OUR SHORE Development Permit System Study for Shoreline Management on Lake Simcoe Report 2: Technical Discussion

DATE: June 2016

AUTHOR: Town of Innisfil OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 1 of 28

Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 2 2.0 AREAS FOR DISCUSSION ...... 2 2.1 Area Subject to the proposed DPS ...... 3 2.2 Property Zoning...... 5 2.3 Built Form Types and Site Alterations ...... 7 2.3.1 Built Form...... 7 2.3.2 Site Alterations ...... 14 2.3.3 Town of Innisfil Council Input on Technical Discussion ...... 15 2.3.4 Permitted and Discretionary Uses ...... 16 2.4 Setbacks ...... 18 2.5 Variations ...... 19 2.6 Criteria for variations ...... 19 2.7 Conditions of Approval ...... 20 2.8 Provision of Specified Community Shoreline Benefits for Proposed Development ...... 22 3.0 The Perfect Application ...... 24 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS ...... 27 OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 2 of 28

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The OUR SHORE study is exploring the use of a Development Permit System (DPS) for shoreline management along Lake Simcoe. This is the second report prepared to provide information for consideration as the Town of Innisfil (hereinafter referred to as the “Town”) completes this study. This study is based upon a partnership between the Town, the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) and the Province of Ontario, specifically the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). The research and project work is intended to be a resource for other Lake Simcoe shoreline municipalities to reduce the duplication efforts in policy development and to provide a consistent approach to shoreline management and development.

Report 1: Background and Jurisdictional Analysis highlighted several key characteristics about the benefits of the use of a DPS for shoreline management. One key feature was that of flexibility. Flexibility in terms of land uses, building setbacks as well as criteria to consider variations to the standards and conditions associated with approvals. These are the building blocks for the Official Plan document and Development Permit By-law that would initiate a DPS for the use along the Town’s Lake Simcoe shoreline. Along with the flexibility, comes the need to make informed decisions. Report 2: Technical Discussion looks at topics for discussion and will provide information on each, including input from Technical Stakeholder Committee, as these options are being considered and presented to the community for feedback and input.

In addition to the consideration of the use of a DPS, discussion continues with the Technical Stakeholder Committee about “the perfect application” process for development along the Lake Simcoe shoreline. Exploring the opportunities to streamline and coordinate approvals from several agencies into one development permit is a key component of this study.

2.0 AREAS FOR DISCUSSION

This portion of the report compiles information that will begin to inform policy development. As a Technical Discussion paper, this information is provided for discussion purposes only. The technical information will be used to form the basis for conversations, engagement and outreach with property owners, residents and members of the public. This technical information will be OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 3 of 28 tested as the policies are formulated. This information was considered by the Technical Stakeholder Committee and the input is woven into this report.

2.1 Area Subject to the proposed DPS

One of the first elements of any implementing planning document (Official Plan Amendment and Development Permit By-law) for a DPS is to identify the study area. There is no question that the study area will include shoreline properties within the Town, the question is the depth of the study area.

Currently there are 1,295 properties with Lake Simcoe shoreline frontage. The depths of the individual properties along the shoreline range from 30 m to over 240 m. The extent of the study area was discussed with the Technical Stakeholder Committee, as well as the consideration of including settlement areas. The establishment of the study area is an important first step.

Several options were considered for the study area that included: the entire LSPP watershed, all of the properties 120m from the shoreline and the entire shoreline frontage to a depth of one single lot. Staff and the Technical Stakeholder Committee preferred the final option.

Study area recommendation:

It is recommended that the study area be established as the entire shoreline frontage to a depth of one single lot. This will result in a study area boundary that covers the entire property of any lot with shoreline frontage (from the shoreline to the rear property line, wherever that may be). OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 4 of 28

Maps 1 and 2 below, showing the minimum and maximum ranges of the depths of lots.

Map 1: Depicts the minimum lot depth (of a single lot) showing properties at depths of 30 m in the Chrystal Beach Road area of Alcona

Map 2: Depicts the maximum lot depth (of a single lot) showing properties at depths of 240 m in the Shoreline Drive area at the northern end of Innisfil OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 5 of 28

Points of discussion that frame the recommendation include:

· Easy to establish, identify and implement; · Our Shore is a project that is meant to address the health of the shoreline and shoreline development and development within this area has a high impact on the health of the lake; · Based on the recommended study area size 1,295 properties will be subject to the DPS By-law, extending the study area further would, obviously, increase the number of impacted properties; · Purpose of the study is to establish the built character of the shoreline · Including all of the immediate shoreline is a good place to start and allows us to “walk before we run”; · There will be opportunities to expand the area subject to the DPS at a later date based on the success of this first stage; · Using the entire shoreline as the study area provides a consistent policy approach that includes the settlement areas; · The Technical Stakeholder Committee agrees with this approach and emphasizes the importance of encompassing the entire shoreline, including the settlement areas; and, · As the shoreline lots vary in depth, so will the Study Area.

The Study Area will be a point of discussion during the public engagement and outreach on this project. Comments and feedback received from the public on this topic will be provided to Council prior to their consideration of implementing planning documents.

2.2 Property Zoning

Once the study area is defined, how to zone each property in the study area must be explored. The zoning bylaw in place is the Town of Innisfil By-Law 080-13 adopted by Council July 10, 2013, with the most recent version including amendments up until August 12, 2015. A DPS by- law will replace the zoning for the lands subject to the DPS.

The Town of Innisfil Zoning By-law currently uses a “-W” suffix to any Residential Zone symbol to waterfront properties to indicate additional provisions apply to these properties. The underlying Residential zoning remains, but specific policies apply to all residential properties with frontage on Lake Simcoe. Map 2 below is an excerpt of zoning map from the Town of OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 6 of 28

Innisfil Zoning By-law 080-13 that shows the” –W” suffix as well as other parameters for properties that front onto Lake Simcoe, such as Hazard Lands (Regulated Area).

Figure 1: Town of Innisfil Zoning By-law Map Excerpt

Property Zoning recommendation:

It is recommended that the zoning of properties within the development permit area maintain the existing zoning classification, but amend the “-W” Waterfront suffix to “-PA” Permit Area suffix.

Points of discussion that frame the recommendation include:

· Familiar suffix concept to Innisfil residents and property owners is easy to understand; · No “down zoning” of properties will result from the DPS, all existing principal uses will continue to be permitted; · Underlying zoning classification will not change; · New nomenclature for a new process and new provisions; and, OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 7 of 28

· The Technical Stakeholder Committee believes that whatever the zoning classifications are named, the public engagement, outreach and education will be important to allow property owners to understand the impacts a DPS will have on their properties and the permitted uses.

2.3 Built Form Types and Site Alterations

Development along the shoreline falls into two basic categories: built form and site alteration. Built form is often encompassed into existing zoning by-laws, but a DPS has the ability to regulate site alteration and vegetation removal. This is a key benefit of using a DPS for shoreline management as site alteration can have significant impacts on the shoreline, even though it may not result in a new building or structure.

2.3.1 Built Form

The discussion will begin with boathouses and docks as both are reoccurring themes when talking about the Lake Simcoe shoreline.

TOPIC BOATHOUSES Town of Innisfil Maximum 25% of water frontage to maximum size 120m2 / 1291ft2 Existing Zone Maximum height 5 m / 16 ft Provisions Maximum extension from the shoreline 10 m / 32 ft LSRCA May be permitted provided that: a. that all other applicable guidelines of this document be met to the satisfaction of the LSRCA; and b. the area occupied by the structure is minimized; and c. the ecological function of the vegetation protection zone will be maintained; and d. pervious materials and designs will be used to the extent feasible; and e. the structure will not impede the natural flow of water; and f. any alteration to the shoreline will be accompanied by a natural heritage evaluation to the satisfaction of the LSRCA, outlining how the proposed alteration will not impact the ecological function of the shoreline; and g. any additional studies (e.g. geotechnical report, coastal engineering) will be prepared to the satisfaction of the LSRCA. h. the construction of the boathouse would not have an impact on the control of flooding, erosion, pollution, dynamic beaches or the conservation of land; i. the structure is firmly anchored in place to ensure that it is not affected by changing water levels; and j. the structure shall be wet flood-proofed to the fullest extent possible; and OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 8 of 28

k. the structure does not include any habitable space (e.g. living accommodations, potable water, septic facilities); and l. when deemed appropriate, the applicant/landowner registers a Restrictive Covent under the Conservation Land Act acknowledging that the structure could be damaged by flooding and/or ice and floating debris and agrees to hold the LSRCA safe hold harmless and to remove or repair the structure should it be significantly damaged or destroyed. MNRF Permit required if greater than 15m2 / 161ft2 DFO Boathouses greater than 20m2 / 215ft2 Lake of Bays Based on activity area maximum of 75% to maximum size 139m2 / 1500ft2 Frame of Reference Maximum height 4.2 m / 13.8 ft Maximum extension from the shoreline 15 m / 50 ft Technical ü Should be single storey in height, although that may result in a bigger Stakeholder Committee footprint Guidance for elements of a future ü Should not be allowed to include habitable space, good definitions will DPS help to support the desired outcome

ü Permitted maximum size should be based on size of lot and frontage,

including a minimum frontage to permit a boathouse, meaning that

potentially small lots could not support a boat house (Township of

Georgian Bay does not permit boathouses on lots under 31 m)

ü Design standards or guidelines would be useful and can be included

in a DPS

ü Minimal servicing permitted to restrict human habitation, such as no

septic or water

ü Ensure that boathouses are truly used for boathouses through the

Building Code

ü Seek to use the building code to restrict the use of boathouses for

storage only, such as: maximum height, restricting doors and access

points

ü Could be different provisions for on shore and off shore boathouses OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 9 of 28

TOPIC DOCKS Town of Innisfil Are permitted but no specific provisions and area considered under the accessory use provisions LSRCA May be permitted provided that: a. that all other applicable guidelines of this document be met to the satisfaction of the LSRCA; and b. the area occupied by the structure is minimized; and c. the ecological function of the vegetation protection zone will be maintained; and d. pervious materials and designs will be used to the extent feasible; and e. the structure will not impede the natural flow of water; and f. any alteration to the shoreline will be accompanied by a natural heritage evaluation to the satisfaction of the LSRCA, outlining how the proposed alteration will not impact the ecological function of the shoreline; and g. any additional studies (e.g. geotechnical report, coastal engineering) will be prepared to the satisfaction of the LSRCA. h. the proposed dock does not impede the flow of water; and i. the proposed dock is designed to minimize damages that could occur as a result of coastal processes; and j. the proposed dock is anchored appropriately to the shoreline to minimize erosion. MNRF Permit required if greater than 15m2 / 161ft2 DFO Docks greater than 20m2 / 215ft2 Lake of Bays Permitted to a maximum length of 20 m / 66 ft Frame of Reference Technical ü Docks can be more contentious than boathouses because they can Stakeholder Committee be more visible in the lake Guidance ü Docks can impact adjacent property owners, limiting the ability for

future docks in some tightly configured bays and areas

ü Docks can cause navigation issues

ü When older solid docks are being replaced, flow through requirements

should be required

ü Some individuals harbour their docks (with large rocks and stones) to

protect against the wind and almost creating their own island OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 10 of 28

ü The MNRF have been asking for Coastal studies or Environmental

Impact Statements for these self-created harbours as they can impact

fish habitat in the littoral zones along the shore

ü Harbouring occurs more often on the east side of Lake Simcoe

because of the prevailing winds being so strong

ü Floating docks do not work well in Lake Simcoe because of the wind

ü Construction cannot take place during the fish timing windows,

generally March 15 to July 15, and depending on the site location and

the fish habitat in the area can be longer

ü MNRF has no restrictions on size or type of dock and relies on the

local municipalities to set development standards

ü Consider policies for seasonal or temporary docks and permanent

docks

ü Some dock policies reference setbacks from lot lines to reduce visual

impacts (that are in reality invisible lot line extensions of the real lot

lines “into” the water)

ü Once properties reach the water’s edge, there are no lot lines

(invisible or real) as it is Crown Land and access is the only right of a

shoreline property owner

ü Policies may be more effective if dock length is considered on a case

by case scenario, assessing the water levels in the particular area, the

size of the boat and the access requirements and have the applicant

justify the need for the length of the proposed dock

ü Policies can address the existing character of the area, including OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 11 of 28

docks of similar size and length

ü Docks should be required to remain open and uncovered as covered

docks can quickly start to look like boathouses with extensions much

further into the lake

ü Policies could restrict the width and use of docks

As discussion takes place about boathouses and docks, consideration for other shoreline structures must take place. The LSPP suggests that it must be demonstrated why the structure needs to be located at the shoreline and not maintain the minimum vegetation protection zone. Submissions can easily be made to support those criteria for boathouses and docks. Other structures may have difficulty meeting those criteria. The Technical Stakeholder Committee considered what other types of shoreline development, other than boathouses and docks, are common along the Lake Simcoe shoreline. They had the following comments to offer:

ü Boat lifts, ramps and the uses of covers and canopies can impact the shoreline

ü Break walls can significantly impact the shoreline although they are prohibited other

than to repair or maintain an existing structure

ü Break walls are a significant issue because they stop the flow of water and cause

sediment build up

ü Floating break walls are being used and this style allows the flow through the water

and are easy to remove

ü Other structures and features that impact the shoreline include: waterfalls and water

features, pools, staircases and access points to the lake, elevators and pump houses

ü Shoreline access is a large part of shoreline disturbance and what does access (stairs,

paths) look like through the vegetated protection zone down to Lake Simcoe? OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 12 of 28

Beyond boathouses, docks and the uses described above, there are other types of development that are considered on shoreline properties because they are desirable for the property owners, however these types of development do not need to be on the shoreline. For the topics discussed below, information is provided on the existing policy framework through the Town of Innisfil, the LSPP, the MNRF guidelines and the Lake Simcoe Watershed Development Guidelines. Information about how the Lake of Bays addresses each topic is provided as a frame of reference, as well as input from the Technical Stakeholder Committee.

TOPIC DWELLING UNITS Points of discussion § Limited to one dwelling unit per lot § Generally, LSRCA Watershed Development Guidelines do not permit new habitable structures within 30 m of the Lake Simcoe shoreline, but provides criteria if this setback cannot be met including a Coastal Engineering Report if within 10 m of the shoreline § New structure greater than 9 m2 / 100 ft2 considered a regular LSRCA application Lake of Bays § Development permit not required for a single dwelling unit expansion Frame of Reference or a new single detached dwelling unit if it is beyond the 30 m shoreline setback and not near slopes greater than 30% § Minimum size is 60 m2 / 646 ft2 § One dwelling unit per lot Technical ü Limit to one dwelling unit per lot Stakeholder Committee ü Look for opportunities to improve the remaining area of the lot, not Guidance subject to the proposed development

ü Allow for setbacks to comply with the character of the area and to be

in line with existing building lines

TOPIC ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES, SUCH AS: GARAGES, SHEDS, ETC. Points of discussion § In Town Zoning By-law 080-13, same provisions as Accessory Buildings and structures § Coverage shall not exceed 10% of the lot area except if there is a swimming pool then the coverage shall not exceed 20% § Maximum height is not to exceed the lesser of the principal structure or 5.0 m / 16 ft § Setbacks: Front yard = 6.0 m / 20 ft (maximum), Rear yard = 1.0 m / 3 ft, Interior side yard = 1.0 m / 3 ft, Exterior side yard = 3.0 m / 10 ft § Less than 9 m2 / 100 ft2 is a minor LSRCA permit OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 13 of 28

Lake of Bays § In a residential zone, limited to 4.3 m / 14 ft in height, 2.5 m from an Frame of Reference interior side lot line § A 2 storey garage may be permitted if the second storey is less than 54 m2 / 581 ft2 and no higher than 7 m / 8.2 ft in height § Boathouses, boatports, docks, pumphouse, gazebo, shed, changehouses, saunas, decks, hot tubs, stairs and landings, elevators and lifts extended to a maximum of 20 m / 66 ft from the shoreline are permitted Technical ü There could be consideration to limiting the number of accessory Stakeholder Committee structures on the shoreline to only one with any more structures to Guidance be behind the principal structure

ü Potential limit to the number of accessory uses per shoreline lot

ü Accessory uses should not compete with or become principal uses

ü Impact of the maximum front yard pushes the septic system too

close to the lake has to be addressed

TOPIC LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USES & EXPANSIONS Points of discussion § No further reductions in non-compliance are encouraged but a DPS could address such situations § The enlargement, repair or renovation does not result in an increase of more than 50% to the existing building footprint of the principal building § The increase in the height of the building is not more than 1.0 m/3ft § Similar wording on expansions is in the LSRCA Watershed Development Guidelines, replacement of a shoreline structure is considered a regular LSRCA permit Lake of Bays § Provisions if existing lots do not meet minimum standards to permit Frame of Reference development, development permit required (whereas it may not have been required previously) § Building permit must be issued within 2 years of damage or destruction to a legal non-conforming use for it to continue § Development permit is not required to reconstruct a damaged or destroyed legal non-conforming use § Development permit by Staff is required if an increase in height is requested up to 15%, greater than 15% requires class 2 development permit by Council § Built form additions are based on the shoreline activity area that legal non-conforming uses may not comply with, up to 50% coverage can be approved by Staff, greater than 50% coverage OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 14 of 28

can be approved by Council

Technical Stakeholder ü Some types of uses may need to be grandfathered Committee Guidance ü Some structures along the shoreline may be grandfathered or

historically significant and worthy of preserving

ü Use any replacement as an opportunity to improve site conditions,

although it is important to be reasonable

2.3.2 Site Alterations

TOPIC VEGETATION REMOVAL Points of discussion § Site plan control allows the Town to restrict vegetation removal, but currently only applies to a single subdivision development (South Shore Woods) § Zoning By-law does require 50% vegetation cover on lots with the “-W” suffix Lake of Bays § Removal of any healthy vegetation greater than 4 ft in height is Frame of Reference subject to a development permit § Vegetation removal will not compromise the ecological functions of the shoreline buffer or to facilitate a pathway greater than 1m unless supported by an arborist or professional forester § Fisheries assessment if within 15 m / 49 ft of a coldwater stream § Site evaluations required on larger lots § If removal takes place without a permit, the area must be re- vegetated § Intent to keep 75 % of shoreline in a natural state, 65% for resort commercial and 50% for marinas Technical Stakeholder ü Loss of vegetation in some shoreline areas significantly impacts Committee Guidance the stability of the shoreline

ü Vegetation provides significant erosion benefits to the shoreline

ü Where vegetation has been removed, there is an opportunity to

improve the quality of species present and to remove invasive

species

ü Guidance is required to the public for planting appropriate species OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 15 of 28

TOPIC SITE ALTERATIONS & FILL PLACEMENT Points of discussion § Fill is limited within hazard lands (LSRCA regulated areas) § Minor fill placement greater than 15 m from a watercourse and less than 7 m3 does not need permission from the LSRCA, any amount above that requires a regular LSRCA permit § LSRCA Watershed Development Guidelines generally do not permit shoreline alterations or hardening techniques § Excess fill material must be immediately removed from the site § Minor Fill placement is considered to be less than 250 m3 § Large scale filling is prohibited along the shoreline of Lake Simcoe Lake of Bays § Site alteration means changing the existing topography by more Frame of Reference than 0.3 m / 1 ft or an area greater 9 m2 / 100 ft2 and a Development Permit is required Technical Stakeholder ü Run off from fill placement is a significant issue Committee Guidance

2.3.3 Town of Innisfil Council Input on Technical Discussion At their Council meeting on Wednesday July 13, 2016 the Town of Innisfil Council considered this paper in its draft form. The comments received at that meeting from the Councillors are as follows:

Road Ends Treatments

Many residents near or adjacent to Town road ends have concerns about the use of these pieces of property for public uses and the nuisance some of these uses cause to the residents in the area by way of traffic, noise, garbage, etc.

The Our Shore project can address these potential conflicts through the complete application requirements and the shoreline community benefits section. Through a complete application adjacent property owners could be notified of proposals and improvements to adjacent road ends could be listed as an option for applicants to provide as development proposals are being considered.

Hard Surfacing and Run-off into the Lake

The impacts that hard surfacing has on run-off into the Lake and water quality is significant. The Technical Stakeholder Committee pointed out that fighting the natural conditions of the shoreline, including adding hard surfacing, is not ideal for the development of the shoreline. The type of development proposed, while important, can often be accommodated on most lots provided the natural conditions of the shoreline are embraced and enhanced rather than changed. OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 16 of 28

2.3.4 Permitted and Discretionary Uses The current zoning along the Lake Simcoe shoreline is a mix of Residential 1, Open Space, Environmental Protection and Commercial Tourist. In addition, there are waterfront zoning provisions for shoreline properties that specify specific setbacks that tie into the distances stipulated in the LSPP.

Existing Permitted Uses along the Town of Innisfil Lake Simcoe Shoreline include:

Residential 1: Single detached dwelling unit, accessory buildings and structures, group home, public uses, bed and breakfast, home occupation (Section 4.1 of Zoning By-law 080-13)

Open space: Existing agricultural uses, conservation uses, outdoor recreation, park, passive recreation, public uses and accessory buildings and structures (Section 7.1 of Zoning By-law 080-13)

Environmental Protection: Existing agricultural uses, conservation uses, passive recreation, public uses and accessory buildings and structures (Section 7.1 of Zoning By-law 080-13)

Commercial Tourist: Bake shop, banquet hall, campground, commercial school, convenience store, fruit and vegetable market, golf course, hotel/motel, marina, pet day care, place of entertainment, restaurant, take out restaurant, drive through, retail store, tourist cabin, tourist commercial establishment, government use, park, place of workshop, public use, accessory buildings and structures (Section 5.1 of Zoning By-law 080-13)

The ability for a DPS to establish permitted and discretionary uses is considered a benefit over a traditional planning system. As the Town considers establishing a DPS the list of permitted uses is important, as the creation of a broad list of permitted uses will provide maximum flexibility to property owners and residents. The ability to permit discretionary uses provides additional uses that may be considered appropriate if criteria are met.

2.3.4.1 Yes - Permitted What do we want to be able to say YES to?

To begin the discussion with the Technical Stakeholder Committee the types of uses that would be included as permitted uses included the following uses and parameters:

§ Boathouse with maximum size and minimum frontage parameters § Dock with maximum extensions, consideration of adjacent docks, need to access water depth § Grade change greater than 0.3 m / 1 ft in height but less than 1 m / 3 ft in height OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 17 of 28

§ Fill volume less than 250 m3 § Vegetation removal greater than 1.2 m / 4 ft in height § Single detached dwelling units, one per lot § Stairs and pathways that provide access to the water, maximum width § Existing uses § Public uses § Conservation uses § Park § Passive recreation uses § Home occupation § Accessory buildings and structure, one per lot within the waterfront setback § Outdoor recreation uses § Marinas § Commercial Tourism uses § Government uses

2.3.4.2 Maybe - Discretionary What do we want to be able to say YES, WITH MORE INFORMATION or Criteria satisfied (and what criteria)?

Boathouse greater than standard size or on a lot with a small frontage

Dock greater extension than the average dock in the area

Grade change greater than 1 m / 3 ft in height

2.3.4.3 No – not encouraged The permitted and discretionary uses were discussed at length with the Technical Stakeholder Committee who have provided input into the types of uses that are appropriate for the Lake Simcoe shoreline. The discussion was able to focus on the activities that have the most impacts on the shoreline that include:

§ Property owners should work with the type of shoreline on their property i.e., sandy,

rock, cliff, etc. and any development should be complementary to the existing shoreline

conditions as some types of shorelines are more vulnerable to erosion than others; OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 18 of 28

§ Some of the worst actions, intentional or not, occur when the property owner fights

against the natural characteristics of the type of shoreline present on their property;

§ Pools abutting the shoreline are not ideal for the natural shoreline;

§ Vertical, hard surfaced walls are never going to help, improve or benefit the natural

shoreline;

§ Removal of natural vegetation and the impacts on the Minimum Vegetation Protection

Zone;

§ Filling of the lake bed; and,

§ Industrial land uses.

2.4 Setbacks In a shoreline area the setbacks are relevant not only from lot lines, but also the shoreline. There is a specific minimum vegetation protection zone under the LSPP, that should be continuous and should be considered as a minimum setback, notwithstanding there are some provisions that would allow development within the minimum vegetation zones in the LSPP, especially in settlement areas and existing use provisions. As setbacks are considered in a DPS, both minimum and maximums can be established as well as variations to these standards and the criteria and conditions that will be required to support any requested variances.

Currently, examples of existing setback standards within the shoreline area in Innisfil include:

Boathouses, docks and shoreline structures

-0.0 m waterfront setback (Section 3.10 (c) of Zoning By-law 080-13)

-1.0 m interior side yard setback or the amount equal to the projection the boathouse extends into the water, plus the permission for a projection to be in keeping with the projection of adjacent boathouses (Section 3.10 (d) of Zoning By-law 080-13)

-10 m maximum projection into the water (Section 3.10 (g) of Zoning By-law 080-13)

-Waterfront setback for a principal building: 15 m (Section 3.51 (d) of Zoning By-law 080-13) or 30 m if lot depth exceeds 60 m (Section 3.51 (e) of Zoning By-law 080-13) OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 19 of 28

-50% of shoreline must remain naturalized vegetation (Section 3.51 (f) of Zoning By-law 080-13)

2.5 Variations An acceptable range of variations will be determined as the draft policies are prepared. The level of flexibility can range from minimum to unlimited with the delegation being either at the staff or Council level. It really depends on the type of proposal. It is anticipated that the range of variations will be a matter debated as the draft policies are presented to Town Council, residents, the public and the development community. The flexibility is a key feature of a DPS that must be built on trust: trust residents have in the approval authority to ensure the general intent of the Official Plan and DPS by-law are maintained and that the criteria for variations are adhered to. The comfort level with variations will be explored more fully as part of the public outreach and Council workshop sessions.

2.6 Criteria for variations As variations are written into the DPS by-law, criteria to consider these variations must be clearly outlined. Criteria will be determined as the draft policies are prepared however, below is a list of criteria that may be applicable for a shoreline area.

Potential criteria to be used in determining whether any development or use of land may be permitted by a development permit by- law as part of a complete application include:

§ Relationship to the existing and planned context of buildings, parks and open space including patterns within the built environment, the public realm, building uses and building types, heights, scale, massing, bulk, shape and materials associated with the character of the area § The LSPP requires natural heritage evaluations within 120 m of the Lake Simcoe shoreline to identify features that require protection or mitigation from the proposed development in the case where action is recommended by a technical report, conditions which address the recommendations, including siting requirements that exceed minimum requirements may be imposed § The natural waterfront prevails with built form blending into the landscape and shoreline § Natural shorelines will be retained or improved § Building envelopes are kept to a practical minimum with disturbance on lots limited in scope and the remainder of the property shall remain in its natural state § Vegetation will be substantially maintained at the top of bank § Steep slopes, vistas and panoramas will be preserved to the extent feasible OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 20 of 28

§ Native species will be used for buffers or where vegetation is being removed or improved § Compatibility with surrounding existing and future land uses § Impact on existing parks, open space and neighbouring areas § Incorporation of sustainable and low impact (LID) design features § Proposal reflects natural shoreline conditions and features, i.e.) rocky, beach, cliff § Compliance with all other policies of the Official Plan and any Secondary Plan policies approved for the area § The proposal is appropriate for the lands § Any potential off site impacts are mitigated § The proposal would maintain the general intent of the Development Permit by-law § The proposal would maintain the general intent of the Official plan § For an existing lot on a septic system: 1. a site evaluation may be required to the satisfaction of the Town that suitable soil conditions exist and that any reduction will not result in negative impacts on water quality 2. There is at least 15 m separation from the septic system and Lake Simcoe 3. Tertiary sewage system

2.7 Conditions of Approval DPS enabling documents must outline the extent and nature of any possible conditions of approval. Conditions of approval form part of the development permit including the timing to comply with those conditions.

Potential conditions of approval to be tied to a development permit include:

§ Enter into agreements with the Town to cover the following items: · Post securities, which have the effect of ensuring that any required improvements are completed to the satisfaction of the Town · Incorporation of sustainable and low impact (LID) design features · Carry out landscaping enhancements in accordance with an approved landscape plan · Carry out grading and drainage improvements to the satisfaction of the Town and the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 21 of 28

· Use building materials, architectural details, window details and colours in accordance with the requirements and set out in the development permit by-law · Satisfy conditions related to site alteration, including but not limited to, the alteration or restoration of the grade of land and the placing or dumping of fill on the lands · Road widenings and trail connections may be required to the extent established in the Town of Innisfil Official Plan · Protect, maintain and enhance existing trees and other vegetation on the lands § Satisfy requirements related to the removal or restoration of vegetation § Provide for the monitoring of the use of lands, provided the monitoring is necessary for the protection of public health and safety, the protection of the natural environment, or both § Provide mitigating measures that address impacts to air quality, water and sewer supply, groundwater protection, storm water management, natural heritage features and functions, energy conservation and construction phase environmental impacts § Provide easements for the purposes of allowing for shared parking or access § Provide community shoreline benefits in exchange for variations to the development standards § The proposed development shall be required to be undertaken in accordance with an approved development permit, including plans and drawings, and provisions for the maintenance and monitoring and improved shoreline vegetation § Development, other than single and semi-detached dwelling units, facilities may be required to provide access to and from the lot, such as access ramps, curbing, turning lanes and traffic direction signs § Lighting shall be designed to minimize the impacts on lake views, night skies and environmental features § Walls, fences, hedges, trees, shrubs or other ground cover or other landscaping may be required for the protection of adjacent properties § Garbage, recycling and organics storage facilities may be required § Construction easements for watercourses, ditches, land drainage works or other public utilities OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 22 of 28

§ Disposal of storm, surface and waste water from the land and from any buildings or structures § A fisheries assessment or clearance from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans § A boat traffic impact study for larger docks § A noise report (excluding a single detached dwelling unit) § A technical report to confirm the flood or wave uprush hazard and if necessary, to demonstrate that a building can be appropriately flood proofed, or to demonstrate that there will be no significant off-site impacts

§ An ecological offsetting strategy describing actions to reduce or mitigate the impacts on the ecological conditions of the subject property and immediate surrounding area

§ A Shoreline Management Strategy describing actions to improve the health of shoreline on the subject property and immediate surrounding area

§ A conservation easement or restrictive covenant registered on title of the lands

2.8 Provision of Specified Community Shoreline Benefits for Proposed Development Community benefits can be exchanged for a specified height, density of development or other described variation within the permitted range of the standards and land uses set out in the development permit by- law. The scope of development permitted in exchange for community benefits must be established in the DPS. The potential benefits to the private owner must be comparable to the benefits provided to the community and the shoreline, as determined through the development permit process.

Any DPS established by the Town of Innisfil has to conform to the LSPP or any other policies that better protect the health of the Lake. Therefore, using the LSPP as a base, built form and site alterations permissions are discussed for their appropriateness. Notwithstanding the requirements for Minimum Vegetation Protection Zones, (MVPZ) a large portion of the Town of Innisfil shoreline is either part of an existing settlement area or has existing uses. Therefore the stated requirements within the LSPP may not be practical or possible. To that end, the use of this community benefit component of a DPS can significantly improve the Lake Simcoe shoreline. Every development permit application provides the Town an opportunity to achieve a net environmental gain, or an improved situation to what currently exists. Development is not often equated with improving the environment, but opportunities do exist. Community shoreline benefits can be realized not only on the subject lands, but also adjacent properties in either public or private ownership. OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 23 of 28

True opportunities exist to improve the Lake Simcoe shoreline through the community shoreline benefits component of a DPS. The Technical Stakeholder Committee provided input on the items to include. Several examples are listed below.

§ Improved public access to the shoreline and beaches, including Road Ends

improvements

§ Low Impact Development features (although some LID features could be required rather

than given bonuses for the use)

§ Completion of edge management plans (in newly disturbed areas)

§ Rectify improper stormwater treatment on subject lands or adjacent properties

§ Tertiary sewage treatment options including the use of Waterloo Bio-filters

§ Exploring the concept of “net” environmental gains through an application

§ Fish habitat improvements, especially when littoral zones are impacted by development

proposals

§ Climate change and hazard land protection principles

§ Phosphorous level control measures

§ No “net” loss of vegetation principles

§ Naturalization of the shoreline by the planting out of a shoreline buffer strip

§ Erosion and sedimentation control improvements and measures, especially during

construction

§ public art

§ a design adaptation to respond to climate change

§ a design adaptation to respond to natural hazards

§ other local improvements identified through Community Improvement Plans, Secondary Plans, Avenue Studies, Development Permit By-laws, environmental strategies, sustainable energy strategies, the capital budget, community service and facility strategies, or other implementation plans or studies (can be specified in plans other than the Development Permit By-law) OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 24 of 28

3.0 The Perfect Application There are a couple of reoccurring themes about shoreline management in Lake Simcoe and those are: collaboration and consistency. Collaboration between approval authorities and consistency in the application of policies as it relates to development, in particular, implementing the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP). It is relatively easy to conclude that collaboration and consistency are important, yet it is entirely different to explore how that translates into policy development, processing development applications and the ultimate built form and impacts on Lake Simcoe.

There are several authoritative bodies that have jurisdiction for shoreline properties on Lake Simcoe, including the Town of Innisfil, the LSRCA, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). In some instances, Transport Canada may be involved if a proposed dock could potentially impact the navigation of Lake Simcoe.

The following diagram depicts jurisdiction of the Lake Simcoe shoreline:

Figure 2: Lake Simcoe Jurisdiction OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 25 of 28

Land use planning permission is not always required by the Town of Innisfil. The LSPP is not applicable law under the Building Code. There are gaps in the existing shoreline jurisdictions that the DPS is intended to fill.

Permissions from the LSRCA will be required within the boundary of the watershed and above the Lake Simcoe high water mark. The minimum vegetation protection zones from the shoreline differ if the property is inside (30 m) or outside (100 m) of shoreline built up area or existing settlement area. There are additional requirements for studies and evaluations inside (120 m) and outside (240 m) of shoreline built up area or existing settlement area as well as indicated in the LSPP. Section 6.1-DP of the LSPP states that development within the vegetation protection zone is not permitted except in cases of management, conservation and flood or erosion control. Section 6.4-DP indicates that permission can be granted in a vegetation protection zone if there is no alternative to place the structure elsewhere. This provision allows for the consideration of shoreline development such as boathouse and docks. Section 6.45-DP provides the provisions for existing uses within the watershed.

The MNRF issues permits for anything below the high water and in accordance with the work permit and land use permit policies. Boathouses and docks smaller than 15m2 / 161ft2 do not require a permit from the MNRF, realistically that dimension would support a 12ft x 12ft structure, and would obviously be able to accommodate boats smaller than this size.

The DFO can require a permit anytime fish habitat can be impacted by on-shore or off-shore activities and the impacts cannot be mitigated. A self-assessment tool online is provided that can help individuals determine when a permit is required.

In some cases, Transport Canada can get involved in shoreline development if the proposal has the potential to impact the navigation of Lake Simcoe, although this does not appear to be a regular occurrence.

Given all of the approval authorities, there is the potential for an individual to require multiple permits for one project. For Innisfil residents and property owners the required permits can result in driving to Newmarket to reach the LSRCA or to Midhurst to reach the MNRF, in addition to Town Hall. OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 26 of 28

The Technical Stakeholder Committee explored the concept of a perfect application and a perfect application process. Collaboration and consistency is a key component of the OUR SHORE project. Research about the existing processes (Town of Innisfil, LSRCA, MNRF) highlights two interesting facts:

1) Several Components of the individual applications are identical or similar and other

components, while different, could still provide beneficial review information not explicitly

required by all agencies: and,

2) No single agency review negates the need for any other required agency approvals before

a building permit or site alteration permit can be issued.

The need for collaboration cannot be understated. The discussion took place asking each

individual to consider what their organization could potentially add to the “perfect application”

process, while recognizing the individuals present represent a larger organization and will

have to discuss any and all options within their respective organizations. Keeping that in mind,

the following points were discussed by the Technical Stakeholder Committee:

§ The Town of Innisfil should be the receiver of all development permit applications and

circulate the application information to the other agencies

§ Could there be one application form that incorporates all of the required information from

each agency?

§ Can the Town accept one form of payment and distribute to the other agencies,

electronically if possible? (although there is currently no fee for MNRF permits)

§ Can there be an education component where a Town of Innisfil staff member could be

trained to review applications for key elements and then provide a summary to approval

authorities to obtain final approval and sign off?

§ Can there be an electronic database or application deposit system?

§ Can the electronic database issue individual approvals once approved at a staff level? OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 27 of 28

§ MNRF permit is the final permit provided after all other permits have been approved and

relies on the municipality to regulate the use of land for boathouses and docks and other

uses on the shoreline

§ MNRF outlined a potential change to their regulatory authorities as they explore budget

burden reduction procedures that would remove the requirement for permits for

boathouses and docks

§ DFO approval could be required depending on the development and the results of the

online self-assessment available

§ It is essential to have an easy to follow process for applicants

Moving forward on the points of collaboration and coordination the key messages will be how all involved jurisdictions can collaborate on a refined system that will streamline shoreline approvals, across municipal, provincial and federal jurisdictions. The coordination of approvals is the next piece to making a DPS an effective tool for shoreline management.

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS

This report summarizes a great deal of information on some of the main topics surrounding the concept of the use of a DPS along the Lake Simcoe shoreline. It is a starting point for discussions with Council and the public based on the existing framework and technical expertise provided by the Technical Stakeholder Committee. Decisions made must be informed decisions and that is one of the main purposes of Report 2. The OUR SHORE project will continue to progress as follows:

1. A detailed public consultation plan will be finalized with significant outreach to existing property owners along the shoreline as well as technical bodies and groups with interest in the shoreline including: a. Town of Innisfil Farmer’s Market, Rotary Family Fun Day, and other shared events, where possible b. Information depots for information: marinas, libraries, Town Hall c. Workshops in the fall for document review for residents, property owners and contractors OUR SHORE: Technical Discussion Report 2: DRAFT Page 28 of 28

d. Attendance at relevant groups for presentations, as necessary, such as: residents’ groups, cottage associations, developers groups e. Dedicated website area www.innisfil.ca/OurShore, twitter handle (#ourshore) and email address: [email protected] f. Statutory open house and public meeting requirements under The Planning Act 2. Drafting the Official Plan amendment to support a DPS in the Town and the supporting development permit by-law for public review in fourth quarter of 2016 and final drafts before the end of the first quarter of 2017. 3. Continued discussion with approval authorities surrounding the coordination of land use approvals across legislative bodies through a single DPS application. 4. Additional documentation of the project will be provided to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change as indicated in the cost-sharing agreement, including an interim report due before fourth quarter of 2016 and a final report due before the end of the first quarter of 2017.