2.1 b: to meet the requirement of the District Official Plan for the processing of an amendment prior to permitting a new large scale resort (tourist) commercial development (s. 6.37 and 8.13 of the District Official Plan).
In OPA 10 see also s. 4.2 that states that the ultimate development of the Muskoka Sands Inn property will consist of 102 townhouses and an expanded Inn- to approximately 109 units. See also Site Regulations in section 8.39.1.3. This is a clear identification of the maximum proposed density, expressed by the total number of permitted units, and stated as 30 units per gross hectare (12 units per gross acre).
A further purpose in s. 2.1 d) "to provide additional development standards and guidelines to be levied upon the development and ensure such standards are met through adequate and proper implementation mechanisms." ' There are no specific height limitations in OP A 10. However, there are a variety of setback regulations, related to high water marks, street limits and property lines. In fact, s.8.39.1.3 clearly calls for site regulations to be established through
Page 19 4 appropriate development control implementation mechanisms. The presence of such standards and mechanisms in the OP A indicates that these are appropriate planning tools for an OP A for a site specific project such as the Muskoka Sands Inn.
It should also be noted that a Site Plan Agreement is anticipated - see Appendix F - Proceedings of Public Meeting, July 29, 1980 at page 6, section F4: "As a result of concerns and c:omments received at the public meeting, a number of changes have been incorporated into the Official Plan Amendment. Primarily, these relate to specific implementation concerns, as related to the Site Plan and Agreement that will be entered into."
The Site Plan Agreement with the Town was passed on May 16, 1984 and registered as Instrument No. 182252 (Document Book, Tab 7). As stated in paragraph 7, ("Cl" to "C4"); Tab 7). These plans show all typical units at two stories. The parties agreed that "the said elevation plans are for the purposes of illustration only to demonstrate the type of development intended". Some changes are anticipated related to cladding, roof design, and balcony overhangs but there is no alteration that exceeds the lot coverage or open spa ce requirements - or the building heights.
2. Ontario Building Code Act, section 15 appeals The planning litigation that led to settlement commenced with appeal proceedings by John Shaw and the SMLCA under s. 15 of the Building Code Act. This legislation allows "aggrieved persons" to bring court proceedings against the wrongful issuance of a building permit. In this case the building permit issued on Nov. 13, 1985, by Mr. Szadanyi, the Town's Chief Building Official ("CBO"), for an addition to the units at the Muskoka Sands Inn was attacked on the grounds that the permit issued by the CBO had authorized more construction and a larger hotel than permitted by the zoning by-law.
Before the substantive motion related to the building permit could be heard, Great Gulf brought a preliminary motion in the court in Bracebridge to strike out the appeal on the grounds that the individuals and association had no status to launch s.15 appeals. The court (not the OMB) heard the motion and decided that the local ratepayers whose status was in question did have sufficient status to launch the appeals. My file notes indicate that the Town appealed this Court Decision, but the appeal was never perfected and never argued and the building permit appears to have lapsed. However, this was a very important Decision: it meant that the ratepayers would likely achieve
Page 20 5
party status in any other land use proceeding, and could not be brushed aside and ignored. (See Document Book Tab 14 for Decision by Judge Hogg, January 9, 1987).
3. Site Plan Agreement-November 30, 1988-Instrument No. 224470 (Document Book Tab 8). This Site Plan Agreement between the Renaissance Leisure Group and the Town included Site Plan (Schedule "Bl") and Elevation Drawings Showing two storey buildings (Schedules "D-1" to "D-2") for a hotel expansion but also development permission was for 384 hectares. This included a large swath of waterfront and a large amount of "back lands" proposed for build out for residential uses for many year s. Owing to the intensity and size of this development proposal, John Shaw, the SMLCA and the MLA appealed against the required Planning Act approvals.
4. Town OPA 18. District Council passed the By-law for OPA 18 on April 10, 2000. (See letter from District (Mr. G. Corbett) and related materials at Document Book Tabl 1). See attached reports by Mr. Green and Mr. Corbett dated April 7, 2000, related to proposed modifications. See report s.4.4 indicating that applications had been made for amendment to the District OP, and the Town OP and zoning. All of these applications were being processed concurrently. A combined total of 726 resort and dwelling units and associated facilities were included. S. 4.15 confirms that the property was 384 ha. Sees. 3.5 for a discussion of height: "Buildings and structures should be low profile and generally should note xceed the height of the tree canopy. But a prominent building may be considered for resort commercial development subject to the specific policies for resort development."
See also s. 5.10.8. "Building heights will be graduated to minimize visual impacts on the waterfront and surrounding community and will in no case exceed 15 metres." The Town Council was provided with staff reports by their internal planner, Mr. Sugden, and they adopted OPA 17 on April 4, 2000 (subsequently revised to OPA 18 to avoid duplication in numbering.) .
5. District OPA 21. The District adopted OPA 21on March 20, 2000. The draft OP A had been prepared on February 11, 2000 by the District staff Their report (Document Book Tab 12 at para. 4.5) indicates that the proposal for OP A and zoning amendments were being treated concurrently.
Page 21 6
6. District OPA 20. Mr. Corbett's report on OPA 20 indicates that OPA 20 was simply intended as a technical amendment of an existing policy established by OPA 18 to the Gravenhurst Plan. It provides a more succinct policy statement relating phasing of land-based recreational facilities to the development of the resort.
7. Negotiations The planning documents for the proposed OPA and zoning approvals were under appeal by the SMLCA and Great Gulf. Negotiations began that involved: - Ian Sugden, planner for the Town - Mr. Jeff Davies, counsel for Great Gulf - S. Stein, counsel for John Shaw, SMLCA and MLA
8. Settlement. OMB Decision (See Document Book Tab 5) Settlement was reached that included OPA and zoning for the agreed development. Great Gulf requested and obtained zoning approval for full build-out of its site including 726 residential units.
- OPA 10 required a site specific OPA - OP A 18 was required to address planning at the Town level - OpA 21 was required to address planning at the District level
To achieve final approvals of the various planning documents, as best I recall, the OPA's were processed in the usual way. As the OPA's were not yet approved, the alternate route of OMB approval for the zoning was agreed to by all parties. There was no error of procedure - the OMB approval and Decision was simply a way to expedite the zoning appeals and approvals and conclude all of the litigation.
9. Site Plan Approval On April 26, 2016, Gravenhurst Council gave site plan approval to a new design proposal for Taboo. The issue of a complete zoning check was discussed at the Council Public Meeting on November 22, 2016 but apparently there was no complete zoning review available and it was not clear whether a complete detailed review had been carried out. As of that date, we did not know if final plans had not been submitted to the Town.
Page 22 7
Other issues that remain outstanding relate to the location and size of the future docks, winter removal and storage of docks on land, assurances of no marina facilities, and the development approvals that would enable Taboo to proceed with its revised project.
10. Submissions. It is respectfully submitted that the planning issues and documentation for a proposed expansion of Taboo were settled and agreed to through the OMB process by all interested levels of government and interested parties. A new Town OP should not enlarge the development permissions that were authorized under the settlement. It would be extremely unfair to the SMLCA and others who participated in the 2000 negotiations and settlement to reopen the Decisions of the OMB and other approval authorities through the indirect means of a Town -wide OP.
The SMLCA agreed to the terms of a settlement in good faith, and the terms of that settlement should not n aterials on file at the Town indicate a greater number of units than peretted by the zoning and a building height of about 5 or 6 stories (we are not sure how current this all is, but plans showing the eastern elevation at 5 or 6 stoe us requires review.
I hope this historical review is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any assistance. For your reference, I am enclosing copies of some of thematerials discussed above. :~ [email protected] Note: I have tried to avoid duplication as some of this material was distributed earlier. Please advise me by e-mail of any of these additional materials that you would like but did not received.
cc. Catherine Guffey Harold Elston Anne McCauley Scott Lucas/Katie Kirton S. Valentine
Page 23 8
Encls. To Memorandum to Sam Soja
1. Document Book (previously provided to Town) with tabs 1-14 2. Chart of correspondence re OMB Settlement and related corr. 3. Summary of Taboo Development Proposal prepared by SMCLA on October 13, 2016 with analysis of height and unit counts 4. East Elevation of proposed hotel at 21.3 m. ( 69. 9 ft.)
Page 24 18 February 2017
Comments on: Shaping Muskoka, January 18,2017
Summer Valentine BSc, MPL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning The District Municipalityof Muskoka 70 Pine Street, Bracebridge, ON P1L 1N3 Summer.VaIentine(ämuskoka.on.ca
Dear Ms. Valentine,
I am writing on behalf of the South Muskoka Lake Community Association regarding your Preliminary Directions document related to the District’s Official Plan Review.
The document obviously coversmany issues, therefore it is not feasible for us to comment on the entire report. Our particular concerns relate to the potential created by new OP policies for resort development (new or upgraded) and other recreational facilities - in particular those related to Lake Muskoka — and the impacts of such uses on the other land uses in close proximity, and upon the lake itself. We are also concerned about the planning documents that would be applicable to resort development at both the local and District levels, and the relationships among these planning documents.
The policies that appear to address these concerns are Policy Direction 22 (para. 4), Policy 23, and Policy 28. In particular, under Guiding Principle B) related to supporting economic growth in tourist sectors (at page 20) , the fourth bullet states:
To ensure that neii’resorts are appropriately located in a nanner that minimizesimpacts on 1/icenvironment and ira/er quality and is compatible wi/h the character and na/tire of adjacent development We are concerned that these policies should remain strong enoughto manage large scale resort development, such a s Taboo, with adequate regard to preservation of the character and historic use of existing development. For example, we respectfully suggest that the proposed policies include some guidance for area municipalities respecting the critical issuesof height and density. On height, consideration should be given to a broad scaleheight restriction in the District Official Plan that relates to the height of adjacent or nearby treed areas i.e. planning policies that address the special elements of planning that make Muskoka distinctive. This would create an “envelope” and a policy framework for the area municipalities to work with, while leavingthe final decisions relatedto these issuesfor the local Council, but subject to the policy envelopes. Similar “envelopes” should be created for density considerations (such as total number of hotel units or dwellings per hectare) and for environmentally sensitive areas.
We note that Guiding PrincipleB, Policy Direction #23 (page 21) also relates to resort development but we are not sure of the planning intent of the terms: ‘broad,strategic and flexible”.
1
Page 25 Regarding Policy Direction #28 , (page 22) wesupport a local OPAfor new resort development. Offsite impacts are inevitable with large resorts, in particular, and there should be anopportunity for public participation and policy review related to such projects.
Our Association is particularly concerned about future development in the area of Taboo. As you may know, the Taboo lands werethe subject of extensive analysis and debate in response to applications by the owner for long term development approvals. This led to a settlement affecting over 385 hectares, with planning documents approved by the Town, the developer, and our Association at an 0MB teleconference hearing in June, 2000. The settlement was implemented by OPA and zoning documents. There is no reason to change the development standards that wereapproved by the 0MB, but it would be helpful to include a reference to the relevant policies in your current documents, so that the settled issues are not reopened. This would likely be consistent with area municipal plans including “more detailedand prescriptive policies” of “keeping what works” (in Policy Direction A, first bullet on page 6 of “Shaping Muskoka, January 18,2017, and first bullet on page II).
Your materials includereference to follow-up work that would be carried out by the area municipalities to give effect to the District OP, the PPS and other applicable policy documents. We are concerned that the planning and approvals sequence now taking place with the District as approval authority mayresult in approval of all or parts of the new Town of Gravenhurst OP ahead of the new District OP that you are also working on. This could lead to inconsistent policies, and it could also put the priorityof the June, 2000 0MB approved policies at risk.
We understand that the District has raised issues with the Town through its comments as approval authority on circulation of the Town’s newOfficial Plan (seeDistrict letter from you dated Nov 18,2016) as follows:
“Lastly, to facilitate the next steps on the Official Plan reviewprocess (i.e. adoption and approval), ire would request ivrilten correspondence from the Townconfirming that all adopted amendments have either been consolidated into the revised OfiucialPlan or repealed.
We support the District comments, but as best we are aware, these District commentsstill require implementation by the Town and District to ensure that priorinconsistent (and possibly illegal) planning legislation is repealed before the Town’s new Official Plan is approved by the District. Perhaps you could bring us up to date on the status of the Town’s OP approvals process. We are not aware of any effort by the Town to address this specific issue of consistency and other related issuessuch as the Town’s apparent intent to rely upon retroactive by-laws, which may be illegal. Representatives of our Association would like to participate in relevant discussions that might resolve these issues and bring finality to the Town OP at an early date.
We have significant concerns about systemicconsistency for the various levels of planning approvals that will affect the Taboo lands. Our position is founded on the June, 2000 0MB Decision, and anticipates removalof inconsistent, illegal andinappropriate planning documents that currently inhabit the Town of Gravenhurst’s zoning by-laws. We would certainly be glad to
2
Page 26 support efforts by the District to contact interested parties to resolve some of these “Town” issues
\Ve respect the enormity of your undertakings and appreciate being keep in the loop. Would you please confirm receipt of this e-mail and keep us advised as your work proceeds on both the Town of Gravenhursi and District Official Plans. We trust the brief delay in providing these comments has not caused any major delays in your programme. Owing to absences from the Toronto/Muskoka areas, would you please respond by e-mail with copies to those noted below.
Yours very truly,
Catherine Guffey President. South Muskoka Lake Community Association presidentsmlca(ThzmaiLcom cc. Stanley Stein sbsteinrogers.coni Harold Slston l-lElston(1Ibarristonlaw.com Anne McCauley annemcc(rogers.com Scott Lucas Scott.Lucas(1iszravenhurst.ca Katie Kirton [email protected]
3
Page 27 From: Sheldon Godfrey To: Soja, Sam Subject: Re: Gravenhurst Official Plan. Date: March-31-17 12:58:03 PM
Hi Sam
I am now about to be represented by Counsel and would appreciate it if we could arrange a meeting with staff and my legal representatives to discuss our objections to the Gravenhurst Official Plan before the District considers approval.
It should take us two or three weeks at this end before we are ready for a meeting.
At the same time we have to add an additional item to the objections previously sent you. Section J2.3.6 of the Gravenhurst plan dealing with Private Roads should not apply to Three Mile Lake. Instead, the Lake specific policy D17.2 applying to Three Mile Lake should include a provision encouraging the use of new private roads for access to the privately owned lands on the Lake whether they are developed by condominium or otherwise.
Please give me two or three possible dates for the meeting to be arranged.
Thank You
Sheldon
Page 28 Valentine, Summer
From: Sheldon Godfrey
Mesdames
I am writing to you on behalf of Duke & George Restorations Ltd. as well as for myself and Judy Godfrey the owners of all of Lot 3 Concession 10 and most of Lot 3 Concession 9 (Morrison) regarding the passage of By-law 2016-118 by the Town of Gravenhurst on December 20, 2016 adopting the Gravenhurst Official Plan.
We have written twice to the Town, on August 16, 2016 and December 14, 2016, expressing the concern that the proposed Official Plan does not properly reflect the situation of our lands. Copies of both of our letters, as received by the Town, are attached.
Notwithstanding that we wrote that we would welcome discussion about our concerns, and that at the August 24111public meeting the Director of Development Services announced that he and his staff would be meeting with those who had expressed concerns, there have been no discussions with us and none of our concerns appear to have been addressed in the version of the Official Plan that was passed on December 20, 2016.
While we are writing to advise that we wish to receive notice of your decision as approval authority, we remain prepared to discuss our concerns about the proposed Official Plan and would welcome any consultation or intervention by the District prior to its formal consideration of the Official Plan as presented.
Regards
Sheldon Godfrey
1 Page 29 Sheldon J. Godfrey, CM.
99 Burnslde Drive,Toronto Ontario M6G2M9 Telephone: 416462-7521; Fax 416362-7780
August 16, 2016
Scott Lucas Director of Development Services Town of Gravenhurst 3—5Pineridge Gate, Gravenhurst ON PiP 1Z3
Re: Gravenhurst Draft Official Plan 2016
Dear Sir
I am writing to you on behalf of Duke & George Restorations Ltd. as well as for myself and Judy Godfrey the owners of all of Lot 3 Concession 10 and most of Lot 3 ConcessIon 9 (Morrison) which lands constitute the only private lands bordering Three Mile Lake.
We have now had an opportunity to see the text of the Draft Official Plan as well as the maps and schedules posted on line.
There are several items we would like to bring to your attention at this time as we feel they have not been adequately covered in the draft:
1. The Lake specific policies for Three Mile Lake in Section D17.2 should include a reference to the facts that: i. The current water level of Thee Mile Lake is approximately 1.5 meters above it’s optimal summer water level because of a beaver dam at the North end of Sunny Creek. As a result, some of our lands are flooded and appear to be part of the Lake when in fact they are not. Ii. Lot 3 Con. 9 and Lot 3 Con. 10 are designated for development while the approximately 3000 acres of adjoining Crown Land are not.
2. Flooded lands in Lot 3 Con. 9 and Lot 3 Con. 10 on Three Mile Lake should be included in lot area for purposes of coverage, set backs etc.
Page 30 3. The “Natural Heritage Area” designation should not apply to flooded lands in Lot 3 Con. 9 and Lot 3 Con. 10 on Three Mile Lake
4. The Colonization Road serving Lot 3 Con 9 should be included the mapping and described in section j2.3 of the draft plan as a local road.
5. Lot 3 Con. 9 and Lot 3 Con. 10 should not be included within the designated “Muskoka Heritage Area” outlined on Schedule B to the draft Plan
6. The Official Plan should include a statement that the zoning plan approved by the Ontario Municipal Board for Lot 3 Con. 9 and Lot 3 Con 10 in April 2011 as Schedule Bto Minutes of Settlement with the Town of Gravenhurst is in conformity with the 2016 Official Plan, as it was for the 2006 Official Plan.
7. The property municipally known as 1325 Sam Cook Road fronting Kahshe Lake in Lot 3 Con 9 should be designated to include the provision of dining facilities for both Three Mile and Kahshe Lakes
8. An area be designated on Lot 3 Con 9 fronting Three Mile Lake to provide the service commercial uses specified in in Section D7 of the draft official Plan.
9. Section J2.3.7(b) of the Draft Official Plan provides for the closure and sale of Original Shore Road Allowances. The section does not restrict the sale to adjoining owners. This provision should be amended to clarify that the Town can sell to an owner whose lakefront Property Is not adjacent to the Shore Road Allowance In the situation where there are no other private owners with frontage on the Lake.
I would be pleased to discuss these items with you in more detail.
Godfrey, C.M.
/ sjg
Page 31 Page 32
District of Muskoka 70 Pine Street April 4, 2017 Bracebridge, ON P1L 1N3
Attention: Ms. Samantha Hastings Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development
Dear Samantha:
RE: Town of Gravenhurst Official Plan Supplementary Comments Muldrew Lakes Cottagers’ Association
Please be advised Northern Vision Planning Ltd. has been retained by the Muldrew Lakes Cottagers’ Association to assist in providing comments on the new Town of Gravenhurst Official Plan. The Association has significant concerns with the Official Plan as currently drafted as it relates to Muldrew Lakes. These comments are in addition to previous comments submitted by the Association.
The Muldrew Lakes, as you know are unique in that they are very narrow lakes with topographical constraints along much of their shoreline. Coupled with an increase in development pressure the last few years, it is the opinion of the Association that the domination of the natural setting is being seriously eroded. The Association has been concerned with very recent applications that exceed lot coverage, structure width, height and setback provisions as well as sleeping cabin size that exceeds the size of most dwellings on the lakes. The current policies in the adopted Official Plan do not go far enough to stem the tide of overdevelopment.
Such characteristics of the lake, land, and development creates conflict in land and water use as well as an increased impact on the environment. In particular, the following issues arise and are heightened on the Muldrew Lakes:
1. Visual impact of development on existing cottage development on the opposite shore due to the narrow lakes. 2. Visual impact of development from the water due to the narrow lake and boating paths that are close to shore. 3. Increased wake effect as it does not have room to dissipate before hitting the shoreline.
Page 33
4. Increased wake effect due to wave rebound from the shoreline. 5. Erosion of the shoreline in those areas prone to erosion. 6. Privacy issues with dwellings and decks close to the water’s edge and sound travel over water especially in the evening and at night. 7. Lighting issues due to the close proximity of cottages across from each other 8. Boating safety due to the lack of surface area and increase in size/type of boats. 9. The loss of recreational and personal enjoyment point of view due to lakes that, in essence, are over-capacity.
As such, in addressing these concerns through Planning Documents, it is the Association’s opinion the policies in the adopted Official Plan do not go far enough in addressing future development on the lake. Currently the Official Plan has specific policies for Muldrew Lake. These policies address the following matters: new lot creation, Crown Land, two existing commercial properties, limited permitted uses, and boathouses. The recently adopted Official Plan identifies the special character of the Muldrew Lakes and allowing modest and reasonable development . The lake specific policies, however, that emanate from this notion, only resulted in the same policies being repeated and the addition of one policy stating there shall be a maximum of one sleeping cabin per property. By virtue of Section D 5.6.1, only one sleeping cabin is permitted per lot anyways.
Outside of the few parameters noted above, the provisions related to shoreline development, and how they are translated into the Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw, treat the development provisions the same whether you are on Lake Muskoka, Gull Lake, Sparrow Lake, or the Muldrew Lakes. Given the special attributes of the lakes, already noted by the Town in the newly adopted policies, and the impacts of development as noted above, more detailed policies are warranted for the Muldrew Lakes.
In the opinion of the Muldrew Lakes Cottagers’ Association, the following matters should be addressed in some manner for Muldrew on a lake specific basis. Rather than strictly being critical of the policies in the Plan, it is the intent of the Association to provide draft policies for consideration of inclusion in the Official Plan. The general matters are as follows:
• Lakeshore and Recreational Capacity • Development Density and Location • Accessory Structures • Implementation
Page 34
I look forward to working with the District of Muskoka, Town of Gravenhurst and the Muldrew Lakes Cottagers’ Association to enhance the current policy regime for the lakes such that future development can be done as sustainable as possible and with low impact.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Stephen Fahner B.A.(Hon.), AMCT, CMMIII, MCIP. RPP Northern Vision Planning Ltd.
Page 35 Back, Amy
From: Robin Boys
Dear Sirs/Madams,
The Gravenhurst Official Plan (the "0.P.") is before (or soon will be) the District of Muskoka for approval and the following outlines concerns and objections of the Muldrew Lakes Cottagers' Association (the "MLCA") to that plan. These issues have been presented to the planning department and members of council of the Town of Gravenhurst during the public consultation process in the development of the official plan and some changes have been made as a result of representations by the MLCA so that what is addressed here are outstanding issues. They fall into three general areas.
Protection of the environment: Amendments to the O.P. reduce environmental protection with respect to lakefront development. Changes to the plan's text have the general effect of shifting protection of the environment from a requirement to only a consideration. More details of this are set out in the submission made by the MLCA to the Town - document attached.
Protection of the recreational and social qualities of the Muldrew Lakes: There is no measure, such as Recreational Carrying Capacity ("RCC), governing the degree of development that is reasonable for a lake in order to protect its recreational and social qualities. The RCC model has been widely researched and applied and its validity as a means to manage development levels on lakes has been accepted by the OMB. The lakes that lie within the Town have widely varied characteristics and levels of development and, even though there are some measures set out in lake specific policies, the 0.P. does not adequately accommodate the degree of variation and, in particular, the unique characteristics of Muldrew.
The Muldrew lakes are a series of narrow water-bodies with a natural visual appearance when looking down the lakes and shorelines predominated by trees and natural vegetation so it is critical to the preservation of these features that shoreline development be limited accordingly. Also, the lakes have a level of development in terms of number of dwellings well above normal as measured by the RCC model. The ratio of recreational surface area in hectares of the Muldrew lakes to the number of residences is less than 0.7 where a reasonable ratio representing capacity is 1.6. By comparison, figures I have (which are about 10 years old) for Lake Joseph and Lake Rosseau are 7.3 and 3.1 hectares per residence respectively.
Limits to sleeping cabins and ancillary structures: Where the general principle is 'one dwelling per property', allowance for sleeping cabins must be carefully governed and the O.P. does not do this. The effect of the O.P. is to permit sleeping cabins of such a scale that they would inevitably evolve into a second dwelling on the property.
Similarly there is little in the O.P. to control the size of ancillary buildings, in particular garages where there is no limit to footprint with the result that garages would be permitted of a size completely out of proportion to the dwelling and its purpose. RECEIVED Page 36 1 FEB O2 2017 Enclosed are two documents-the MLCA submission on the draft 0.P. and a proposed Muldrew Lakes section for the O.P.
Kindly provide this to members of council.
File# Sincerely, Cooy Action Chair 0 0 Robin Boys CAO. g' D ,; c 1\. lit D :;, President, MLCA r1 na~ce f, Corp Scrv D a Pu~,: c ~~·,o ..."s D Planning ~ D Corr.mun~,· Se'V 0 D LcGal D 0 Corr.puter D D Perscnnel 0 0 C.E.MC. D 0 Land Am~u!ance 0 0 Committee D 0 Council D D Correspoidence D D Comments:
Page 37 2 Muldrew Lakes
Lake Specific Policies
The special character of the Muldrew Lakes (North, South and Middle) as a series of long, relatively narrow channels is recognized. This contributes to a natural visual appearance when looking down the lakes, with a shoreline predominated by trees and natural vegetation and modest-sized cottages with very few boathouses. The Muldrew Lakes (North, Middle and South) are a series of long and relatively narrow channels characterized by a set of qualities distinctive to their narrow profile comprised mestly of a natural 1.cisual appearance when looking down the lakes. a shoreline predominated by trees and natural vegetation and modest sized cottages with \tery few boathouses.
The goals, aside from others set out in this document,-is are to preserve the unique qualities of Muldrew; while ensuring ensure that the environmental health of the lakes are preserved and improved upon; and, that the recreational characteristics of the lakes are not to be eroded. Alse, because the narrow profile of the lakes combined with the existing level of development presents a confined space for recreational boating, limits to additional development should be recognized such that tho recreational features of tho lake should not be eroded.
New lots: The creation of a new lot on the Muldrew Lakes is subject to the following policies: a) backlot development shall not be permitted on the peninsulas between parts of the lake; b) the minimum lot frontage shall be 120.0 metres; c) where the lot is abutting a narrow waterbody (or Boat Channel Protection Area), the minimum lot frontage shall be 150.0 metres; d) the creation of a new lot to divide existing residential dwellings may be permitted provided that each lot meets the requirements of Sections 01 .5 and 02.4. Crown land: Areas of Crown land on Muldrew, including the Eagle Lakes, and the interior areas of the peninsula are expected to remain under public control and unavailable for development but open for public recreation purposes.
Existing commercial: The two existing commercial properties on the Muldrew Lakes have been serving the public interest for many years and are expected to continue to do so in their present form. However, any application to expand the trailer park on North Muldrew will require a Site Evaluation Report (as detailed in Section 11.4.30) and a careful consideration of the impact of the proposal on the existing lake population. An Amendment to the Zoning By-law will also be required. Any redevelopment to another form of land use will require an Official Plan Amendment.
Parking lot: The existing landing and car parking area on Middle Muldrew will also require a Site Evaluation Report (as outlined in Section 11.4.30) prior to any expansion or change in use because of its small size and close relation to adjacent residential development.
Permitted uses: The permitted uses for lands within the Muldrew Lakes designation shall be limited to single detached dwellings, mainland waterfront landings for water access and existing commercial uses
Page 38 Boathouses: Boathouses are subject to the following policies: a) The property subject parcel of land has a minimum lot frontage of 90.0 metres and is not in a narrow waterway; b) The structure is one storey with no attic, dormers, or human habitation; c) The boathouse has a maximum width of e metres 10 metres (including ancillary docking), maximum height of 3.9 metres as measured from the high water mark to the roof ridge and the structure has a sloped roof; and d) There is a minimum side-yard setback of 6.0 metres.
: shall be permitteEI if the subject parcel has a minimum lot frontage of QO.O metres anEI proviEleEI the structure is one storey with no attic, eor:mers, or human habitation, has a ma> Sleeping Cabins: A maximum of one Sleeping Cabin shall be permitted for each property that contains a principal dwelling. The structure shall be a single story with a maximum floor area, including covered decks, not exceeding 37.2 square metres. The floor area of a Sleeping Cabin will be included in the salsulation of total permitted lot coverage. Accessory building or structure: Aside from provisions set out in this document, the size and proportionality of a detached or attached building or structure should correspond to its role as an ancillary function to the main dwelling. Page 39 l Submission on the draft Official Plan for the Town of Gravenhurst from the Muldrew Lakes Cottagers' Association The following comments on the draft Official Plan (July 2016) are directed towards land use policies for waterfront properties. They are based on the Muldrew Lakes lake plan and premised on the need to set limits on the intensity of development as a means to preserve the unique qualities of the Muldrew lakes; its natural shorelines and visual environment taking into account to the narrow profile of much of Muldrew where cottages face each other across a short span of water. In addition, policies in the Official Plan should ensure that the health and recreational capacity is accounted for and not exceeded. A. Proposed amendments have the general effect of relaxing the regulation of lakefront development: Generally, the proposed changes to the O.P. relax controls over lakefront development and a de-emphasis of the importance of preserving environmental characteristics that are, in our view, essential to the long-term well-being of the community. The changes take the form of the removal of portions of the existing plan or rewording of the text and addressing all of them is beyond the scope of this commentary, but, to demonstrate the point, a few of those changes has been listed below: Examples of text removed having the effect of reducing environmental protection: 83.2 OBJECTIVES a) To recognize that protection of the natural environment, natural heritage features and character of the Town is critical to the economic health of the community. 83.2 OBJECTIVES c) To encourage the protection of the Town's natural attributes, such as its rural character, water quality of its lakes and rivers as well as other natural heritage features in order to ensure that the recreational and tourism uses that rely upon these attributes continue to thrive 01.303 OBJECTIVES I) To preserve the dark sky through sensitive lighting design and installation. Examples of altered text having the effect of reducing environmental protection: 021.2 GOAL All developmeRt iR tt:le WaterfroRt Area of tt:ie TowR st:iall versus To ensure sustainable development practices and maintain and enhance where possible water quality, protect the ecological, natural, visual and aesthetic character of the lake and shoreline and protect the recreational, social, accessible and environmental qualities of the lakes and rivers. Page 40 2 012.2 c) limit the height of buildings within 20.0 metres of the shoreline te R-lirrer tl:ie Rat1:1ral tree liRe; 012.2 f) preveRt versus regulate the development of lands that are considered to be significant landscape features such as cliffs, steep slopes in excess of 40 percent, Rarrew el=laARels and large areas of exposed barren rock. B. The removal of measures of lake capacity (D.3) leaves the O.P. without limits or guidelines as to the overall level of development intensity that would be reasonable for a lake: The measures of lake carrying capacity and lake recreation capacity provide a control on the overall amount of development that is desirable on a lake without which there would be nothing to act as an upper limit on development intensity. We believe that the removal of these factors from the O.P. is a mistake. We recognize that these measures of capacity are imperfect and subject to improved waste management practices, but there seem to be no better alternatives and there is a need for some mechanism by which to govern the amount of development a lake can reasonably withstand while preserving its desired characteristics. MNRF recommends that municipalities perform lake capacity assessments which would then be utilized as a land use planning tool, particularly for lakes in the Canadian Shield.1 lake recreation capacity is a measure estimating the number of users that a waterbody can support while maintaining its amenity as a recreational facility. The measure is a function ofthe recreation surface area of the lake and the number of dwellings which act as a proxy for the number of users. The recreation surface area is that area of the lake beyond 30 metres from · shore - the area where power boats are permitted to travel at more than 10 kph. Because of the narrow profile of Muldrew, the recreational zone is often a narrow band making it particularly sensitive to increased use for activities such as water-skiing, wake-boarding and tubing. A figure of .6 dwellings per hectare of net surface area is typically considered a reasonable limit for recreation capacity. The comparable figure for the Muldrew Lakes is over 2.0 dwellings per hectare - more than three times the limit considered reasonable. Any concerns one might have about imperfections in the model of lake capacity cannot account for a variance from the standard of that magnitude, and Muldrew, from the perspective of developing land use policy, must be considered well over capacity. 1 Lakeshore Capacity Assessment Handbook - http://lakes.chebucto.org/TPMODELS/ONTARIO/OME_std01_079878.pdf Page 41 3 C. The O.P. could give a greater account for the diverse characteristics and land use needs of different lakes in the Town: The different characteristics of the lakes within the Town ought to be recognized and reflected in land use policies. For example, Lake Muskoka generally has larger lots and structures which dominate the shoreline vista compared to the Muldrew Lakes and smaller lakes and good planning practice would adopt land use policies corresponding to the varied characteristics of large versus medium and small sized Jakes. As an example, the Township of Muskoka lakes O.P. sets an objective that new uses or interests in land shall be compatible with other legally existing land uses in the vicinity, and specifically states that "the category and character of the lake in which the new use is proposed, and the historical use of the area, shall also be considered to ensure land use compatibility11 (Section B, 5.52) Standards are set for lot coverage, dwellings, boathouses and docks according to lake size and characteristic. D. Changes to the policies on Sleeping Cabins (D.5.6) will have the effect of intensifying development above current levels, expanding their application, and, in some cases, creating a second dwelling on a property: The draft O.P. does not set out what the Sleeping Cabin provisions are intended to achieve and, we believe, it would be worthwhile to do so in order to direct policy development. In our view, Sleeping Cabins are intended to allow for modest additional sleeping accommodation, ancillary to the main dwelling; basically sleeping quarters, possibly with a bathroom but no kitchen or other facilities that would allow the cabin to be a fully functional dwelling. There is good reason to restrict certain aspects of Sleeping Cabins so they do not result in what would amount to a second dwelling on the property. There are a few considerations to take into account when developing Sleeping Cabin policy. First, there are legitimate reasons why an owner would want to have sleeping accommodations separate from the main dwelling rather than simply adding bedrooms to the main dwelling. Therefore, Sleeping Cabins, while permitted, should not necessarily be equated with an alternative of an addition to the main dwelling. For example, lot coverage provisions that might allow for a 65 square metre addition to a main dwelling ought not to provide justification for a 65 square metre Sleeping Cabin as an alternative. Second, size matters both in respect of the effect on development intensity and in the likelihood that kitchen facilities will be added after-the-fact. This is a legitimate concern since there are no means by which the Town or public can reasonably police the act of adding a kitchen nor is it foreseeable that they would have those means later on. The existing permitted footprint limit of 46.5 square metres appears arbitrary, is comparable in size to a small fully functional cottage and, when looked at closely and in the context of the scale of the average development on Muldrew, too permissive. If modelled out, that sized footprint can provide for two bedrooms, a living area, kitchen and a 3 piece bathroom; or four bedrooms and a 3 piece bathroom. Page 42 4 Either model exceeds what is traditionally viewed as a sleeping cabin and would result in use beyond that intended. We suggest that a footprint limit of 37 square metres is more in keeping with what Sleeping Cabins are intended to achieve. The removal of sleeping cabins from the calculation of total permitted lot coverage (05.6.2) will have the detrimental effect of increasing the total amount of development from that which is permitted today and, indirectly, put added pressure on lake use. Permitting sleeping cabins on top of garages may initially appear attractive from an environmental impact perspective, but there is no limit on the footprint of a garage and the permitted height would need to be substantially raised such that in many properties the structure would be visible above the tree·scape. Also, there is a concern that a large garage can be used to justify a large 'Sleeping Cabin' above it or an area that can be converted to habitable use later on. For these reasons, we do not support this proposal. (05.6.3) The proposal to allow a second steeping cabin based on lot size (05.6.4) has a couple of problems. First, many waterfront properties have large back·lots with a relatively small shoreline and development concentrated near the shoreline. Shoreline should be the main factor if second Sleeping Cabins are to be permitted. Second, Sleeping Cabins by their nature as ancillary structures need to be in close proximity to the main dwelling so the size of the lot, and to a certain extent, the amount of shoreline become factors that are less important than concern over the amount of development in a concentrated area. Because, on Muldrew, development is at a level beyond its reasonable recreation capacity, we believe that only a single Sleeping Cabin should be permitted on a Muldrew property. E. Boathouses: Boathouses should be permitted on the Muldrew Lakes but, in recognition of the narrow nature of the Muldrew Lakes and in order to maintain the visual character of a natural shoreline, the following limitations should apply: a) The subject parcel of land has a minimum lot frontage of 90.0 metres and is not in a narrow waterway; b) The structure is one storey with no attic, dormers, or human habitation; c) The boathouse has a maximum width of 6 metres, maximum height of 3.9 metres as measured from the high water mark to the roof ridge and the structure has a sloped roof; and d) There is a minimum side·yard setback of 6.0 metres. F. The preservation of the dark sky should not be removed as a natural environment objective for waterfront properties: The dark sky is a component of the natural environment, something which is an important feature attracting people to the area. Lighting design should be sensitive to specific needs and excess lighting should be minimized. Page 43 Appendix "III" Town of Gravenhurst VII Official Plan Schedule A VIII Land Use IX Pigeon Lake UV169 X Lake Muskoka Legend XI Land Use Designations Urban Centre (See Schedule A-1) Deer Lake XII ! ! Rural Settlement Area ! XIII ! Open Space Area ! UV17 ! XIV )"B Waterfront Area ! Pine Lake ! Wrights Lake Rural Designations ! UV13 ! XV UV169 Rural Area ! ! UV1 ¤£11 ! ! Recreation Area XVI UV36 ! Turtle Lake ! Highway 11 Special Character Area XVII ! ! Loon Lake GRAVENHURST Airport Industrial Area Upper Eagle Lake ! URBAN CENTRE ! XVIII Muskoka Bay (See Schedule A-1) Reay Lake V Institutional Area Lower Eagle Lake ! ! Site Specific Policy ! XIX North ! Muldrew 13 IV A UV South Lake )" Subsection D5.10 Little Lake Muldrew Lake ! B ! )" Subsection D5.9 Spence Lake C Gull Lake )" Subsection E2.8 Lamorie Lake III ! ! UV6 XX Rat Lake Transportation and Utilities ! ! 11 3 II ¤£ Provincial Highway Doe Lake ! 2 2 ! T District Road 11 Jevins Lake 35 34 ¤£ ! 33 32 31 ! 30 1 ! 29 28 ! 27 26 25 24 23 Sunny Lake I Municipal Road 8 Morrison Lake 18 17 16 15 14 ! 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 37 ! 7 6 5 4 3 2 Silver Lake 1 6 Private Road Fawn Lake 5 36 20 13 ! UV UV ! 4 ! 35 6 3 UV Rail Line ! Cornall Lake XIII 2 ! 34 XII !! 1 ! ! Hydro Corridor A 33 ! B !! C 32 ! Trans Canada Pipeline D ! XII ! Buck Lake E 31 F XI 30 ! G ! ! H Moose Lake 29 XI I 28 Three Mile Lake ! ! J ! 27 K UV13 X 19 L ! UV 26 ! ! Barkway M Little Sunny Lake Jerita Lake C X ! 25 )" ! Ben Lake Barkway Lake Klueys Bay ! ! 24 IX ! 23 ! IX ! ! 21 20 22 ! ! VIII Kahshe Lake 19 Kilworthy ! Text ! 18 VIII ! UV6 Bass Lake Text ! 17 Sparrow Lake ! UV13 ! 16 VII ! VII 15 ! Housey's Rapids ! 14 VI North Longford Lake ! Print Size: 24"x36" (2'x3') ! 13 ! VI 12 ! )"A ¤£11 ! Beattys Lake ! 11 V South Longford Lake 10 ! ! V ! 9 ! 49 8 UV ! ! IV 7 IV ! Riley Lake ! ² ! 6 ! 5 ! ! III 4 III ! Severn! Bridge 3 ! 0 1 2 4 6 ! 2 ! Bailey Lake II 34 ! 33 1 Clearwater Lake II Kilometres 32 31 30 A 29 ! Robinson Lake ! ! 28 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Data Source: Source Data has been provided by 27 ! ! ! ! ! ! I RANGE EAST ! ! RANGE WEST ! ! ! ! 21 20 ! ! ! the Ministry of Natural Resources, District of ! UV6 Muskoka and the Town of Gravenhurst. A 5 3 1 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 4 2 1 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 17 16 15 14 13 Adoption Date: 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Approved With Modifications: Revised: April 10, 2017 Page 44 Appendix "IV" Town of Gravenhurst Official Plan Lake Muskoka Schedule A-1 Land Use )"D Legend Gravenhurst Urban Centre Land Use Designations Residential Designations: Urban Residential Area Urban Shoreline Residential Muskoka Beach Area Commercial Designations: Central Business District Area Bay Street Special Character Area Gateway Commercial Area Highway Commercial Area Urban Mixed Use Waterfront Area Wharf Rd Boathouses Urban Resort Commercial Area Taboo Southern Resort Node )"C Taboo Northern Resort Node Employment Designations: Business Area Muskoka Bay Industrial Area Institutional Area Urban Open Space Area Site Specific Policy )"A Subsection C7.7.13 )"B Subsection C6.5.3 )"C Subsection C8.4.7 )"D Subsection C6.4.5 Transportation and Utilities Provincial Highway District Road )"B Municipal Road Private Road Private Lane Arterial Road Gull Lake Collector Road Proposed Collector Railway Print Size: 24"x36" (2'x3') WHARF RD ² A )" 0 0.225 0.45 0.9 1.35 Kilometres STEAMSHIP BAY RD Data Source: Source Data has been provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources, District of Muskoka and the Town of Gravenhurst. Adoption Date: Approved With Modifications: Revised: April 10, 2017 Page 45 Appendix "V" Town of Gravenhurst Official Plan Schedule B Natural Heritage and Pigeon Lake UV169 Development Lake Muskoka Constraints Deer Lake Legend Natural Heritage Features UV17 Coldwater Streams Pine Lake Wrights Lake Coldwater Lakes UV13 Lake Trout Lakes UV169 UV1 ¤£11 Provincially Significant Wetlands UV36 Turtle Lake Wetlands Loon Lake Conservation Reserves Upper Eagle Lake Muskoka Bay Reay Lake Provincial Parks Lower Eagle Lake North Muldrew Lake Deer Wintering Area ÓÓ 13 South UV Muldrew Ó Ó Little Lake Muskoka Heritage Areas Lake Ó Spence Lake Gull Lake Development Constraints Lamorie Lake UV6 Rat Lake Aggregate Resources (Secondary) Doe Lake Licensed Pit or Quarry ¤£11 Jevins Lake Steep Slopes 20-40% Morrison Lake Sunny Lake Silver Lake Steep Slopes >40% Fawn Lake UV20 UV13 Active Municipal Waste Sites UV6 ^_ Cornall Lake ^_ Closed Municipal Waste Sites Buck Lake Transportation and Utilities ¤£11 Provincial Highway 2 Moose Lake T District Road Three Mile Lake Municipal Road UV13 UV19 Little Sunny Lake Jerita Lake Private Road Ben Lake Barkway Lake Rail Line !! Hydro Corridor !! Kahshe Lake Trans Canada Pipeline UV6 Bass Lake UV13 North Longford Lake Print Size: 24"x36" (2'x3') ¤£11 Beattys Lake South Longford Lake UV49 ² Riley Lake 0 1 2 4 6 Bailey Lake Clearwater Lake Kilometres Robinson Lake Data Source: Source Data has been provided by UV6 the Ministry of Natural Resources, District of Muskoka and the Town of Gravenhurst. Adoption Date: Approved With Modifications: Revised: April 10, 2017 Page 46 70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) 645-2231 / Fax (705) 645-5319 / 1-800-461-4210 (705 area code) www.muskoka.on.ca To: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee From: Lisa Marden Planner Date: April 20, 2017 Subject: Background for a Public Meeting Subdivision File S2017-1 (Donaldson) Town of Bracebridge Report: PED-4-2017-4 ______ Recommendation This report is provided for information. Origin An application for the above noted draft plan of subdivision was received on March 10, 2017 and accepted as a complete application on April 4, 2017. The following background material has been prepared in order to provide Committee with a general overview of the proposed plan of subdivision prior to a concurrent public meeting to be scheduled in the near future at the Town of Bracebridge. Analysis Location and Description The lands subject to this application are 6.53 hectares (16.14 acres) in size and are located at 529 Manitoba Street, in the “Urban Centre” of the Town of Bracebridge. More specifically, the lands are legally described as Part of Lot 1, Concession 4, and Part of Lot 53, Registrar’s Compiled Plan No. 510, former Township of Macaulay, Town of Bracebridge, District of Muskoka. A location map is attached as Appendix “I”. Proposal The plan of subdivision proposes to create a total of 55 single detached residential lots with a minimum lot frontage of 15 metres (49.2 feet) and a minimum lot area of 630 square metres (6,781.3 square feet). The proposal also includes a total of three blocks for stormwater management, drainage swale, and trail/pathway purposes. The development is proposed on the basis of full municipal water and sewer services and access is proposed via a new Managing Our Legacy Together Page 1 municipally owned and maintained road originating from Manitoba Street (Muskoka Road 4). A copy of the draft plan of subdivision is attached as Appendix “II”. In addition to the proposed plan of subdivision submitted to the District, an application was also submitted to the Town of Bracebridge to amend the Comprehensive Zoning By-law to permit the construction of the proposed 55 single residential dwelling units. Site Characteristics and Surrounding Land Uses The subject lands are currently vacant and well vegetated with mixed deciduous tree cover. Surrounding land uses include single detached residential to the north and west, single detached residential, institutional, and farm uses to the south, and single detached residential and commercial uses to the east. Supporting Documentation The following reports were submitted in support of the application: • Functional Servicing Report, Pinestone Engineering Ltd., February 14, 2017; • Transportation Impact Study, Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited, October 2016; • Species at Risk Assessment, RiverStone Environmental Solutions Inc., December 2016; • Planning Analysis Report, Planscape Inc., March 2017 The Functional Servicing Report (FSR), prepared by Pinestone Engineering Ltd., dated February 14, 2017 concludes that the existing water and sewer service mains located on Manitoba Street have sufficient physical capacity to support additional flows from the proposed development. The FSR outlines the proposed stormwater quantity and quality “treatment train” control methods, including permanent pool storage in the stormwater management facility and enhanced swales, as well as construction mitigation measures to protect adjacent properties from migrating sediments. The Transportation Impact Study, prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited, dated October 2016, analysed the current traffic and site conditions, as well as the impacts of the additional traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed development. The study concludes that auxiliary turning lanes would be the only warranted remedial measure in order to mitigate the additional traffic. The Functional Servicing Report and Transportation Impact Study are currently being reviewed by District of Muskoka and Town of Bracebridge staff. The Species at Risk Assessment, prepared by RiverStone Environmental Solutions Inc., dated December 2016 determined that fourteen Endangered or Threatened species had the potential to occur on the subject property or adjacent lands through a desktop evaluation. Further investigation reduced this number to three species, all of which were woodland bats. Field surveys of the subject property were then conducted using Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) guidelines, and although no woodland bats were detected during the surveys, construction mitigation measures were recommended in order to avoid negatively impacting Species at Risk or their habitat. While the MNRF was contacted by the consultant in relation to the scope of the assessment, the completed study will be circulated for their review and comment. Page 2 Preliminary Planning Analysis The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) would apply to this proposal. The PPS promotes land use patterns within settlement areas that make efficient use of land, resources, infrastructure, and public services, and support active transportation. The PPS further promotes development in settlement areas on full municipal water and sewer services and in close proximity to urban amenities. The proposed draft plan of subdivision is located within the “Urban Centre” designation of the Muskoka Official Plan and the lands are designated “Residential” within the Town of Bracebridge Official Plan. Urban Centres are envisioned to be the focus of growth, with development occurring on municipal water and sewer services. The creation of new residential units on vacant or underdeveloped lands within or adjacent to the built up area of the Urban Centre is encouraged. A preliminary review has been completed and it would appear that the proposal is generally consistent with and conforms to these and other relevant policies contained within these planning documents. A further detailed review of these policies will be completed as the planning process proceeds. A combined Notice of Concurrent Public Meeting for both applications will be circulated to required agencies and all property owners within 120 metres (400 feet) of the subject lands. The concurrent public meeting will be held at the Town of Bracebridge. Financial Considerations No impacts on the 2017 Tax Supported Operating Budget and Capital Budget and Forecast are anticipated as a result of this report. Communications Notice of Application was circulated to required agencies and adjacent property owners in accordance with the Planning Act, R.S.0., 1990, as amended. Strategic Priorities Click on icons below to view strategies under each priority area: S 1.5 S 2.5 S 5.1, S 5.7 Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Lisa Marden Christy Doyle, BA, MES (PI), MCIP, RPP Planner Director of Environmental and Watershed Programs S:\DEVELOPMENT\Sub Condo\2017\S2017-1 - Donaldson Subdivision\(5) Internal Reports (Draft Approval)\2017 03 24 Information Report_Donaldson.Docx Page 3 Appendix “I” Page 4 Appendix “II” Page 5 70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) 645-2231 / Fax (705) 645-5319 / 1-800-461-4210 (705 area code) www.muskoka.on.ca To: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee From: Sam Soja Manager of Planning Date: April 20, 2017 Subject: 2017 Second Home Study Update Report: PED-4-2017-2 Recommendation THAT the Second Home Study Update be initiated and proceed as outlined in the work plan appended to staff report PED-4-2017-2. Origin Given the economic, social and cultural impacts of Muskoka’s second home population, an update to the Second Home Study (SHS) has been included in the 2017 capital budget. Analysis Context The ownership and use of second homes in Muskoka by seasonal residents represents a long- established tradition that has and continues to significantly influence Muskoka’s economy as well as social structure and cultural heritage. While information about permanent households, such as household size and structure, is collected by Statistics Canada, information on the over 22,000 second homes in Muskoka is limited. To fill this gap, the District of Muskoka periodically collects information on its second home population through a survey directed to the owners of second homes in Muskoka and, in turn, issues a “Second Home Study”. This Study focuses on Second Home households, not short term seasonal visitors. For the purposes of this Study, a “Muskoka Second Home Household” is defined as being comprised of the owners of the Second Home, their spouses or partners, and all children under 18 years of age. With Muskoka’s seasonal population surpassing the permanent population (estimated to be 59% seasonal; 41% permanent), understanding the economic and social impacts of seasonal residents continues to be of vital importance for making effective planning decisions and delivering efficient programs and services. The 2017 SHS will provide an update to the data collected through the previous studies and enable an analysis of trends over time, making it Managing Our Legacy Together Page 1 possible to make informed planning, program and infrastructure decisions which impact Muskoka’s future. Although the SHS also collects information on visitation, short-term visitors to Muskoka are not included in seasonal population. In addition, the data collected through updates to the SHS is used by a wide variety of stakeholders including the Province, The District Municipality of Muskoka, Area Municipalities, agencies (e.g. Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit), special interest groups (e.g. lake associations), businesses, and internal units (e.g. Muskoka and Area Health System Transformation (MAHST)) throughout Muskoka. The results are also incorporated into studies such as the Muskoka Growth Strategy and the Development Charges Study and will provide useful input to the comprehensive review of the Muskoka Official Plan. Background The District of Muskoka has been collecting information on its second home population since 1973, starting with a report completed by JTM Engineering and Planning Limited entitled “The Contribution of Recreation to the Muskoka Economy”. In 1984, the District of Muskoka and the Muskoka Lakes Association (MLA) worked together on the first Muskoka SHS, with the objectives of assessing the characteristics of the second home sector and evaluating the contribution of this sector to the Muskoka economy. Subsequent second home studies were completed in 2004 and 2013, with both providing valuable statistical data representative of Muskoka’s second home population. Estimating the second home population has always been one of the primary objectives of the SHS. For example, in 2013 the average second home household was estimated to be 3.74 persons per household. This represented a slight increase over the 2004 estimate and resulted in an estimated seasonal population of 83,203. The study has also clearly shown the significant geographic variation in the distribution of seasonal residents, with the Township of Georgian Bay having the highest percentage of seasonal residents compared to permanent residents and the Town of Huntsville having the lowest percentage. In addition to demographic data, valuable information on household income, visitation, seasonal usage, plans for permanency, size of dwellings, recreational activities, and spending patterns has also been collected through the previous studies. Due to the importance of the study results to both internal and external stakeholders, it is now on a schedule to be reviewed and updated on a 5 year cycle. Methodology The Second Home Studies in 2004 and 2013 both benefitted from a high level of public engagement. In 2004, a paper copy of the Second Home Survey was sent to a random sample of 8,226 out of 20,567 seasonal dwellings as identified by MPAC data, which represented 40% of the total second households in Muskoka. 3,081 (37%) of those surveys were completed. In 2013, data was primarily collected through a web-based survey. Public awareness was raised by mailing an invitation to participate in the survey to every owner of a second home in Muskoka. This approach resulted in a response rate of 25%, with 5,255 completed surveys. To improve upon this previous response rate, it is recommended that the 2017 methodology incorporates social media into the awareness campaign. A detailed work plan outlining the proposed methodology and project stages has been prepared and is attached as Appendix “I”. Page 2 The 2017 Second Home Survey In order to ensure the data collected through this update is comparable to the information gathered in the past, it is recommended that most of the questions will remain the same. The questionnaire used in 2013 will undergo a few minor changes to more clearly articulate questions or remove any questions that have lost their relevancy over time. A few questions may also be added to collect new information and provide insight into the use of Muskoka’s healthcare services by seasonal residents, how waste collection services could be improved, and to gain an understanding of how rentals of second homes are administered by home owners. Similar to 2013, the survey will be anonymous and will not request any personal information that could identify the name and/or address of respondents without consent. Also, the survey questions will be voluntary, leaving it up to the respondents to decide which questions they would like to answer. In general, respondents would be requested to provide information on the following: • location of their second home including municipality, waterbody (e.g. lake name) and type of access; • location of their permanent residence; • ownership arrangement of their second home: sole, joint within family, or joint with non- family individuals; • demographic structure of the seasonal household including number of household members and age range; • frequency of second home use over four seasons; • frequency of visits by family and friends over the four seasons; • if and how often their second home is rented out as well as any rental services used; and • future plans to convert their second home to a permanent home, including retirement intentions. In addition to the above, respondents would be requested to provide information on the impact of their second home on Muskoka’s economy by identifying: • purchases of both common household goods and services and major purchases within Muskoka for use in their second home; • household income; • ownership of recreational vehicles (i.e.: boats, snowmobiles, ATVs); • use of public and private recreation, cultural and entertainment facilities and participation in selected leisure/recreational activities; and • whether there are any services or facilities felt to be lacking in Muskoka. Lastly, questions designed to address information gaps would be included, such as: Page 3 • the provision and use of healthcare services; and • waste management services. Once data collection is complete, the survey results will be analyzed by Planning and Economic Development (PED) staff and the tabulated results, along with a trend analysis including comparisons with historical data, will be documented in a comprehensive report. The final 2017 SHS report will then be presented to PED Committee for endorsement and made accessible to the public. PED staff will also be available to present the results of the study to community groups upon request. Financial Considerations Funds in the amount of $25,000 as provided in the 2017 Capital Budget for the SHS would be used to cover the costs of this project. Communications The SHS will involve mailing information to every owner of a second home, a social media campaign (using tools such as Twitter, Facebook, etc.), a dedicated web page on the District’s web site, press releases in local newspapers, as well as email notifications to the Area Municipalities and to special interest groups (e.g. cottage and community associations). PED staff will also be available to make presentations to lake associations and other stakeholders, upon request. Respondents of the SHS survey will be given the option to add their email address to a mailing list to be notified of the report’s completion and other periodic District related notifications. In an attempt to encourage respondents to also provide feedback on the Muskoka Official Plan review, the survey will provide a link to the Muskoka Official Plan comment form on the District’s web site, thereby deriving an additional benefit from the funds spent on the SHS awareness compaign. Strategic Priorities Click on icons below to view strategies under each priority area: S 2.5, S 1.3, S 5.1, S 2.6, S 3.4 S 4.1 S 1.6 S 5.3 S 2.9 Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Sam Soja Christy Doyle, BA, MES (PI), MCIP, RPP Manager of Planning Director of Environmental and Watershed Programs Ped\POLICY\Projects&Programs\2017 Second Home Study\PEDC Reports\April 2017\2017 04 20 SHS Report To PEDC - FINAL.Docx Page 4 APPENDIX “I” Work Plan for the 2017 Second Home Study April 2017 Prepared by: The District of Muskoka Planning and Economic Development Department Page 5 1.0 Introduction The ownership and use of second homes in Muskoka by seasonal residents represents a long- established tradition that has significantly influenced Muskoka’s economy as well as social structure and cultural heritage. While information about permanent households, such as household size and structure, is collected by Statistics Canada, information on second homes is limited. To fill this gap, the District of Muskoka has been collecting information on its second home population since 1973, starting with a report completed by JTM Engineering and Planning Limited entitled “The Contribution of Recreation to the Muskoka Economy”. In 1984, the District of Muskoka and the Muskoka Lakes Association (MLA) worked together on the first Muskoka Second Home Study (SHS), with the objectives of assessing the characteristics of the second home sector and evaluating its contribution to the Muskoka economy. Subsequent second home studies were completed in 2004, and 2013. These studies have provided valuable statistical data on demographics, visitation, household income, seasonal usage, plans for permanency, recreational activities, and spending patterns representative of Muskoka’s Second Home population. With over 22,000 second homes in Muskoka, understanding the economic and social impacts of Muskoka’s seasonal population continues to be of vital importance for making effective planning and infrastructure decisions and delivering efficient programs and services. In addition, the data collected through updates to the SHS is used by a wide variety of stakeholders including the Province, Area Municipalities, agencies (e.g. Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit), special interest groups (e.g. lake associations), businesses, and internal units (e.g. Muskoka and Area Health System Transformation (MAHST), Continuous Improvement Unit (CIU), etc.) throughout Muskoka. The results are also incorporated into studies such as the Muskoka Growth Strategy and the Development Charges Study and will provide useful input to the comprehensive review of the Muskoka Official Plan. The 2017 SHS will provide an up-to-date dataset that can be compared to the results of the previous studies, making it possible to identify continued or new trends and to make informed decisions about Muskoka’s future. The update to the SHS is proposed in accordance with the work plan outlined below. Due to the importance of the study results to both internal and external stakeholders, it is on a schedule to be reviewed and updated on a 5 year cycle. 2.0 Project Goals The overall objectives of the 2017 SHS are to: - Provide background information for internal and external initiatives or projects that may have impacts on or be impacted by Muskoka’s seasonal population (e.g. development charges, healthcare, emergency medical services, etc.); - Update the estimate of Muskoka’s seasonal population; - Identify trends over time in demographics, household composition, seasonal usage, visitation, plans for permanency, rental frequency, recreational activities and spending patterns; and - Provide background information for the update of planning policies in the Muskoka Official Plan. Page 6 3.0 Project Administration and Methodology The 2017 SHS will be directed by the District of Muskoka Planning and Economic Development Committee (PEDC). PED staff would administer the process with coordination by the Director of Planning. The 2017 survey questions will need to be similar to the questions in the 2004 and 2013 surveys to ensure the results can be compared and that trends can be identified. It is anticipated that the previously used questionnaire will undergo some revisions for the 2017 survey to ensure all questions remain relevant, to clarify wording, and to add new questions if any information gaps related to second homes are identified. As before, none of the questions will request that the respondents provide personal information that would identify their name and/or address and users will have complete discretion over which questions to answer and which to skip. The primary method for collecting survey answers will be through SurveyMonkey.com. Survey Monkey is the world’s leading provider of web-based survey solutions and PED staff have had previous success using Survey Monkey for several projects including the Vision in 2011 and the SHS survey in 2013. Although it may be preferable to choose a Canadian alternative to this U.S. based company, staff have been advised that a comparable web-based service does not currently exist in Canada. District staff propose to mail an invitation to participate in the SHS to every owner of a second home in Muskoka using MPAC data to identify seasonal dwellings and access permanent mailing addresses. The invitations will briefly explain the importance of the study and provide instructions on how to access the online survey or print and complete a copy that could be submitted to the District’s offices. Although it is anticipated that the vast majority of the surveys will be completed electronically, paper copies could be delivered to select businesses that second home owners may frequently visit (e.g. marinas). Information about the study will also be provided to lake associations across Muskoka, and District staff would be available to make presentations to lake associations or other stakeholders throughout the spring and summer to raise awareness upon request. Once all survey results have been received, District staff will complete a statistical review of the data to update Muskoka’s seasonal population information and identify population trends as well as changes in the use of seasonal properties over time. If the 2017 survey collects information on potential new issues (e.g. use of health care facilities, curbside waste collection, etc.) where data is not comparable to past SHS results, staff may use the data as a benchmark or compare to provincial averages and trends. A final report containing a summary of the data and providing an analysis of the economic and social impacts will be completed. 4.0 Updated Work Plan In order to move forward with the 2017 SHS in an effective and timely manner, a work plan has been designed that involves three stages: Background Work and Survey Preparation, Public Awareness & Data Collection, and Data Analysis & Reporting. Each of these stages is detailed below. Page 7 Stage 1: Background Work & Survey Preparation The first stage of this work plan involves presenting the work plan for the 2017 SHS to the PEDC, preparing the SHS survey questions and printing invitations that will be mailed to all owners of second homes in Muskoka. At the PEDC meeting in April, PED staff will recommend that the work plan be endorsed with subsequent ratification by District Council. Provided the work plan is endorsed, the survey questions used for the 2013 SHS will be refined prior to the survey being made available to the public. PED staff will work with a cross departmental staff Advisory Group to ensure the previously used questions are still relevant and to determine whether the addition of new questions is necessary to fill information gaps. PED staff will also prepare invitations that will be mailed to the owners of all second homes in Muskoka. These invitations will provide information about the importance of the study and encourage owners to complete the 2017 survey. To facilitate the mailing of the invitations, an extensive address list including all second home owners (approximately 22,000) will need to be prepared. The District’s Geomatics Department will assist in the preparation of this mailing list. Using property data from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) the addresses of all owners of properties that are classed as “seasonal residential” will be selected. Once the total number of mail recipients has been calculated, quotations for the printing of the invitations will be requested from local businesses in accordance with procurement By-Law 2016-39, as amended. Stage 2: Public Awareness & Data Collection The second stage of the work plan involves notifying the public of the second home study, providing them with access to the survey, and collecting the survey results. At the start of this stage, Advisory Group will be provided with an update to inform them of any feedback received from PEDC and to advise that the survey will soon be available to the public. Increasing the public’s awareness of the importance of the study and the availability of the survey will be achieved in several ways. To start, a web page will be added to the District’s web site with information about the second home study including a link to the web based survey. The web page will also provide options for printing or receiving a paper copy of the survey for second home owners that prefer to fill out the survey on paper. Further awareness will be raised through a press release, use of social media, and by sending email notifications to the Area Municipalities, cottage and community associations and possibly other potential interest groups (e.g. Chambers of commerce, Federation of Ontario’s Cottagers Associations, etc.). Once the web page is accessible and media releases have been issued, the invitations will be mailed to all second home owners encouraging them to complete the survey. The survey will be available to the public during the summer months to promote maximum participation. At the beginning of the summer a verbal update to PEDC will also be provided. In late summer, an additional press release will be issued as a reminder for second home owners to complete the survey. During this time District staff would also be available to make presentations at lake association or other stakeholder meetings, upon request, to explain the importance of the second home study. Page 8 Stage 3: Data Analysis & Reporting The third and final stage of the work plan involves the analysis of the data collected by the survey, drafting of the final SHS report, and presentation of the results to PEDC and the public. In 2013 approximately 25% of second home owners responded to the SHS survey which resulted in over 5,000 completed surveys. Compiling and analyzing such a high volume of data was an intensive process that required considerable staff time to complete. To ensure adequate time is allotted for a similar volume of completed surveys, the majority of the fall season has been scheduled for data analysis. It is anticipated that the initial drafting of the final report can also be completed during this time. To update the Advisory Group, PED staff will also present them with the initial results and a draft of the report when it becomes available. Any feedback they provide will then be incorporated into the draft report. Once the report is finalized, PED staff will present the study’s findings to PEDC to recommend endorsement of the report with subsequent ratification by District Council. Thereafter, the report will be made available on the District’s web site and emails will be sent to potential interest groups to advise of the study’s completion. In 2013, several community groups requested that the results of the study be presented to their members. If such requests are again received, similar presentations can be given by PED staff. 5.0 Key Deliverables The key deliverables and presentations associated with each of the three stages outlined in Section 4.0 are as follows: Stage 1 - Staff report and presentation to PEDC for endorsement of the work plan (April 20th) and Council ratification (May 15th) - Compilation of mailing list for all properties that contain a second home (mid April) - Printing of survey invitations (end of May) - Finalized survey (end of May) Stage 2 - Dedicated SHS web page added to the District’s web site (end of May) - Press release to notify public of the survey (mid June) - Launch of survey (mid June) - Follow up press release to encourage completion of the survey (early August) Stage 3 - Data Compilation and Analysis (September and October) - Presentation of results to the Advisory Group (early November) - Completion of SHS Report (end of November) - Staff report and presentation of final SHS report to PEDC for endorsement (December 21) and Council ratification (January 22, 2018) - Presentations to community if requested (January 2018, onward) Page 9 8.0 Timing The timing for the completion of Stages 1 to 3 is anticipated to be approximately 9 months as outlined in the timeline attached as Schedule “A”. Since a high response rate is critical to the success of the study, the work plan has been designed to allow the survey to be active for the majority of the time during which second home owners are likely to be in Muskoka, from the middle of June until the end of August. 9.0 Cost Expenses related to the 2017 Second Home Study as outlined in this work plan are anticipated to be accommodated within the existing 2017 Tax Supported Capital Budget (Project 30-2- 810027). There is $25,000 budgeted in 2017 for printing of the survey invitations, additional promotional material, press releases and hosting of the online survey through SurveyMonkey.com. Page 10 SCHEDULE "A" Timeline for the 2017 Second Home Study Action Mar '17 Apr '17 May '17 June '17 July '17 Aug '17 Sept '17 Oct '17 Nov '17 Dec '17 Jan '18 Present Work Plan to PED Committee Complete Mailing List for Invitations RFQ for Printing of Invitations Print Invitations Finalize Survey (online and pdf versions) Pre-launch update to Advisory Group Launch of SHS web page on District's website Press Releases and Social Media Campaign Mail Survey Invitations Verbal update to PED Committee Survey is available to the public Complete Analysis of Results Present Results to Advisory Group Complete SHS Report Present Final Report to PED Committee Community Presentations (if requested) Stages Background Work & Survey Preparation Public Awareness & Data Collection Data Analysis & Reporting Page 11 70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) 645-2231 / Fax (705) 645-5319 / 1-800-461-4210 (705 area code) www.muskoka.on.ca To: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee From: Summer Valentine Director of Planning Date: April 20, 2017 Subject: 2016 Census – Permanent Population and Total Private Dwellings Report: PED-4-2017-1 ______ Recommendation This report is provided for information. Origin On February 8, 2017, Statistics Canada released dwelling and population data based on the 2016 Census. The release of census data provides an opportunity for comparison to other demographic data sources and the projections in the 2013 Muskoka Growth Strategy. Analysis Key Messages In summary, a review of the first release of the 2016 Census and review of other available demographic information suggests the following; • Muskoka’s permanent population has grown since 2011 and growth is stronger in the Towns. • Muskoka’s total private dwelling stock has grown since 2011 and growth is stronger in seasonal dwellings. • A comparison of actual growth to projections from the 2013 Muskoka Growth Strategy demonstrates strong co-relation with permanent population but includes a likely over- estimate of persons per unit and hence an under-estimate of total private dwellings. • Divergence between census and MPAC dwelling data may be explained by the exclusion of marginal dwellings from the housing stock by the Census. • MPAC continues to be a more accurate source for dwelling count information. Managing Our Legacy Together Page 1 • No data set is perfect and every source of data has inherent assumptions, limitations and may contain errors, therefore demographic information should be used as a best estimate for planning purposes. Background Every five years, Statistics Canada undertakes a national census. The Census provides information on the number of people living in a given area and includes characteristics of those populations. The Census is administered by mail and every household is required by law to complete the census form. The Census has been used by the District of Muskoka as a source of population and dwelling counts for a variety of municipal projects and programs. The Census does not provide information on the seasonal population and it does not include any type of growth projections. However, it does show historical patterns, which inform population and household projections undertaken by the District. 2016 Census Results: Permanent Population and Total Private Dwellings Census information is released in stages in the year following administration. At this time, only the permanent population and private dwelling information is available for 2016. Overall, the data shows that the permanent population in Muskoka has grown by 2.3% since 2011. However, there are significant differences by Area Municipality, with the Towns showing growth at or above average and the Townships showing minimal to negative growth in permanent population. On aggregate, the 2013 Muskoka Growth Strategy shows strong correlation to the actual permanent population counts, particularly within the Towns of Gravenhurst and Bracebridge. PERMANENT POPULATION 2011 2016 % Growth # Revised Census Difference Strategy Difference Census* Projections 2016 Bracebridge 15,414 16,010 3.9% 15,900 +110 Georgian Bay 2,482 2,499 0.7% 2,700 -201 Gravenhurst 12,055 12,311 2.1% 12,300 +11 Huntsville 19,056 19,816 4.0% 19,600 +216 Lake of Bays 3,506 3,167 -9.7% 3,600 -433 Muskoka Lakes 6,707 6,588 -1.8% 6,800 -212 District of 59,220 60,599 2.3% 61,000 -401 Muskoka * Table shows unpublished revised Census information for 2011 provided to the District of Muskoka from Statistics Canada on December 3, 2012. The census results for total private dwellings are more complex. The total private dwelling counts show an overall loss of 0.7% since 2011. Looking more closely, the census indicates a gain of 5.3% for dwellings occupied by usual residents, an equivalent to “permanent” dwellings. Meanwhile, other dwellings (i.e. “seasonal”) are shown to have decreased by 7.3% over the same time period. Anecdotally, this data does not correspond well with planning Page 2 approvals or building permit issuance, though a detailed comparison has not been completed due to lack of access to Area Municipal data. Similar to the 2011 census, when issues were identified with total private dwelling counts, staff compared the 2016 census results to MPAC data. MPAC administers a uniform, province- wide property assessment system based primarily on land title documents, building permits and site inspections. Building permit information is provided by Area Municipalities and is important in determining when dwellings are built or demolished. Based on this information, MPAC provides total, seasonal, and permanent dwelling counts. MPAC data shows an increase of 2.5% in total private dwellings across the District, with a 2.0% growth in permanent dwellings and a 3.1% growth in seasonal dwellings between 2011 and 2016. These findings appear to better align with the permanent population growth demonstrated by the Census. In comparison to the 2013 Muskoka Growth Strategy, actual growth in total private dwellings as demonstrated by MPAC has exceeded projections by over 1,300 units. With the relatively good demonstrated co-relation between population projections and actual growth, the total private dwelling results show that the projected persons per unit is likely too high. This would result in fewer dwellings being projected than were actually required to house the population. Further exploration is merited through the Growth Strategy update scheduled for 2018. TOTAL PRIVATE DWELLINGS 2011 MPAC 2016 MPAC % Growth # Difference Difference Strategy Projections 2016 Bracebridge 8,589 8,966 4.4% 8,780 +186 Georgian Bay 5,499 5,692 3.5% 5,675 +17 Gravenhurst 8,436 8,526 1.1% 8,260 +266 Huntsville 10,244 10,594 3.4% 9,880 +714 Lake of Bays 4,852 4,921 1.4% 4,930 -9 Muskoka 9,997 10,117 1.2% 10,055 +62 Lakes District of 47,617 48,816 2.5% 47,500 +1,316 Muskoka With respect to the over 2,600 unit divergence between total private dwelling data from the Census and MPAC (i.e. MPAC shows considerably more dwellings were constructed between 2011 and 2016), the spread remains difficult to explain. An internal review of the 2011 Census by Statistics Canada in response to a request from the District of Muskoka and the Area Municipalities explained a similar difference in dwelling counts as a combination of accidental exclusion of dwellings within municipal boundaries, out-migration resulting in unoccupied dwellings, and errors in counting seasonal dwellings. Further research by staff has also found that the Census does not count “marginal dwellings” as part of the housing stock unless those dwellings were occupied on May 10, 2016 by a person or people with no other usual place of residence. Marginal dwellings are private dwellings which were not built, maintained, or converted for year-round use and do not meet the two conditions for year-round occupancy (i.e. source of heat or power and enclosed spaces that provide protection from the elements). Examples of marginal dwellings include Page 3 non-winterized cottages or cabins. Exclusion of these types of structures from the housing stock may also help explain the difference between the census counts and MPAC data. As noted above, MPAC data is based on the most up-to-date tax and building permit information available. In 2011, advantages to using MPAC data as the basis for dwelling counts were identified, including municipal control over data collection and transmission and the resulting information being more easily verified by cross-checking with building permit records. For those reasons, it was concluded that MPAC would be a more prudent data source to use for dwelling counts. The results of the 2016 Census appear to show that the recommendation continues to be valid. The complete data set and comparison tables are included in Appendices “I”, “II” and “III”. Financial Considerations No impacts on the 2017 Tax Supported Operating Budget and Capital Budget and Forecast are anticipated as a result of this report. Communications This report will be posted on the District of Muskoka website and shared with the Area Municipalities, internal departments, and other agencies or stakeholders upon request. In addition, the population and dwelling statistics on the District of Muskoka website will be updated in accordance with this report. Strategic Priorities Click on icons below to view strategies under each priority area: S 1.5 S 2.5 Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Summer Valentine, BSc, MPL, MCIP, RPP Christy Doyle, BA, MES (PI), MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Director of Environmental and Watershed Programs S:\POLICY\Projects&Programs\Population\2017\PEDC\2017 04 20 PEDC Report Census Update.Docx Page 4 APPENDIX I: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 2011 to 2016 COMPARISON BY SOURCE MUNICIPALITY SOURCE Bracebridge Georgian Bay Gravenhurst Huntsville Lake of Bays Muskoka Lakes District of Muskoka Permanent Population Census 2011 Revised 15,414 2,482 12,055 19,056 3,506 6,707 59,220 MPAC x PPU 2011 16,099 2,397 12,201 20,562 3,432 7,165 61,856 PPU 2.47 2.23 2.39 2.51 2.27 2.37 2.43 Growth Strategy Projections 2011 16,792 2,523 11,384 19,580 3,715 6,914 61,116 Census 2016 Published 16,010 2,499 12,311 19,816 3,167 6,588 60,599 MPAC x PPU 2016 16,282 2,560 12,578 20,723 3,302 6,844 62,289 PPU 2.38 2.24 2.44 2.46 2.24 2.36 2.41 Growth Strategy Projections 2016 15,900 2,700 12,300 19,600 3,600 6,800 61,000 % Change 2011-2016 Census 3.9% 0.7% 2.1% 4.0% -9.7% -1.8% 2.3% % Change 2011-2016 MPAC x PPU 1.1% 6.8% 3.1% 0.8% -3.8% -4.5% 0.7% % Change 2011-2016 Projections -5.3% 7.0% 8.0% 0.1% -3.1% -1.6% -0.2% Total Private Dwellings Census 2011 Revised 8,519 5,173 8,202 10,084 4,850 9,723 46,551 MPAC 2011 8,589 5,499 8,436 10,244 4,852 9,997 47,617 Growth Strategy Projections 2011 8,845 5,300 7,946 9,505 4,876 10,070 46,618 Census 2016 Published 8,874 4,700 8,302 10,524 4,388 9,343 46,207 MPAC 2016 8,966 5,692 8,526 10,594 4,921 10,117 48,816 Growth Strategy Projections 2016 8,780 5,675 8,260 9,880 4,930 10,055 47,500 % Change2011-2016 Census 4.2% -9.1% 1.2% 4.4% -9.5% -3.9% -0.7% % Change 2011-2016 MPAC 4.4% 3.5% 1.1% 3.4% 1.4% 1.2% 2.5% % Change 2011-2016 Projections -0.7% 7.1% 4.0% 3.9% 1.1% -0.1% 1.9% Page 5 APPENDIX I: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 2011 to 2016 COMPARISON BY SOURCE MUNICIPALITY SOURCE Bracebridge Georgian Bay Gravenhurst Huntsville Lake of Bays Muskoka Lakes District of Muskoka Permanent Dwellings Census 2011 Revised 6,291 1,089 4,845 7,599 1,536 2,781 24,150 MPAC 2011 6,518 1,075 5,105 8,192 1,512 3,023 25,425 Growth Strategy Projections 2011 6,810 1,134 4,762 7,814 1,640 2,918 25,155 Census 2016 Published 6,734 1,131 5,014 8,111 1,455 2,914 25,431 MPAC 2016 6,841 1,143 5,155 8,424 1,474 2,900 25,937 Growth Strategy Projections 2016 6,670 1,205 5,040 7,970 1,610 2,885 25,300 % Change 2011-2016 Census 7.0% 3.9% 3.5% 6.7% -5.3% 4.8% 5.3% % Change 2011-2016 MPAC 5.0% 6.3% 1.0% 2.8% -2.5% -4.1% 2.0% % Change 2011-2016 Projections -2.1% 6.3% 5.8% 2.0% -1.8% -1.1% 0.6% Seasonal Dwellings Census 2011 Revised 2,228 4,075 3,357 2,485 3,314 6,942 22,401 MPAC 2011 2,071 4,424 3,331 2,052 3,340 6,974 22,192 Growth Strategy Projections 2011 2,035 4,166 3,184 1,691 3,236 7,152 21,463 Census 2016 Published 2,140 3,569 3,288 2,413 2,933 6,429 20,776 MPAC 2016 2,125 4,549 3,371 2,170 3,447 7,217 22,879 Growth Strategy Projections 2016 2,110 4,470 3,220 1,910 3,320 7,170 22,200 % Change 2011-2016 Census -3.9% -12.4% -2.1% -2.9% -11.5% -7.4% -7.3% % Change 2011-2016 MPAC 2.6% 2.8% 1.2% 5.8% 3.2% 3.5% 3.1% % Change 2011-2016 Projections 3.7% 7.3% 1.1% 13.0% 2.6% 0.3% 3.4% Page 6 APPENDIX II: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 2016 COMPARISON BY SOURCE MUNICIPALITY SOURCE Bracebridge Georgian Bay Gravenhurst Huntsville Lake of Bays Muskoka Lakes District of Muskoka Permanent Population Census 2016 Published 16,010 2,499 12,311 19,816 3,167 6,588 60,599 MPAC x PPU 2016 16,282 2,560 12,578 20,723 3,302 6,844 62,289 PPU 2.38 2.24 2.44 2.46 2.24 2.36 2.41 Growth Strategy Projections 2016 15,900 2,700 12,300 19,600 3,600 6,800 61,000 Census to MPAC x PPU -272 -61 -267 -907 -135 -256 -1,690 Census to Growth Strategy 110 -201 11 216 -433 -212 -401 MPAC to Growth Strategy 382 -140 278 1,123 -298 44 1,289 Total Private Dwellings Census 2016 Published 8,874 4,700 8,302 10,524 4,388 9,343 46,207 MPAC 2016 8,966 5,692 8,526 10,594 4,921 10,117 48,816 Growth Strategy Projections 2016 8,780 5,675 8,260 9,880 4,930 10,055 47,500 Census to MPAC -92 -992 -224 -70 -533 -774 -2609 Census to Growth Strategy 94 -975 42 644 -542 -712 -1293 MPAC to Growth Strategy 186 17 266 714 -9 62 1316 Permanent Dwellings Census 2016 Published 6,734 1,131 5,014 8,111 1,455 2,914 25,431 MPAC 2016 6,841 1,143 5,155 8,424 1,474 2,900 25,937 Growth Strategy Projections 2016 6,670 1,205 5,040 7,970 1,610 2,885 25,300 Census to MPAC -107 -12 -141 -313 -19 14 -506 Census to Growth Strategy 64 -74 -26 141 -155 29 131 MPAC to Growth Strategy 171 -62 115 454 -136 15 637 Seasonal Dwellings Census 2016 Published 2,140 3,569 3,288 2,413 2,933 6,429 20,776 MPAC 2016 2,125 4,549 3,371 2,170 3,447 7,217 22,879 Growth Strategy Projections 2016 2,110 4,470 3,220 1,910 3,320 7,170 22,200 Census to MPAC 15 -980 -83 243 -514 -788 -2103 Census to Growth Strategy 30 -901 68 503 -387 -741 -1424 MPAC to Growth Strategy 15 79 151 260 127 47 679 Page 7 APPENDIX III: NOTES AND DEFINITIONS Notes: • Totals for District of Muskoka include Moose Deer Point but do not include the Wahta Mohawk Territory as it was incompletely enumerated. The Wahta Mohawk Territory website documents approximately 175 individuals living on the territory in approximately 75 houses. • Source of published and revised counts is Statistics Canada • MPAC (permanent dwellings) x PPU (persons per unit) is a permanent population estimate • MPAC Dwelling count extract dates February 22, 2012 and February 11, 2017 • 2011 PPU from District of Muskoka Growth Strategy (2009) • 2016 PPU from District of Muskoka Growth Strategy (2013) • 2011 Growth Strategy Projections from District of Muskoka Growth Strategy (2009) Appendix D • 2016 Growth Strategy Projections from District of Muskoka Growth Strategy Update (2013) Appendix A • Growth Projections for 2011 and 2016 are from two different versions of the Muskoka Growth Strategy (2009 and 2013 respectively) and differences may be as a result of less aggressive projections in the 2013 report Census Definitions: Population ("Permanent") Refers to people who's usual place of residence is within the geographic census area including citizens, landed immigrants, refugee claimants, and those with work/study permits. For a person with one residence, that residence is their usual place of residence. For people with two residences or more residences in Canada, their usual residence is the place where the person spends the major part of the year, with some minor exceptions. For people with one residence in Canada and one residence outside of Canada, their Canadian residence is their usual place of residence. For people with no residence, their usual place of residence is where they stayed on some specified date. Private Dwelling Refers to a separate set of living quarters with a private entrance either from outside the building or from a common hall, lobby, vestibule or stairway inside the building. The entrance to the dwelling must be one that can be used without passing through the living quarters of some other person or group of people. Private Dwellings Occupied Refers to a private dwelling in which a person or group of persons is permanently residing. by Usual Residents ("Permanent") Also includes private dwellings whose usual residents are temporarily absent on May 10, 2016. Other Private Dwellings ("Seasonal") Refers to dwellings occupied by foreign residents or by temporarily absent persons, and unoccupied dwellings. Marginal Dwellings Refers to an occupied private dwelling which, because it was not built, maintained or converted for year-round use, does not meet the two conditions for year-round occupancy. To be included in the census housing stock, the marginal dwelling must be occupied on May 10, 2016 by a person or group of persons who have no other usual place of residence. Otherwise they were excluded from the housing stock. Examples include non-winterized cottages or cabins and uncoverted barns or garages. Two conditions for year-round occupancy are 1) a source of heat or power (as evidenced by chimneys, powerlines, gas metres, generators, woodpiles, solar panels, heating pumps, etc.) and 2) an enclosed space that provides shelter from the elements, as evidenced by complete and enclosed walls/roof and by doors and windows that provide protection from the wind/rain/snow. Marginal dwellings excluded from the housing stock may explain the difference between Census and MPAC Dwelling Counts. MPAC Definitions: Dwelling Refers to a building or place of shelter to live in; a place of residence. Permanent Dwelling Refers to a dwelling intended for year-round occupation and is the owners's permanent address. Includes farmlands on which a farm residence exists. Recreational Dwelling ("Sea Refers to a seasonal dwelling which is not the owner's permanent address. Growth Strategy Definitions: Relies Census definition for permanent population Relies on SHS definition for seasonal population Relies on MPAC definition for dwellings Second Home Study: Seasonal Population The owners of seasonal dwellings along with their spouses and children under 18 years of age, plus any other family members that spend between 30 and 180 days in the seasonal dwelling in an average year. Relies Census definition for permanent population Reliles on MPAC definitions for dwellings Page 8