THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA
PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA
Meeting No. PED 9-2002 Monday, June 17, 2002 3:00p.m. Boardroom, District Administration Building
Pages 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. DELEGATION
Wayne Simpson, Planning Consultant; Carolyn Tripp, Planner, Town of Gravenhurst - Re: Muskoka Wharf
3. ASSIGNED FUNCTIONS
1-13 a} Approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 25 to the Official Plan of the Town of Huntsville (Heritage Policies)
Recommendation
THAT the Planning and Economic Development Committee recommend that District Council modify and approve, as modified, Amendment No. 25 (Heritage Policies) to the Official Plan of the Town of Huntsville, which was adopted by Town By-law 2001-137P, as detailed in the staff report dated June 5, 2002.
14-19 4. ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD
Recommendation
THAT the District Municipality of Muskoka requests that the Government of Ontario review the Ontario Municipal Board's mandate as it relates to the land use planning appeal process, municipal planning policy and decision-making under the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board Act;
AND THAT this resolution be circulated to:
The Honourable Ernie Eves, Premier of the Province of Ontario The Honourable Chris Hodgson, Minister of Municipal Affairs Mr. Norm Miller, MPP, Parry Sound - Muskoka All mayors in the District Municipality of Muskoka The Association of Municipalities of Ontario PED 9-2002 - 2 - June 17, 2002
20-27 5. MUSKOKA WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Recommendation
None, for the information of Committee.
6. INFORMATION AND OTHER ITEMS
28 a) The Muskokan Article entitled Watershed Council seeks public input and balance
7. NEW BUSINESS
8. ADJOURNMENT
Recommendation
THAT the Planning and Economic Development Committee adjourn to meet again Monday, July 8. 2002 at 2:00p.m. or at the call of the Chair. 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. 25 to the Official Plan of the Town of Huntsville (Heritage Policies) Submission for Approval by District Council
DATE: June 5,2002
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning and Economic Development Committee recommend that District Council modify and approve, as modified, Amendment No. 25 (Heritage Policies) to the Official Plan of the Town of Huntsville, which was adopted by Town By-law 2001-137P, as detailed in the staff report dated June 5, 2002.
ORIGIN
The Town of Huntsville adopted Amendment No. 25 to the Official Plan of the Town of Huntsville by By-law 2001-137P, and has submitted it for approval by District Council.
ANALYSIS
Purpose of Amendment No. 25
The Town of Huntsville Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee has led an initiative over the past couple of years to develop heritage policies for the Town of Huntsville. As a result of these efforts, policies were developed which provide for the conservation of significant heritage resources and Amendment No. 25 would include these policies in the Town's Official Plan.
The purpose of Amendment No. 25 to the Official Plan of the Town of Huntsville is to provide greater direction as to the cultural heritage resources throughout the municipality and to provide for their conservation.
A copy of Amendment No. 25 is attached for reference. -2-
Circulation
Muskoka staff circulated the Amendment to various agencies and parties for comments in accordance with the Planning Act and associated Regulations. None of the agencies responding to the circulation indicate 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. 25 on November 13, 2001. No major concerns with the Amendment were raised during this public meeting.
Planning Documents
Provincial Comprehensive Set ofPolicy Statements:
The Provincial Policy Statement contains specific policies addressing the cultural heritage resources of the province. These policies are contained in Section 2.5 of the Provincial Policy Statement and Section 2.5.1 states "significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes will be conserved".
Amendment No. 25 would address this policy as the Amendment recognizes the importance of the Town's cultural heritage resources and identifies those as being bulldlnqs and structural remains of historical and architectural value, and human-made structures, heritage conservation districts or landscapes of identified historic and scenic interest. The Amendment identifies specific significant built heritage resources in an Appendix and provides for their conservation.
District Official Plan:
As this is a general policy amendment, Amendment No. 25 would affect all lands within the Town of Huntsville and thus various designations under the Muskoka Official Plan.
Section F of the Muskoka Official Plan contains policies addressing significant heritage areas. Specifically, Sections F.81 to F.84 address sites of historical significance and Sections H.88 and H.89 address significant scenic vistas. Appendix G to the Muskoka Official Plan also identifies historically significant structures within Muskoka.
Amendment No. 25 would appear to conform to the historical and scenic vistas policies of the Muskoka Official Plan and as envisioned by the Muskoka Plan provide for more detailed policy for their protection. It is noted, however, that the sites identified in the Appendix of the Amendment includes two (2) designated heritage sites that are not identified in Appendix G of the Muskoka Official Plan. As such, Appendix G of the Muskoka Official Plan will be updated accordingly.
Local Official Plan:
As Amendment No. 25 is a general policy amendment, it would be applicable to all land use designations within the Town.
6/ - 3 -
Amendment No. 25 adds additional goals and objectives to the Official Plan for cultural heritage resources that complement the existing goals and objectives of the Plan. The Amendment then implements these goals and objectives through the establishment of policies within the Implementation section of the Official Plan. As such, the policies of the Local Official Plan have been considered in the formulation of the proposed Amendment and Amendment No. 25 would conform with the existing policies of the Town of Huntsville Official Plan.
Modifications
In reviewing Amendment No. 25, it is noted that the definition of cultural heritage resources includes "archaeological sites", however the Amendment contains no specific policies regarding these nor does the Amendment address areas of archaeological potential. This has been discussed with Town staff, and it has been agreed that policies related to development in areas of archaeological potential should be considered on a more comprehensive basis as part of the Town's Official Plan Review. As such, it is recommended that the Amendment be modified to delete reference to "archaeological sites". Specifically, it is proposed that the Amendment be revised as follows:
1. That Section 5.1 of Amendment No. 25 be modified by deleting the words "archaeological sites," in the second line of the second paragraph.
Respectfully submitted, AMENDMENT NO. 25 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE AMENDMENT NUMBER 25
TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE
TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE
HERITAGE POLICIES
JULY, 2001
I, Kathleen GIlchrl8t, Clerk of the CorporatIon of The Town.. of HUnl8Vlli hBlllby. certify this Ise true ."d CO~ co~~2z ,: '1fz:~:'&<1- -to -l w~~ conforms totho olioma! document and has not beIln altered In any Wir/. Dated atHuntsvillllthis a day~ I\lp v c.., be'.... 20..21.· .1L~0.u~. Kathleen Gilchrist, Clerk AMENDMENT NUMBER25
TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE
TOWN OF HUNTSVllLE
SECTION 1. TITLE AND COMPONENTS OF THE AMENDMENT
1.1 Section 5 herein shall constitute Amendment Number 25 to the Official Plan ofthe TownofHuntsville and shall be entitled "Heritage Policies".
1.2 Sections 1,2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 hereindo not constitute part ofthe formal Amendment, but provide general information respecting theAmendment.
SECTION 2. LANDS SUBJECT TO THE AMENDMENT
2.1 The proposed "Heraage.Policies" are intended to provide greater direction as to the cultural heritage resources throughout the municipality. This amendment therefore applies to all lands within the boundaries ofthe Town ofHuntsville.
SECTION 3. BACKGROUND AND BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT
3.1 The Huntsville Official Plan supportsthe identification and recognition of cultural heritage resources. The Plandoes not include detailed policies that incorporate current legislative provisions ofthe Ontario Heritage Act.
3.2 The Huntsville Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) Jed an initiative over the past two years to develop community acceptable heritage policies for Huntsville. Through the commitment of the LACAC, policies were developed whichprovide for conservation of significant heritage resources.
3.3 Appendix "4" ofthe policies provide tOr continued identification of cultural heritage resources withoutformal amendment to the Official Plan.
SECTION 4. PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT
4.1 In accordance with the general provision ofSection A 1.5.2. ofthe Official Plan ofthe Town ofHuntsville, Amendment Number 25 serves the tbllowing pmposes::
a) To form part ofthe continued review andupdatingofthe Plan to meet current localand Provincial directives, and; 1 b) To amend theOfficial Plan by incorporating policies respecting the conservation ofsignificant cultural heritage resources.
SECTION 5. THE AMENDMENT
The Official Plan for the Town ofHuntsville is hereby amended as follows:
5.1 Add to Section A the following text:
2.11 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES
Council recognizes the importance ofcuhural heritage resources within the municipality. Therefore, Council will encourage theidentification, restoration, protection, maintenance, and enhancement ofculturalheritage resources. All new development permitted bythe land-use policies and designations oftbis Plan shall have regard for cultural heritage resources and sball, wherever possible, incorporatethese resources into any new development plans.
Cultural heritage resources include, but are not restricted to, .archaeologicalsites, buildings and structural remains ofbistorical and architectural value;and human-made structures, heritage conservation Districts or landscapes ofidentified historic and scenic interest, as shown in Appendix "4".
2.11.1 GOAL
To ensure that cultural heritage resources in the municipality are managed in a manner which petpetuatestheir functional use while maintaining their heritage value and benefit to the community.
2.11.2 OBJECTIVES
In orderto achieve this goal, Council:
i) will prevent the demolition, destruction or inappropriate alteration ofculturalheritage resources within its legislative mandate;
ii) may encourage development adjacent to cultural heritage resources to beofan appropriatescale and character;
iii) will encourage and foster public awareness, participation and involvement in the conservation ofcultural heritage resources;
2 - iv) will facilitate research into the culturalheritageofthe Town and identifY methods for its preservation, conservation and enhancement.
5.2 Add to Section0, the following text:
5. CULTURALIJERITAGE Iqi~OURCE§
5.1 ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT
5.1.1 TheOntario Heritage Act will be utilized to conserve, protect and enhance the cultural heritage resources in the municipality through the designation ofindividual properties.
5.2 LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY COMMI'ITEE
5.2.1 A LocalArchitectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) may be established pursuant to Section 28 ofthe Ontario Heritage Act to advise and assist Council on matters related to PartsIV and V ofthe Act. Inaddition, the LACAC may be requested to assist Council onother matters ofcuhural heritage conservation.
5.2.2 Pursuantto the OntarioHeritage Act, and in consultation with the LACAC, Council may, by by-law:
(i) designate properties to be ofhistoric and/or architectural value or interest;
(ii) define the municipality, or any area or areas within the municipality as an areato beexamined for designationas a heritage conservationdistrict, and;
(fu) designate the municipality, or any area or areas within the municipality, as a heritage conservation district.
5.2.3 TheMunicipal Clerk shallmaintain a register ofall property designated under Part IV ofthe OntarioHeritage Act. In addition, the municipality or its LACAC should maintain an inventory ofall propertiesidentifiedas beingofarchitectural and historical interest.
5.2.4 Huntsville LACAC shallbeconsuhedon all issuesconcerning said properties. 3
67 5.3 HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
DEFINITION:
A Heritage District maybe: a) An area sUlTounding several architeetura1ly and/or historically significant building sites and structures; b) An historical1ocation and/or significance ofsetting, that reflects the historical heritage ofthe community.
5.3.1 Prior to the designation ofa Heritage Conservation District or Districts, Council may:
i) pass a by-law defining an area or areas to be examined fur future designation as a Heritage Conservation District(s);
ii) preparea study for the area or areas to determine the feasibility ofdesignation, the delineation ofthe district boundaries and an evaluation ofthearea's historic character.
Inaddition, thestudy conducted should be prepared in accordance with Ontario's Heritage Conservation District Guidelines prepared by the Ministry ofCitizenship, Cuhure and Recreation As well, public participation will be encouraged in the preparation ofthe study,.and shall be required prior to passage ofa by-law designating a Heritage ConservationDistrict.
5.4 MUNICIPAL AUTlIORITY
5.4.1. Council and appropriate committees shall undertake a leadership role in restoring, rehabilitating, enhancing and maintainingcultural heritage resources owned by the municipality as examples ofthe proper stewardship ofsuchresources in fulfi1bnent ofheritage objectivesand policies. As feasible,relevant by-laws, programs and publicworks undertakenby themunicipality will conformto and further the heritage resources management policies ofthis plan (e.g, TownHall).
5.4.2. Council shall enhance the conservationofthe municipality's cultural heritage resources by endeavouring to identify and protect building interiors ofsignificant heritage merit. 4 5.4.3. Inall areas, Council sball ensure that care istakento preserve vegetative cover ofheritage significance andlor scenic value. Existing landmark treesand hedge lines should bean essential consideration in the design ofany development. The preservation oftrees along streetsand roads sball beencouraged by Council, except where removal is necessarybecause ofdisease damage, to ensure public health and safety or where alternate re-vegetation is appropriate.
5.4.4. Council shall ensure that it has accurate and adequate arehitectmal, stmctural and economic information to determine the feasibility of rehabilitation and re-use versus demolition when considering applications to demolish- designated or identified heritage buildings.
5.4.5. The municipality may adopt a SignBy-law pursuant to Chapter 302, Section 354, ofthe Municipal Act as amended to control the visual impact ofadvertising and sign design and/or placement on designated cultural heritage resources. Where the Sign By-law is in effect, the approval ofCouncil shall be requiredbefore any sign is erected or altered.
5.4.6. Community improvement plans and programs shall encourage the preservation, rehabilitation, renewal and re-use ofheritage resources.
5.5 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
5.5.1 Where possible, new development in older established residential areas ofhistoric, architectural or landscape value shall be encouraged to develop in a manner consistent with the overall character ofthese areas.
5.5.2 Residential infill in areas ofhistoric architectural or landscape merit shall be sensitive to the existing scale andpatternofthose areasand consistent with existing landscape and streetscape qualities.
5.5.3 Where development is anticipated in an area with significant cultural heritage resources, an analysis and mitigation measures will berequired to ensure that any adverse impacts on cuhural heritage resources aremJD1mJ•. ized•
5
69 5.5.4 In considering applications for waterftont development, Council shall ensure that significant cultural heritage resources both on and off'sbore are not adversely affected. When necessary, Council will require satisfactory measures to mitigate any negative impacts on suchresources.
5.5.5 A cultural heritage resource assessment may be required for any lands to be subdivided. The assessment and conservationofany significant cultural heritage resources identified through the assessment may bea condition ofany consent or subdivision approval or agreement.
5.5.6 Regard shall be given to cultural heritage resources in considering the establishment ofnew areas for Mineral Extraction. When necessary, Council may require satisfactory measures to mitigate any negative impacts on significant cultural heritage resources.
5.5.7 Commercial, Industrial and Institutions development shall have regard for and provide measures to mitigate any negative impacts on significant cultural heritage resources.
5.6 MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE
5.6.1 Council shall have regard for cultural heritage resources in the undertaking ofmunicipal public works. When necessary, Council will require satisfactory measuresto mitigate any negative impacts onsignificant heritage resources.
5.6.2 Utility and telecommunication companies shall be encouraged to place equipment and devices in locations that do not detract nom the visual character ofsignificantcultural heritage resources and do not have a negative impact onthe architectural integrity of those resources.
5.6.3 Council shallhave regard for cultural heritage resources, especially relating to the character oflandscapes, streetscapes, tree lines. bridges and the prevailing pattern ofsettlement, when considering the CODSttUction ofnew roads and road improvements, including realignment, road widening, and other servicing needs. When necessary, Council will require measures be adopted to mitigate any De8ativeimpacts on significant heritage resources.
6
10 5.6.4 Themunicipality, whereverdesirable and economicallyfeasible, maypurchase or otherwiseacquire an interest in land to effect the implementation oftheheritage policies ofthisPlan in accordance with theprovisions ofthe Planning Act, the MunicipalAct, or any other Act.
5.6.5 Council shall seek the acquisitionofeasements on propertieswith heritage significance in order to assume the preservationofthese properties inperpetuity.
5.6.6 Council shall ensure that each municipalityowned heritage resource which is sold, leased or transferred to anotherowner or lessee is subject to a heritageeasement agreement,whichwill guarantee its preservation, maintenance and use in a manner which respects its heritage significance, and when appropriate, subject to a heritage restoration agreement.
5.7 FUNDING ASSISTANCE
5.7.1 Council mayutilize availablegovernment or non-government funding assistance programsto assist in the implementation of cultural heritage conservationpolicies. Council, where appropriate, shall co-operatewith other levelsofgovernmentas well as private agenciesandindividuals in theconservationof cultural heritage resources in the municipality. Councilshall co ordinate its heritage plans and programs with heritageplans and programs ofsenior levelsofgovernment. Councilmayestablish a Municipal Trust Fund to facilitate financial assistance from public and/or private donationsmade towards heritageconservation efforts.
5.3 Add to the Appendices:
APPENDIX 4 - CULIURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES
SECTION 6. IMPLEMENTATION
6.1 Thechanges to the Official Plan ofthe Town ofHuntsville, as described in theamendment, sball be implemented in accordance withthe specific provisions oCtbeparent OfficialPlan. .. SECTION 7. INTEPRETATION
7.1 The provision ofSection AlA. oftheOfficial Plan ofthe Townof Huntsville, as amended, shall applywith respect to theinterpretation of the Amendment. 7
71 B.ppeJU01~ tf - 4 Uau. AAL HE I NAME OF BUILDING ADDRESS DATE BUILT PRESENTOWNER REASON FOR DESIGNATION Architectural Historical Hart House 24 King-Street, Huntsville C1894 Roberta Alexander X X Proudfoot House 34Chaffey Streel, Hunlsvllle C1895 Lake Vernon Realty . X X Huntsville Town Hall 37 Main51reel cast,Huntsville 1926 Town of Huntsville X X Howland House 17Church street, HuntsVIlle -a18lJ8 ~ev. EriC Sisel X X The Forester 72Matn street East, Huntsville fOOl Elizabeth Rice Aben X TheLocks Pl. Lot13 &-'4,Cone. 12 1873-5 Town OfHuntsville Pt.Lot 13& 14,Cone. 13, Brunei Twp, X Butcher-Rumney House Dlstrtct ROad 10, PortSydney C1878 Philip Rumney ~ Gormley, Ontario X X Former Bandsnell Anglo Canadian ~eather 12Susan Street, Huntsville C1917 Eleanor stone Company Concert Band Joyce Irving X Huntsville station Stallon Road 1924 Via Rail (Federal Designation Only) X X SUsted FairBUilding Pt.Lot 1S, Cone. 9, Sttstecl Twp. 1890 Stlsted Agricultural SOCIety X X Purser s Cabin PI.lot 14,PI.Lo115, Cone. " Chaffey Twp. 1909 Town of HuntSVille X X 51 Andrews Presbyterian Church High Street, HuntSVille 1898 Presb.tt8l'lan Ctlurch of canada Rev. Raye Brown X X 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: Ontario Municipal Board DATE: June 6,2002 RECOMMENDATION THAT the District Municipality of Muskoka requests that the Government of Ontario review the Ontario Municipal Board's mandate as it relates to the land use planning appeal process, municipal planning policy and decision-making under the Planning act and the Ontario Municipal Board Act; AND THAT this resolution be circulated to: The Honourable Ernie Eves, Premier of the Province of Ontario The Honourable Chris Hodgson, Minister of Municipal Affairs Mr. Norm Miller, MPP, Parry Sound - Muskoka All Mayors in the District Municipality of Muskoka The Association of Municipalities of Ontario ORIGIN A number of municipalities have recently expressed concerns about the role of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in decision-making for land use planning matters. ANALYSIS Municipalities that have recently expressed concern about the role of the OMB include the City of Misslssauga, City of Woodstock and the City of Oakville. Resolutions from these municipalities are attached for background information purposes. The Township of Muskoka Lakes is also in the process of considering a resolution that will request a review of the OMB's mandate. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) has established a Planning Task Force for the purpose of reviewing the role and process of the OMB with a view to how it can be improved. It is expected that the AMO will have a position on this matter by late summer, 2002. As part of the Planning Act Review and the implementation of a Development Permit System, the Planning and Economic Development Committee identified the need for greater local control over decisions related to minor planning matters such as minor variances. In September, 1998, the Town of Gravenhurst circulated a resolution to Ontario Municipalities asking the Province of Ontario to make amendments to the OMB appeal process and/or the Planning Act because of potential abuse of the process. A number of factors have contributed to the need for a review of the role and function of the OMB. Municipal Concerns that need to be addressed include: a) The excessive time and cost required to prepare for and attend OMB Hearings. b) The need to maintain local control over decisions related to minor planning matters such as site plans and minor variances. c) The need for the Board to give greater weight to community values expressed through local planning policy. d) Abuse of the appeal process by applicants who file an appeal to the OMB prior to completion of the municipal review and decision-making process. e) The need for screening process to deal with appeals that are frivolous, vexatious or for the purpose of delay. f) Excessive delays that result from OMB appeals and the need to streamline the appeals process. Of primary importance to Muskoka residents is the need for the OMB to have regard for the cumulative impact of development proposals which do not conform to the community based policies expressed through Muskoka and Area planning policies. Some municipalities have experienced situations where the local planning decisions have been overturned because the Board has approved development based upon site-specific merit even though the development does not comply with local planning policy. Brian Whitehead, MA. MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Services 7# RESOLUTION 0128·2002 ,. ClcJ0Eted I~~ Council of The Corporalion of lhe City of Misslssauga al ils meeting on May 8. by 2002 ~ Moved by: P. Mullin Secondedby: C. Corbasson -=--- WHEREAS municipalities invest heavily In eld~nsive land use planning and pUblicconsultation processes regarding OHicial Plan policies and Z,onll1gand rely on It",cse processes and resultant policies and regulations to cupnor: VClf\OUS municipal objectives and gUide bolh public and private Inveslment decisions; AND WHF.Rr::AS lhe Ontario Munrcipal Board (OMB) has power to overrule decisions of a democrati.callyelected body; decisions Ihat were made lol/owing an extensive municipal review and pUblic/agency consultation process and its Jurisdictionto ovar-ride local decrsicn mal AND WHEREAS while Municipal Councils me elected by and are directly accountable to the electorate, the members of Ihe OMB are appolnted by the Government of ontanoand have no direct accountability back to the electorate; AND WHEREI\S the original intent of the OMS was to be a check against bad or biassed planmng but has grown into a body thol may ovarlurn sound planning decisions and reshape communities in a manner that is contrary to their will and vision; AND WtiERCAS the Corporation of the City 01Mississauga spends Significant resources In starr time,legal fees and other related costs (approximately $1,000,000.00 in ~Q01 alono and have escalated every year from approximately $500.000.00 five years ago, and have alre<1dy excoeded $500.000.00 for 2002) to representlhe Corporation at Cases before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB); AND WHEREAS toenl decision making under Iho Municipal Act is not sUbject to appeal while many minor planning maltors, suc:has site plans, minor variances and eensenls, may be referred to the OMB but should remain at the local munlcipallevc::l; AND WHEREAS there is a desire to restore local control over planning by Involving citizens and ensuring decisions ara made by d\!mOalltically elected offiCials: AND WHEREAS the Govornment of Ontario cannct expect 'smart growth' to occur in an environment where local planning and years of public Input and debate can be oYel1umedby an appointed body \\rilh often little knOWledge of me munlcipahties whose futuro they are shaping; AND WHEREAS municipalitie:; arc concerned with the auility of applicants to use the planning process to circumvent municipal gov~rnments' review and decision-making responsibility; and proceed to tho OMB before the municipality has Imd a reasonable opportunily to evaluate and completa a technical review of such applications. and In some instances. prior to tho elected representatives considering thlt matter; AND W.IEREAS many applicants see an appeal to the OMB 6the fastest way to obtain approvals for their project and arc increasingly refernng mailers to the Board 93scd on tho municipality's failure to act within the prescribed 90 day limo frame. which is tantamount to an abuse of process in that it robs thl:! municipality or the opportunity to undertake pl;~nning within its own community and denies concerned residentsJIandowners an adequate opportunity to air concerns before their elected officials by forCll1g thRm Into the OMB realm; AND WHEREAS OM6 reforrols then become a rnunicipal staff priority. furlher delaying 'legitimate' applicants who are IryinR to worl( conslructively wllh the municipality; AND WHEREAS OM~'l procedures and protocol are predominantly legalistic In nature, favouring professionals but uilflcull lor non professicnal participants to understand and/or participate in hearings given the lime, cost and complexily 01hearings; AND WHEREAS in a recent Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court decision, It was determlned \hat the OMB had overstepped its aUlhority in its ruling that a Cily or Toronto Orrlcial Plan Amendment relating to the demolition or 1055 of rental units was invalid DIld lIIe9al. thereby confirming that the OMB's jurisdiction does not extend to the legislative competence of municipalities in the exorcrse of their powers under the Planning Act; AND WHEREAS Dill 161, a Bill to Abolish \he Ontario Municipal Board was introduced and received first reading by the Provinco on December 12,2001; AND Wl-tEREAS a raview or the role of tho OMS should be an urgent consideration for the Government of Ontario; AND WHEHEAS the Council of the Corporalion of the City or Pickering, on February 4. 2002 passed a resolution urgin!1 the Govemment of Ontano to remove or. at Ihe least, radically reduce the role of the Onlarlo Municlpat Board back to a pure check against bad or biassed planning; AND WHEREAS Ihe Association of Munlclpalilie:; of Ontario was requested by the same resolution 10apply meaningfUl and lusting pressure 10 dissolve or radically alter lhe Onlario Mumcipal Board; AND WHEREflS 11\0 appropnate rolt'! for the OMS should bo to only address mailers of Provincial Policy, and approval of olfiCi NOW THEREFORE LE rlT BE RESOLVED THAT the Councilor the Corporation of the City of Mississauga requests Ihe Govcrnrnp,nt of Ontario to reviewthe rolu ot the OMB, the Planning Act and the ontario Municipal Board Act such thatonly mllJor plannIng molters which addre~s mallors of Provincial Policyand approval of oflieial plans may be r;-fc,7"d [0 }~Ie o~la; end fHAT 'hi:; ResolutiO~~:;~!:~f.")ted10 all municipalities In Onmrlo and all Members of F ro IrlCIDI r orr,nmt.."nt. I n.h lI'uurr1/'lJ l.t••",... ,cIt'1 WQtft,.r L·Ult.·.. _"I.IU: ...... id ...... It 'Ilt Mrl.u.Dr..- -""Mr'J.HI-. :lnd dn" tl.all OFFICE OF THEDIRECfOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CityHall P.O. Box 40 500 Dwidas Slreet cityof Woodstock, ON N4S7WS Woodstock. Telephone(.519) .539·1291 Fax(.519) S39·nOS May 6,2002 The Township ofMuskoka Lakes P.O. Box 129 Port Carling, Ontario POB lJO Dear SirlMadam Re: Support Resolution - Ontario Municipal Board The Woodstock City Council approved the following resolution at their meeting held on May 2, 2002, and requests that this resolution be presented to your Council for consideration and endorsement. That the following resolution passed on April l~, 2002 be circulated to all municipalities in Ontario: ",4 "That whereas a number ofconcerned Ontario municipalities have questioned the relevance ofthe Ontario MuniciPQI Board; And whereas the County Official Plan has set out locally derived planning policies; Be it resolved that the City ofWoodstock requests the Government ofOntario to review the mandate and operation ofthe Ontario MuniciPQI Board; Andfurther that Government ofOntario be requested to ask the Association of Municipalities ofOntario to establish a taskforce to make a recommendation on whether an adjudicating body is required and ifrequired the composition ofthe adjudicating body; • , And further that this motion be sent to the Association ofMunicipalities of Ontario, MPP Chris Hodgson and MPP Ernie Hardeman. .. Council is seeking the consideration ofyour municipal Council regarding this issue. Should your Council support this request, we ask that a copy be forwarded to this office. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Yours truly, L" Louise Gartshore, City Clerk • City ofWoodstock /m/f The Corporation of the Town of Oakville 1225 Trafalgar Road, Oakville, ON L6J 5A6 Telephone: 905-845-8801 Fax: 905-815-2025 To: All Municipalities in Ontario - Attention: Mayors and Chairs Subject: The Town of Oakville's Position on the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) The Council of the Corporation of the Town of Oakville at its Council Meeting held on April 2, 2002 approved the following resolution: WHEREAS in a review of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) by the Greater Toronto Services Board (GTSB), it was found that 15 GTA municipalities spent over $20 million on cases relating to policy issues and new large-scale urban area designations over the last five years; and WHEREAS the Corporation of the Town of Oakville dedicates significant resources in staff time, legal fees and other related costs to represent the corporation at cases before the OMB; and WHEREAS OMB members should be appointed for a six-year term to enhance their independence from Government without being encumbered by concerns about re appointment opportunities; and WHEREAS the Planning Act was amended in the mid 90's to allow developers to appeal matters to the OMB prior to local elected representatives considering the matter and often before public statutory meetings occur; and WHEREAS the OMB has very broad powers to overturn local planning decisions and it is therefore appropriate for the Government to re-visit the question of what matters can be appealed to the OMB with a view to giving greater deference to decisions by local representatives; and WHEREAS the Government of Ontario cannot expect "smart growth" to occur in an environment where local planning and years of public input and debate can be overturned when developers force expedited hearings and OMB members may have little appreciation for local planning concerns and the community's vision for the future; WHEREAS the Town of Caledon report on the OMB states that "as an appointed tribunal, the OMB should not be determining growth patterns of the GTA" and notes that, "municipal taxpayers, after paying for exhaustive planning policy processes, have to pay an unacceptable price to defend their decisions in the OMB arena"; and WHEREAS the Town of Caledon report further states "There is no evidence, at least in the opinion of municipalities, to suggest that the $20 million plus yields a higher quality of life and a better-planned GTA than would have been yielded by the decision-making of the elected municipal councils, following the exhaustive planning processes and legal requirements that we now follow". 77 NOW THEREFORE the Corporation of the Town of Oakville urges the Government of Ontario to conduct a review of the mandate of the Ontario Municipal Board to consider the following matters: • Whether the resources of the Board area appropriate and adequate • Whether the length of the current appointments of board members is appropriate to ensure good decisions by the members • Whether the mandate of the Board can be narrowed to give greater deference to local decisions and policy-making while protecting land owners from the possibility of decisions made purely of expedience or not in good faith so as to serve as a check against bad or unsound planning; and THAT the Association of Municipalities of Ontario be requested to act upon the report done by the Town of Caledon, work done by the GTSB and requests of municipalities by applying meaningful and lasting pressure to dissolve or radically alter the OMB; and THAT the Leader of the Official Opposition be requested to respond back to the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering as to their position on this issue; and THAT the Council of the Regional Municipality of Halton be requested to endorse this motion; and THAT this motion be circulated to: • Ernie Eves, Premier Elect of the Province of Ontario • David Young, MPP, Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs • Chris Hodgson, MPP, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing • Cam Jackson, MPP, Minister of Citizenship and Minster Responsible for Seniors • Elizabeth Witmer, Environment Minister • Jim Flaherty, MPP, Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance • Ted Chudleigh, MPP • Gary Carr, MPP • All area Mayors and Chairs • The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Cathie L. Bost, Town Clerk 1ff THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT -*------70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE. ONTARIO, P1L1N3 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: Judi Brouse Director of Policy and Programs RE: Muskoka Water Management Plan DATE: June 14, 2002 RECOMMENDATION For information purposes only. ORIGIN The Ministry of Natural Resources invited key stakeholders to an initial meeting to introduce the process of developing a Watershed Management Plan for the Muskoka River Watershed. ANALYSIS In 1999, a government and waterpower industry task force recommended thatformal Water Management Plans be developed to ensure proper water management planning on a watershed basis. Water Management Plans are intended to address water levels and flows in order to ensure waterpower resources are managed in an economically and ecologically sustainable way. At the meeting on May 29, 2002, the Ministry of Natural Resources reviewed the need for a plan to be developed and the public input process to be followed. The Ministry indicated that unlike other watersheds in Ontario, water management in the Muskoka Watershed is currently governed by the Hackner-Holden agreement. This is an agreement between the Province and the hydro producers that dates back to 1940. It establishes rule curves and sets operational limits for dams and other structures on the watershed. Among other matters, the proposed Water Management Plan will review and update this agreement. The Watershed Management Plans are not meant to address the broader issue of water quality. Watershed Management Plans consider how dam operations affect the entire river system from a water level and water flow perspective. The Ministry of Natural Resources owns and operates 39 of the 40 dam structures on the Muskoka River and will be the lead party in developing a Water Management Plan for the watershed. In general, the program will address a wide range of economic, environmental, operational and social values before making recommendations on any modifications to current water management practices on the Muskoka River Watershed. 19 Staff will continue to monitor this program and provide additional reports to Committee as appropriate. Respectfully submitted, ~:~CIP'RPP Director of Policy and Programs 8D Background Information Document Spring 2002 to Spring 2003 tg/ [.••"... ,,"""...... J..""·..'"'.,~"'"" ....L ; \ [ i ~ '\ ~,J i: '$ .: ~:.: _.~ t ••l' ~,~:~7~~', a 4 " ~."., a 12 ...... ~\ ~.J\... r~' t~;;:t ,! ~"'L.DIIl1' \...... "... " ·'~~'i;;~,"··'"/" !I I ••••. •• •.•• --;;;;;::;.!~,;,:: ' . I"h .- ...}.....•:.'..,.~. ",",~I } , ':'.:(I;iJ11 l-,!R~I;r,\ ~ i ~:~,',:..;:;,::.:: 1 :*·l~"·. I ": t f~! JlI'~•.._. _._ .. -->r- ~'~':I'li\\,,' '\I.~ ...... '10.l~··"""""-1/i!J;"-'I)O • .•i . ",...... " ...... ; ~:.••••: ··········t.~~"f'- .••• -. """.,.,?~ : : , . ·;·:/·.. ·•····· .;: : :,... ( .....' ( ::: .' ....; :~' -,~ ...... ~. ~ .. ". ~'"' .. . fillS ""i , OomWolllll.ill ..•••••• ~L'.lmllrwtl':.~,...".,,1, nil., 'd : "... - ,.. ::S'li'" ,::: r;,~'T!j rrf T ~~.~! ...... a l~I~B C;J-lli' Or.t?::jlIH'.:i. ':.. .: ~~~ ~ D ~,~UF: Deu . I~L(1-GWilJk(f"; ...... • I)P-G CoYl ·_~Jt1;J.O'Jml • li~'{I,,»-:.2!rl:· f~::;.u • -rt)'~!:yJ!i':l:tl: l~ft'j"ii1inlJ S"titi{lr:':- i:I~:::j~ f'jlifi' >jq:.<)rJ!Jcrl • :~,,11 :t7:~J)I::: 1~;:-.;:rj'Tjn:!J ~mlilfi:: \jl'ri:.lti.-.,;l P:Ji'l'tf o ·l,JI)if:i:.'(f;;C l~i;J'!(.;f!\t!9:~;j5!li:r;'::1IQ;rrtlJlji::l ?'r~~r ~1::l.i';.i:::m . ,,).,-J River Basin, Dams and Power Stations, and Hydrometeorologic Stations MU$koke RIVer Water M1IDllgemant PlanBackground InlQnnation Document ·tl~ ,~ ::'j;£;j\~1 Ani.l i_:':st'-'lm~: :~!Jjl'\-i \ :,';i;ll~! ~~)<.rr ~.l Carr;r,t~: ii£1,7'\fJ Ur;!t;(,J!',I(,~j',j ~ll',r,ll:;i ,~;~mk:;IJt'l')l', ~'l ,ir:JtlIPtli'J ~r.11:ljl Mr"-':(I'Io'o.! N!ft~1 ,:'aJHyP~\;:r ji",~J!1-:i1;\' :qIfMliI~>:4M A\ ,ill..-.....~ 550 '" i 000 '. I' f~ Iorut Brai~c"Musk~ jlrr ( IUY. ",1. ff;//# Muskoka Sub·W.ters,bedBeundaries andProfi,I,.s Muskoka River Water M.ans,gement Pfan Backgroundtnformation Document ~=a, .~. WANOUroN AssooiateaAcres. & __;G,J Ontario rit~;jl~;'-] Dam L~\XI' I -B;;;;-;;i~-J .. AowGa~g& l.liUI~ 11.usoCreek l"lxel [ l.ake o A AUIom;l\lc Wlllijl( 1lI~.1 G~ [;;.;~~ [/.!.] '.. ·.. [~ A ~~-~;:.,., I ~--""" ....._.. , I ;;;;;:;..-.. . "J' --_._-- -_..."--",,."J [~~~~~ . ~(l1IDlf, 1ir~~"~i~: [ Clcl'"arwdt4l'r __•__ SnIOM& __.._._...... ,,, ",._-".,_ ..~.." .... I ---L¥J:------OXSflflgue River [~~;:~~~~] • 1'011 SVdooy Dam A Baysville Dam , ....."" ..... _ ...".1 ...- . , . .,....] ,"'orlliBranch Muskoku River Sou/II Brallch MU,I'ktlb./ Riw:r [..~~!~~:~~:" ,,\kf'I,'r~m . j ~ l...Ikt' High falls Mathias Falls y- _.~~:.~~~"-_ .'''J [. . Wilson Falls Tre!llewey FailS Ulkn; Rossea« ,:Ii Joseph f'ort Carl!og Dam BroollbIldge Falls HaIlna Cilute HollowRiva .. . .. ,ltUii!!~~~:_._.. _ A .-..Iii L.akr MII;l';tOI.~1 K~!(i8lil1la South falls ,----,£tiktr Baja Darrrs '; GII1I -: , -. Ragged Rapids Moon Darn Big Eddy I-KiI!'iI:Og Lakr --_·_·_·----1 Co-l/orneUIU 1:1 MuskokaR!iver System FlowCha'rt [..•• ~.,_,,~r_" ••__· ..._.... '__'-, _ T .. . Muskoka River Water Management Plan Background Information Document 11"a!,,\' Lake .. MlniilfY 01 _----- Georgian Hay Natural ~~ Acres & ® RHOUlllfi Ontario Associateo .., _ 2003 1 J F M Al Step One I 1. loonlilv / Confirm I Data ffequlrements i 2 Initiation of Environmental / I Engineering Data Collection I 3. Preliminary Usl01 Issues and Concerns !t'--" 4. Public Consultation (1st Notice, PAC Advertisement, etc.) 5. Proposed Content 01 I Background Ill/ormation Documern I I ~ i I step Two I I I 6. Complete Collection of I I I EnvIronmental and Engineering Data .. , ·····1 I 7. ldenlifieatlon ofEconomic Opportunities and Potential Partners III I.,. I 8. Public Consultation (Open House, Workshop, PAC Meetings, etc.) I, I Il I ...... 9. Identification and Analysis ofData Gaps 11 I I I ,I 10. Computer Simulation Model 1,1 .'.....++,I ~... I 11. Base case Model Run ,i 12. Draft background II I; I I I Information Document J T I,. I,; I MNR and PAC Review r 1 1 I fll f1 of Draft Decumen! 'I HI fJ I l'l I Fhlal Backlltooml Information Document I ! I:;, :,1,'. i I 1+1 I MNRReYiew ! i 1 ! i: ~ : ! , i I ! j I Client Meetings ~ ~ ~, ~-.: -~ -~ *'.- 1-1~-.a..-.• -,L-,,- iI ...... Jl?','. Ir " ! I Ii· , ! ; ii, i Progress Reports ! I ',' .. ! r.1 1++ ;.. I ' .. I ! ! i I I ! iii I PAC Meetings I I i*!*I*I*I*1 t I Open House and Workshop I I. ' !"'l I ; I !i ! , , ! I iff j i f j ---,--~--,-,~--,-~,-----_L__' .•------1 Project Schedule (May 22, 2002) Muskoka River VVater Management Plan Background information DOCument Mrnustryot Natum! Roe~::jr~,>t·~ A.ctivity Key Dates First Public Notice & Mailouts June 5-12 Public Advisory Committee (PAC) Notice June 5-12 Project Website June 10 Project Newspaper Distribution June 5-12 PAC Formation/First Meeting August 8 I Open House (Pt. Carling, Huntsville & Dorset) August 23, 24 & 25 I Facilitated Workshop October 19 l PAC Meetings Monthly I I -~------+------i Draft Report January 15 I I Final Report February.~_~~28 ...J Consultation Activities and Dates Muskoka RIver Water Management Plan Background Information Document &:{irri-5!r.... 01 Na\u;-al .'of:. RI35-G·ljrG-i'1-~ Associ.lteo _._- - ..----.----- "7 ---""--... '" --. _ ••• , ----. ~-- Watershed council seeks publicinput and balance OJ -_~:}{~ -. • ~ ':'-~J:-~~\ .. . BY CHERYL CHARLTON is holding six mee~ in before they even put the I""'...... ,~,..... ------:-.. --.""..,"""!"",~,,-.. "'·"""';;;,m·rIle!;rn·"rn~~.. ",.,,,,~;.....:"!'.. ,.. """"'~';"~',l!':!·!-i!:'!>·"'!""·!!"'"''!!'·'''_~\i''!'!'''"'>~·''~~·:'~';''''~·''~''';~''·''''':::" ~"' '''~' ' ~' ~' "'7ii~" ,,!!!'!: ,!!!,~!!!!!!!,!.. .. !e!.. !!'!!'.... -. m~:~:n~:;;~d ~~~~~k~~~ =~~::~.:3 ;4t:L'~;"'~ij ;~:.~:~.~~·.!f:(~ profit was the ,,-,mam ., waiershed problems. for the HuntsVllle",."", "~lf;i<,:r!;:}:""~",,- .... -<~~:~~ .• Iesire of HuntsvilJ.~~:;.'.,~ad of tryin~"~ fix Ratepayers Ass~ciation".;,,-;J;~..« . :~1~~-;:~;::;:' ~.c~ •cl€t:' ients at a Mus.i:9.;a .. dhings up, lets d,? things and 6o-year resident of,> 'f'i;.,f:~:~·:',.-<",:;~-,;;;;;. ~' "~i""~''''' ,,~ :"ITnatershe d Council xn.~If.=,,;:.n.,.",.,. + ..... ' ight~- " S8.1::.;"veyn'd ..··E IFox Lake.'"".,•. ,"~ _;~' ~~,,~,,: __.;':,..,. -1-("0 "':. :.:~l-t... r ng on Saturday.¥t;;':,:'· BrolVIl, coordinatOr for "Alot ofpeople from the" ,.'••-.... , ...... ' "'Let's face it, we ;Uyffin ~ thecouncil. .~~-~'_::·i;, cities who move here .. ' .. ' , .. , • ~~t;-~~, i human enviroIlIl1entits . Af~w people msed con- want to bring their city ._, 1:,... ", '.-'~"!".I oJ "..-~ ··" ...... t ,; I . "~-f. . -... ,...... ~." vell as a natural enmn- cerns about .new"resi- values," said Don Baker, '~" .... " ...... nent. Developmentjs, a'dents who are riot usedto head of the Huntsville ,.~.--: ;,.4 .f.' ,. • ".,. ., • f!.O·- -eality," said participant"; having andmamtaining Ratepayers Association. , .. : .. -,;.;:;. .. ~'I .'" {enk Rietveld, a fish-.. septic tanks, mia'others During the brainstorm rries biologist.~ts':sbJp· who tear out the:tW.tUraI ing session everyone had laving the econoinic foliage to inst8..ll~:~City- a chance to state their • levelopment as being the like" lawns and gardens, opinions and concerns, irimary focus." "They don't understand while the council record- , -:" The watershed council ... the .. damage-v-they- do, ed the information. .; .. "There are a lot of peo- ...{"J ple that believe in what's ~ • -goingun;-but-donJtneces-' ~ .. sarily do it," said Colleen Hannigan, who resides on Ripple Lake. "If you WATERSHED PRESENTATION. Huntsville residents listed their ideas for preserving the don't have the enforce quality ofthe Muskoka watershed; then presented them to theMuskoka Watershed Council. ment you might as well Cofleen Hannigan was one of the 50 people who participated in the consultation meeting, not pass the by-law," was thefirst of several that will be held around thearea. her response to another Photo byCheryl Chanton participant's suggestions places equal value on where the water is com that flow into Muskoka for more government making a living and pro ing from." that we're concerned l"'e il\~~ la\:.c.'\.Y\ action. tecting the environment "The various elements, with," explained council Participants made and 'the values he holds both natural and human, chair Ken Black, "and the ~~V~~ ~COd- charts of current activi dear. must be considered, to people who have an inter j fYlQ'j 50 I ties that need to be Finding a balance be ensure the water remains est and stake in. this stopped, what should tween the two is what the the essence of Muskoka." watershed." continue, and what council is trying to do. The council is com ~ The next five meetings should be started. "Management of these prised of volunteers and are on June 19 in Suggestions ranged from watersheds will require staffwho are dedicated to Gravenhurst, June 21 in stopping the sale of wet cooperation between finding a balance Baxter Ward Community lands, to starting public District and council," said between new growth to Centre, June 22 in Port information sessions on Greg Corbett, a planner the area, and maintain better lake management. for the Distriet of ing the natural state of CiU"liIlg, June 27 in David Johnstone, from Muskoka. .rwe have to Muskoka. Bracebridge, and July 13 Menominee Lake, said he look "rJstream to see "It's the watersheds in Dwight.