THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA
PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
A G E N D A
Meeting No. PED-9-2014 Monday, July 21, 2014 5:30 p.m. Birch Room, District Administration Building ______
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS
3. WATER PROGRAMS
a) Recreational Water Quality Model Review Review of Bays Report No. PED-9-2014-1
Recommendation
None. For information.
4. ASSIGNED FUNCTIONS
a) Subdivision File No. S2014-4 – Background for a Public Meeting (Deerhurst Resort Village Centre – Town of Huntsville) Report No. PED-9-2014-3
Recommendation
None. For information.
5. MUSKOKA AIRPORT
a) Art at the Muskoka Airport Report No. PED-9-2014-2
Recommendation
THAT staff PROCEED to facilitate the display of art at the Muskoka Airport, as detailed in Staff Report No. PED-9-2014-2.
6. INFORMATION AND OTHER ITEMS
a) Registered Plans
i. Subdivision File No. S2002-6, “G.B. Catering – Phase 1”, located in the Township of Lake of Bays, was registered on June 16, 2014 as Plan 35M-731.
7. NEW BUSINESS
8. ADJOURNMENT
Recommendation
THAT the Planning and Economic Development Committee adjourns to meet again on Thursday, August 21, 2014 or at the call of the Chair.
This agenda can be viewed in a larger font by increasing the magnification of the page.
TO: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee
FROM: Judi Brouse Director of Watershed Programs
DATE: July 21, 2014
SUBJECT: Recreational Water Quality Model Review Review of Bays
REPORT NO: PED-9-2014-1 ______
RECOMMENDATION
None. For information.
ORIGIN
The District of Muskoka undertakes a comprehensive review of the Recreational Water Quality model every ten years in order to update the science, confirm the calibration of the model, and address lake specific issues identified by staff or the public. The recent review began in 2010 and is almost complete. As part of the review, the Muskoka Lakes Association requested that additional analysis of bays be undertaken to determine if certain bays on Lakes Muskoka, Rosseau and Joseph should be modeled separately from the main basin of these lakes.
In addition, consultation with the Township of Georgain Bay and Georgian Bay Forever resulted in a simultaneous review of the modeling of bays in the Township of Georgian Bay. A review of bays on Lake of Bays was not included in the analysis as all bays on that lake are currently modeled separately.
ANALYSIS
The Water Quality Model Review
A sub-task of the 10-year water quality review was to conduct additional analysis on Lakes Muskoka, Rosseau and Joseph to determine if certain bays should be modeled separately. The results of this analysis are separate and distinct from the overall review of the water quality model and are technical in nature. In particular, additional montioring sites have been idenitified and implemented this year. In addition, several bays were identified to be modeled and added to the water quality model. This work is currently being completed.
The shape of many lakes is highly irregular with a large number of bays, peninsulas and islands, which result in a number of separate bays. These often differ in the type and degree of shoreline development. In some cases, the water exchange between these bays and the main basins is limited and water quality in the bays is different due to local watershed and bay characteristics. For these reasons, some bays are modeled separately in The District Municipality of Muskoka water quality model.
Page 1 Currently, the District monitors and models the following bays on lakes across Muskoka:
Lake # Modeled Lake # Modeled Lake # Modeled Bays Bays Bays Lake Joseph 2 Lake Muskoka 5 Lake Rosseau 4 Lake of Bays 7 Six Mile Lake 4 Sparrow Lake 2 Three Mile Lake 2 Twelve Mile Lake 2 Lake Vernon 3 Fairy Lake 2 Spense Lake 2 Georgian Bay 4
A number of lakes have multiple sampling points but it has been determined that separate modeling of the bays was not necessary. These lakes include:
Lake # Monitored Lake # Monitored Bays Bays Kahshe Lake 2 Gibson Lake 5 Peninsula 2 Georgian Bay 3
Review of Lakes Muskoka, Rosseau, Joseph
In addition to the overall water quality model review Hutchinson Environmental Science Limited (HESL) undertook an analysis of the water quality of the bays on these lakes as part of the overall water quality review.
A set of criteria, including size, physical separation from the main basin, land use, and water quality were used by HESL to anaylze the thirty-two (32) bays identified by the MLA. Both the District and MLA water quality data sets were used in the analysis. Twelve of these bays were already modeled separately in the District model.
Of the twenty remaining studied bays the following six were identified to be included in the model: Boyd Bay, Still’s Bay, Gordon Bay, Hamer Bay, Rosseau North (MLA site Royal Muskoka Island) and Rosseau East (MLA sites Tobin Island and Windermere). HESL recommended that currently modeled bays should remain in the model.
Lake New Model Bay Municipality Status Joseph Gordon Bay Sequin Hamer Bay Sequin Still’s Bay Muskoka Monitored/modeled Muskoka Boyd Bay Muskoka Monitored/modeled Rosseau Rosseau North Muskoka/Sequin Monitored/modeled Rosseau East Muskoka Monitored/modeled
The total phosphorous in the remaining bays is not statistically different from the main basin and there are no physical separations. These sites likely have regular water exchange with the main basin and therefore can be included as part of the main basin in the water quality model.
Review of Bays on Georgian Bay
The shoreline of Georgian Bay in Georgian Bay Township is also comprised of bays, islands and peninsulas, similar to the large Muskoka lakes. In consultation with the Township of Georgian Bay and Georgian Bay Forever, it was agreed to also review the modeling of bays in Georgian Bay. Several of these bays are currently being monitored by the District and Georgian Bay Forever (GBF), a subset of which is currently included in the District model.
The District has monitored water quality in eight bays of Georgian Bay for many years. Four bays and two locations in Twelve Mile Bay have been modeled as distinct basins in the District water quality model. The three Bays that are monitored but not currently included in the model as separate basins are Go Home Bay, Cognashene Bay and Wah Wah Taysee. As a result of the recent review, it is recommended that Go Home Bay and Cognashene Bay also be modeled as separate basins. However, Wah Wah Taysee is
Page 2 directly connected over large areas with Georgian Bay such that it cannot be modeled with confidence as a separate bay.
Conclusions
The revised model will include separate modeling of four District sites on Lakes Muskoka, Rosseau, and Joseph and Go Home Bay and Cognashene Bay on Georgian Bay. In addition, the annual District water quality monitoring program has been modified to include the four sites on Lakes Muskoka, Rosseau and Joseph. A more detailed report is provided in Appendix “I”.
Overall Review of the Water Quality Model
The overall review of the water quality model is in the final stages of review and analysis. Minor refinements to the base data are being confirmed to ensure that the model is robust and accurate. A final report on the model review is anticipated in the fall.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
No impacts on the 2014 Draft Tax Supported Operating Budget and Capital Budget and Forecast are anticipated as a result of this report.
COMMUNICATIONS Preliminary discussions have been held with the Muskoka Lakes Association to provide them with the consultant’s analysis. Further discussions to ensure coordination of monitoring on Lakes Muskoka, Rosseau, and Joseph will be held, as required. District Chair John Klinck will highlight the consultant’s findings at the Muskoka Lakes Association Annual General Meeting on July 25, 2014. Discussion with the Township of Sequin with respect to those bays in that township will continue.
Staff will participate in the Georgian Bay Biosphere Reserve’s technical committee on the coordination and collection of nutrient information in eastern Georgian Bay. Municipalities (including the Township of Georgian Bay), volunteers, and government agencies are involved. Over two years the Committee will expand the monitoring of conditions in Georgian Bay and ensure consistency, transparency and coordination of water quality studies and monitoring on the Bay.
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
The District of Muskoka participation in research into the health of our aquatic and terrestrial systems will assist in achieving the following Strategic Priorities:
“1.1 Through leading by example, be recognized as a model municipality for the implementation of environmentally sustainable policies and practices. Continue to examine new technologies for their appropriateness in Muskoka.”
“1.2 Maintain Muskoka’s reputation for high quality surface water and recreational opportunities and continue to support the Muskoka Water Strategy and the Lake System Health Program.”
Respectfully submitted,
Judi Brouse MA, MCIP, RPP Samantha Hastings, MCIP, RPP Director of Watershed Programs Acting Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development
\\Sdmvfs02\ped\WATER\Reports for PED Committee\Muskoka Lakes Bay memo July 2014.doc
Page 3 Appendix “l”
Review of Bays in the Large Lakes in Muskoka
The shape of many lakes in Muskoka is highly irregular with a large number of bays, peninsulas and islands, which result in a number of separate bays. These often differ in the type and degree of shoreline development. In some cases, the water exchange between these bays and the main basins is limited and water quality is different due to local watershed and bay characteristics. For these reasons, some bays are modeled separately in the District Municipality of Muskoka water quality model.
Hutchinson Environmental Science Limited was retained to review the water quality of the bays of Lakes Muskoka, Rosseau, and Joseph. They also examined the bays along the Georgian Bay shoreline. The purpose of the study was to:
1) Develop criteria for determining which bays should be modeled separately from the main basins;
2) Determine if those bays that are currently being modeled separately meet the above criteria; and
3) Propose additional bays that should be modeled.
Lake of Bays was included as a reference lake to help develop relevant criteria, because most individual bays of this lake are currently included in the model.
Approach to Bay Criteria
The criteria used to define bays include:
1) Lake Size: minimum size criterion of an bay is 8 ha, similar to that used for lakes for inclusion in the model;
2) Depth: bays that are significantly deeper or shallower than the main basin may react differently; Physical separation: the bay can be separated by a shallow area at the bay mouth, by a narrow mouth or by a long distance from the centre of the bay to the main basin;
3) Land use differences: differences in land use will only influence local water quality if water exchange with the main lake is limited;
4) Water quality differences: are the most direct indication that a bay is significantly different from the main basin; and
5) River influence: can be the main reason for different water quality in a bay if the river provides large volumes of water with different water quality.
Water quality differences between sites were considered the most important criterion for selecting bays for modeling.
Data Sources
Datasets collected by The District Municipality of Muskoka (DMM), the Lake of Bays Association (LOBA), and the Muskoka Lakes Association (MLA) were used to assess statistical differences between main basin stations and bays in the four large Muskoka lakes.
Results for Lakes Muskoka, Rosseau, and Joseph
Each of the four lakes had one bay with statistically significant higher Total Phosphorous (TP) than the main lake (Table 1):
• Cox Bay, Lake Joseph; • Muskoka Bay, Lake Muskoka; and • Brackenrig Bay, Lake Rosseau.
Page 4 All of these bays are currently included in the DMM water quality model. Several additional bays (Little Lake Joseph, Bala Bay, Boyd Bay, East Portage Bay, and Windermere Bay) and two open water sampling locations (Eilean Gowan Island and Tobin’s Island) have higher TP concentrations than the main basin but the difference is not statistically significant.
Table 1: Analysis of Bays
Main Bay-specific Characteristics Modeling Difference Bay-Main Bas in, Em b aym e n t MLA/ DM M M LA Rive r Depth bathymetric land use Current Updated De pth LOBA Mean Influence (ft) barrier Model? Model? Lake narrow s, large Cox Bay 2E-05 0.7 4.59 Small 38 Golf Course Yes Yes Joseph distance (JOS-1) Foot’s Bay 0.88 - 3.33 No 120 open channel Golf Course No no 240 ft Gordon Bay 0.29 - 3.59 Small 114 narrow s - No Yes 3.5 ug/L Hamer Bay 0.09 0.35 4.14 No 150 islands GC, w etland No Yes narrow s, large 3 small Little Lake Joseph 0.008 0.64 4.86 Small 127 Yes Yes distance w etlands Still’s Bay 0.009 - 4.15 Small 30 open channel GC, w etlands No Yes Stanley Bay 0.96 - 3.54 Small 160 no - Yes Yes Lake Arundle Lodge 0.68 - 5.85 No 40 distance w etlands No No Muskoka narrow s, large 2 w etlands, Bala Bay 0.02 0.35 6.03 No 80 Yes Yes (MUS-3) distance village 170 ft Beaumaris 0.57 - 5.92 No 90 no GC No No 6.2 ug/L Boyd Bay 0.04 - 7.29 Small 24 open channel w etland No Yes
Dudley Bay 0.15 0.54 5.49 No 60 narrow s w etlands Yes Yes
East Bay 0.71 - 5.73 No 50 no w etlands No No No, open to Eilean Gow an Island 0.02 - 5.97 No 80 no - No lake Muskoka Bay 3E-05 0.01 8.61 No 40 narrow s urban Yes Yes no, open to Muskoka Sands 0.06 - 6.91 Medium 40 no GC, residential No lake North Bay 0.19 - 5.07 No 60 narrow s - Yes Yes Stephen’s Bay 0.26 - 5.62 No 40 no - No No
Walker’s Point 0.92 - 5.89 No 30 no - No No
No, open to Willow Beach 0.05 - 7.34 No 50 no - No lake Whiteside Bay 0.07 0.79 5.51 No 30 narrow s Wetland Yes Yes Lake Arthurlie Bay 0.89 - 4.97 No 23 No w etlands No No Rosseau 60% cleared, Brackenrig Bay 1E-07 0.02 9.59 No 14 shallow narrow s Yes Yes (ROS-1) Ag 290 ft Morgan Bay - - 4.37 Small 80 distance - Yes Yes 4.3 ug/L Minett 0.1 - 4.75 No 40 No 2 GCs, w etland No No Muskoka Lakes Golf 0.36 - 4.74 No 30 No GC No No & Country Club East Portage Bay 0.03 0.02 4.82 No 40 open channel roads, Ag Yes Yes Royal M us k ok a 0.15 - 6.12 No 120 No - No Yes Island Rosseau North 0.33 - 5.37 Large 290 No - No Yes Skeleton Bay - 0.05 4.18 Medium 65 shallow narrow s road Yes Yes several Tobin’s Island 0.03 - 5.94 Dee River 90 wetlands No Yes narrows several GC, village, Windermere 0.03 4.97 Dee River 80 No Ye s narrows Ag Lake of Dw ight Bay 0.08 0.03 -0.41 Large 170 narrow s - No No Bays 50- Haystack Bay 0.003 0.22 -0.61 No narrow s - Yes Yes 200 ft 130 4.8 ug/L Ten Mile Bay 0.11 0.8 -0.31 Small 80 distance - Yes Yes
South Portage Bay 0.07 - small 155 shallow narrow s Yes Yes Rat Bay 0.06 - 15 narrow s w etlands Yes Yes Trading Bay 0.11 0.7 -0.27 Medium 150 narrow s village Yes Yes
Page 5
Physical Differences and Recommendations for Modeling
There are a number of different combinations of bay criteria that have been classified into five categories.
Different TP and clear physical barrier
All four bays with statistically different TP concentrations are also well separated from the main basin by a physical barrier and are currently included in the DMM model (Cox Bay, Muskoka Bay, Brackenrig Bay, and Haystack Bay).
Sites with different, but not statistically different, TP concentration to the main basin and are well-sheltered bays include: • Skeleton Bay; • Little Lake Joseph; • Bala Bay; and • East Portage Bay.
These Bays are also currently included in the DMM model.
Different TP and limited physical barrier
There are four sites with different, but not statistically different, TP concentration and limited physical barriers: • Stills Bay; • Boyd Bay; • Tobin’s Island; and • Windermere Bay.
Stills Bay and Boyd Bay are both much shallower than the respective main basins, with maximum depths shallower than 10 m as opposed to main basin depths of 60 m (Lake Muskoka) and 80 m (Lake Joseph). Stills Bay is a long, narrow bay with an open mouth leading into Foot’s Bay, and Boyd Bay is separated from the main lake by a wider channel that potentially allows more water exchange with the main basin than those of the bays discussed above. Given that these bays have different water quality and meet the size limit of 8 ha, Hutchinson Environmental Science Limited recommends including them in the DMM model.
Tobin’s Island and Windermere Bay are located at the eastern end of Lake Rosseau and both exhibit higher TP concentrations than the main basin. These locations are part of the eastern basin of Lake Rosseau, which is separated from the monitored main basin by a number of narrows and combines with the outflow from the main basin to form the Indian River at Port Carling. The Dee River discharges into Lake Rosseau in this area and may have some influence on the water quality, as it drains Three Mile Lake, a relatively nutrient-rich lake with a 10-year average TP concentration of 22 µg/L. In addition, local land use and creek drainage in Windermere could affect that station’s water quality. Given the connectivity of Tobin Island and Windermere Bay sites, Hutchinson Environmental Science Limited (HESL) recommends that these areas be modeled together as a new bay called “Rosseau East”.
Different TP and no physical barrier
There were four sampling stations monitored by the MLA that had significantly different water quality compared to the main basins, but which did not have physical barriers to the main basin. Reasons for different water quality in these locations are difficult to assess. Overall, these sites are open to the water and the extent of land-use effects on them is very difficult to delimit; therefore, modeling these sites is not practical nor is it justified by the bay criteria developed above (Eileen Gowan Island, and Beaumaris).
No difference in TP but significant physical barrier
Many of the currently modeled bays in Lake of Bays and some modeled bays of the other three lakes did not differ significantly in TP concentrations despite the presence of physical barriers. If the bays monitored by the MLA fulfill the bay criteria to the same level as the bays that are already being modeled separately, they should be considered for the water quality model. Only two additional bays fulfill this requirement: Gordon Bay and Hamer Bay. Gordon Bay has very similar TP concentrations as the main basin, while water quality in Hamer Bay has been of concern for a while. Both these bays are in the Township of Sequin.
Page 6
No difference in TP and no physical barrier
All the remaining locations fall into this category. These sites likely have regular water exchange with the main basin and therefore can be included as part of the main basin in the water quality model. One area of concern, however, is the northern part of Lake Rosseau, where both DMM and MLA monitoring data show TP concentrations that are higher than that of the main basin and exceed the modeled threshold value of Background + 50%. In consultation with representatives of the DMM and MLA, we therefore decided to include “Rosseau North” into the model and define the southern limit at Royal Muskoka Island. As a result, the current MLA sampling site at Royal Muskoka Island will also be modeled separately from the main basin.
Summary
The larger bays of lakes Muskoka, Rosseau and Joseph were reviewed to determine which, if any, bays should be modeled separately in the DMM water quality model. After careful data quality control, a large District dataset of TP measurements spanning the past 10 years, and 35 sampling sites provided by the Muskoka Lakes Association an analysis to determine statistically significant differences between bays and main stations in the three lakes was undertaken. Together with an assessment of physical characteristics and in consultation with stakeholders, six additional bays were identified to include in the model: Boyd Bay, Still’s Bay, Gordon Bay, Hamer Bay, Rosseau North and Rosseau East (Table 2). Currently modeled bays should remain in the model.
Table 2: Additional Bays to be included in the revised water quality model
Lake New Model Bay Municipality Status Name Joseph Gordon Bay Sequin Hamer Bay Sequin Still’s Bay Muskoka To be monitored Muskoka Boyd Bay Muskoka To be monitored Rosseau Rosseau North Muskoka/Sequin Monitored Rosseau East Muskoka Monitored
Georgian Bay Bays
The shoreline of Georgian Bay in Georgian Bay Township is also highly structured into bays, islands and peninsulas, similar to the large Muskoka lakes. Several of these bays are being monitored by the District and Georgian Bay Forever (GBF), a subset of which are currently included in the District water quality model as they have limited exchange with the open waters of Georgian Bay.
Current Monitoring and Modeling
There is comparatively less monitoring data for bays of Georgian Bay than for the large Muskoka lakes, precluding statistical analyses of differences in water quality. Assessment of bays was instead based on qualitative evaluation of the District data as well as monitoring data and other information from the “Georgian Bay Forever Coastal Monitoring Program Review” (HESL 2011a) and the “Georgian Bay Forever Causation Study Synthesis” (HESL 2011b). In general, the bays on Georgian Bay can be placed into one of three categories based on morphometric separation and differences in water quality:
Type 1: Isolated from Georgian Bay with minimal water exchange;
Type 2: Limited exchange with Georgian Bay; and
Type 3: Water quality primarily influenced by Georgian Bay.
District of Muskoka Monitoring Data
The District has monitored water quality in eight bays of Georgian Bay. Four bays of Type 1 and two locations in Twelve Mile Bay (Type 2) have been modeled as distinct basins in the District water quality model. The three bays that are monitored but not currently included in the model as separate basins are Go Home Bay, Cognashene Bay and Wah Wah Taysee.
Page 7
Data Gaps and Recommendations
Data gaps were identified and based on the basin types (Types 1-3), available monitoring data and location of monitoring, HESL provided the following recommendations:
Go Home Bay:
Go Home Bay is not presently included in the DMM model as a separate basin. It has limited morphometric separation from Georgian Bay and is influenced by the Go Home River, and therefore it may be worth attempting to model the section of Go Home Bay between Georgian Bay and the section referred to as “Go Home River to Georgian Bay”. The District’s monitoring site in Go Home Bay, however, is very close to potential influences from Georgian Bay such that total phosphorus concentrations may not be representative of the bay for validation of the model results. Monitoring should be conducted at a location in the inner bay for validation of model results.
Cognashene Bay:
Large portions of Cognashene Bay are sufficiently isolated from the main basin of Georgian Bay such that there is potential for this bay to respond differently to land use changes than areas of the outer bay. It is therefore recommended that this bay be included in the model as a separate basin. The District’s monitoring site, however, is close to the mouth of the bay and is potentially influenced by Georgian Bay. Monitoring should be conducted at a location in the inner bay for validation of model results.
Go Home River to Georgian Bay:
This section of the Bay is modeled as a separate basin in the DMM model, but there is no water quality monitoring site to allow model validation. The modelling of riverine sites such as this is done only to link phosphorus loads of upstream areas to downstream areas.
North Bay:
North Bay is included as a separate basin in the model. Water quality monitoring is undertaken in partnership with Severn Sound Environmental Association (SSEA) research programs to reduce monitoring overlap. The SSEA collects water quality data in this area that can be used to validate results of the model.
Tadenac Bay:
Tadenac Bay is monitored and modeled by the DMM. The bay is sufficiently isolated from Georgian Bay (Type 1) and there is potential for this bay to respond differently to land use changes. No change is recommended for monitoring or modeling.
Twelve Mile East:
This section of Twelve Mile Bay should measure and model correctly, as water exchange with Georgian Bay is likely limited. The anoxic hypolimnion at the east end of Twelve Mile Bay influences water quality.
Twelve Mile West:
This section of Twelve Mile Bay may be influenced by exchange with Georgian Bay. The water quality monitoring site should probably be moved further inland to be better suited for model validation.
Wah Wah Taysee:
Wah Wah Taysee is directly connected over large areas with Georgian Bay such that it cannot be modeled with confidence.
South Bay:
South Bay is included as a separate basin in the model. Water quality monitoring is undertaken in partnership with SSEA research programs to reduce monitoring overlap. The SSEA collects water quality data in this area that can be used to validate results of the model.
Page 8
Other Monitoring Programs
The bays that the District monitors, with the exception of Tadenac Bay, are also monitored by the Georgian Bay Forever (GBF) Coastal and Inland Lakes monitoring Program. In some cases the sample locations are not the same as those visited by the District. GBF also collects data for a number of inland lakes in the Georgian Bay area that may be used to supplement data collected by the District for validation of the model where applicable. All sample locations, protocols and data quality, however, should be reviewed before using data from other programs to validate model output.
Summary
There are a large number of bays and inlets in Georgian Bay that could potentially be modeled as distinct basins. It would be impractical, however, to try to include all of these in monitoring or modeling programs. The most cost effective approach would be to have a closer look at specific bays when individual capacity assessments were deemed necessary due to development requests. With respect to the presently monitored and modeled locations in Georgian Bay and based on the recommendations made by HESL, the following actions will be implemented:
1. Go Home Bay will be modeled with the caution that modeling may not provide accurate results due to water exchange with Georgian Bay, and a site in the outer bay be monitored to assess water exchange.
2. Cognashene Bay be modeled and monitored at a site within the bay. An outer bay monitoring location already exists to assess water exchange from this bay with Georgian Bay.
3. Modelling other bays should be considered on a case-by-case basis as demands for additional development occur or that alternative approaches to development limits be considered for bays that are not included in the model.
Page 9
TO: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee
FROM: Sam Soja Planner
DATE: July 21, 2014
SUBJECT: Subdivision File No. S2014-4 – Background for a Public Meeting (Deerhurst Resort Village Centre – Town of Huntsville)
REPORT NO: PED-9-2014-3 ______
RECOMMENDATION
None. For information.
ORIGIN
An application for the above noted plan of subdivision was accepted as a complete application on July 15, 2014. 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 public meeting to be scheduled in the near future.
ANALYSIS
Location and Proposal
The lands subject to this application are 21 hectares (52 acres) in area and are located within the Town of Huntsville’s Hidden Valley urban centre, on a portion of the lands owned by Skyline Deerhurst Resort Inc. The lands have road frontage on Muskoka Road No. 23 (Canal Road) and Deerhurst Drive and also have water frontage on the Muskoka River between Peninsula Lake and Fairy Lake (commonly referred to as “The Canal”). The lands are described as Part of Lots 28, 29, 30, 31, Concession 1, former Township of Chaffey, Town of Huntsville. Two location maps are attached as Appendixes “I” and “II”. Appendix “I” provides the location of the Deerhurst Resort land holdings. Appendix “II” provides the location of the plan of subdivision on the Deerhurst Resort property.
Since Deerhurst Resort was established in 1896, it has grown over time and currently consists of several dispersed development clusters. The owner, Skyline Deerhurst Resort Inc., has identified a need to create a focal point to tie together all of the existing development nodes. As a result, Skyline consulted with the surrounding community and undertook a visioning exercise to determine how Deerhurst should expand. Skyline’s team of planning and engineering consultants facilitated a planning charrette as well as a public open house and created a development concept that involves the creation of a new village centre.
The Deerhurst Resort Village Centre Concept Plan, which is attached as Appendix “III”, involves the development of four areas referred to as “The Plateau”, “Driving Range”, “West Riverfront” and “Golf Club”. It is proposed that the Golf Club area will contain a golf course club house and each of the other areas will contain a mix of residential and resort commercial accommodation units with the Plateau also containing commercial retail space, a hotel and a village square. While the proposed redevelopment of the Golf Club area does not involve the further division of land, it is proposed that the other three areas be divided through a plan of subdivision.
Page 1
The proposed plan of subdivision involves the division of The Plateau, Driving Range and West Riverfront areas into eight (8) blocks, with each block to be further divided through separate future land division applications. The proposed blocks range in size from 0.24 hectares (0.6 acres) to 5.69 hectares (14.1 acres), and will involve up to 639 resort related apartment style residential units, 144 hotel units and 8 townhouse units as well as 4,344 square metres (46,758 square feet) of commercial retail space. All blocks are to be serviced by municipal water and sewer services. A copy of the proposed plan of subdivision is included as Appendix “IV”.
Site Characteristics and Surrounding Uses
The subject lands consist primarily of cleared lands and are surrounded by the Deerhurst Lakeside Golf Course. Deerhurst Resort’s accommodation units and the majority of resort amenities are located to the north and east of the subject lands. To the south, several single detached residential dwellings exist along the shoreline of Peninsula Lake and the canal. The area to the north is primarily forested except for the Deerhurst Highlands club house and a restaurant north of Canal Road.
The Plateau area is approximately 8.9 hectares (22 acres) in size and currently contains the Deerhurst horse stables and horse corrals which would be removed from these lands. Two dwellings, which would also be removed, are located in the northwest corner of this area and a golf course maintenance facility is located to the south, adjacent to the canal.
The West Riverfront area, located on the west side of Canal Road, is approximately 4.5 hectares (11 acres) in size and is currently vacant. This area fronts onto the Canal and abuts an area designated as Environmental Protection. It is overgrown with grasses and shrubs with some wetland vegetation along the shoreline.
The Driving Range area is located between Deerhurst Drive and Sunset Bay with an approximate area of 5.7 hectares (15 acres). It currently contains a driving range and is surrounded by the Deerhurst Lakeside Golf Course.
Supporting Documentation
Several technical reports have been completed in support of the plan of subdivision application. These include an environmental impact study, a water quality study, a functional servicing and stormwater management report, a traffic study, an archaeological assessment, a geotechnical study and a planning justification report.
The environmental impact study will be peer reviewed by the District’s consultant and the water quality study will be reviewed by District staff. The functional servicing and stormwater management report is being reviewed by the District’s Engineering and Public Works Department and will be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment for comment. The District’s Engineering and Public Works Department is also reviewing the traffic study, which will be reviewed by the Ministry of Transportation as well.
Considerations
A review of contour data provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has revealed that a portion of the Driving Range area may be located below the Regulatory Flood Elevation for Peninsula Lake. Since development in a flood plain would not be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2014), the applicant is currently reviewing the matter to determine if development is feasible. If a portion of the proposed plan of subdivision is located within the flood plain, the draft plan would need to be amended prior to draft approval being considered.
Circulation and Notice
As the plan of subdivision application has been deemed complete, notices of complete application and public meeting will be circulated to required agencies and all property owners within 120 metres (400 feet) of the subject lands. A public meeting will be scheduled in the near future.
Page 2
Related Applications
In addition to the plan of subdivision application submitted to the District of Muskoka, applications for amendments to the Town of Huntsville Official Plan and the Comprehensive Zoning By-Law have also been submitted to the Town of Huntsville.
Planning Documents
The subject lands are located within the “Urban Centre” designation of the Muskoka Official Plan and are designated “Special Policy Area 1” in the Town of Huntsville Official Plan.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
No impacts on the 2014 Draft Tax Supported Operating Budget and Capital Budget and Forecast are anticipated as a result of this proposal.
COMMUNICATIONS
In accordance with the Planning Act, R.S.0., 1990, as amended, the consultation process will involve ongoing communication with adjacent ratepayers, the area municipality and other relevant agencies, and internal departments.
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Strategic Priority No. 1 focuses on the need to manage development and growth in a sustainable manner balancing environmental, economic, social and cultural elements.
Respectfully submitted,
Sam Soja Samantha Hastings, MCIP, RPP Planner Acting Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development
S:\DEVELOPMENT\Sub Condo\2014\S2014-4 - Deerhurst Village Centre\(5) Internal Reports (Draft Approval)\Deerhurst Village Centre - Information Report.docx
Page 3
Appendix “I”
Page 4
Appendix “II”
Page 5
Appendix “III”
Page 6
Appendix “IV”
Page 7
TO: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee
FROM: Samantha Hastings Acting Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development
DATE: July 21, 2014
SUBJECT: Art at the Muskoka Airport
REPORT NO: PED-9-2014-2 ______
RECOMMENDATION
THAT staff PROCEED to facilitate the display of art at the Muskoka Airport, as detailed in Staff Report No. PED-9-2014-2.
ORIGIN
District staff have been approached by a member of the public with a request to consider displaying artwork at the Muskoka Airport terminal building.
ANALYSIS
The Muskoka Airport terminal building functions as the hub of airport operations, and it is where staff coordinate work assignments, interact with customers and conduct the overall management of the airport. A significant part of the terminal building also hosts the Little Norway Memorial and the design of the building reflects this era of the Airport’s history.
Staff were approached by Mrs. Sam Robinson with a request to consider the display of art at the airport. A number of site meetings have been held at the airport with Mrs. Robinson and representatives of the Muskoka Arts and Craft and Arts of the Albion organizations to determine where art could be displayed and potential arrangements for display, sales, security and insurance.
It is suggested that the display of stained glass and other glass art in the large windows be facilitated and that a display case be installed in which three dimensional art (pottery, carvings, jewelry, baskets, etc.) could be displayed. Paintings or other wall art could be displayed on the limited wall space located in the corridor between the office and the pilots’ lounge and above the customer service counter. The artists would display their artwork with a card providing details as to how they may be contacted to arrange a sale.
Planning and Economic Development Department staff have consulted with the Manager of Facilities and the Manager of Purchasing and Support Services and have determined that the total cost to purchase a display case and to purchase and install the necessary equipment with which to hang stained glass would be less than $2,000, and would be within the Promotions budget that has been established for the airport. The District’s current insurance policy would not change, but staff would recommend that any artists displaying art at the airport be required to sign a waiver to indemnify the District from claims resulting from any damages to, or theft of, any artwork.
Page 1
On Sunday, June 22nd, four artists from the “Arts at the Albion” group participated in a temporary display of their artwork at the terminal building. The event was advertised through the Canadian Owners and Pilot’s Association (COPA), the local newspapers and radio station, and on the MTMA Highway 11 billboard. The District provided complementary coffee and donuts for the event. Although attendance was disappointing and aircraft traffic was low, the artists agreed that there is potential and wish to continue with these small displays on an ad-hoc basis throughout the summer.
Staff are of the opinion that both the permanent and temporary displays of art at the airport present opportunities for the airport to engage with the community and should be encouraged. As a result, we recommend proceeding with the purchase of the display case and installation of materials to facilitate the hanging of stained glass and other glass art as well as wall mounted art.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The 2014 Tax Supported Operating Budget contains a Promotions budget of $5,000. To date there have been no expenditures. The expenditures required to support this initiative fall within the current budget allocation.
COMMUNICATIONS
Staff recommend that both the Arts of the Albion and Muskoka Arts and Crafts groups be advised of the opportunity for the display of art at the Muskoka Airport. Should interest be high, an art display schedule could be established for participating artists.
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
This initiative would fulfill, in part, the following Council Strategic Priorities:
“3. … Develop the Muskoka Airport as an economic development tool that supports the social and business needs of Muskoka...”; and
“3.4 Recognize and support investigation into new methods for encouraging the development of the tourism base in Muskoka including development of the arts and culture sector.”
Respectfully submitted,
Samantha Hastings, MCIP, RPP Michael Duben, Acting Commissioner of Planning Chief Administrative Officer and Economic Development
S:\AIRPORT2\Draft PED Reports\PED 2014\Art at the Airport\July2014art at airport2.doc
Page 2