THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA
PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA
Meeting No. PED 11-2002 Monday, July 8, 2002 2:00p.m. Boardroom, District Administration Building
Pages 1. CALL TO ORDER
1-2 2. DELEGATION
a) Joe Meating, Director, Surveys - BioForest Technologies Inc., regarding forest protection services the company provides (background information attached)
3-7 b) Don Baxter, V.P., International Graphite Inc. (background report attached for information)
3. ASSIGNED FUNCTIONS
8-57 a) Granting of Draft Approval (Muskoka Commerce Park)
Recommendation
THAT the Planning and Economic Development Committee recommend that District Council approve the "Muskoka Commerce Park", Plan of Subdivision, File No. S2001-3, dated April 17, 2002 and redlined June 27,2002, on Part of Lots 12-15, Concession 3, Chaffey, Town of Huntsville, subject to certain conditions as contained in the staff report dated June 27,2002.
58-66 b) Approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 31 to the Official Plan of the Town of Huntsville (Pengelly).
Recommendation
THAT the Planning and Economic Development Committee recommend that District Council approve Amendment No. 31 (Pengelly) to the Official Plan of the Town of Huntsville, which was adopted by Town By-law 2002-66P. PED 11-2002 - 2- July 8,2002
67-68 4. HERITAGE AREAS POLICY REVIEW - WETLANDS POLICY PAPER (Paper attached to agenda package)
Recommendation
THAT the Planning and Economic Development Committee recommend to District Council that the Heritage Areas Policy Review - Wetland Policy Paper be received for the purpose of general circulation and public input.
5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
69-72 a) Minutes of the Muskoka Airport Implementation Committee
Recommendation
THAT the minutes of the Muskoka Airport Implementation Committee meeting of June 20,2002, be confirmed.
6. INFORMATION AND OTHER ITEMS
a) Activity on Plans of Subdivision and Condominium
The following plans received an extension to draft approval:
i) Subdivision File No. 44T-90012, 1493367 Ont. Inc. - formerly "Kingbrook", Town of Gravenhurst, was granted an extension to all three phases for 2 years to July 4, 2004, July 4, 2006 and July 4, 2008 respectively.
ii) Subdivision File No. 44T-94002, 1054955 Ontario Limited, Town of Huntsville, was granted an extension to draft approval for 18 months to January 3, 2004.
iii) Subdivision File No. 44T-89019, VII Holdings (Muskoka) Limited, Town of Huntsville, was granted an extension to draft approval for 2 years to August 1, 2004.
7. NEW BUSINESS
8. ADJOURNMENT
Recommendation
THAT the Planning and Economic Development Committee adjourn to meet again Monday, July 29, 2002 at 2:00p.m. or at the call of the Chair. The forest resource is under more pressure than ever before. Forest managers are confronted 'With intensivety managing forests when the land base available for forestry has been reduced. As a result, previously unimportant deptetions are becoming significant The forest manageris under pressure to deal with losses, induding those due to pests, in a manner that is targeted and
BioForest can Our s1aff share over half a century of pest management experience. Our forest health assessments, an important step in ensuring quality "" ""'"""..,can help determine losses are performances. occurring. how much is being lost. and the causal agents. We design pest management programs that address urban concerns, such as Dutch elm disease. Clients We design and imp4emem health surveys that in urban settings, such as townships or cottage II1C~rporateground and/or aeria! components. We associations, are often striving to presetV€I the conduct defoliation forecast suNeys for forest aesthetic beauty or their surroundings, BioForest pests including spruce budworm,jack pine budworm. while being sensitive to the complexities of working forest tent caterpillar. and gypsy moth. With carefully in an urban environment. can customize monitoring gathered survey data, we are able to recommend and COf'ltrd programs that 'Nill protect valuable trees. control strategies that best suit our diems' manEIClefTlent goals, Sometimes doing nothing is the We have patient, professional employees 1Ni1iing to bestcootrol option. Ifthat is the case, we will say so. meet 'Nith the public to discuss the details of a cDntroi program, We have successfully led public sOf<:lvir;als the best control our GIS Information and consultation sessions in some of the rl.,.,,,,,,,trn,.:>nt uses survey and forecast information to most aggressive environments in North America,
",r""" Jr'", digiti;z:ecI spray that is for use with the modem of BioForest has a suite of management tools, If li'<'Ork closely with to you have a forest health concern, "'Ie have a ao:::ur;ate, and cost-efficient solution. programs. We follow UP spray with effica<~ ~~ BioForest TOO.~rr.
Biol/orest Technologies wasfounded in 1996. Ourprofessional and technical ...taffhas successfudly completed more than 200 projects and has particular expertise in:
Forest Health ~lanagement Contact us at: .. r Detection, diagnosis, and monitoring of forest health problems; , Analysts offorest pest impacts; Biol-orest Technologies Inc ;. Development ofpest management strategies; 105 Bruce Street Sault Ste. Mane, ON , Development and implementation ofDecision Support Systems to support Canada P6A 2X(, forest management planning; Tel 705-942-5824 r Delivery ofpest management control programs. Fax: 705-942-8R29 E-mail' bforeslasoolldca
Sustainable Forest AJanagement Broforest Technologrcs Inc. ". Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Sustainable Forest Management 527 Beaverbrook Court, Suue 4 I{, Fredencton, NI3 Standards; Canada E313 I XC> r ISO 14001 Environmental Management System Standards; Tel" 506-474-30·18 r Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Sustainability Standards; Fax. 506-455-85b5 , American Forest & Paper Association SFlsMStandard; E-mail: bhemel}@.!olorest(..Ig ., Ontarro Forest Industries Association Code ofPractice; r: Ontario Ministry ofNatural Resources Independent Forest Audit Protocol.
Biol-orcst Technologies US '\ , Inc PO Box31X Rocklord MI Training am} Information I'SA 49,,11 Tel h j(,-1(I)(,- H,O Fil". 1,1 {,-86I,-5X:;O Custom designed courses including: r E-maIl: ~\ankllsu.bl_•.lI.)re2U2!.-g • Integrated forest pest management; • Vegetation management; • CSA. ISO, FSC, and SFI certification; • Forest health monitoring; f.llof·oresl Tcchll()lo;,'ICS U S·,\ In, r: Literature reviews and problem analysts; :' Ihomuson Road 1I'i r: Coordination and delivery of workshops and conferences. veazie t\!L 11S/\ 114·WI 'Ie! 2ir:'·'I·L'·'il J'}, E"Jn~:ll l~_5_l·bg)!:.1' j~~!:2Ji2I~i;~rg
.\'cience and Consulting
,. Preparation ofoperations manuals ami management guidelines: On the web at r: Independent forest management audits; www. bioforest.orv r: Forest growth and yield surveys am! assessment; r Public consultations: r: Collection and analysis of forest research data BiQForest ~k"G
to'-. -J r.-; to' B.J ;J(J F,'(JJe,:;1.-- T'. ec-J---lH(J (J/~Je,:; I--lJC.
rr~sr:.nt8.ljfjn to the Distnct of Ivfu::Vnkr3 July 2. 2002
ITf(jJ?{Wr.Ci: Vi'?,C fnrrrrded in Y0'J(j ?,nrf nnw Ii?, C(j fffr:r.c in;
r ,~'aull ,~"tr'.. Marie. GAl: r Fredericton. NB:
r- Prince Albert. tJ":. r Bangor, ME: r Rockford. MJ
r: A tree ptnnting company, r A tree removal company; r A tradittonnlforest management company; r A ,:praji company;
1 f3f~f~f'I:::f: I:: tllr. flrr.mirx f~rr.::f: Jlr.~ff:f1 r.~mfl2r;y in C~r;~r:f~ wrth fl~rr:rr.rJI~r r.;:flr.rr:r::r.ln;
r Forect Healtn Management; ,,~'u"famable Forest Management; r Trauung and Education: r: Conculung.
~ Province ofSaskatchewan; ~ Township ofthe Archipelago; ~ Horseshoe and Crotch Lake Cottage Association; ~ Grand and MacquapitI.akes Cottagers (NB); ~ Forest Industry.
Each year BinForesl:
~ Surveys some 20 million hectares offorest; ~ Surveys over 40 communities for DED; ~ Coordinates aerial sprayingprograms averaging 50.000 hectares; ~ Collaborates With research organizattons to develop new, more effective PMsystems.
2 "In Muskoka. the Importance of healthyforests I.~ recognized by most everyone. ,";0 many sectors ofthe economy depend on It... "
Proposed ServIces tIJ the District IJf Mudmk3
r Pe.CI detection. and diagnosi: r Monitoring and damage acceccment r Pectforecast: r Pest prograni management r Public consultation and tnformatton.
Programs are custom designedfor each client but based on a permanentpopulation for the District of some 53,000 and a land base ofnearly 4000 km 2 the costfor a basic detection, monttoring and forecast survey will likely be less than $1.00 perperson.
3 Benefits to the Dis!]:i!:t of r"lusimka
r: Minimize the use ofpesticide: r-Opttmtze the use ofpecticide: r- Maximize recreational onportunitie: r: Lead tune jar pest management planning r: Education and concultatiott r: Healihyforests
Top (:hn'l~ in 1001
G)psymoll,
Forest tent C(lferpU/tlr
Hemiocklooper
Intreduced PineSawfly Budworm
4 Asian Longham Beetle
r;o, winch side ofthe mad do you want to he on?
5 THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT -*-----70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO. P1L 1N3 TELEPHONE (705) 645-2231 1-800-461-4210 (in 705 area code) FAX (705) 646-2207
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chair Ben Boivin and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee
FROM: Gregory /. Corbett, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Planner
RE: Granting of Draft Approval Subdivision File No. S2001-3 "Muskoka Commerce Park" Part of Lots 12,13,14 & 15, Concession 3 Chaffey, Town of Huntsville
DATE: June 27, 2002
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning and Economic Development Committee recommend that District Council approve the "Muskoka Commerce Park" Plan of Subdivision, File No. S2001-3, prepared by G. Bret Magee Ontario Land Surveyor, John P. Gallagher &Associates, and Tulloch Engineering, dated April 17, 2002 and redlined June 27,2002, on Part of Lots 12, 13, 14 & 15, Concession 3, Chaffey, Town of Huntsville, subject to certain conditions as contained in the Staff Report dated June 27,2002.
ORIGIN
The application for the above plan of subdivision was submitted by the proponent's agent on November 9,2001 and accepted on November 13, 2001.
ANALYSIS
As per the report affixed hereto.
Respectfully submitted, A BACKGROUND
Proponent
Claudex Inc. on behalf of G. & W. Higgs, Gerad Rena Incorporated and Evanco Properties Ltd.
Location and Legal Description
The subject property is located in the northwestern portion of the urban area of the Town of Huntsville. The property is bounded by Highway No. 11 on the west, Highway No. 60 to the north, Hanes Road to the southeast and existing residential and industrial development to the southwest. The property is approximately 62 hectares (153 acres) in size and is described legally as Part Lots 12, 13, 14 and 15, Concession 3, Chaffey, Town of Huntsville.
Proposal
The plan of subdivision would facilitate the development of the subject lands as a light industrial/business park with a residential component. The plan of subdivision would divide the property into a total of 31 light industrial lots, 1 large retail commercial lot, 1 future residential block, and a number of blocks for stormwater management facilities, road widening and open space uses. The proposed retail commercial lot is approximately 11 hectares (27 acres) in size, while the proposed light industrial lots range in size from 0.33 hectares (0.82 acres) to 1.92 hectares (4.74 acres). The proposed future residential block is 7.8 hectares (19.3 acres) in size.
Access to the proposed lots is to be via an extension to the existing road system. Howland Drive is to be extended from its current terminus near Highway No. 11 northward and then eastward. Howland Drive will then intersect with Centre Street, which is to be extended through the site from Hanes Road to Highway No. 60. Centre Street will align with Centre Street on the south side of Hanes Road, which is to be built in the near future. A new signalized intersection is proposed where Centre Street and Highway No. 60 will intersect. Kinton Avenue will also be extended in the site from its current terminus northeasterly to intersect with the extended Howland Avenue. A new road, Ott Drive, is also proposed extending northward from Hanes Road and ending in a cul-de-sac. Small Street will connect Ott Drive and Centre Street.
The open space blocks in the plan of subdivision facilitate a trail system throughout the development and also identify environmentally sensitive areas. These sensitive areas include Hanes Creek and the steep slopes associated with the ridge that runs through the property. -2 -
Each of the proposed lots in the plan of subdivision are to be on full municipal water and sewer services.
Site Characteristics
The subject property has a varied topography. The southern portion of the property along Hanes Road is relatively flat and becomes more undulating as you move northward and westward from Highway No. 60. The middle portion of the property contains a relatively steep slope that bisects the property from east to west and is well treed. North of this ridge is Hanes Creek, which also bisects the property from east to west and there is a wetland complex associated with the creek. The northern portion of the property becomes relatively level again and this area appears to be regenerating from previous agricultural use. The property is currently vacant.
Surrounding Land Uses
Highway Nos. 11 and 60 act as significant boundaries to the development. Residential development exists along Hanes Road to the west and on the southern side of Hanes Road in the vicinity of the Centre Street extension. The existing Huntsville Business Park is located to the southwest along the existing portions of Howland Drive and Kinton Avenue. The lands on the opposite side of Highway No. 60 are currently vacant.
Supporting Documentation
A number of reports were submitted in support of this application. The Town of Huntsville retained the services of independent consultants to undertake peer reviews of these reports, as indicated below:
a) Planning Report - Muskoka Commerce Park - Town ofHuntsville, Green Scheels Pidgeon Planning Consultants Limited, December 2001. (Peer reviewed by The Butler Group Consultants Inc.)
b) Huntsville Commercial Centre Traffic StUdy, iTRANS Consulnnq Inc., November 2001. (Peer reviewed by BA Consulting Group Ltd.)
c) Preliminary Stormwater Management Report - Muskoka Commerce Park - Town of Huntsville, C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd., January 2002.
d) Market Study & Impact Evaluation - Proposed Huntsville Commercial Centre Highway 11 and Highway 60, Malone Given Parsons Ltd., November 2001. (Peer reviewed by W. Scott Morgan)
e) Environmental Impact Study - Muskoka Commerce Park, Huntsville, ESG International, November 2001. (Peer reviewed by Michalski Nielsen Associates Limited)
These studies have been determined to be acceptable through the peer review process undertaken by the Town of Huntsville. The recommendations of these studies will be implemented through the appropriate planning instruments, being policies within the associated Official Plan Amendments, provisions within the implementing zoning by-laws and as conditions of draft approval for the plan of subdivision. -3 -
B PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Provincial Policy Statement
The Provincial Policy Statement was considered and taken into account in the review of the proposed plan of subdivision. The main sections of the PPS applicable to the proposed development involve issues related to efficient, cost effective development, the provision of full municipal services, and providing a full range of housing types and densities to meet the needs of current and future residents. In this regard, the proposal does not require an expansion of the urban area, would provide for the development of an increased housing supply and the development would be required to proceed on the basis of full municipal services. As such, the proposal would not appear to conflict with the Provincial Policy Statement.
Muskoka Official Plan
The SUbject lands are located within the "Urban Centres" designation of the Muskoka Official Plan, as amended. The Muskoka Plan recognizes "Urban Centres" as the focus of development as they can accommodate the mixed-use development necessary to provide the employment needed to support the projected population of Muskoka. While one of the objectives of the Plan is to encourage the growth and diversification of the economy of Muskoka, the Plan does stipulate that growth necessary to continue to rejuvenate and take forward the economy of Muskoka·must have respect for the environmental constraints, physical influences and ultimately the character of Muskoka.
Schedule "E" of the Muskoka Official Plan identifies a portion of the property as an "Area of Natural Constraint". Section F.46 of the Plan defines such areas as including wetlands, narrow waterbodies and building hazard areas. In this case, the "Area of Natural Constraint" would reflect the presence of the steep sloped ridge and the wetland area. The majority of the steep sloped ridge is located within Blocks E and I, and a large portion of the wetland area is located within Blocks G, Hand L, and all of these blocks are to be dedicated to the Town for natural conservation purposes.
The Muskoka Official Plan does allow for development in wetland areas and on steep slopes provided a site evaluation report is undertaken to ensure that the proposal can be appropriately accommodated on the site without negatively impacting the integrity of the resource. ESG International prepared such a study for the proposal on behalf of the applicant and the Town of Huntsville retained the firm of Michalski Nielsen Associates to conduct a peer review. Originally, the peer review raised some concerns with the Environmental Impact Study, but further information was subsequently submitted and the Town's peer reviewer is now satisfied with the findings of the report.
Muskoka staff also raised concerns with the original study and with the impact that the development would have on the wetland area. Section F.50 of the Muskoka Plan states that limited development, compatible with wetland areas, may be permitted in wetland areas where the integrity of the wetland resource can be preserved and the suitability of the lot is confirmed. As the original proposal would have resulted in a large portion of the wetland area being filled, Muskoka staff suggested that further consideration be given to maintaining the wetland area and incorporating it into the stormwater management system. The stormwater management plan was subsequently revised and it now incorporates a much larger portion of the wetland area. Although -4 -
a portion of the wetland area will be altered and there is potential for minor changes to the character of the retained wetland, both the applicant's environmental consultant and the Town's enVironmental consultant have reviewed this and it is their conclusion that given the nature of the wetland, such changes will not significantly impact on its functions.
Section H.6 of the Muskoka Official Plan requires that development in the "Urban Centres" proceed on public sanitary sewer and water services. The associated zoning by-law for the property contains a "Holding" provision and one of the requirements within the by-law that must be satisfied before the "Holding" can be removed is the provision of adequate municipal water and sewer services. The conditions of draft approval will also require that the owner enter into an agreement with Muskoka regarding the provision of municipal services.
The Muskoka Official Plan contains policies requiring that the roads to service a development have the capacity to accommodate the additional vehicular traffic generated and that any improvements necessary are undertaken. In this case, a traffic study was undertaken addressing the traffic issues and was deemed to be acceptable by the Town's peer reviewer. These studies have indicated that improvements to certain roads and intersections are required to facilitate the proposed development and the requirement for these improvements have been included as conditions of draft approval. The Ministry of Transportation has also advised that an intersection of Centre Street with Highway No. 60 can be -accornrnodated provided that their requirements are satisfied. Again, the draft approval conditions require that the requirements of the Ministry be satisfied regarding the Centre Street and Highway No. 60 intersection.
In consideration of the foregoing, the proposal would appear to generally conform to the Muskoka Official Plan.
Town of Huntsville Official Plan
The subject lands are located within the "Primary Urban Area" designation of the Town of Huntsville Official Plan. The Local Plan recognizes that the "Primary Urban Area" should be the most intensely developed type of settlement in the area and industrial and residential uses, which meet the needs of the Area Municipality as a whole, should locate within it.
In a general sense, the provisions of the Official Plan of the Town of Huntsville promote economic development within the context of sound land use planning, including specifically the compatibility of land uses. The plan of subdivision would facilitate a comprehensive development consisting of a mix of uses, with the location of the various land uses established and policies included in the associated Official Plan and Zoning By-laws to ensure compatibility between the proposed uses and those existing in the area.
Section C.4 of the Huntsville Official Plan sets out general development policies that development in the Primary Urban Area should comply with. This criteria includes ensuring that development is sympathetic to the natural environment, locating in areas which are physically suited to development, where access to high quality inter-community roads are available, in close proximity to the existing built-up area of the community and where it facilitates the growth of the community in a compact manner. This criteria has been reviewed by the Town's peer review team, and they are satisfied that the proposal would satisfy these policies. As stated previously, the subdivision includes blocks being set aside for natural conservation associated with Hanes Creek and the ridge. The conditions of draft approval also include conditions requiring the upgrading of the road network in the area to accommodate the development. -5 -
The lands are also currently subject to two separate Official Plan Amendments. Official Plan Amendment No. 27 would re-designate a large portion of the site "Industrial", "Residential", "Open Space" and "Hazard" to facilitate the proposed development and includes site-specific development policies. This Amendment has been approved by District CouncU and is currently in its appeal period, which ends on July 10, 2002. A review of the draft plan of subdivision indicates that it would conform with the policies of Amendment No. 27 and conditions of draft approval have been included which implement certain policies of the Amendment; specifically, a condition has been included requiring the widening of Hanes Road and the submission of a satisfactory Record of Site Condition.
Official Plan Amendment No. 28 re-designates proposed Lot 1 in the plan of subdivision "Gateway Commercial Campus" which is a new designation and contains specific policies regarding the development of the site. The Amendment allows for the phased development of a new commercial node in the Town consisting of a total of 24,155 square metres (260,000 square feet) of gross floor area. This Amendment was approved by District Council but was subsequently appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. The proposed plan of subdivision would conform with the development policies of Amendment No. 28.
Zoning By-Law
Two site-specific zoning by-laws, By-laws 2002-20P and 2002-44P, were passed in association with Official Plan Amendment Nos. 28 and 27, respectively. Both of these By-laws were subsequently appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. By-law 2002-20P rezones Lot 1 in the plan of subdivision "Gateway Commercial Campus Exception Holding (C6-1442(H»" and establishes new permitted uses and zone provisions for the zone. By-law 2002-44P rezones the remainder of the lands within the subdivision to "Open Space (01)", "Light Industrial Holding with Exception (M1-1454(H»" and "Residential Multiple Two Holding (RM2-1455(H»".
C PUBliC MEETING AND RESPONSE TO CIRCULATION
Circulation
The following agencies have responded to the circulation of the draft plan of subdivision requesting that certain conditions be attached to draft approval. The comments are attached as Appendix "A". • Town of Huntsville • Ministry of Transportation • Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation • Hydro One • Muskoka Engineering and Public Works Department
For the most part, the requirements of these commenting agencies can be addressed as conditions of draft approval.
Public Meeting
A public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act, was held on February 18, 2002 at the -6 -
Town of Huntsville. This meeting was held by the District Planning and Economic Development Committee to receive public input on the proposed plan of subdivision and was held in conjunction with the Town of Huntsville for the proposed Official Plan Amendment Nos. 27 & 28 and the rezoning of the subject lands. A copy of the minutes of the public meeting is attached as Appendix "B".
A number of area residents were in attendance at the public meeting and a number of written submissions were also made. In general, some of the comments made at the public meeting were in support of the proposed development and others were in opposition. As the public meeting was a concurrent public meeting to also considered the proposed Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-laws, many of the comments made were of a general nature and dealt with the overall development and were not related specifically to the proposed plan of subdivision. Many of these issues have been outlined in the previous reports dealing with the Official Plan Amendments.
Issues
A few issues have been raised in the consideration of the proposed plan of subdivision that are specific to the plan of subdivision. The following is a brief summary and discussion of those issues.
Former Landfill Site
The Town has determined that there may be a small remnant of an old landfill site located in the vicinity of the intersection of Hanes Road and Highway No. 60. This is in the area proposed to contain industrial lots 23, 24 and 32. Further investigation by the Town has revealed that the waste deposited on the property consisted of a mix of domestic and commercial waste. A preliminary environmental assessment of this former landfill site conducted by an engineering firm on behalf of the applicant, found that the area of the former landfill site is approximately 30 metres by 60 metres and that the material within this area would not be suitable for structural support and would require removal from any area supporting roads, buildings or any other load bearing structures. In addition, the soil was tested for its chemical properties and the results indicated that some of the parameters tested, including lead and boron exceeded the Ministry of Environment and Energy decommissioning guidelines. To ensure that the site is properly rehabilitated, a condition has be included within the conditions of draft approval requiring the site's rehabilitation to the satisfaction of the Town of Huntsville and District of Muskoka. This requirement has also been included in the associated Official Plan Amendment for the site.
Residential Block
The Huntsville Ratepayers Association has raised a concern with the proposed location of the residential block and has recommended that the block be relocated to the bottom of the ridge. The rationale for this is that the residential use would be more compatible with the environmental features located in this area including Hanes Creek and the associated wetland. In addition, there may be compatibility concerns with having the residential block located across Centre Street from the proposed industrial lots. This recommendation has been considered and it is felt that the location of the residential block on the draft plan is the most appropriate. A multiple residential block in the location shown on the draft plan would provide for a transitional area between the existing residential uses along Hanes Road and the industrial lots in the subdivision. -7 -
RoadNetwork
A traffic impact analysis was prepared for the proposed development to assess traffic conditions and road requirements for the development. The study found that the proposed road network can accommodate the proposed development subject to various site and road improvements. However, concern was raised by some of the area residents with the impact that the development will have on the road network in the area, particularly the need for improvements along Hanes Road. In this regard, conditions have been included in the draft approval requiring the dedication of a road widening along Hanes Road and a financial contribution by the proponent towards the upgrading of Hanes Road.
Redlining
The draft plan of subdivision is proposed to be redlined to address two issues, one at the request of the Town of Huntsville and the second which was noted by staff in reviewing the proposal.
The revision to the draft plan requested by the Town of Huntsville is to merge proposed Lots 18 and 19. It is our understanding that this revision has been requested due to the lots proposed location across from the intersection of Howland Drive and Centre Street and the desire to limit the number of direct accesses to Centre Street. This revision has been discussed with the proponent, who, although not in agreement with the need for the proposed revision, is prepared to have the plan revised as such.
The second revision to the draft plan required is the elimination of Block J and eliminating those portions of Blocks I and K along Hanes Road. This revision is necessary as the Town has requested a road widening along Hanes Road that would incorporate these portions of the Blocks. As the Blocks were intended for natural conservation and to facilitate a trail throughout the proposed development, a condition has been included requiring that a 3.0 metre strip of land adjacent to the Hanes Road road widening be dedicated to the Town for such purposes.
D CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
Staff have considered the issues raised and have reviewed the Provincial Policy Statement; the Muskoka Official Plan, and the Town Official Plan, and have concluded that, SUbject to the redlining of the draft plan and the conditions of approval, the proposal conformsto all relevant Provincial and municipal planning policy.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is recommended that draft approval be granted to the "Muskoka Commerce Park" plan of subdivision, Subdivision File No. S2001-3, prepared by G. Bret Magee Ontario Land Surveyor, John P. Gallagher & Associates, and Tulloch Engineering, dated April 17, 2002 and redlined June 27,2002, on Part of Lots 12,13,14 & 15, Concession 3, Chaffey, Town of Huntsville, subject to the following conditions of approval. PLAN OF SUBDIVISION FILE NO. 52001·3 "Muskoka Commerce Park"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Part A
The "Muskoka Commerce Park" plan of subdivision, file no. S2001-3, prepared by G. Bret Magee Ontario Land Surveyor, John P. Gallagher & Associates, and Tulloch Engineering, dated April 17, 2002 and redlined June 27, 2002, on Part of Lots 12, 13, 14 and 15, Concession 3, Chaffey, Town of Huntsville, District Municipality of Muskoka, is approved subject to Part B herein.
Part B
General Conditions
1. The road allowances included in this plan of subdivision shall be dedicated as public highways and the road shall be designed, constructed and named to the satisfaction of the Town of Huntsville.
2. Prior to final approval being granted, all requirements of the Ministry of Transportation and the Town of Huntsville shall be satisfied with regard to the proposed intersection of Centre Street with Provincial Highway No. 60.
3. Prior to final approval being granted, the owner shall satisfy the requirements of the Ministry of Transportation regarding any required upgrading of Provincial Highway No. 60.
4. Prior to final approval being granted, all requirements of the Ministry of Transportation, District Municipality of Muskoka and the Town of Huntsville shall be satisfied with regard to the owner's proportionate share of the improvements to the Muskoka Road NO.2 and Hanes Road intersection.
5. Block M shall be dedicated to the Ministry of Transportation for highway widening purposes.
6. Prior to final approval being granted, the Owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to Hydro One for the crossing of the hydro right-of-way by the proposed roads.
7. Easements as may be required for access, temporary turning circles, public trails, utilities, drainage or other purposes shall be granted to the Town of Huntsville and any other authority or party. Conditions ofApproval MuskokaConun~cePMk
8. A 0.3 metre reserve shall be dedicated to the Ministry of Transportation along the entire frontage of Highway No. 60 except in the area where a public road is to be built.
9. 0.3 metre reserves shall be dedicated to the Town of Huntsville in the following locations:
i) along Lot 1 as it abuts Centre Street; .ii) along Lot 17 as it abuts Howland Drive and Centre Street; iii) along Lot 20, 21, 22 and 23 as they abut Centre Street; iv) along Lots 23, 24 and 32 as they abut Hanes Road; and, v) along Block F as it abuts Hanes Road and a portion of Centre Street.
10. The owner shall dedicate a road widening along the north side of Hanes Road within the plan to the Town of Huntsville.
11. Blocks A, B, C and D shall be dedicated to the Town of Huntsville for storm water management purposes.
12. Blocks E, G, H, I, K and L and a 3.0 metrewide strip of land adjacent to the Hanes Road road widening, as required by Condition 10, shall be dedicated to the Town of Huntsville for natural conservation and trail purposes.
13. Prior to final approval being granted, draft plan approval for plan of subdivision 44T-90008 shall be withdrawn at the request of the owner.
14. Prior to final approval being granted, the District Municipality of Muskoka, Hydro One, the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation shall be circulated a draft Area Municipal subdivision agreement for review and comment prior to execution and shall be in receipt of a fully executed Area Municipal subdivision agreement.
Parkland
15. The owner shall convey lands in an amount of 2% of the industrial and/or commercial lands included in the plan to the Town of Huntsville for park or other public recreational purposes pursuant to the Planning Act. Alternatively, the Town of Huntsville may require cash-in-lieu of all or a portion of the parkland dedication in accordance with the Planning Act.
16. The owner shall convey lands in an amount of 5% of the residential lands included in the plan to the Town of Huntsville for park or other public recreational purposes pursuant to the Planning Act. Alternatively, the Town of Huntsville may require cash-in-lieu of all or a portion of the parkland dedication in accordance with the Planning Act. Conditions ofApproval Muskoka Commerce Park
Zoning By-law
17. Prior to final approval being granted, the lands shall be zoned for their intended use.
Environmental
18. Prior to final approval being granted, the owner shall provide the District Municipality of Muskoka with four copies of a detailed storm water management and construction mitigation plan prepared by a certified professional engineer. These plans shall be circulated by the District Municipality of Muskoka to the Town of Huntsville for review and comment. If required, a Certificate of Approval for the plan shall be obtained from the Ministry of the Environment prior to construction of the works.
19. Prior to final approval being granted, the owner shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Town of Huntsville and Hydro One, a grading plan prepared by a certified professional engineer.
20. Prior to final approval being granted for any portion of the subdivision related to or abutting Lots 20 to 32 inclusive, the landfill site located on the subdivision lands shall be rehabilitated and the Owner shall provide the District of Municipality of Muskoka and the Town of Huntsville with a satisfactory Record of Site Condition which confirms the SUitability of the subject lands for their intended use in accordance with the Ministry of the Environment Guidelines and such Record shall be filed with the Ministry of the Environment.
21. Prior to final approval being granted, or any site alteration being undertaken, whichever is the earliest, a cultural heritage resource assessment of the subject lands shall be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
Area Municipal Subdivision Agreement
22. Prior to final approval being granted, the owner shall enter into a subdivision agreement authorized by the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, with the Town of Huntsville, and the agreement shall be registered on title and shall provide that the owner agrees to satisfy all the requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Town of Huntsville concerning the provision of roads, street lighting, phasing, landscaping, utilities, easements and drainage amongst other matters.
23. The subdivision agreement shall contain a provision or provisions in wording acceptable to the Town of Huntsville which will:
i) require the implementation of the plans required in Condition 18 under the supervision and to the satisfaction of a certified professional engineer; Conditions ofApproval Muskoka Commerce Park
Ii) provide securities or other guarantees for the implementation of the plans, if necessary; and, iii) provide for municipal dedication of any facilities or the long term maintenance of any facilities or works constructed in accordance with the plans.
24. The subdivision agreement shall contain a provision or provisions in wording acceptable to the Town of Huntsville, which requires the implementation of the grading plan required by Condition 19.
25. The subdivision agreement shall contain a provision or provisions, in wording acceptable to and if required by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, which implements any recommendations of the cultural heritage resource assessment required by Condition 21.
26. The subdivision agreement shall contain a provision or provisions in wording acceptable to the Town of Huntsville, which requires the conveyance of any required lands at the intersection of Provincial Highway No. 60 and Hanes Road and a financial contribution towards the upgrading of the intersection, including signalization.
27. The subdivision agreement shall contain a provision or provisions in wording acceptable to the Town of Huntsville, which requires the owner to financially contribute to upgrading of Hanes Road from 190 metres west of the proposed Centre Street extension to Provincial Highway No. 60.
28. The subdivision agreement shall contain a provision or provisions, in wording acceptable to the Town of Huntsville, advising that any future traffic signalization for access to individual lots, if required by the Town of Huntsville, will be at the expense of the owner of the subject lot.
29. The subdivision agreement shall contain a provision or provisions in wording acceptable to Hydro One stating that the owner agrees that any relocations or revisions to Hydro One facilities which are necessary to accommodate the plan of subdivision will be borne by the owner and that the easement rights of Hydro One are to be secured, protected and maintained where appropriate.
30. The subdivision agreement shall contain a provision or provisions, in wording acceptable to the Town of Huntsville, that requires the owner to obtain and provide to the Town, a copy of all required Fisheries Act approvals prior to any road construction or site alteration that require Fisheries Act approval.
31. The subdivision agreement shall contain a provision or provisions, in wording acceptable to the Town of Huntsville, which implements the recommendations of the Environmental Impact Study undertaken by ESG International dated November 7,2001 and shall address at a minimum:
i) environmental monitoring; and, ii) road culverts. Conditions ofApproval Muskoka Commerce Park
32. The subdivision agreement shall contain a provision or provisions. in wording acceptable to the Town of Huntsville. indicating that the ditches along the roads and where applicable, drainage easements, serve a stormwater management function and are not to be altered without the consent of the Town of Huntsville.
33. The subdivision agreement shall provide for the implementation of site plan control in accordance with the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, for development of the subject lands. The site plan agreement for Lot 1 shall stipulate that the existing tree cover on Lot 1, within those areas abutting Highway No. 11 and Highway No. 60 for a depth of approximately 15 metres, shall generally be maintained as a buffer and for trail purposes.
District Municipal Subdivision Agreement
34. Prior to final approval being granted, the owner shall enter into a subdivision agreement authorized by the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, with the District Municipality of Muskoka, to their satisfaction, and said agreement shall be registered on title and provide that the owner agrees to satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the District Municipality concerning:
i) the installation, municipal assumption and operation of municipal water and sewer services; and, ii) the works required at the intersection of Hanes Road and Muskoka Road No.2.
Clearance Letters
35. Prior to final approval being granted, the Town of Huntsville shall advise the District in writing that conditions 1,2,4,7,9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 have been complied with to .their satisfaction with a brief and concise statement detailing how each condition has been satisfied.
36. Prior to final approval being granted, the Ministry of Transportation shall advise the District in writing that conditions 2,3,4,5,7,8 and 14 have been complied with to their satisfaction with a brief and concise statement detailing how each condition has been satisfied.
37. Prior to final approval being granted, the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Recreation shall advise the District in writing that conditions 14,21 and 25 have been complied with to their satisfaction with a brief and concise statement detailing how each condition has been satisfied.
38. Prior to final approval being granted, Hydro One shall advise the District in writing that conditions 6, 7, 14, 19 and 29 have been complied with to their satisfaction with a brief and concise statement detailing how each condition has been satisfied. Conditions ofApproval Muskoka Commerce Park
39. Prior to final approval being granted, the District shall be satisfied that conditions 4, 13, 14, 18, 20 and 34 have been complied with to their satisfaction.
District Development Charges
40. District Development charges are required to be paid in accordance with By law 99-67, as amended from time to time.
Final Approval
41. Prior to final approval being granted, the plan of subdivision shall be amended as redlined by the District Municipality of Muskoka on July 8, 2002.
42. The final plan for registration must be in registerable form together with all necessary instruments or plans describing an interest in the land.
43. Prior to final approval being granted, the Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development or her designate shall be satisfied that the conditions of approval have been satisfied and the final plan is in conformity with the draft plan.
LAPSING PROVISION
In the event that the owner fails to fulfill the conditions of draft approval on or before July 29, 2005, the approval herein granted shall be deemed to have lapsed pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended. LOCATION MAP LOCATION MAP
SUBDIVISION FILE NO. 52001·3 PART OF LOTS 12 -15, CONCESSION 3 CHAFFEY, TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE (MUSKOKA COMMERCE PARK) DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION FILE NO. S2001·3 (MUSKOKA COMMERCE PARK)
REDLINED DRAFT PLAN
~
~ ·~B."a;:.=.;rw ,.... ~:- IOU 102000 .. ~ I 'tf, D~ ~'" / ., - ( (, ,+ . ~ ~I·N. . - - I !!!!!!- ~-- - •__ ~__~-- ...3_
.,,~,.- ~~ :_------_JI'::'....---... ' ---_~_.--... 1...._....---_.,..---_...... _
IJ!l!! ...._.------m-«arsf-. ~B;;.~'~ ...... DiIIIr....I11....
:5 v.-,o£ L7 ...... MUSKOKA (DATE) COMMERCE PARK ...... - ~~I
~u ~ ~ _ BY: ,...... &\./~c, I -- =:"0 ----- ...... -.... - --->--\ i ~ APPENDIX "A"
AGENCY RESPONSES REQUESTING CONDITIONS TOWN OF' HUNTSVILLE 37 Main Street East, Huntsville, Ontario P1H 1A1 Tel. (705) 789,1751 or 1,888,696A255 Fax (705) 789,6689 - Web site: http://www.town.huntsville.on.ca
May 1,2002 PLANNING & ECONOMIC 'DEVELOPM~
Commissioner -II I C Greg Corbett B.A. M.P!. Director ...•; . I'.C District ofMuskoka Manager " " •C 70 Pine.St, Bracebridge, ON Plan.".. _.... I C PIL IN3 'TectmlCIan • ' •C Admlnlsbllllon... '" ,..... C Dear Mr. Corbett: . tW '02 2002 DATE~ RE: Town ofHuntsville andciR:UIa18 Muskoka Commerce ParkDraft Plan .. Claudex Inc. District File: S2001-3 ,
11 On Monday April 29 ., 2002 Huntsville Town Council approved, the attached resolution and conditions for Draft Plan Approval for.the Muskoka Co~ercePark DraftPlan ofSubdivision. -
As you'are aware, the appended conditions reflect the Town's conditions of approval for the I>Taft Plan of ,.Subdivision; it is expected that the District shall undertake to obtain additional conditions from other commenting agencies. As theTown is the signatory to the subdivision agreement, and has a vested interest in-the conditions themselves, it would be'appreciated if your offices could forward the proposed [mal conditions of Draft Plan Approval to the Town for review prior to making recommendations to District -Committe or Council on the matter. We would also request that any red line revisions are brought to our attention prior to approval.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or the Town's Planning Consultant, Kris Menzies.
RoberfW. Small, Town Manager Town ofHuntsville
RWS/ck Ends.' cc: K. Menzies ·N. Lefslanc : THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE
Huntsville Town Council
No. 2J.,,0 - 0'-
Date: April 29, 2002
Moved bY:'_--~;;"'::::~L...-~~---r:r---~'-Jl------
Seconded bY:,------p.~Joo'lf'~...... -_'fF------
BE IT RESOLVED THAT: the following is recommended.
lh 1. The updated Peer Review Report dated April 24 , 2002 prepared by David Butler be received by Council;
2. The Report related to the Claudex Draft Plan Conditions prepared by Kris Menzies. Town Planning Consultant, be received and adopted by Council; ~ 0..'" o..~e..... ~ 4. That Council direct the Town Manager to correspond with the District of Muskoka accordingly and advise the District that the Town of Huntsville has no objection to the approval of the Draft Plan for the Muskoka Commerce Park Plan of Subdivision (Claudex Inc. District File 52001-3) subject to the follOWing conditions. attached herewith. S(. H u'1P1CJ;(;,.)., n-....,-o MEMBERS OF COUNCll.. YEA NAY COi.J~<-\LLCU)S ~l Councillor Aitchison h \. 6 c l ~ ";) <:..c. c, ~C>9 F\ c oJJ l:"'~T Councillor Beatty Councillor Caswell O~ \\..:)~~<;.\ ~ \)I~ ~OT Councillor Coleman ? ~\l.L l 0 IT"'lZ Of\ Vcr-\6- . Councillor Misdin Councillor Schumacher Councillor Thompson Councillor Young Mayor Mackenzie TOTAL: Carried: 1/A14 -+- _ Report to Council April 23, 2002 Subject Draft Plan Approval, Muskoka Commerce Park Claudex Inc. Town file Z55/200l1HTE District File S2001-3 Purpose ofReport This Report is being provided to PlanningCommittee for their consideration ofan application for Draft Plan Approval for Part Lots 12, 13,14, & 15 Concession 3 Township ofChaffey now Town of Huntsville (Claudex) Town file: Z/55/2001/HTE District File: S2001-3. Background The lands are partially owned by Claudex Inc. and are partially subject to an offer to purchase by Claudex Inc. The site is subject to an Official Plan Amendment to the Town ofHuntsville Official Plan and a Rezoning to the Town ofHuntsville Zoning By-law. The Site is also subject to an associated application from First Pro Shopping Centres (Z/56/2001/HTE) for an OPA and ZBL. The First Pro Site has received approval from Council for its OPA and Rezoning and the OPA has been approved for recommendation by District Planning Committee to District Council. The First Pro site is also subject to approval of the Claudex Draft Plan ofSubdivision and cannot proceed to develop until this plan has been registered. As Council is aware, the Town of Huntsville is a commenting agency to the approval authority, the District of Muskoka, on this application for Draft Plan Approval. As a commenting agency to the District, as well as a signatory to the Subdivision Agreement, the Town is charged with providing conditions ofDraft Plan Approval to the District for their consideration. Proposal The property is approximately 152 acres in area and consists of 32 lots and 13 blocks. This includes 31 proposed industrial lots; one commercial lot (First Pro site), 7 open space blocks, one residential block (block "F"), and 4 stormwater management blocks. The site is bounded by Highways 11 to the north and west, Highway 60 to the east and Hanes Road to the south. The proposal also includes an extension to Centre Street which is proposed to intersect with Highway 60. A trail system traverses most of the boundary ofthe plan in the form ofa dedicated block to the Town. The existing creek on the site is proposed to be included in an open space block. A plan is attached. Discussion In concert with the District ofMuskoka, the Town ofHuntsville hosted a public information meeting on the proposal in November 2001 as well as a statutory public th meeting on February 18 , 2002. The Plan ofSubdivision was amended marginally between the public information meeting and the public meeting. The substantive changes were the inclusion ofadditional open space blocks for stormwater purposes, and the amending ofone ofthe new proposed roads to a cul-de-sac and the inclusion ofa new road. The proposed Official Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Plan ofSubdivision were subject to a Peer Review by the Town ofHuntsville including review from the various ofthe Town's Departments and external agencies. The comments outlined herein shall relate only to those issues related to the Town as the District is charged with obtaining other agency comments and incorporating additional and appropriate conditions. The Peer Review Team, in a report dated April 24, 2002 identified to Council that the Plan is generally acceptable subject to the conditions outlined herein. Details ofthe Peer Review Report prepared by Mr. David Butler, MCIP RPP accompany this report and the analysis is not repeated herein. The Peer Review Team and the Town Staffare confident that appropriate information is before Council for Council to undertake a decision on the applicant. It should be noted however, that various matters have not been provided in sufficient detail in order to outline detailed conditions ofDraft Approval. Most ofthese matters are ofan engineering nature. Some conditions therefore, are broad based and require detailed work at the time ofreview ofthe Subdivision Agreement in order that the matters are appropriately secured. Conclusion It is concluded that, subject to the recommendations contained herein, that the Town advise the District that it has no objection to Draft Plan Approval for the Claudex lands (file S2001-03) subject to the Town's conditions outlined in this report. This report should be considered after the StaffReport concerning the Claudex Inc. application for Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning for the lands. Recommendations The following is recommended: 1. The update Peer Review Report dated April 24, 2002 prepared by David Butler be received by Council, 2. The Report related to the Claudex Draft Plan Conditions prepared by Kris Menzies, Town Planning Consultant be received and adopted by Council, 3. That Council direct Staffto coordinate its efforts with the District ofMuskoka and to undertake any amendments to the conditions ofDraft Plan Approval, ofa minor nature, where generally consistent with the conditions herein and, 4. That Council direct the Town Manager to correspond with the District of Muskoka accordingly and advise the District that the Town ofHuntsville has no objection to the approval ofthe Draft Plan for the Muskoka Commerce Park plan ofSubdivision (Claudex Inc. District File S2001-3) subject to the following conditions: 51 Muskoka Commerce ParkS2001-3 Conditions ofDraft Plan Approval TownofHuntsville April 29, 2002 1. That this Draft Plan Approval applies to District ofMuskoka File No. S2001-3 and the Plan prepared by G. Bret Magee Ontario Land surveyor, John P. Gallagher & Associates and Tulluoch Engineering dated April 17, 2002 Magee file number Ol-159H8.DWG showing 32 lots and 13 blocks on Part Lots 12, 13, 14 and 15 Concession 3 Township ofCbaffey now Town ofHuntsville. Engineering 1. That any Municipal Road Allowances shall be designed to the appropriate Municipal standards as determined by the Town ofHuntsville andas required by the Subdivision Agreement. 2. That such easements as may be required for utility or drainage purposes be granted to the appropriate authority. 3. That wording be placed in the Subdivision Agreement requiring all roads and stormwater facilities be maintained by the OwnerlDeveloper, in a manner satisfactory to the Town ofHuntsville, until such time as the works are assumed by the Town ofHuntsville. 4. That prior to Final Approval, the following plans shall be prepared by a qualified engineer to the satisfaction ofthe Town ofHuntsville Public Works Department, the following: (a) detailed Stormwater Management Plan (b) detailed Grading Plan (c) detailed Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (d) detailed Road Design (e) detailed Construction Phasing Plan These plans shall form part ofthe Subdivision Agreement with the Town of Huntsville. 5. That prior to Final Approval, detailed utility plans be prepared to the satisfaction ofthe Town ofHuntsville. 6. That wording be included in the Subdivision Agreement with the Town of Huntsville requiring all stormwater management facilities, including those on Blocks A, B, C and D, to be constructed to the satisfaction ofthe Town of Huntsville. 7. That prior to Final Approval ofthe Plan ofSubdivision, or any phase ofthe subdivision, related to, or abutting, lots 20 to 32 inclusive, the landfill site located onthe subdivision lands shall be rehabilitated to the satisfaction ofthe Town of Huntsville and the Ministry ofthe Environment or its delegate. 8. That the SubdivisionAgreement with the Town ofHuntsville contain a clause that Lot 1 is to host a private stormwater management facility which is to be constructed by the Owner to the satisfaction ofthe Town ofHuntsville. The ongoing maintenance ofthe facility is required to be provided by the Owner. This facility shall not be accepted for parkland. 9. That the Subdivision Agreement with the Town ofHuntsville contain a clause that any utility works that are required to be moved though the approval ofthis plan of subdivision shall be completed by the Owner, as approved by the utility, and without any monetary consideration from the Town ofHuntsville. Existing Hydro poles shall not be permitted within the Town's road allowance ifthey interfere with the planned function thereofas determined by the Town ofHuntsville and/or the Hydro Utility. 10. That the Subdivision Agreement with the Town ofHuntsville contain a clause requiring the posting ofLetter's ofCredit for all engineering works prior to registration ofeach phase ofdevelopment. A breakdown ofquantities and unit prices shall, per phase, shall be provided prior to the posting ofa Letter ofCredit. 11. That wording be included in the Subdivision Agreement requiring any street lighting be designed, constructed, and installed to the satisfaction ofthe Town of Huntsville and Ontario Hydro. 12. That changes required to the Plan ofSubdivision due to the detailed design review, be required though red-line revision or other mechanism. Transportation 13. That the road allowances included within this Draft Plan ofSubdivision be dedicated as public highways without monetary consideration and free ofall encumbrances and environmental contamination, save and except for Hydro easements, subject to terms herein to the satisfaction ofthe Town ofHuntsville. 14. That the 0.3 metre reserves included within the draft plan ofsubdivision be conveyed to the Town ofHuntsville and/or the Ministry ofTransportation without monetary consideration and free ofall encumbrances. The following 0.3 metre reserves are required to be conveyed, without encumbrances and without monetary consideration to the Town ofHuntsville: a. lot 17 as it abuts Howland Drive and Centre Street, b. lot 1 as it abuts Centre Street, c. lot 20 as it abuts Centre Street, d. lots 23, 24 and 32 as it abuts Hanes Road, e. lots 22 and 23 as it abuts Centre Street and, f Block F as it abuts Centre Street and Hanes Road. 15. That a clause be placed in the Subdivision Agreement requiring the construction andconveyance ofKinton Avenue from the existing street to the Howland Drive extension to the satisfaction ofthe Town ofHuntsville prior to, or upon, registration oflots 9 to 17 inclusive. 16. That a clause be placed in the Subdivision Agreement requiring the construction and conveyance ofOtt Drive and Small Street to the satisfaction ofthe Town of Huntsville prior to, or upon, registration oflots 20 to 32 inclusive. 17. Upon registration ofthe Plan ofSubdivision, conveyance ofany required lands at the intersection ofHighway 60 and Hanes Road be provided to the satisfaction of the Town ofHuntsville and the Ministry ofTransportation and that a clause be placed in the Subdivision Agreement requiring a financial contribution towards the construction ofthe necessary intersection improvements, at Highway 60, Hanes Road and Earls Road, including signalization and land acquisition. It is recognized that other parties will also contribute to the above improvements. 18. Upon registration ofany phase ofthe Plan ofSubdivision, the Owner shall convey a right-of-way widening along the north side ofHanes Road to be provided to the Town ofHuntsville free ofall encumbrances, excluding Hydro Easements subject to Condition 9 herein. 19. Prior to registration ofany phase ofthe subdivision the Owner shall prepare a functional plan for the upgrading ofHanes Road from 190 metres west ofthe proposed Centre Street extension to Highway 60, illustrating the Town's long term road requirements and that a financial contribution for the upgrading be provided to the satisfaction ofthe Town ofHuntsville. It is recognized that other parties will also contribute to the above improvements. The Plan shall form part ofthe Subdivision Agreement with the Town ofHuntsville. 20. That a clause be placed in the Subdivision Agreement requiring the Owner to prepare engineering drawings for the construction ofintersection improvements at West Road and Hanes Road, including signalization, as it relates to Hanes Road to the satisfaction ofthe Town ofHuntsville. The Owner shall convey the required lands for these works on Hanes Road to the Town ofHuntsville and/or provide a contribution towards the cost ofacquiring ofthe land. 21. That a clause be placed in the Subdivision Agreement that prior to occupancy of any building or structure, that a financial contribution for the construction of intersection improvements at West Road and Hanes Road, including signalization, (-0 as it relates to Hanes Road, be provided or secured to the satisfaction ofthe Town ofHuntsville. 22. Upon registration ofthe Subdivision, the Owner shall convey the Centre Street extension from Hanes Road to Highway 60 be provided to the satisfaction ofthe Town ofHuntsville and the Ministry ofTransportation. 23. That a clause be placed in the Subdivision Agreement requiring the Owner to construct the Centre Street extension from Hanes Road to Highway to the satisfaction ofthe Town ofHuntsville and prior to occupancy ofany building or structure. 24. Upon registration ofany phase ofthe Subdivision, conveyance ofHowland Drive from the existing terminus to the Centre Street extension be provided to the satisfaction ofthe Town ofHuntsville. 25. That a clause be placed in the Subdivision Agreement that prior to occupancy of any building or structure, the construction ofHowland Drive from the existing terminus to the Centre Street extension, including signalization ofthe Howland Drive/Centre Street extension intersection be completed to the satisfaction ofthe Town ofHuntsville. 26. That a clause be placed inthe Subdivision Agreement that all future signalization ofsite driveways, ifrequired by the Town ofHuntsville, will be at the expense of the Owner ofthe subject lands. 27. That prior to Final Approval, or upon Registration ofthe Subdivision, conveyance ofthe required lands in order to establish a new intersection on Highway 60 at the Centre Street extension, including signalization ofthe intersection, shall be provided to the satisfaction ofthe Town ofHuntsville and the Ministry of Transportation. 28. That a clause be placed in the Subdivision Agreement that prior to occupancy of any building or structure that construction ofany necessary improvements to establish a new intersection at Highway 60 from the Centre Street extension, including signalization ofthe intersection, shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Ministry ofTransportation and the Town ofHuntsville. Environmental 29. That a clause be placed in the Subdivision that baseline water quality data be provided to the satisfaction ofthe Town ofHuntsville and the District ofMuskoka prior to commencement ofany construction on site. 61 30. That a clause beplaced in the Subdivision that the Owner provide a copy ofall required Fisheries Act approvals to the Town ofHuntsville prior to any road construction or site grading. 31. That a clause beplaced inthe Subdivision Agreement requiring any landscaping plans to include environmental requirements for stream corridors and stormwater management ponds and that the plans be prepared to the satisfaction ofthe Town ofHuntsville. 32. That a clause be placed in the Subdivision Agreement requiring submission ofan Environmental Monitoring Plan including environmental thresholds or trigger mechanisms and contingencies be provided to the satisfaction ofthe Town of Huntsville. 33. That a clause be placed in the Subdivision Agreement requiring Level 1 stormwater management controls. The design will berequired to demonstrate that theoutlet to Hanes Creek does not create potential negative disturbance to fish habitat andthe riparian zone. 34. That a clause beplaced in the Subdivision Agreement requiring the installation of open bottom box type culverts, or equivalent to the satisfaction ofthe Town of Huntsville, at all creek crossings, as outlined in thereport prepared by ESG International entitled ''Environmental Impact Study Muskoka Commerce Park, Huntsville" and dated November 7, 2001. Financial 35. That blocks A, B, C, D, R G, H, I, J, K, and L beconveyed to the Town of Huntsville without monetary consideration and free ofall encumbrances. Parks and Recreation 36. That a clause beplaced in the Subdivision Agreement requiring the granting of easements to the Town for trail purposes. The Subdivision Agreement shall stipulate that these easements are to bededicated Upon registration ofthe plan of subdivision including easements on Lot 1. 37. That a clause beplaced in the Subdivision Agreement requiring the Owner ofthe lands to maintain the existing mature tree cover, being 15 metres in width, located adjacent to Highway 60 and Highway lion, Lot 1 to the Satisfaction ofthe Town ofHuntsville. The required Landscaping Plan shall outline how this is to be accommodated. Planning 38. That prior to Final Approval ofthe Plan ofSubdivision, or any phase ofthe Plan ofSubdivision, the appropriate Zoning, exclusive ofany Holding (H) Zone, shall be in effect for the Plan ofSubdivision or for that phase ofthe Plan ofSubdivision in accordance witbthe provisions ofthe Planning Act. 39. That prior to Final Approval, 2% parldand dedication be provided to the Town of Huntsville in land or cash in lieu for any industrial or commercial lands. 40. That a clause be placed in the Subdivision Agreement requiring that the rezoning for Block ''F' shall not beconsidered by Council until such time as 5% parkland dedication has been secured though the provision ofland from theOwner or though the provision ofcash in lieu the calculation ofwhicbshall be completed upon details ofthe proposed development being provided though a planning application. Design 41. Prior to Final Approval, a Landscaping Plan be prepared by the Owner to the satisfaction ofthe Town ofHuntsville by a qualified landscape architect. The components ofthe Plan shall include but not be limited to a boulevard and open space tree planting plan, open space plan, stormwater management landscape plan, and a trail plan including all planting, grading and landscape elements. This plan shall form part ofthe Subdivision Agreement with the Town ofHuntsville. Detailed landscaping plans for each development lot or block shall be undertaken though the Site Plan Review process. 42. A clause be placed in the Subdivision Agreement requiring all development be subject to site plan approval and the requirements ofthe Town ofHuntsville Urban Design Guidelines. Administration 43. That the road allowances within this draft plan ofsubdivision be named to the satisfaction ofthe Town ofHuntsville. 44. That the Owner be required to enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the Town ofHuntsville, agreeing to satisfy all conditions, financial and otherwise, ofthe Town ofHuntsville. 45. Subject to the Subdivision Agreement with the Town ofHuntsville, the Plan of Subdivision may beregistered in Phases. 46. That prior to Final Approval ofthis Plan the District is to be advised in writing by the Town, ofbow the conditions related to the Town ofHuntsville have been satisfied. 47. That a clause be placed in the Subdivision Agreement that any peer reviews required by the Townin orderto clear any condition will be the sole financial responsibility ofthe developer. Any peer review consultant required sball be retained by the Town ofHuntsville. 48. Lots 18 and 19 shall be merged. General 49. That the Subdivision Agreement contain the following clause as it relates to Block F to the satisfaction ofthe Town ofHuntsville: "The Owner shall include in all offers ofpurchase andsale a clause advising that the lands are locatedadjacent to an industrialplan ofsubdivision and that the property may be subject to noise, dust andodors. " 50. That the Subdivision Agreement contain the following clause to the satisfaction of the Town ofHuntsville: "The Owner shall include in all offers ofpurchase and sale a clause advising that the ditch infront ofany lot serves a stormwater management function and is restrictedfrom alteration withoutprior written consentfrom the Town of Huntsville. The Ditch is required to be maintained in an appropriate manner including grass cutting by the Owner ofthe lands. " 51. That the Subdivision Agreement contain the following clause to the satisfaction of the Town ofHuntsville: "The Owner shall include in all offers ofpurchase andsale where there is an easement located on the lot or blockfor drainage or stormwaterpurposes a clause advising that the easement serves a stormwaterfunction andis restricted from alteration withoutprior written consentfrom the Town ofHuntsville and that the easement is required to be maintainedin an appropriate manner, including grass cutting, by the Owner ofthe lands. " 52. That prior to Final Approval that the Owner ofthe lands prepare deeds transferring any lots or blocks to the Town, as is required by these conditions, to the satisfaction ofthe Town ofHuntsville. 53. That a clause be placed in the Subdivision Agreement requiring that any conveyance, whether strictly stated or not, shall be provided to the Town without monetary consideration and free ofall encumbrances, unless otherwise stated herein. Notes to Draft Plan Approval The Town ofHuntsville requests as a Note to the Plan ofSubdivision that prior to acceptance ofany red-line revision, that approvals be provided by the Town ofHuntsville prior to consideration by the District ofMuskoka. Ministry of Transportation Ministere des Transports Engineering Office Bureau du genie Planning and Design Section section de p1anificationet de conception ® Ontario Northem Region Region du nord 301-447 McKeown Avenue 301-447, avenue McKeown North Bay ON P1B 9S9 North Bay ON P1B 959 Tel.: (705) 497- 5456 Tel 0 (705) 497- Fax: (705) 497-5499 Telec : (705) 497-5499 December 21, 2001 The District Municipality of Muskoka Planning and Economic Development Department 70 Pine Street Bracebridge, ON P1L 1N3 ATTENTION: Joan Gray, Planning Technician Dear Ms Gray: RE: Subdivision File No. S2001-3 Subdivision Owner Claudex Incorporated Subdivision Name Muskoka Commerce Park Location Lots 12-15, Concession 3 Chaffey, Town of Huntsville This following is in response to your November 15, 2001 letter in relation to the above: 1) The Ministry has not received any plans in respect to direct access to Highway 60 although we had made our conditions known to the applicant in a letter dated May 5, 2000. Until this information in made available to the Ministry and we are satisfied all our concerns have been addressed, there is no way to determine the exact location of Centre Street. 2) We will require that a 300mm (1 foot) reserve be deeded to the Ministry along the entire frontage of Highway 60 except in the area where a public road may be built. 3) The applicant must be advised that the Minister's consent is required under section 24(3) of the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act for new public road openings to provincial highways. In addition, the road entrance must be constructed to our satisfaction. 4) The Municipality must pass the appropriate road opening by-law and submit three certified copies to this office for the signature of the Regional Director. 5) An entrance permit must be obtained from the Ministry. 6) As part of this proposed subdivision is located within our permit control area, Ministry Building/Land Use permits will be required for any new structures, wells, sewers, etc., that are to be placed within a 396 meter radius of the intersection of Highway 11 and 60 or within 45 meters of the limit of the right-of-way. Sign permits will be required for any signage visible from either highway. -2- 7) No direct access to Highway 11 will be allowed. 8) The Ministry reserves the right to request further studies prior to issuing any permits. Our area of interest, with respect to any development located in this subdivision; include storm water management, illumination, traffic impacts, etc. 9) Direct access to Highway 60 from individual lots will not be allowed. 10)The applicant will be responsible for all required improvements to Highway 60. I would request the Ministry be made aware of any decisions made by your department in respect to this subdivision. We would also like to remain on your circulation list and be allowed to comment during the various stages of approval. Should you wish to discuss the contents of this letter, please call. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. Sincerely, {2tlw(~' Paul F. Marleau Regional Corridor Control Officer c.c. Darren Stephenson, Area Engineer, MTO North Bay Tom Lumley, Engineering Services Supervisor, MTO Huntsville W:englp&d/corrcontlclaudexhwy60 Ministry of Tourism, Ministitre du Tourlsme, Culture and Recreation de la Culture et des Loislrs ~ 400 University Avenue 400, avenue University Ontario Toronto ON M7A 2R9 Toronto ON M7A 2R9 PL.f'.t;NlNG s E.CONOMIC DE"iELOt°MENT Heritage and Libraries Branch ROO" ....IESUP Heritage Operations Unit (\>_"';...."ooer '" 0 Tel:(416)314-7132 Fax:(416)314-7175 ~', ~ ..• ef L·~'ri'; Rarr.:J9 ·@November 2001 ~ :, •• i .:..o-.2~,' .~•.;.:)l)rri81t 0 ~-~.~ J.· O Joan Gray . ~:::=i}i ...;·\~~:HQm ~ Planning and Economic Development De .r';'m1.;(;·'·e;:t,:h(;1I;;I1 .•..• ., ~ . District Municipality ofMuskoka A·.,i L"'~U .>: ,~~rJ':1:tnt ..J 70 Pine Street ""J.:e.. ·..····':..·-:-:···"'·8·· "Z001'" 0 '",,",~: :"-",,,-::,V'-;'" Bracebridge ON PIL IN3 .,~•.(I·:r- -: ~_ J ,c.v._~..,. ~ .... ~..I 1\',,':' ,__ _ Dear Ms. Gray: RE: Application for Approval of Plan of Subdivision S2001-3, Claudex Incorporated, Part of Lots 12-15, Concession 3, Chaffey, Town of Huntsville, District ofMuskoka, MTCR File 44SB017 This Ministry has had the opportunity to review information provided with your letter dated November 15 regarding the above mentioned application. In referencing this Ministry's Archaeological Potential Criteria Primer, I note that the following criteria apply to this property: • The presence ofa water course on the subject property (i.e., a stream); and • Topography suitable for human settlement. As such, and in order to have regard for policy 2.5.2 ofthe PPS, all portions ofthe subject property not previously and extensively disturbed will need to be archaeologically assessed, and any significant resources present removed and documented through excavation prior to construction, or preserved intact while development proceeds around the property. The need to undertake this study can best be captured by placing the standard archaeological condition on the draft plan (see page 18 ofour educational primer for wording). Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me. ;2-4~( John MacDonald Heritage Planner 1 42..Q54C Hydro One Networks Inc. Real EstateServices 483 Bay Street 12th floor, North Tower Toronto, ON MSG 2P5 www.HydroOne.com PLANNING & ECONO~,d ro~ Toll-Free: 1-888-231-6657 C ,D~VELOPMENT II Y one ornrnrssroner 0 March 13,2002 Director 0 Ms. Joan Gray Mana H 0 Planning Technician -~ ~ District Municipality ofMuskoka '--f.:f,!'!rl'iin'i"illclan .. ~ 70 Pine Street Bracebridge, Ontario . -. on 0 PIL IN3 DATE RECEIVED~MAR 1 8 2002_ Please Initial and circulate Dear Ms. Gray Proposed Plan ofSubdivision Claudex Incorporated - Muskoka Commerce Park Higbways 11 & 60 Part of Lots 12-15, Cone 3 (Chaffey Twp) Town of Huntsville Subdivision File: S2001-03 Firstly, I apologise for the delay in responding to this circulation. The file was somehow misplaced for some time within our offices. Please be advised that Hydro One Networks Inc. ("Hydro One") has no objection in principle to the proposed plan ofsubdivision, provided the following conditions are included in the conditions ofdraft approval: I. Prior to final approval, a copy ofthe lot grading and drainage plan, showing existing and final grades, must be submitted to Hydro One for review and approval. 2. Any development in conjunction with the subdivision must not block vehicular access to any Hydro One facilities located on the right ofway. During construction, there will be no storage of materials or mounding ofearth or other debris on the right-of-way. 3. The subdivider shall make arrangements satisfactory to Hydro One for the crossing ofthe hydro right ofway by the proposed roads. A separate proposal shall be submitted to Hydro One for these future road crossings, including curbs, cross-sections, lighting and other detailed plans. 4. The costs ofany relocations or revisions to Hydro One facilities which are necessary to accommodate this subdivision will be borne be the developer. 5. The easement rights ofHydro One and its legal predecessors are to be protected and maintained. In addition, it is requested that the following be added as a Note to the Conditions ofDraft Approval. 1. An electrical distribution line operating at below 50,000 volts might be located within the area affected by this development or abutting this development. Section 186 - Proximity - ofthe Regulations for Construction Projects in the Occupational Health and Safety Act, require that no object be brought closer than 3 metres (10 feet) to the energized conductor. It is the proponent's responsibility to be aware, and to make all personnel on site aware, that all equipment and personnel must come no closer than the distance specified in the Act. They should also be aware that the conductors can raise and lower without warning, depending on the electrical demand placed on the line. Warning signs should be posted on the wood poles supporting the conductors stating "DANGER - Overhead Electrical Wires" in all locations where personnel and construction vehicles might come in close proximity to the conductors. cont'd Yif - 2 - We trust this is satisfactory. Ifyou have any questions please call me at your convenience at (416) 345-6658. Yours Truly Paul Dockrill Real Estate Assistant Real Estate Services Hydro One Networks Inc. cc Hydro One - Chris Vanderreest 7c APPENDIX "B" MINUTES OF PUBLIC MEETING 71 THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITfEE MEETING NO. PED-3-2002 PLACE: Municipal Auditorium, Town ofHuntsville TIME: 7:30 p.m. DATE: February 18,2002 PRESENT: Chair Ben Boivin, Gord Adams, Scott Aitchison ALSO PRESENT: Mayor Hugh Mackenzie; Councillor W. A. Beatty; Councillor Leslie Caswell; Councillor Fran Coleman; Councillor Brian Thompson; Councillor George Young; Robert W. Small, Town Manager, Walter Schmid, Director ofPhysical Services; Colleen Hannigan, Director of Community Services; Kathleen Gilchrist, ClerkIManager of Administration; John Finley, EDO/Grants Officer; Mike Gooch, Chief Building Official; Denise Corry, Coordinator ofCouncil; Greg Corbett, District Planner; Brian McLauchlan, District Public Works CONCURRENT PUBLIC MEETINGS MayorMackenzie welcomed everyone in attendance and indicated that Council was present to listen to the presentations ofthe applicants. Mayor Mackenzie briefed the group on the procedures and purpose ofthe Public Meeting: Tonight the Town and the District ofMuskoka Planning and Economic Development Committee are holding concurrent public meetings and these meetings are called under the authority ofSections 21 and 34 ofthe Planning Act for the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Section 51 of the Planning Act for the subdivision application. rd Notice ofthese public meetings was contained In the January 23 , 2002 edition of the Huntsville Forester and was mailed to all ofthose agencies and persons who requested notification in writing. The applications subject to the public meetings were brought forward by the Huntsville Place Mall, First Pro Shopping Centres and Claudex Inc. The purpose of the public meetings it two fold: first, to present Council, the Committee and the public with details and background to the proposed amendments and subdivision; and secondly, to hear comments from the public on the proposals prior to a decision being made. -2- OPENING REMARKS FROM TIlE MAYOR MayorHughMackenzie indicated that Council has not and would not bemaking any decisions this evening and that they were present to hear the presentations by the applicants and their representatives as well as comments from the public. Mayor Mackenzie stated that ifa written or oral submissionis not made during the Public Hearing or ifa written submission is not received in advanceprior to Council orthe Districtmaking a decision on the ~plications, the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss all or part ofany appeal made to them. Mayor Mackenzie added that Council will deal with decisions regarding these applications during the next scheduled Council meeting on February 28, 2002. Mayor Mackenzie stated that the public meeting was an opportunity for the public, the applicants and their representatives to provide comment regarding the proposed applications. Mayor Mackenzie briefed the group on the Peer Review commissioned by the Town and some of the findings that resulted in that study. Mayor Mackenzie noted that Council had not dealt with the recommendationscontained withinthe study, but would keep the information in mind, including the submissions ofthe public andagencies received and to beheard this evening, when making their final decision. Mayor Mackenzie indicated thatoneofthe priorities ofthe Strategic Planning Process wasto ensure that the Downtown and Waterfront remain strong; and this is Council's intent. Mayor Mackenzie stated that different views would be expressed during the Public Meeting and he hoped that the views expressed would keep the best interest ofthe Community in mind. Mayor Mackenzie introduced the individuals who were present to represent the Town ofHuntsville: Town Council RobertW. Small, Town Manager Steve Zakem, Town Solicitor Kris Menzies, Planning Consultant Walter Schmid, Town ofHuntsville Engineer Town's Peer Review Team consisting of: Gord Nielsen - Environmental Consultant David Butler - Planning Consultant Chris Middlebro' - Transportation Engineer Scott Morgan - Marketing Consultant 73 -3- OPENING REMARKS FROM THE DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA PLANNING COMMI'ITEE CHAIR REGARDING NOTICE AND PROCESS FOR THE SUBDIVISION APPLICATION BenBoivin, Chair ofthe Muskoka Planning and Economic Development Committee introducedhis Committee and District Staffwho were in attendance: Muskoka Planning and Economic Development Committee: Gord Adams, District Chair and Councillor Scott Aitchison District Staff: Greg Corbett, Planning Department Brian McLauchlan, Public Works Mr. Boivin briefed the group regarding notice and process for the subdivision application: The Committee is here this evening to receive input on the plan ofsubdivision proposed by Claudex Inc. A decision on the proposed plan of subdivision will be made at a future Muskoka Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting. Anyone wishing notice of the Committee's decision on the proposed plan ofsubdivision should provide Greg Corbett with their full name, address and postal-fode prior to leaving this meeting or they may contact him at the District ofMuskoka Planning Department. COMMENTS FROM KRIS MENZIES ON BEHALF OF THE TOWN OUTLINING THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE TOWN Kris Menzies, Town Planning Consultant, outlined the proposals that have been brought before the Town of Huntsville: The Town became aware ofthe pending applications approximately one year ago ariddecided, at that time, to put together a Peer Review Team to be available. on a pre-consultation basis, with the applicants so that co-operation could be obtained amongst the applicants and the Town ofHuntsville. The developer's consulting teams gathered data over the summer and engaged in ongoing consultation with the Town and the Town's Consultants. The.Town has received three completed applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendments in the fall of200I which included detailed reports and drawings. The District has received an application on the Claudex lands for a plan ofsubdivision and the District shall speak this evening on that matter directly. The Town is a commenting agency on the subdivision. 11 -4- Kris Menzies explained the process: 1. Applications were received which included detailed reports provided by the applicants. 2. The Town undertook a public information session on November 15, 2001 shortly after receipt of all of the applications in order to advise the public of the existence of the applications and provide the development proponents an opportunity to present details'ot theirproposal. Approximately 200 people, including representatives ofthe District, attended that meeting and the information received provided valuable input which assisted in the Town's review ofthe applications. 3. The Town reviewed the submissions as well as additional submissions and information, including comments provided by the public at the public information session and in writing since that meeting, and have provided an interim report to Council and the findings to date on the First Pro and Mall applications. 4. This public meeting is held to gamer additional comments from the public before further consideration is given on the applications. 5. The process from here on would include review of public comments and outstanding information, and proceed to Council with a final recommendation on the applications including comments to the District on the subdivision application. 6. No decision is being made by Council on the applications this evening. Council will not debate the matterthis evening. We would requestthat the public provide any comments after this public meeting to the Town as soon as possible. If, in the future, the Official Plan. Amendment's are approved, the documents go on to the District for final approval or denial. Town Council is the final approval authority on any Zoning applications however, the zoning by-law, ifapproved, shall not come into force and effect unless the Official Plan Amendment is approved by firstly the Town, and finally by the District. 7. Ms. Menzies briefed the group on the comments received to date (see attached Schedule A). 8. The Town's Peer-Review comments have been available for review since February glb, 2002, and the author's ofthose comments are available this evening to answer any questions. If anyone wishes to review the comments, they may do so by obtaining a copy ofthe report from the Town ofHuntsville. 9. Anyone wishing notification ofCouncil's decision, once it is made, should sign the sheet on the table at the back. There is a list ofthe names already compiled to date and ifyour name is on that list, you do not have to ask for further notification. 7£ -5- Ms. Menzies provided a brief description of the applications including the location, the land configuration, the nature ofthe Official Plan Amendment & Zoning By-law Amendment and the Scope (i.e. square footage, configmation ofstructures etc.). Ms. Menzies indicated that the proponents were in attendance and that they would provide more detailed information regarding the proposed applications. Ms. Menzies introduced Greg Corbett, District Planner and invited him to provide an overview or the proposed subdivision application. COMMENTS FROM GREG CORBETT REGARDING THE DRAFf PLAN APPUCAnON RECEIVED BY THE DISTRICT OUTLINING THE NATURE OF THE APPLICATION Greg Corbett, District Planner, briefed the group on the subdivision proposal: The subdivision proposal divides the land into a number oflots. The proposal also establishes the internal road network and layout pattern. The use of the land must be established first. The Committee has three options; they could deny the application, revise the application or approve it subject to conditions. The proposed subdivision will divide the property into one large commercial lot, 31 light industrial lots plus a residential block. Mr. Corbett briefed the group on the proposed access points to the subdivision. Mr. Corbett indicated that full municipal services will be utilized by the development. Mr. Corbett briefed the group on the submissions and objections from reporting agencies. Mr. Corbett stated that the comments received to date, along with the comments provided during the Hearing, will be considered by staffwhen considering the application. Mayor Mackenzie indicated that the applicants would now be making presentations on their applications. Mayor Mackenzie introduced Claude Doughty and invited him to provide comment on the Claudex application. PRESENTATION BY CLAUDEX INC. Claude Doughty announced that this meeting was the Official Public Meeting regarding the Claudex and First Pro Shopping Centres proposals. Dr. Doughty briefed the group on the location ofthe proposed development. Dr. Doughty indicated that development had not taken place in this area due to improper access to the property. Dr. -6- Doughty explained the road network that would be created due to the development. Dr. Doughty mentioned that the District ofMuskoka suggested that a level 1 storm water mitigation pond be constructed on the site to prevent any problems that may arise. Dr. Doughty indicated that a water course runs through the property, and this issue had been addressed by the Environment Study undertaken by this consultant; ESG and reviewed by the Town's Consultant; Gord Nielson. Dr. Doughty stated that the industrial portion ofthe development was placed on the plan to utilize the commercial benefits. Dr. Doughty briefly described what would accompany the Commercial/light, industrial developments: (Hiking Trails, SoccerFields). Dr. Doughty assuredthe publicthat all environmental aspects ofthe proposal have been addressed. Dr. Doughty explained that a portion ofthe lands was for commercial development and that this was being proposed for development by First Pro Shopping Centres who were also present to provide details oftheir proposal. PRESENTATION BY FIRST PRO SHOPPING CENTRES Glenn Scheels, Planning Consultant; provided the group with a brief outline of the proposal. submitted by First Pro Shopping Centres. Mr. Scheels stated that First Pro is the fastest growing developer ofmodem shopping centres and that the shopping centres are primarily strip shopping centres that usually have one or two anchor stores. Mr. Scheels described the proposed location and plan of the development. Mr. Scheels indicated that the Planning amendment applications still need to be completed: Mr. Scheels noted that the two anchor tenants would be Wal-Mart and Your Independent Grocers (this would replace the Y.I.G. on King William Street). Mr. Scheels provided a list ofbusinesses that may utilize the new commercial space. Mr. Scheels mentioned some ofthe site features which include access point, parking space and a storm water management pond. Mr. Scheels indicated that the construction of Wal-Mart, ifthe application request is granted, could begin in 2003 and the remainder ofthe strip would be constructed to meet demands ofinterested businesses. Mr. Scheels addressed the concerns that were mentioned during the meeting in November. Mr. Scheels indicated that Mr. Doughty will keep the "Muskoka Theme" in mind, and the possibility ofa. .change in colour ofthe Wal-mart exterior would assist with this. Mr. Scheels refers to his slide presentation to provide a visual for the group on how the site would look from different locations. Gerald Jaque, Marketing Consultant, indicated that a market study had been carried out for the First Pro Shopping Centre. Mr. Jaque stated that the Market in Huntsville had also been studied by Huntsville Place Mall and the Town's Peer review consultants. Mr. Jaque briefed the group on the findings of the study, which included some of the following comments: 71 • The development is timely and necessary for the Town ofHuntsville. -7- • The development would strengthen regional presence and decrease outflow to surrounding towns. • Good Highway location. • The First Pro Highway 11 and 60 project is feasible and would produce a viable and successful addition to Huntsville's structure. • Need and opportunity is necessary. The Town has experienced growth and will continue todo so. • Huntsville residents are showing an interest in the expansion. Mr. Jaque stated the locations where the studies were conducted for the survey. Mr. Jaque indicated thatresidents are going "out oftown"to shopand ifHuntsville doesn't expandits commercial sector, it will most likely lose ground in the market place. Mr. Jaque felt that ifa commercial development, such as theone being presented tonight, were to be placed at a site like Highway 60 and 11, the Town would experience an increase in market and inflow; this would assist with reducing the "leakage" that is presently taking place. Mr. Jaque felt that the proposed development is least likely to replicate the existing downtown businesses and would produce a "spin off" effect for the downtown merchants. Mr. Scheels briefed the group onthe traffic impacts that would be surface ifthe development were to take place. Mr. Scheels indicated that traffic issues were also addressed whenthe development inthe east end ofthe Town took place. Mr. Scheels reviewed some ofthe findings included in the Peer Team's review. Mr. Scheels mentioned the benefits that would result from the development which included an increase in the tax base, job opportunities and decreasing outflow. Mr. Scheels stated thatthe development was appropriate in scale for the Community. Mr. Scheels felt that, overall, the project would strengthen Huntsville's commercial role. Mr.Scheels also identified that the Town's Peer Review Team's opinion that a restriction ofuses on the site namely, no beerorliquor stores, no cinemas, and no financial institutions were acceptable to First Pro. PRESENTATION BY HUNTSVILLE PLACE MALL REPRESENTATIVES Stan Stein, Legal Council for :Huntsville Place Mall, stated that the intent of the proposed development was to expand and modernize the existing commercial building. Mr. Stein invited Harry Pellow, Architect, to provide additional information on the development. Harry Pellow, Architect, referred to drawings and diagrams that outline the intentions of the expansion. Mr. Pellow reported that the intention ofthe Huntsville Place Mall is to make the Town a memorable place. Mr. Pellow briefed the group on the existing location, appearance and the surrounding area ofthe Huntsville Place Mall. Mr. Pellow stated that the intention ofthe proposed expansion is to increase retail services that will make Huntsville Place Mall more desirable. Mr. Pellow briefed the group on the changes that would need to take place to accommodate the expansion. Mr. Pellow indicated that changes such as relocating the existing food store and possibly extending Cliffe Street may need to take place ifthe extension were approved. Mr. Pellow stated that it was the intention of the Huntsville Place Mall to try to "hide" the existing parking lot by planting trees in order to compliment the building. Mr. Pellow mentioned that at the present time there is nothing at the north end ofTown identifying that you have entered the Town ofHuntsville and that the construction ofa "tower" could be a landmark. 7g ·8· Herman Kircher, Marketing Consultant, stated thata comprehensive market study had been carried out and submitted to the Town ofHuntsville. Mr. Kircher describedthe locations where the survey had been conducted. Mr. Kircherindicatedthat one factor is the scaleofthedevelopmentthatcanbe built inHuntsville to achieve some ofthe goals. Mr. Kircher stated thatthe urban growth rate is at 150 people per year and that the Huntsville Place Mall expansion is appropriately scaled for the market area. Mr. Kircher assured the group that the expansion would not cause any detrimental impacts to the existingstructure. Mr. Kircherreportedthat the outflow ofexpendituresdoes exist in Huntsville, but the market is so relatively small that even ifyou were to recapture 100% ofyour outflow, it would still notjustify some ofthe other proposals that have been submitted. Mr. Stein indicated that some commenting agencies have expressed their concerns with the development proposal. Mr. Stein felt that the recommendation contained within the Peer Team Report stating that: "liquor stores, beer stores, banks and cinemas should not be permitted at either development", should not apply to the Huntsville Place Mall. Mayor Mackenzie thanked both applicants and their representatives and opened the floor for questions. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND INPUT: TO BE CHAIRED BYTHE MAYOR Debbie Knobelstorph indicated that she is the ownerofWestside Fish and Chips and presentlyhas a small outlet at the Huntsville Place Mall. Ms. Knobelstorph stated that at the mall location there are some nights that the mall is empty. Ms. Knobelstorph mentioned that the summermonths provide a profitable season, but that the businesses need these successful months just to survive the slow periods. Ms. Knobelstorph was concerned that ifa Wal-Mart or any otherform ofbig box store were to be constructed in Huntsville, that they would take away the business that is much needed during the summermonths bythe smallerbusinesses and cause these businessesto close. Ms. Knobelstorph stated that residents do not go "out oftown" just to shop; they go out ofTownjustto"get away". Evan Collins indicated that he is involved in the Strategic Planning Process (Core and Waterfront). Mr. Collins stated that his committee made a presentation during the November meeting and addressed their concerns about the core and Its viability. Mr. Collins reported that the Main Street has 7 vacant stores at the present time. Mr. Collins mentioned that ifa strip mall is created that the pressure on the downtown will increase. Mr. Collins stated that his group is not opposed to the developments, theyjustrequestthat controls be applied. Mr. Collins noted that the recommendation to the Town was to control new strip mall developments and limit the size ofthe development (5,000 square foot store is not big enough). Anthony Asturi addressed his concerns with the Highway 60 development. Mr. Asturi stated that most people come to Huntsville for its small Town atmosphere and that the only thing the Highway 60 proposal will bring is temporary construction and low paying positions. Peggy Peterson, Canadian Independent Business, felt that the developments were a win/win situation. Ms. Peterson did raise some concern with the fact that the south end of Town is being neglected and should be considered for commercial development. -9- Chad Irwinexpressed his feeling about being a resident in the Town ofHuntsville and his concern over the proposed Highway 60 expansion. Leanne Sibeon, owner/operator of"Just for Kids", indicated that she had been the Manager ofthe B.I.A. and could understand the difficulties that are being addressed. Ms. Sibeon stated that shopping patterns prove that people always shop to the South and that outflow will not stop even if Wal-mart comes to Town. Ms. Sibeon felt that the only shoppingthat will stop is the shopping that takes place on Main Street. Norman Backhouse, Strategic PlanningProcess (Arts andCulture), addressed his concerns regarding how these developments would affect the Arts and Culture area ofthe Town ofHuntsville. Mr. Backhouse commented on a grant that was received by the City of Barrie in the amount of $160,000.00 and encouraged Huntsville to look into this opportunity. Mr. Backhouse statedthat he supported both ofthe proposed developments. Stan Stein, Legal Council for Huntsville Place Mall, indicated that he would like to provide comment in opposition ofthe Claudex and First Pro developments. Mayor Mackenzie statedthat this portion ofthe meeting was for the public to address theirconcerns and that Mr. Stein should take his seat. Sandra Rae, Timber Trail Algonquin, indicated that she was not necessarily in favor ofthe Wal-Mart development, but was not against it either. Ms. Rae stated that her business is always experiencing change (like Sunday shopping) and they are also aware that residents do go out ofTown to shop. Ms. Raefelt that ifWal-Mart was not permitted to come to Huntsville, then it would most likely go to Bracebridge or other surrounding Towns, which would be more detrimental to the businesses in Huntsville. Steve Rider, Sears Canada, indicated that he had been a member ofCouncil, Chamber ofCommerce and the Huntsville B.lA. Mr. Rider felt that it was important to keep business growing in order to meet the growing demands ofthe Commuruty. Mr. Rider mentioned that there were not enough business spaces available in Huntsville to encourage new businesses to come to the area. Mr. Rider requested that Council consider the needs ofpresent businesses and possible businesses in the future. --Gerald Aceea, Senior Property Manager in Leamington briefed the group on his past expenence with Wal-Mart proposals. Mr. Aceea stated that a Wal-Mart was constructed in Leamington and a number ofthe stores within the existing mall ended up closing because ofit. Mr. Aceea indicated that the impact that will take place on small merchants will be detrimental. Mike Malone, Huntsville resident, felt that there is a natural fear for progression. Mr. Malone stated that Huntsville needed to take the opportunity to grow, even though there may be some setbacks. Mr. Malone mentioned that when the original proposal came through for the Huntsville Place Mall, the same concerns were present. Mr. Malone indicated that Huntsville stayed vibrant through the many years that the mall has been in operation. Doug Wilson, Wilson's Paint Store, indicated that when the Huntsville Place Mall proposal was first presented, it went to an OMB hearing. Mr. Wilson stated-30thatthe Huntsville Place Mall was brought - 10- to the area to prevent people from going "out oftown" to shop. Mr. Wilson mentioned that even thought the mall was constructed, people still leftTownto do theirshopping. Mr. Wilsonwondered. ifCouncil had investigated the impact on other Communities when a project similar in nature was permitted. Sandra Young, MarketingandPlanning Managerfor Huntsville-Place Mall, felt that people will stop at the Wal-Mart location and then head back onto the Highway; it will not attract people into Town. Ms. Young indicated that the effect on Tourism had neverbeendiscussed. Ms. Young addressed her concerns for the Town Core should a Wal-Mart be brought to the area. Kevin Holloway, Huntsville B.I.A. Member, indicated that the proposed development on Highway 60 may draw business from the downtown core and may negatively affect traffic patterns. MI. Holloway added that the B.I.A. was not opposed to the development, but requested they keep the recommendations in mind that were outlined in their Agency Comments (Schedule A). Harvey Houle, General Delivery, Utterson, wanted to know how the statistics contained within the traffic study would be addressed. Laura Irwin, Framing Place Gallery, stated that ifthe developments were carried out, that the tax base would increase. Ms. Irwin wondered ifsomeofthe funds couldbe redirected to the downtown core. Hugh Holland, Strategic Planning Process, indicated that the Strategic Planning Committee is very aware ofmaintaining a viable downtown core. Mr. Holland felt that the need ofexpanding floor space and commercial space will grow with population. Mr. Holland recommended three year spacing between developments to make the transition a little smoother. Mr. Holland referred to the expansion ofCanadian Tire and the development of Y.I.G. and how things remained stable. Mr. Holland stated that the Strategic Planning Team has put together the needs of the Downtown and hopefully these needs could be addressed within the next two years. Bill Kaptein, Rainbow Motel, addressed his concerns regarding increase in traffic should the Huntsville Place Mall expansion be approved. Mr. Kaptein stated that the traffic is already heavy in this area and the expansion will add to this. Mr. Kaptein wondered if this issue was going to be addressed. lillian Crawford, Clothes Closet, indicated that the Main Street is the "corridor" to Huntsville. Ms. Crawford mentioned that the existing Main Street stores are small in size and usually costly. Ms. Crawford noted that the landlords of these buildings know how difficult it is to find a suitable location and the rents/leases are fairly hefty. Ms. Crawford cautioned Council when they maketheir final decision, to keep in mind what they have permitted the applicants to do and to make sure they do just that. Adam Caswell, Huntsville resident, addressed his concerns regarding the image ofHuntsville and how it can be maintained. Mr. Caswell felt issues like tourism, environment and effects on surrounding areas all need to be kept in mind when reviewing the applications. -11 - Mr. McDonald, Utterson resident, wondered if the market study took into account both developments. Scott Morgan., Peer Review Team Member, indicated that both of the studies were reviewed individually and then combined. Mr. Morgan stated that, essentially, he disagreed with the size of the trade area andthatitcouldprobably be extended into Parry Sound and Bracebridge. Mr. Morgan indicated that both projects were feasible and ifthey were both to proceed then there may be a 300/0 reduction in sales for existing businesses. Mr. Morgan agreed that these developments should be done in stages. Mayor Mackenzie indicated that the Peer Assessment Report is available to the Public at the Municipal Office. Sydney Rider, Sears Canada, noted that ifthe larger corporations, such as Wal-Mart, felt that the Town ofHuntsville wasn't able to accommodate their business, then they would not ask to come. Ms. Rider added that Wal-Mart would only wantto move into Huntsville ifa profit was going to be made. Ms. Rider believed that this proposal should.be looked at in a positive manner. Mayor Mackenzie invited the applicants or their representatives to provide closing remarks and invited both Mr. Stein and Dr. Doughty to discuss any issues they may have had with respect to the other applications before the Town this evening. Mr. Stein, Legal Council for Huntsville Place Mall, addressed the concern raised about traffic on Cliffe Street and indicated that the traffic consultants would review this. Mr. Stein mentionedthat if he was not able to provide comment in opposition ofthe Wal-Mart proposal, then his comments are finished. Mayor Mackenzie clarified his earlier comments and indicated that ifMr. Stein wanted to provide comments to Council on the Wal-Mart proposal he may do so now. Mr. Stein stated his opposition remarks regarding the ClaudexlFirst Pro Application. Mr. Stein indicated that their position is that the Claudex and First Pro applications are premature and the impacts to the marketplace would be substantial. Mr. Stein stressed the fact that no information regarding the-possible use ofthe existing "YourIndependent Grocers" has been offered to date. Mr. Stein mentioned the growth that IS expected over thenext five years and the fact that it has not been taken into consideration. Mr. Stein refers to Mr. Morgan's report and that it indicates a decrease in sales, which means that the existing merchants will not enjoy the growth in the market due to the fact that they will be set back from previous years. Mr. Stein wondered how many merchants could survive with this loss. Mr. Stein stated that Mr. Morgan did not speak about the directional impacts. Mr. Stein briefed the group on the possible impacts and added that they are the largest impacts he had seen in Ontario. Mr. Stein indicated that at a past OMB hearing it was stated that "it is detrimental ifa business suffers a 15% decrease in sales". Mr. Stein stated that ifCouncil approved the Highway 60 and II development, the downtown character would be lost and businesses would close. S~ -12 - Mr. Stein addressed the Claudex proposal and felt that it had not been fully reviewed. Mr. Stein referred to the Claudex proposal as a "Trojan Horse" and that it would provide competition for the Main Street merchants. Mr. Stein raised his concern again over the proposed use ofthe existing Y.I.G. and the possibility ofa department store utilizing this space; Mr. Stein felt that the Huntsville Place Mall expansion wasa reasonable application. Mr. Stein concluded by stating that if Council approved the Highway 60 and 11 proposal, the downtown merchants would experience a huge decrease in sales. Mr.Steinasked that Council reject this proposal. (See Schedule "C" for additional remarks) Claude Doughty, applicant, indicated thathis grouphad worked for the past 1 ~ years on the project and he appreciated any inputfrom the public. Dr. Doughtyclarifiedhis understanding oftheMorgan report by stating that the possible closures outlined by Morgan related to both developments proceeding at the same time and before 2004 and notjustin the First Pro development proceeding, and that the likelihood ofboth developments being built by 2004 was unlikely; the Morgan Report should therefore be looked upon as a conservative approach. Claude Doughty stated that he was in support ofthe Huntsville Place Mall expansion and he encouraged Council to approve the FirstPro proposal. Claude Doughty felt that the Peer Review group had provided adequate documentation and it should be utilized in the decision process. Mayor Mackenzie asked Councillor Boivin ifhe had anything further to add. Councillor Boivin thanked all who attended and provided the following information: The Committee will consider all the comments made this evening prior to making a decision on the proposed plan ofsubdivision. Ifanyone has any written briefs respecting the proposed subdivision, they should submit these to Greg at the conclusion ofthe meeting. Again, anyone wishing notice ofthe Committee's decision on the plan ofsubdivision should provide Greg with their name and mailing address. -Mr. Boivin thanked-Huntsville-Council and Town staffin facilitating-the Public-Hearing meeting. CLOSING OF PUBLIC MEETING BY THE MAYOR Mayor Mackenzie indicated that the final decision would be difficult. Mayor Mackenzie stated that all ofthe information received regarding these developments would be taken into consideration before a final decision was made. The Mayor declared the "public meeting" portion ofthe meeting to be closed. Corbett, Greg.... _ From: Stein. Stan [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 1:25 PM To: Corbett, Greg Subject: FW: Muskoka Commerce Park Draft Plan Approval Resent to proper address > -----Original Message----- > From: stein, Stan > Sent: July 4, 2002 1:23 PM > To: '[email protected]' > Subject: Muskoka Commerce Park Draft Plan Approval > > Dear Greg: > > Please advise the District Planing and Economic Development Committee of our objection as outlined below to the draft plan of subdivison for the Muskoka Commerce Park on behalf of the owners of the Huntsville Place Mall. > > The reason for the objection is that we have appealed the OPA and zoning for this project and it is premature to approve the subdivision until the issues we have raised are resolved. A change in character from "business" to more appropriate light industrial uses could affect the overall project and the draft plan. Therefore the draft plan should not be approved at this time. > > At this time we do not propose to attend the Committee meeting but ask that you provide the Committee with a copy of this letter and that it be included in the record of proceedings related to this matter. Please ensure that we recieve a copy of the decision on this matter by the Committee and Council. Thank you. > > Stan Stein > Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt LLP > Phone: (416) 862-6439 > Fax: (416) 862-6666 > e-mail: [email protected] > ************************************************************************* This e-mail message is privileged, confidential and subject to copyright. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited. Le contenu du present courriel est privilegie, confidentiel et soumis a des droits d'auteur. II est interdit de l'utiliser ou de Ie divulguer sans autorisation. ************************************************************************* 1 NRD £:1 BERLIS UP Batri&ter.ll aNi Solidt0r5 Patent and Tmdc: holm Ai.""ts Sleven A.ZHom Diroct: ~16.865.3J\40 EO-mail: [email protected]:om July 8,2002 BY FAX #1.105.645.5319 our File #75453 Ms. Maureen Wylie Clerk The District Municipality of Muskoka 70 Pine Street Bracebridge, Ontario P1L 1N3 Dear Ms. Wylie: Re: Plan ofSubdivision File No.: 6.2001·3 Muskokil Commerce Park Conditions orApproval We have been retained as legal counsel to the Town of Huntsville with respect to the ahova-notad matter and are in receipt of proposed conditions of draft plan approval prepared by the District of Muskoks. The Town of Huntsville Council adopted a detailed set of conditions for this subdiVIsion and continues to support those conditions. We understand that the District has taken those conditions and put them in 3 format whioh is consistent with lheir utiuClI approach, We understand that this approach seeks to establish more general conditions wrucn subsume the dran approval conditions adopted bytheTown (with some minor changes). On the basis of the foregoing. the Town of Huntsville has no objection to the conditions of approval as proposed by the District of Muskoka. However. in the event that the implementation of these conditions gives rise to ambiguity or a concern that appropriate conditions were not included, we will approach the District to have any required additional conditions adOed to the draft plan Cippruval. Thank youfor yourongoing cooperation with respect to the foregOing matter. BCE Place. SUite 1800, 80x754,181 Bay Street, Toronto, OntariO, Canada M5J 219 T:418.863.1500 F:416.863,1515 www.airdb.rli••Gom AffIliated with Owen, Bird'Vanoouver 95' July 8,2002 Page 2 Yours verytruly. A~BERUSLlP 10°""C StevenA~~.zake~ 6AZ1mn lj cc: WaltSchmidt Brian Whitehead, Director of Planning Services Greg Corbett, Planner KrlS MenZies ::ODMAIPCOOet=i\orlC1=:\1:229221 \1 AfRD & B91.l3... rJ.P ...... _M... ~ *~ TOTAL PAC£.03 ~~ THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT -*------70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO, P1L 1N3 TELEPHONE (705) 645-2231 1-800-461-4210 (in 705 area code) FAX (705) 646-2207 MEMORANDUM TO: Chair Ben Boivin and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee FROM: Greg Corbett Planner RE: Amendment No. 31 to the Official Plan of the Town of Huntsville (Pengelly) Submission for Approval by District Council DATE: July 2,2002 RECOMMENDATION That the Planning and Economic Development Committee recommend that District Council approve Amendment No. 31 (Pengelly) to the Official Plan of the Town of Huntsville, adopted by Town By-law 2002-66P. ORIGIN The Town of Huntsville adopted Amendment No. 31 to the Official Plan of the Town of Huntsville by By-law 2002-66P, and has submitted it for approval by District Council. ANALYSIS Purpose of Amendment No. 31 Amendment No. 31 to the Official Plan of the Town of Huntsville would re-designate the lands subject to the Amendment from "Commercial" to "Special Policy Area One". The Amendment would recognize the current mix of light industrial and highway commercial uses in the area and provide for future similar uses. A copy of the Amendment is attached as Appendix "A". Background Property Description: The property affected by Amendment No. 31 is located within the community of Port Sydney and is bound by Greer Road on the west and Muskoka Road No. 10 to the south. The original application made by the applicant was for the re-designation of two separate conveyable lots 07 --- -2- located on Ross Road with a total area of approximately 1.84 acres, however the Town has extended the Amendment to include additional abutting lands so that the Amendment now includes all the lands along Ross Road. The lands are described as Part Lot 20, Concession 7, Stephenson, Town of Huntsville, and are illustrated on the attached location map. Property Characteristics: The propertysubject to the original application is currently vacant, although it appears that some vehicles are currently located on the property. The property is relatively flat, with some coniferous trees and smaller vegetation. The lands being added to the Amendment by the Town are also relatively flat and include the former Mary Lake Motors business and a single detached dwelling. Surrounding Land Uses: The subject lands are located in an area generally characterised by a mix of commercial, light industrial, residential and institutional uses. To the east of the subject lands is an aggregate extraction operation, to the west are some small highway commercial uses and residential uses and to the south are some residential uses and V.K. Greer Elementary School. Proposal: The proposed Amendment would facilitate development on one of the lots of the original application of a small warehouse. The development is to consist of the construction of a 5,000 to 6,000 square foot building that is to be used for the storage of retail products. These products are intended to be delivered in small cargo vans to commercial customers in the Muskoka and Parry Sound area. Associated Applications: In conjunction with Amendment No. 31, the Town of Huntsville passed a site specific zoning by law for a portion of the SUbject lands, being By-law 2002-67P. The by-law is applicable to the original two lots of the application and adds further exceptions to the Highway Commercial zoning on the property to permit "storage uses, excluding outside storage uses and deeming both of the lots as one for planning purposes. Circulation Prior to the adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 31, the Town of Huntsville circulated the proposed amendment to certain agencies. None of the agencies circulated indicated a concern with the proposed Amendment. Public Meeting In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, the Council of the Town of Huntsville held a public meeting respecting proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 31 and the associated Zoning By-law Amendment on June 11, 2002. During the public meeting a concern was raised by an area resident that Ross Road is signed as a "no through" road and that this should be addressed, which the Town's Director of Physical Services indicated would be. Concern was also raised with the potential for outside storage, and the by-law was subsequently amended prior to its passage specifically prohibitting. - 3 - Planning Documents Provincial Policy Statement: The proposed Amendment would not appear to conflict with the Provincial Policy Statement District Official Plan: The subject lands are located within the "Community" designation of the Muskoka Official Plan, as amended. The Muskoka Plan recognizes that "Communities" are small development nodes that generally function as service centres for the immediate rural and waterfront areas and may include such uses as small-scale industrial establishments. In this case, the proposal is for a small-scale industrial use that would serve the surrounding area. As such, the subject proposal would appear to generally conform with the "Community" policies of the Muskoka Official Plan. Local Official Plan: In a general sense, the provisions of the Official Plan of the Town of Huntsville promote economic development within the context of sound land use planning, including specifically the compatibility of land uses. As stated previously, the subject lands are located within an area generally comprised of light industrial and highway commercial uses and a designation that recognizes this character would ensure that the uses in the area are compatible. The subject lands are located within the "Secondary Urban Area - Port Sydney" designation of the Town of Huntsville Official Plan. The proposed Amendment would designate the lands "Special Policy Area Number One" within the "Secondary Urban Area". This designation identifies areas characterised by a variety of light industrial and mixed commercial uses and establishes development policies for development within the designation. A review of these policies indicates that the proposal would generally satisfy these policies. Respectfully submitted, LOCATION MAP LOCATION MAP AMENDMENT NO. 31 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE (PENGELLY) 9) APPENDIX "A" AMENDMENT NO. 31 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE a(;Z (Pengelly - Port Sydney) SECTION 1 TITLE AND COMPONENTS OF THE AMENDMENT 1.1 Section 5herein and Schedule1-31 shall constitute Amendment Number 31 to the Official Plan ofthe Town ofHuntsville and shall be entitled "Pengelly-Port Sydney". 1.2 Sectionl, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 herein do not constitute part ofthe formal Amendment, but provide general information respecting the Amendment. SECTION 2 LANDS SUBJECT TO THE AMENDMENT 2.1 Lands subject to this Amendment are as illustrated on Schedule 1-31 affixed hereto, being Part ofLot 20, Concession 7, Geographic Township ofStephenson, now in the Town of Huntsville. 2.2 The subject lands are located in the community ofPort·Sydney and are bounded by District Road No. 10 to the south and Greer Road to the west. SECTION 3 BACKGROUND AND BASIS OF AMENDMENT 3.1 An application was submitted on behalfofthe owners ofpart ofthe subject lands, Frank and Eileen Pengelly, for amendment to the Official Plan to enable development oftheir lands for "limited industrial" uses. In addition, application to rezone a part ofthe lands fora limited industrial use has also been submitted. 3.2 The existing Official Plan designates the lands owned by Mr. & Mrs. Pengelly as "Commercial". This designation applies to adjacent lands east ofGreer Road. 3.3 The lands inunediately west of Greer Road are designated for "limited commercial and industrial uses" in a Special Policy Area-L East ofthe subject lands is an active aggregate operation designated as Special Policy Area-5. 3.4 Properties surrounding the Pengelly lands are generally being used as light industrial or highway commercial uses. It is deemed appropriate to designate the entire area north ofDistrict Road No. 10 and east ofGreer Road as SPA-l to recognize the current mix ofuses and provide for potential future development. 3.5 In addition to the OfficialPlan and Zoning Amendment applications, a Planning Review, prepared by Wayne Simpson and Associates has been submitted in support of the applications (Appendix A). 3.6 This amendment provides for a re-designation ofthe present commercial designated lands in the Ross Road area. SECITON 4 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT 4.1 In accordance with the general provision ofSection A 1.5.2. ofthe OfficialPlan ofthe Town ofHuntsville, Amendment Number 31 serves the following purpose: a) To amend the OfficialPlan by re-designating additional lands in the Secondary Urban Community ofPort Sydney to "Special Policy Area One (SPA-I)". SECI10N 5 THE AMENDMENT 5.1 Schedule "D", Map 2, Land Use Plan, to the OfficialPlan ofthe Town ofHuntsville hereby amended by changing the designation oflands identified on Schedule 1-3I affixed hereto and forming part ofthis Amendment, from "Commercial (C)" to "Special Policy Area One (SPA-I)". SECITON6 IMPLEMENTATION 6.1 The changes to the OfficialPlan ofthe Town ofHuntsville, as described in this Amendment, shall be implemented in accordance with the provisions ofSection G ofthe Official Plan as amended. SECTION 7 INTERPRETAnON 7.1 The provision ofSection A.IA ofthe Official Plan-ofthe Town ofHuntsville, as amended, shall apply with respect to the interpretation ofthis Amendment. SCHEDULE "1-31" TO AMENDMENT NO. 31 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE Mary Lake ,,:.' R RR AREA TO BE DESIGNATED FROM ~~COMMERCIAL(C)" TO "SPECIAL POLICY AREA ONE (SPA-I)" THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT -*-----70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO. P1L 1N3 TELEPHONE (705) 645-2231 1-B00-461-4210 (in 705 area code) FAX (705) 646-2207 MEMORANDUM TO: Chair Ben Boivin and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee FROM: Judi Brouse Director of Policy and Programs RE: Heritage Areas Policy Review Wetlands Policy Paper DATE: June 28, 2002 RECOMMENDATION That the Planning and Economic Development Committee receive the Heritage Areas Policy Review - Wetland Policy Paper for the purpose of general circulation and public input. ORIGIN The review of the Heritage Areas policies is being undertaken as part of the ongoing review of the Muskoka Official Plan. ANALYSIS Heritage Areas are significant lands, in Muskoka, that have been identified through a field based inventory program undertaken in the early 1990's. The goal of the program is to identify significant areas on a comprehensive or landscape level basis. Forty-eight areas in Muskoka have been identified as being Heritage Areas. These areas cover a total of 25,000 hectares, or approximately 6% of Muskoka's land base. Approximately half of the Heritages Areas are on Crown land and are protected as Conservation Reserves or provincial parks under the Living Legacy program recently implemented by the provincial government. In addition, 11 biotic and 9 abiotic areas have been identified as being Heritage Sites because they meet only one evaluation criteria. The Muskoka Official Plan was approved in June 1991 and contains policies applicable to both wetlands in general and wetlands that form part of Heritage Areas. As part of the on-going review of the Official Plan, the policies that relate to Heritage Areas are being reviewed. To facilitate this review, Heritage Areas have been divided into five categories including wetlands, barrens, rivers, biogeographical features and geological features and an issues paper will be prepared for each. This Discussion Paper examines Heritage Areas that are predominantly wetlands, however, in order to undertake a comprehensive review of the issue, a broader look at all wetlands and the applicable policy was undertaken. In identifying the significant Heritage Areas in Muskoka, 23 areas have been identified that are composed primarily of wetland communities. Fifteen (15) of these areas have also been evaluated under the provincial northern wetland evaluation system; thirteen (13) were determined to be of provincial significance. There are many other wetlands, however, that have not been evaluated and their significance is unknown. The wetland policy paper examines the importance of all wetlands and the evolution of District and Provincial policies for the identification, evaluation, and protection of Muskoka's wetlands. The paper also examines the issues and options available for incorporating both the provincial wetland and Heritage Areas evaluation systems into the Muskoka Official Plan. In addition, the issues and policy options for protecting the many wetlands within Muskoka that have not been evaluated are examined. It is recommended that the policy paper be widely circulated for public comment and review prior to Committee preparing specific policies on wetlands. In particular, all affected landowners should be notified of the paper and provided the opportunity for comment and input. This will be done by posting the paper on the Muskoka website and by mailing a notice to landowners indicating that a report is available upon request. RespectfUlly submitted, ~ Judi S. Brouse MA, MCIP, RPP Director of Policy and Programs 17 ~ MUSKOKA OFFICIAL ~ EVALUATION CRITERIA Muskoka PLAN REVIEW ~;:!.jjI_'JM'I:~i!:~w,~W?"lW'"7.~~¥'!'rw;r~Jl':Zj."%"~)f~",·~ .~<,,"~"" 1 ''*' ",:,"'W,,'''''' ".""";j;~"''' ''''"<·n Wit \'"~"''' ·'''';;;,'Vi~'''r~'t..."..,;;u"~~~... ",,~:t:7 J;._ "'k '~~""f" >1'11 ~""ll"~,,,:,-;;"I'W""1W'" ~'~~~.,!'!J,i'~" '" '''' • REPRESENTATIVE LANDFORM OR BIOTIC COMMUNITY DISTINCTIVE LANDFORM MUSKOKA HERITAGE AREAS REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGIC PROCESS PROGRAM BIOTIC DIVERSITY HIGH QUALITY - UTTLE DISTURBANCE RARE, THREATENED. ENDANGERED SPECIES SIGNIFICANT ANIMAL HABrrAT LARGE UNDISTURBED AREA SPECIES AT THE EDGE OF THEIR RANGE ~ IMPORTANCE OF Muskoka WETLANDS ,;WNI!")I~~~'f:r>m,M~J$;;"':f$,;w.~,,~,~'tni.'WIS;:1'~.M!'_"' t' r;:Il.M~' CONTROL AND STORAGE OF SURFACE WATER GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND DISCHARGE IMPROVE WATER QUALm , , FLOOD CONTROL , . PROTECT SHORELINE FROM EROSION ~ ,'.~ . TRAP SEDIMENT Ifi,!::/ ¥ • SUPPORT AND INmATE COMPLEX FOOD CHAINS • Biogeographic PROVIDE IMPORTANT HABITAT Features _. IMMOBIUZE CONTAMINANTS OR REDUCE IMPACT SUPPORT FISH POPULATION PROVIDE VALUABLE RESOURCES SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFn"S R£CREAnOHAL OPPORTUNITIES 1 ~ WETLAND ~ TYPES OF WETLANDS Muskoka Muskoku EVALUATION "'''H'$n,!''''~x<~~~:ft /"/"'>.",,"",,o,a,.,>n:-,,, lX' "" ._"",_" ~,;g"""", ~xt">l'"" 1~~O '"' ""'", '~"~'"t"~;;<;$1"""~""m¥:'< ,,;";5; ""'"~J);>'''''f.' »,> ,,~V' ,,,, ""''''",.....,,~Mif. "~~~~l\~ BOGS UNEVALUATED WETLANDS FEN MUSKOKA HERITAGE AREAS MARSH PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT SWAMP BEAVER POND c::::::J _ .... u"' __fG·_~ I •.-...•.•. -..._ .._'''' --- I 1=----·...... 1 2 ctc I. If ~ ~ '1 I L POLICY REVIEW II POLICY REVIEW Iv'lIS1'.01'. ,,="'"~\\i'!!W~'h$ii" t.lO", "'''1;'''''W!",,"~i ,~:MtN'~",&:" ",. _",w I" l''l:"'' "'d""M"'~ - ~ ""- ..~"~i'.""'''' ' ~ ~"/ i"~ !'>' ">~ - h', '1~ '" "M" ». " GENERAL POUCY HERITAGE AREAS ALL WETLANDS ARE IMPORTANT GENERALLY PROTECTED FROM INCOMPATIBLE USES OR ACTIVITIES r:» LIMITED DEVELOPMENT MAY BE PERMITTED PROVIDED THAT WETLAND VALUES CAN BE PROTECTED ~ ~ '1 1 1 POLICY REVIEW '1 I I POLICY REVIEW IV lIS1'.01'.a 'v' LIS ,O1'. ~~~"~·"'H~"'J<,*,,~;:~¥~~i;W"~,lt."''''';',;Ii;~";.t"~$l$'x.v.*'in~",li:>l<...~~·='iJ'Z~ "~~~~~~ljf::1;.\~~;t> PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS RESOURCE USES: EVALUATE UNDER THE PROVINCIAL EVALUATION SYSTEM. DEVELOPMENT MAY BE PERMI1TED PROVIDED THERE IS NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE - RESOURCE EXTRACTION WILL NOT NATURAL FEATURES OR THE ECOLOGICAL BE PERMITTED IN A PROVINCIALLY FUNCTION OF THE WETLAND OR THE ADJACENT SIGNIFICANT WETLAND. UPLAND AREAS. /00 3 ~ ~ Muskoka POLICY OPTIONS \1 I k POLICY OPTIONS . llS,O a '~<~"'ym'vr~' «M.""N\'~"''',"~''(''''' .,,~~,. ,.',,) -.' ""-,. ~,~ '.~-"" ,,'" ;$:""~,,, .. l',,- "~"aJJ'~m:. UNEVALUATED WETLANDS HERITAGE AREAS WETLANDS SETBACK DEVELOPMENT 30 METRES DEVELOPMENT MAY BE PERMITTED LIMITED DEVELOPMENT MAY BE PERMITTED WHERE A HERITAGE AREAS IMPACT CLOSER WITH A WETLAND IMPACT ASSESSMENT. ASSESSMENT HAS DEMONSTRATED THERE WILL BE NO NEGATIVE IMPACT LARGER AREA MAYBE EVALUATED IF PRELIMINARY FINDINGS IDENTIFY AN ISSUE ,- BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION WILL BE USED ~ ~ POLICY OPTIONS Muskoka POLICY OPTIONS .1\1 ll SlvOI ka ~~>;;WJ!!#$.";:"'.1:f'-""\'Il:ll~,t;':''i:P~·4:T''>~~~''''Wl",'J,,,,~'';.;m< ~1Wi:"",~",,~~,~~ -z.=.;, »j1'\' ~~.. "'lw.w;" "'- ....""M_~"'''A'''*'''"'' '''IW lOr" w.~ "~4"t, , w"~ "~~'1"'0it~j\\, ~." ~"""k"-"""*' ~ &",...~~"'" ~"''''., -. PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS REGIONAL WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT MAY BE PERMITTED IN SCORE SOO TO 600 POINTS ON PROVINCIAL EVALUATION SYSTEM PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS WHERE IT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED DEVELOPMENT MAY BE PERMITTED IN REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS WHERE THAT THERE WILL BE NO NEGATIVE IT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE IMPACT TO THE WETLAND OR THE WILL BE NO NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THE ADJACENT UPLAND AREAS WETLAND OR THE ADJACENT UPLAND AREAS Iv! 4 ~ ~ Muskoka POLICY OPTIONS \1uSk,)ka POUCY OPTIONS , 't>=~<11i ,~",)'.W~V"!?'ih'IKi!',):;;W"':"W" r~~~~...k" ~~"' >'1' "l'lW,"" '''-'''' ~y -_ 1"' <'f~~ '" <"'III""'" ~ "" ""'l'" ,,,,,, ~'lI"Wi\' • '"' IMPLEMENTATION LOCAL OFFICIAL PLANS SHOULD PROVIDE DEFINITIONS POLICY SUPPORT FOR THE PROTECTION FOR WETLANDS. , WETLAND - ZONING SHOULD LIMIT USES TO THOSE USES r- NEGATIVE IMPACT COMPATIBLE WITH WETLAND VALUES. _ INCORPORATE WETLANDS INTO r- ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS, r- SURROUNDING LANDS ESPECIALLY IN COMMUNITIES AND URBAN CENTRES. WETLAND IMPACT ASSESSMENT - DEVELOP EVALUATION PROTOCOLS - HERITAGE ARES IMPACT ASSESSMENT !C9- 5 THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT -*-----70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO, P1L 1N3 TELEPHONE (705) 645-2231 1-800-461-4210 (in 705 area code) FAX (705) 646-2207 MEMORANDUM TO: Chair Ben Boivin and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee FROM: Brian Whitehead Director of Planning Services RE: Kearney Graphite Mine DATE: July 2,2002 RECOMMENDATION For information purposes only. ORIGIN A delegation from Mr. Don Baxter, P.Eng. V.P., International Graphite Inc. at the request of District Councillor Scott Aitchison. ANALYSIS The Kearney Graphite Mine is located in the Geographic Township of Butt approximately 14 kilometers (9 miles) west of the Town of Kearney. The mine is located near the boundary of Algonquin Park. A summary of Mr. Baxter's presentation notes is attached for information purposes. A detailed explanation of the economic benefits of re-opening the mine will be presented by Mr. Baxter at the July 8, 2002 meeting of the Planning and Economic Development Committee. The Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines has provided planning staff with some background information on the status of the mine project. The Kearney mine was established in the early 1990's and was only open for about 2 years. The mine operated as a small open pit mine with an associated milling (processing) operation until about 1994. In order for the mine to re-open, a closure plan must be prepared and securities posted to implement the closure plan. The securities will be 100 % of the cost to close the site. The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines has advised that they support the creation of jobs through mining, but the industry must comply with all provincial regulations, which include the preparation of a closure plan and the posting of securities. !{)3 An order from the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines to prepare a closure plan for the site is pending and has been posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights website. The Director of Mine Rehabilitation proposes to order International Graphite Inc. to submit a certified Closure Plan for the Kearney Graphite mine by August 1, 2002. The plan will provide for rehabilitation of mine hazards at the site including the tailings area, tailings dam, polishing pond, open pit, buildings and infrastructure and the waste rock pile. A copy of the EBR Notice is attached. The graphite ore is inert when it is extracted from the ground. However, during the process of milling (crushing) the ore, a chemical reaction takes place when the rock is exposed to the air that results in acid generating material. There is potential for long-term difficulty associated with the tailings pile. In addition to the tailings pile, the acid generating materials have been used as granular material for road building and operations areas around the mill site. There is some concern about the effect that the acid generating material may have on the fishery of the Magnetewan River. There is also a concern about the impact that the acid generating material may have on a small lake near the site. The Ministry of the Environment have been involved in enforcement measures in order to minimize any adverse effects resulting from the tailings pile at the site. Due to its location in relation to Algonquin Park, the Kearney Graphite Mine has attracted the interest of the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Wildlands League. Both environmental groups are opposed to the re-opening of the graphite mine. The Federal Government's Department of Fisheries and Oceans may also have a concern because of the impact of the acid mine drainage material on the fishery of the Magnetawan River. The Town of Huntsville have supported the restoration of the Kearney Graphite Mining operation in principle due to the potential for job creation and positive economic impact, provided that the issues raised by the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines can be satisfactorily addressed. Respectfully SUbmi~\ !~( / [1' _) I '.' 1/ /J' /;~ ,",-::I ; I,J ., t,j £/,. '. ! {/j, /'L U ~L/ '/ f Brian Whitehead, MA, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Services .IOlfI MUSKOKA DISTRICT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TALKING POINTS Introduction: Don Baxter, P.Eng. V.P., International Graphite Inc. Location ofSite: History ofSite: 1900 discovery Noranda Vesuvious \ Cal Graphite Hillman, Applied Carbon Montreal Ottawa Graphite: what it is (uniqueness ofthe deposit) and what it is used for Markets. Mining Method/Processing Environment: define problem M.O.E./Env. Can, MNDM Work done at site Water quality Economic: • 70 full time year round jobs • 2.5 million payroll- actually higher as the 70 jobs contain contractor positions, cost included seperately • 3: I spinoff- mining statistics. Local Businesses, examples • growth industries - Automotive, Electrical & Electronic • Fuel Cell-UCAR Graphtec anticipating building new plants to keep up with demand - why not Huntsville? CURRENT: • M.O.E/MNDM, orders, charges, closure plan - hindering financing. • Resolutions ofsupport: Town ofKearney, All Northern Municipalities from Parry Sound to Powassan. Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities (FENOM), Huntsville lo~ E.BR Registry Number: "ID02EI004" Type ofPosting: "Instrument" Status: "Proposal" Page I of 2 EBR Registry Number: ID02E 1004 Ministry Reference Number: MG-02-I-04 Type of Posting: Instrument Status ofPostiDg: Proposal Ministry: Northern Development and Mines Date Proposal Loaded: 2002/05/08 Comment Period: 30 day(s) Written submissions may be made between May 08, 2002 and June 07, 2002. NOTICE OF PROPOSAL FOR AN INSTRUMENT: © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2002 Instrument Type: Mining Act s.147(I) - Director orders proponent to file a certified closure plan to rehabilitate a mine hazard Proponent: International Graphite Inc.Town ofKearney, Butt Township, P.O. Box 138, Kearney, Ontario, POA IMO Location ofActivity: Unorganized Township County/DistrictlRegion: District ofNipissing Other Activity Location Identifiers: Site is accessed via Hwy. 518, 14 km west ofTown ofKearney within Butt Township. Turn west on Forestry Tower Road for 10 km then turn left on to the mine access road. Description: The Director ofMine Rehabilitation proposes to order International Graphite Inc. to submit a certified Closure Plan for the Kearney Graphite by Auguts I, 2002. The Plan will provide for rehabilitation ofmine hazards at the site including the tailings area, tailings dam, polishing pond, open pit, buildings and infrastructure and the waste rock pile. Other Public Consultation: None Comments should be directed to the following Contact Person: John Robertson, Supervisor htip://204.40.253.254/envregistry/01793gei.htm 7/2/2002 .gBR Registry Number: "ID02EI004" Type ofPosting: "Instrument" Status: "Proposal" Page 2 012 Rehabilitation, Inspection and Compliance 933 Ramsey Lake Road - 4th Floor Sudbury, Ontario, P3E 6B5 PHONE: (705) 670-5798 FAX: (705) 670-5803 Some Government offices have additional information on this proposal for viewing. These are listed below: Mines Group: Sudbury 933 Ramsey Lake Road, 4th Floor Sudbury, Ontario, P3E 6B5 PHONE: (705) 670-5806 FAX: (705) 670-5803 All comments will be considered as part ofthe decision-making by the Ministry ifthey: (a) are submitted in writing; (b) reference the EBR Registry number; and (c) are received by the Contact person within the specified comment period ** No acknowledgment or individual response will be provided to those who comment. AU comments & submissions received will become part ofthe public record. ** /07 http://204.40.253.254/envregistry/01793gei.htm 7/2/2002 JUL 03 '02 09 705 670 5803 TO 917056462207 P.12l2/03 16: FR MNDM MINES, GROUP \ Ministry of Northem Development and III,," Ei:.o.- ® Ontario Mines Group Tel: (705) 670-5798 B4 - 933 Ramsey Lake Road Fax: (705)e7~03 Sudbury. Ontario Toll Free: 1·888·415·9845 P3E6B5 Email: [email protected] Web site: www.mndm.gov.on.calmndm/mineslmg/mmrehab.htm July 3,2002 M02..Q158 Mr. Brian Whitehead Director of Planning Services Planning and Economic Development Department The-District Municipality of Muskoka 70 Pine .Street Bracebridge, ON P1L 1N3 Dear Mr. Whitehead: Re: International Graphite Inc. Thank you for your letter of July 3 regarding the Ministry's proposed order under the Mining Act to International Graphite Inc. (IGI) for submission of a certified closure plan. I would like to provide one minor point of clarification with respect to our discussion. While the order can be issued at any given time I would expect consideration of comments received under the Environmental Bill of Rights and drafting of the final document, should the Ministry decide to proceed, may administratively lead to the early part of August. The actual submission date of a certified plan would occur at a later date as set out in such an order. In response to your direct inquiry the Ministry has in fact been attempting to secure a closure plan and the required financial assurance for this mine site since the requirements under the Mining Act became effective in June, 1991. As you are no doubt aware the site has progressed through a number of owners. White the closure plan had reached a stage of technical completion, the financial assurance, which is an integral component, has never been received and hence the plan has never been formally completed. There have also been issues with respect to site impacts which are of concern to both federal and provinclat agencies principally related to acidic yard drainage to Graphite Lake and effects upon water quality and fish habitat. MOE initiated an order process to deal with this prior to IGI's acquisition of the site which subsequently became binding on IGI. Coincident with this process, MNDM has attempted to secure the closure plan, as required under the Mining Act, with no satisfactory response from the Company therefore the proposed order is under consideration. .../2 lor.{ JUL 03 '02, 16:11 FR MNDM MINES GROUP 705 670 5803 TO 917056462207 -2- The order process provides for several issues. FilsUy the closure plan is a requirement of the Mining Act prior to the resumption of production at the site. in the event the company is successful in securing financing the ordercan contain provision for sufficient time to complete the plan. If financing is not obtained to permit continuation of the operation, and in the ovent the company cannot meet their'obligations for the site, this order process must be followed before the Ministry can enterthe site to undertake rehabilitatIon measures. Since the site is in proximity to Algonquin Park and public concern hasbeen expressed concerning potential environmental impacts it isfelt it is prudent to continue with this course of action. With respect to-a resolution ot the committee. I think it is fair to suggest that we would consider the content in the same fashion as comments received under the E8R. If you require any further clarification or have additional inquiries ple-ase don't hesitate tn call. Yours truly, c/(;~ ahn Robertson Manager Rehabilitation, Inspection & Compliance /00 J ** TOTAL PAGE.03 ** THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA MUSKOKA AIRPORT IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING NO. MAI-3-2002 PLACE: Airport Terminal Building TIME: 1:00 p.m. DATE: June 20,2002 PRESENT: Committee Chair, J. Klinck; Members, H. Coupland, J. Brownlee. S. Martin, M. Stevenson, B. Glennie ABSENT: District Chair G. Adams, F. Coleman, J. Peake S. Northmore OFFICIALS PRESENT: M. French, Commissioner of Planning &Economic Development ALSO PRESENT: T. Weaver, Region of Huronia Environmental Services; J. Delaney, Public Works Co-ordinator-Waste Management; S. S. Faulkner, Airport Manager; S. Yeoman, Deputy Clerk CALL TO ORDER Committee Chair Klinck called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. POTENTIAL APPLICATION OF ORGANIC SOIL CONDITIONER TO THE AIRPORT PROPERTY Committee Chair Klinck introduced and welcomed Mr. Tom Weaver of Region of Huronia Environmental Services Limited (ROHES) and Mr. Jamie Delaney, Muskoka's Public Works Coordinator-Waste Management. The delegation advised that they were attending the meeting to present Information and answer questions respecting a proposal to apply organic soil conditioner on airport property during the summer of 2002. Mr. Weaver provided an overview of ROHES operations in other Ontario municipalities. He explained the process undertaken to treat waste from wastewater treatment facilities in order to create environmentally safe biosolids that can be applied to lands as soil conditioner. Mr. Weaver noted the benefits of applying treated organic wastes generated in Muskoka on areas of the airport that were selected for treatment and properly tested to meet all of the MOE restrictions and qutdelines. Messrs. Weaver and Delaney responded to various questions from committee members and staff. The delegation assured the Committee that because the biosolids are injected into the ground In the form of a liquid, there is limited odour. In addition, the quldeltnes for application are designed to prevent ground water contamination. The Committee was informed that Muskoka's contract with ROHES specifically outlines a process that meets MOE requirements for public education and consultation regarding the land application of biosolids. Following discussion it was agreed that a public meeting be held to inform property owners in the vicinity /10 of the application proposed to be undertaken. As a representative of the District of Muskoka, it was agreed that Mr. Delaney would assist Mr. Weaver in contacting the affected property owners and in monitoring of the application process. Moved by J. Brownlee and seconded by H. Coupland 3/2002 THAT the Airport Implementation Committee recommend to District Council that Region of Huronia Environmental Services Limited be authorized to apply organic soil conditioner to the airport property subject to a public information and consultation meeting, in accordance with the instructions of the Airport Manager and as approved by the Ministry of the Environment; AND FURTHER THAT the District Municipality ofMuskoka may cancel such authorization at any time. Carried. MINUTES Moved by M. Stevenson and seconded by B. Glenme 4/2002 THAT the minutes of the Muskoka Airport Implementation Committee meeting ofMarch 19, 2002 be confirmed. Carried. AIRCRAFT GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT PURCHASE Mr. Faulkner highlighted his May 22 nd report which recommends the purchase of a refurbished ground power unit to supply clients with reliable ground support infrastructure. Moved by B. Glennie and seconded by S. Martin 5/2002 THAT the Muskoka Airport Implementation Committee recommends to District Council that the purchase ofan Aircraft Appliances MG-1502 Ground Power Unit in the amount of $11,500 US (approximately $17,900 CON) be approved. Carried. AIRPORT MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Faulkner hlqhliqhted the Airport Manaqer's Report for the period ending June 10.2002. /II Traffic Report Mr. Faulkner hiqhliqhted the traffic report as of May 31, 2002. He noted that itinerant movements for the last 2 or 3 years have been fairly constant. Monthly local and itinerant movements were also illustrated by way of a chart. In response to Councillor Brownlee's question, Mr. Faulkner suggested local weather conditions as a likely reason for the decrease in local movements from April to the middle of June. Activity Report In addition to his report Mr. Faulkner advised that Lake Central Air Services has become the maintenance operator for Cloud Air Service which means that.a turbine maintenance shop will now be located at Muskoka Airport. The Airport Manager also reported that numerous favourable comments have been received regarding upgrades to the airport washroom facilities. Mr. Faulkner pointed out a discrepancy in a letter received from the Assistant Commissioner. Canada Customs and Revenue stating that customs services had resumed at Muskoka Airport as an Airport of Entry on January 2, 2002 when in fact it did not resume until April 2, 2002. The correspondence also mentions seven days a week coverage effective May 15-0ctober 15, when in fact this coverage did not commence until June ts". Mr. Faulkner advised that he will follow up on the correspondence in order to ensure the resumption of seven days a week customs services In May, 2003. Mr. Faulkner advised that he will be following up on information received from NAVCanada respecting the possibility of a Global Positioning System for Muskoka Airport. The project would be included in the 2003 capital budget. In response to Councillor Brownlee's question, Mr. Faulkner advised that operational relations with lessees at Muskoka Airport are favourable. CLOSED SESSION Moved by B. Glennie and seconded by M. Stevenson THAT we do now retire to Muskoka Airport Implementation Committee in closed session to discuss a property and personnel matters. Carried. Moved by M. Stevenson and seconded by B. Glennie THAT we do now rise from Muskoka Airport Implementation Committee in closed session and immediately reconvene in open session. Carried. INFORMATION AND OTHER ITEMS a) Verbal Update on Airport Marketing Plan Mrs. French circulated a base map prepared by G.I.S. staff which will be further developed to illustrate airport and surrounding properties, access points, sold and leased lands, present business locations, development potentials and constraints and other information in support of the Muskoka Airport business plan. She also advised that staff are in the process of reviewing and updating the 1996 Business Plan for Muskoka Airport, a copy of which will be provided to each committee member. Mrs. French distributed a Muskoka Tourism pamphlet promoting Muskoka as a venue for corporate meetings. Committee members discussed the merits and associated costs of advertisinq Muskoka Airport as a component of this promotional material. Also being investigated is marketing Muskoka Airport to the aviation community. Mrs. French stated that other options being explored to promote existing businesses and attract potential investment opportunities is enhancement of the airport's website and the development of an information package for individuals interested in land purchases or leases. Mrs. French and Mr. Faulkner were asked to explore these marketing options further and report back to the Committee. NEW BUSINESS Muskoka Airport Promotional Logo Mr, Faulkner distributed a reproduction of a Muskoka Airport insignia designed by airport staff which he suggested be used for promotional purposes such as on t-shirts and mugs. Councillor Brownlee volunteered to investigate the possibility of having a graphics professional design an insignia logo that would serve promotional purposes on a larger scale. ADJOURNMENT Moved by J. Brownlee and seconded by H. Coupland THAT the Muskoka Airport Implementation Committee adjourn to meet again Tuesday, July 9,2002 at 1:00 p.m. or at the call of the Chair. Camed. Chair, Muskoka Airport District Clerk Implementation Committee (13