County of Haliburton Planning Committee Agenda Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:00 o'clock a.m. County Council Chambers Page
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
2-3 Minutes of the May 23, 2012-meeting of the Haliburton County Council Planning Committee 4. ITEMS OF BUSINESS
4-24 Draft Shoreline Tree Preservation Bylaw Update 25-26 Housing Study Update 27-28 South Central Ontario Ortho Photography 2013 Project 5. CLOSED SESSION
6. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
7. ADJOURNMENT
Page 1 of 28
County of Haliburton Planning Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Haliburton County Planning Committee convened a meeting on Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 10:27 a.m. in the County Council Chambers with the following in attendance:
Council: Councillor Barbara Reid, Chair Reeve Minden Hills Councillor Liz Danielsen, Vice Chair Deputy Reeve Algonquin Highlands Councillor Carol Moffatt Reeve Algonquin Highlands Councillor Murray Fearrey Reeve Dysart et al Councillor Bill Davis Deputy Reeve Dysart et al Councillor Dave Burton Reeve Highlands East Councillor Suzanne Partridge Deputy Reeve Highlands East Councillor Cheryl Murdoch Deputy Reeve Minden Hills
Staff: Jim Wilson CAO/County Clerk Angela Balle Deputy Clerk Jane Tousaw Director of Planning Michelle Moore Planning Technologist
Chair Councillor Reid called the meeting to order at 10:27 a.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion No. PL 21 2012 Moved by: Councillor Cheryl Murdoch: Seconded by: Councillor Bill Davis Be it resolved that the May 23, 2012 Haliburton County Council Planning Committee agenda be approved. CARRIED
DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST No member of the Haliburton County Council Planning Committee disclosed any pecuniary interest.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the April 25, 2012 Planning Committee meeting were circulated for approval.
Motion No. PL 22 2012 Moved by: Councillor Dave Burton; Seconded by: Councillor Bill Davis Be it resolved that the minutes of the April 25, 2012-meeting of the Haliburton County Council Planning Committee be adopted as circulated. CARRIED
Page 2 of 28
ITEMS OF BUSINESS Haliburton Housing Study Start Up Meeting Team members from SHS Consulting Inc. consisting of Project Director Christine Pacini, Project Manager Kirsten Stein and Senior Results Analyst Johanna Hashim met with the Planning Committee to outline, discuss and finalize the work plan, schedules and methodologies to be used for the Housing Study project.
Ms. Pacini confirmed that the results of the study would provide the Committee with statistics on the supply and demand of housing, identify housing needs and make recommendations on Policies and Programs that could be implemented by Haliburton County in order to assist in meeting housing requirements outlined in the Haliburton County Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement.
The team informed the Committee that some of the methodologies used to gather the data would include surveys, existing data from Stats Canada and community organizations. Workshops will also be held with stakeholders, developers, contractors and community organizations to assist in identifying needs and gathering data.
The Committee provided input on some of the issues that the residents of the County are currently facing including, but not limited to, transportation, high price of rental units, lack of housing for seniors transitioning from home ownership to self-contained living spaces and the needs of those living outside of the town centres in rural areas.
Ms. Pacini advised the Committee that the next steps of the study would be to develop a Communications and Consultation strategy and formulate the survey. The team will provide an update to the Committee on the status of the study at the Haliburton County Council Planning Committee meeting to be held on September 26, 2012.
ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct Chair Reid adjourned the meeting at 12:10 p.m.
Motion No. PL 23 2012 Moved by: Councillor Dave Burton; Seconded by: Councillor Bill Davis Be it resolved that the May 23, 2012-meeting of the Haliburton County Council Planning Committee now adjourn. CARRIED
Certified Correct
Councillor Barb Reid, Chair Jim Wilson, CAO/County Clerk
Page 3 of 28
County of Haliburton Warden Murray Fearrey P.O. Box 399 – 11 Newcastle Street Minden, Ontario K0M 2K0 Jane Tousaw, CMO Director of Planning [email protected] 705-286-1333 phone 705-286-4829 fax
To: Councillor Reid, Chair and Members of Haliburton County Planning Committee
From: Jane Tousaw, Director of Planning
Re: Draft Shoreline Tree Preservation By-law
Date: July 11, 2012
Recommendation: That the Haliburton County Council Planning Committee receives for information the July 11, 2012-staff report on the Draft Shoreline Tree Preservation By-law and recommends to County Council that the revised Draft By-law be authorized for circulation to the local municipalities for consideration and delegation of authority for this sphere of jurisdiction.
Background: The draft by-law was circulated for public comment since April, 2012.
A copy of the draft By-law was mailed directly to identified cottagers associations and individuals who had requested notification. It was also circulated through the Federation of Cottagers’ Associations and the Coalition of Haliburton Property Owners’ Associations and was posted on the County website.
An Open House was held on May 19th, 2012. Notice of the Open House was given for three consecutive weeks in four separate local newspapers and was advertised through public service announcements on CANOE FM.
Staff attended the Coalition of Haliburton Property Owners’ Association’s Annual General Meeting on June 9, 2012 to respond to questions. In addition, staff also provided a presentation and answered questions at the Mountain Lake Cottagers’ Association. Attendance at Association meetings will continue throughout the summer.
Members of the Planning Committee have also been distributing material and responding to questions at local lake association annual general meetings.
The deadline for public input on the draft By-law was June 30, 2012. Attached is a summary of comments organized in chart format to group comments that address the same matters or concerns.
Direction is required regarding any proposed modifications to the draft bylaw.
Based on the comments received, if the Planning Committee recommends proceeding with the By-law, a decision is required regarding modifications suggested as a result of the public consultation.
Page 4 of 28 Depending on the modifications identified, one of two actions can be taken:
i) A revised draft By-law will be circulated to Council for consideration and authorization to submit to the local municipalities with a request to formally delegate authority for this sphere of jurisdiction; or
ii) A revised draft By-law is circulated to the Planning Committee and simultaneously submitted to the local municipalities with a request to formally delegate authority for this sphere of jurisdiction.
Once a response has been received from the local municipalities, Council would be in a position to make a decision on whether it wishes to adopt the Shoreline Tree Preservation By-law.
Financial: None at this time.
Reviewed by: Jim Wilson, CAO
Attachments: Summary of Comments Draft Shoreline Tree Preservation By-law
Page 5 of 28 COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE BY-LAW Comments Source Premature - if shore erosion is considered a major problem then more intense study is required as to causes. Norman Emms Difficult to administer and almost impossible to monitor. Fines are out of line and draconian; education should be used. Tree preservation a minor factor in preventing soil erosion. Addressing the holding of high water levels in the spring and early summer would help as holding of water by Trent Severn Waterway (TSW) dams and the resulting issues related to silting and flow impediments is a far bigger problem than tree removal. Sceptical that protecting trees 30 metres from the shoreline protect the shoreline from erosion. Who accepts liability for trees that fall on cottages due to a delay in process if the inevitable happens? By-law implies that waterfront property owners are incapable of managing their property and the municipally owned shoreline road allowance. Consider initiating a By-law exclusively to restrict and control clear cutting to prevent shore erosion. Unfairly targets waterfront cottage owners. David Howe Needs of cottagers and nature not balanced - cottager must bear the understanding of the by-law and any financial burden as a result. Premature o More extensive public input required. Concerned that by-law will impact property values and local job markets. Severely restricts land use by cottagers in the absence of compensation. By-law does not reference any scientific study of the destruction of our shorelines. Steve Edmonds & Carol Do not need more regulations and administration. Cooper Permit would be required prior to removing trees under the exemption section. Not practical to prevent someone from cutting individual trees - it is their right! Not practical to enforce. By-law Rob Holl should focus on clear cutting. Shoreline tree preservation is a useless idea. High taxes used to support useless programs like this one. Nancy Strohack Government interfering with rights of property owners. By-law should consider more than just waterfront Kevin Mewhirter
Page 6 of 28 properties to be fair and protect all trees. By-law is nonsense and is a waste of tax dollars. Clear cutting as a result of construction should be part of Bill Bovenizer building permit. Limit the number of new building permits on lakes to protect natural habitat. Paid for shore road allowance and should have full control of it. By-law not needed; concerned about job losses for the landscapers, tree cutters and contractors; issue is existing Heather Clark developed properties with manicured lawns; could put restrictions on newly created lots
COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF DRAFT SHORELINE TREE PRESERVATION BY-LAW Section Comment Rationale/Suggested Action Source Preamble Add names of all of the lakes in Haliburton Will add clarity Larry Giles County Preamble, Add words in italics to the identified text: Ensure that all waterways are included. Harcourt Park Inc. paragraph 6 WHEREAS, …. for protecting trees in areas adjacent to the shorelines of lakes, rivers, wetlands, creeks, seasonal runoff spillways, and navigable waterways ….: Replace “navigable waterways” with “streams” as The change to adding “stream” and removing Mike Turner identified “navigable waterways” will help to ensure that the WHEREAS, …. for protecting trees in areas purposes listed above are more realistic. By only adjacent to the shorelines of lakes, rivers, and looking at “navigable waterways” many streams ….: significant and sensitive areas are missed. Many of the small streams that feed our lakes are extremely important to maintaining the “healthy natural environment” as well as maintaining water quality and protecting fish spawning areas. By maintaining tree cover along smaller feeder streams the water temperatures are maintained at a more natural state. This is very important for our many cold and cool water lakes in the County. Preamble 1, Add words in italics to the identified text: Harcourt Park Inc. Paragraph 6 - Protecting fish spawning beds and fish habitat. Bullet 12 New Bullet Add the following: See accompanying comments under Section 7, Harcourt Park Inc. under Remediation of those areas, beyond the Orders Paragraph 6 building envelope where it is deemed necessary to remove vegetation for the construction
Page 7 of 28 phase. New Bullet Add the following: Mike Brook under minimizing the stress on watercourses Paragraph 6 1 Add contractor to the list of definitions, Ensures that they are in compliance with the by- S. Danko law and equally liable for any non-compliance 1(j) No definition of “significant eco-systems, Mike Turner important fish and wildlife habitat etc.” provided. If we are trying to protect these ecosystems and Section Comment Rationale/Suggested Action Source habitat then there should be a definition of what they consist of. Are the same definitions in the PPS to be used? 1(k) Include the root system in the definition of injure S. Danko 1(z) Change the definition of tree to include native Native bushes and shrubbery are as important as S. Danko bushes and shrubbery. Also decrease the tree size trees from 4.5 m to 3 m 2 Increase 30 metre buffer 30 metres may be insufficient in some cases such Harcourt Park Inc. as steep slopes or slopes with rock outcrops and minimal soil. Fails to address issues regarding watercourses flowing into lakes. Rivers, creeks and spring spillways are invaluable fish habitat Decrease 30 metre buffer Excessive Heather Clark 30 metres is excessive Ian Clark Replace “high water mark” with “natural William Beatty shoreline” Clarification on 30 metres of the high water mark Is the document referring to the regulated high Mike Turner water mark or the 100 year flood high water mark? This is an important point since in many cases in the County the flood line may extend back further than the 30 metres from the regulated high water mark. If the above purpose of “preventing soil erosion and water run-off” is to be achieved then extending the area to the floodline might be more appropriate. Again please see the above comment concerning Page 8 of 28 “navigable waterways”. Also mention should be made that the by-law does not apply to Crown Lands which are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Natural Resources. 3(i) Just a point to note that all of Haliburton County Mike Turner has been designated under the ARA 3 (r) Reduce 5 metre pathway Seems excessive Harcourt Park Inc.
Section Comment Rationale/Suggested Action Source Reconsider the width Why is there a need for a “5m” pathway to gain Mike Turner access to the water? This is the same width that is proposed for roadways and driveways. Is it necessary to construct a roadway down to the water’s edge? 3 (n) Tie tree removal to an issued building permit Make sure it overrides any minimum setback Peter Warren requirement May need to expand the distance and time to allow effective ongoing maintenance around Bill McKay – cottages Basshaunt Lake Homeowners and Cottagers Association 3(s) Revisit this section S. Danko Remove Unreasonable to obtain written approval from David & Carolyn local municipalities. Liability could fall back on Gordon local municipalities. Revisit this section Potential legal liability Case Bassie Revisit this section creates inconsistency between those who own Gary Trapp shore road allowance and those who don't; discourages environmental stewardship of the shoreline 3(t) Remove Small trees and shrubs, in aggregate, can be equally Harcourt Park Inc. as effective as larger trees in soil stabilization and filtration and so their preservation is imperative. In addition, they provide key habitat for fish and wildlife. Reconsider this If it is permissible to remove all “trees” less than Mike Turner 10 cm DBH there may not be any replacement of larger diameter trees within the 30m zone. In cases Page 9 of 28 where the site is occupied by smaller diameter trees this exemption allows for the owner to clear the site of all vegetation. The bylaw should not just be applied to “trees” above 10 cm DBH but should include all vegetation within the 30m zone. Removal of smaller vegetation in many cases will prevent meeting the intent of this by-law in particular: Sustaining a healthy natural environment by Section Comment Rationale/Suggested Action Source maintaining and improving the ecosystem services provided by trees; Protecting significant and sensitive natural areas; Maintaining water quality; Maintaining and enhancing natural habitat; Preventing soil erosion and water run-off; Protecting, promoting and enhancing the aesthetic values of land; and Protecting fish spawning beds. Consider increasing the size Eric Winmill 3(x) Wording suggested Property owners should be able to manage their Tom Leishman "the pruning of tree branches or limbs, to trees within the 30 m zone. Current wording is permit a view of the water from the primary too restrictive. building, provided such pruning maintains The reference to “good arboricultural practice” and protects tree health and surrounding has been removed and the limit on the number of forest health and is limited to the removal of branches that can be removed has been carried not more than one-third of the live branches over from that definition and incorporated directly or limbs of a tree." in the exemption as the remaining wording in the definition relates to pruning for purposes other than to permit a view of the water. The remaining wording would, of course, continue to be applicable where the definition is used in Sections 3(v) and (w). Similarly, the word “appropriate” that appears in the “good arboricultural practice” definition was not carried over as it appears to relate to pruning for those other purposes. Page 10 of 28 The word “improve” has been removed as it created a standard that would be impossible to meet, i.e. if the pruning is being done for the purpose of permitting a view of the water, it would be impossible for the property owner to establish that the pruning “improves” the health of the tree or the surrounding forest. 3 (new) Add the following text; To address an issue related to protection of "A tree that, by virtue of its un-checked growth existing shoreline retention structures and prevent Section Comment Rationale/Suggested Action Source and/or its catastrophic demise by natural erosion. Need to include a requirement that the causes, would compromise the integrity of a stump should be retained. natural shoreline berm thereby initiating flooding of property or destructive property erosion by waves and ice." Trees that grow to close to shoreline of a river David Prestwich eventually become top heavy and consequently fall into river. Portion of river bank are torn out and thereby aiding to the erosion factor. Does the proposed By-law address this factor? 4 include non-disturbance of soil around existing Once vegetation is removed and other soil, mulch S. Danko trees. is added this can bury a tree’s roots; once buried the tree will die in 3-6 years Ban all mechanical clearing of underbrush the root systems of the trees that remain are S. Danko damaged and /or buried during the mechanical process and/or by the addition and/or piling of soil and/or mulch that is added. In any event the remaining trees, when root systems are buried/damaged die off within three to six years. Agriculture, including non-native grass should Mike Brook be prohibited within 30 metres of a watercourse 4 (b) Revisit this section S. Danko Remove This seems like an onerous process solely based on David & Carolyn who owns the shoreline road allowance. The Gordon employment of good arboriculture practices and appropriate environmental considerations are not dependent on who actually owns the allowance. Under the current wording in the by-law, Page 11 of 28 should there be a dangerous, damaged, or diseased tree on the municipalities' shoreline road allowance that causes damage to abutting property or person, the municipality could be liable for damages. Prior to the by-law, it was solely abutting property owners’ responsibility to rectify the situation without the municipality or County prohibiting them from doing so. Liability and costs could fall back on local Section Comment Rationale/Suggested Action Source municipalities. Remove or get a legal opinion prior to adopting Since the county has taken responsibility for Larry & Cheryl Grigg the by-law removal approval for trees on shoreline allowance does it not also take on the legal responsibility for property damage or personal damage if the dead or diseased tree falls? Revisit this section Requesting permission for the removal of trees on Bill McKay – Suggested an exemption from 4 (b) for land the shoreline road allowance could create Basshaunt Lake owners adjacent to the Municipal shoreline road enforcement problems Homeowners and allowances. Cottagers Association Revisit this section Potential legal liability Case Bassie for Soyers Lake Ratepayers Association Revisit this section creates inconsistency between those who own Gary Trapp shore road allowance and those who don't; discourages environmental stewardship of the shoreline 8(a) Clarify that the fine under the Provincial Mike Brook Offences Act is $500. 8 Add a repair/remedy incentive - suggested a S. Danko property tax credit following a 3 to 5 year waiting period. Fine seems excessive Eric Winmill Schedule A Typo “responsible” should be “responsible” Larry Giles
Page 12 of 28 GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT BY-LAW Area Comments Source General By-law strikes a reasonable balance between land use and environmental protection. Brian Lasenby Some concerns about exemption for pits and quarries. Clarification as to the main purpose of the Shoreline Tree Preservation By-law Stacia Thomas If there are fees for permits, they must be low to help ensure people will apply for permits. James Sefton Natural shoreline vegetation (not just trees) is required to prevent erosion, filter run-off, protect Harcourt Park lake edges and provide habitat for various animals. Therefore suggest By-law be changed to Inc. "Shoreline Vegetation Preservation By-law." - Tax payers potentially receive a reduction in taxes if their shoreline is 80% vegetated. Onus on property owners is appropriate. S. Danko Agree with it as it sits Dennis By-law requires more information as to why it is important. Great acceptance if people Choptiany understood its benefit. Support By-law as written Chris Riddle - Reflects input provided during the Official Plan process Coalition for Well articulated approach that addresses main issues in a comprehensive manner Equitable Water Flow Happy with the exemptions proposed in the by-law. Before and after photos would be a good Dorian & Kate idea. Young Have witnessed and complained about those cases of clear cutting which have occurred. The MNR's recommended shoreline eco-zones are not followed and thus the lakeside is ruined. Moreover, they are unsightly and do not fit in with the environment or look of the rest of lakeside properties in our County. Sooner it is implemented the better Happy that the By-law has exemptions for provincial and federal government Ryan Hamersma, operations/requirements Haliburton Area Allows TSW to perform minor landscaping in and around water control structures in an effort to Superintendent
Page 13 of 28 prevent woody vegetation such as trees to cause deterioration to them. TSW By-law good - need to ensure it provides flexibility. Clarification re clearing of tree for sitting as Don Woudstra he owns a landscaping business. Congratulations for undertaking the process. County residents will be the richer in the long run John Wismer Support the By-law Rick & Marg Have experienced the abuse of the shorelines and stands of trees Despard Support the By-law Jim Prince Believe the by-law should include all vegetation but recognize that site alteration falls under the Kennisis Lake local municipal jurisdiction Plan Committee Encourage County to support efforts by local municipalities to implement site alteration by-laws Supports By-law that prevents clear cutting. In limiting the freedom of property owner it should Tom Leishman only be necessary to achieve the legitimate objectives. Concerned about the process and difficulty in communicating the process to the cottagers not in Jan Krueger the area until now. Feels that bad actions of a few will create restrictions for everyone. Should be drafting the by-law to go after the anti-naturalists not everyone. Need to clarify if it also impacts property owners who are separated from the lake by a road; Ian Clark Support the By-law; mechanism to maintain a natural buffer zone and control site alterations at Case Bassie for the waterfront equally important; education is important Soyers Lake Ratepayers Association Was a more broad but targeted By-law considered aimed at those doing clear cutting without Gary Trapp imposing such detailed limits and controls on everyone? Complaints based approach often does not bring out the best in people so preference is to balanced approach of reasonable environmental stewardship. Generally support Eric Winmill Replanting Recommend planting replacement trees. William Beatty If trees are properly removed (properly) they should be replaced with indigenous replacement – Peter Warren one for one. Tree removal over a By-law should allow 1 or 2 trees to be cut down over a specified period. David & Carolyn specified period of time Gordon or within a specific area Allow land owners some flexibility in taking down 2 trees that do not fit into the by-law Larry & Cheryl requirements otherwise administration of By-law and workload is extensive. Grigg Include an additional exemption that would allow a property owner to remove two trees within the Tom Leishman 30 m zone over a 12 month period. consider allowing for development of a certain percentage of the waterfront for their personal use Ian Clark (suggestion is 30-40%) provided they keep the rest natural By-law does not provide a mechanism to remedy existing over landscaped lots; allow some Mike Brook
Page 14 of 28 minimum area of shoreline (x% (25%) of the shoreline to a maximum of y (20?) meters) to be cleared for a view from an approved building (this may be the intent of the bylaw, but it doesn’t seem to say so. However, ALL LANDOWNERS must allow trees to grow to infill to this limit, which will return all water courses to a highly treed state. That would permit everyone to have some lake/river view, but also return damaged waterfronts to a more natural state. Permits Permits - not required and By-law should clearly state this information. Audrey Burke Complaint Driven Complaint driven process should be detailed in the By-law to eliminate excess written requests Audrey Burke Process and delays. SUGGESTED ACTIONS IF APPROVED Area Comments Source Communication Send copies of By-law out with Tax Bills William Beatty Copy of By-law to be included with Real Estate transfers. Peter Warren Informing the public is extremely important Chris Riddle - CEWF Education Shoreline advisory group should be formed that offers solutions to shoreline Hal Jones tree cutting that would advise cottagers and prevent the clear cutting. Local businesses (landscaping companies, builders, construction, etc.) should S. Danko acknowledge and training with regards to this By-law. Education of land owners and contractors critical. Mike Johnson Believe that informing and educating the public is extremely important Chris Riddle - CEWF Include By-law with real estate sales Larry & Cheryl Grigg Ensure the builders, landscapers, arborist, etc. are fully aware of this by-law S. Danko - education an important component. Inform & educate the property owners, real estate agents and especially Jim Prince Kennisis Lake Plan contractors regarding the provisions of the by-law before the damage is done Committee Strongly support and willing to participate in developing an education program for County residents Support by-law; encourage County & Townships to develop and implement a Terry Moore, Hall's & Hawk parallel education program to maximize the impact of the bylaw in protecting Lake Property Owners’ and improving the health of Haliburton's shorelines and the health of its Association famous lakes Support the By-law; mechanism to maintain a natural buffer zone and Case Bassie for Soyers Lake control site alterations at the waterfront equally important; education is Ratepayers Association important; could be done in conjunction with Lake Associations Recognizes difficulty in creating general awareness of the proposed By-law Gary Trapp and recommends ongoing awareness and education to gain input; Incentives Tax payers potentially receive a reduction in taxes if their shoreline is 80% Harcourt Park Inc.
Page 15 of 28 vegetated. Registered Documents & Document should be part of land transfer agreements and integrated with Mike Johnson Permits building permits.
Historical Status for Apply for historical status for the named lakes to provide additional Larry Giles Haliburton Lakes protection
SUGGESTED ACTIONS PRIOR TO ADOPTION Area Comments Source Raising Awareness Media coverage David Howe Notify every cottagers’ association asking for review and input Include relevant information in next tax bills to all property owners Full Page Ad in Local newspapers Additional Study Commission Economic Impact Study David Howe o Assess impact on future waterfront development land use constraints o Examine Increased or decrease in new cottage lot development desirability vs. existing developed cottage lots within County and other cottage areas o Examine limitations and potential impacts on: . future County property valuation . Number, size and configuration of future lakeside cottages . Local construction trade and employment opportunities Review and study the science behind the proposed need to modify existing shoreline land use policies locally Should be provided lake by lake and area by area
Page 16 of 28
THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF HALIBURTON
BY-LAW NO.
BEING A BY-LAW TO CONSERVE, PROHIBIT, PROTECT, RESTRICT, AND REGULATE THE PROTECTION, PRESERVATION AND REMOVAL OF TREES ON SHORELINE PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTY OF HALIBURTON
WHEREAS, Section 135 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O., c. 25, as amended, authorizes a local Municipality to prohibit and regulate the destruction or injuring of trees; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 135(7) of the Municipal Act, a municipality may require that a permit be obtained for the injuring or destruction of trees or any class of trees specified in the By-law and impose conditions including those relating to the manner in which destruction occurs and the qualification of persons authorized to destroy or injure trees; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 135(10) of the Municipal Act, a lower-tier municipality may delegate all or part of its power to pass a by-law respecting the destruction or injuring of trees to its upper-tier municipality with the agreement of the upper-tier municipality; and
WHEREAS, the lower-tier municipalities, within the County of Haliburton, have indicated their intent to delegate to the County of Haliburton their power to pass a by-law respecting the destruction or injuring of trees in areas adjacent to shorelines; and
WHEREAS, the County of Haliburton has agreed to accept the delegation from the lower-tier municipalities to pass a by-law respecting the destruction or injuring of trees in areas adjacent to shorelines; and
WHEREAS, the Council for the County of Haliburton deems it desirable and in the public interest to enact a Shoreline Tree Preservation By-law for protecting trees in areas adjacent to the shorelines of lakes, rivers and navigable waterways for the purpose of: • Achieving the objectives of the Official Plan for the County of Haliburton; • Minimizing the destruction or injuring of trees; • Regulating and controlling the removal, maintenance and protection of trees; • Sustaining a healthy natural environment by maintaining and improving the ecosystem services provided by trees; • Protecting significant and sensitive natural areas; • Contributing to human health and quality of life through the maintenance of tree cover; • Maintaining water quality; • Reducing airborne pollution; • Maintaining and enhancing natural habitat; • Preventing soil erosion and water run-off; • Protecting, promoting and enhancing the aesthetic values of land; and • Protecting fish spawning beds.
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the County of Haliburton enacts as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS
In this By-law:
(a) “Building Permit” means a building permit issued under the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended;
(b) “Clerk” means the Clerk of the County of Haliburton;
(c) “Council” means Haliburton County Council;
(d) “County” means the Corporation of the County of Haliburton;
As at April 26, 2012 1
Page 17 of 28
(e) “Destroy” means the removal of a tree or harm resulting in the death, ruin, or removal of a tree by cutting, burning, uprooting, chemical application or other means including irreversible injury that may result from neglect, accident or design and the term “destruction” shall have a corresponding meaning;
(f) “Diameter” means the width measured outside the bark at a specified point of a tree stem or trunk;
(g) “Director” means the Director of Planning for the County or his or her designate provided such designate is an officer appointed under this By-law.
(h) “DBH” (refers to “diameter at breast height”) means the diameter of the stem of a tree measured at a point 1.37 metres from the ground;
(i) “Good arboriculture practice” means the proper implementation of, renewal and maintenance activities known to be appropriate for individual trees to minimize detrimental impacts and includes pruning of trees to remove dead limbs, maintain structural stability and balance, or to encourage their natural form, provided that such pruning is limited to the appropriate removal of not more than one-third of the live branches or limbs of a tree,
(j) “Good forestry practices” means the proper implementation of harvest, renewal and maintenance activities known to be appropriate for the forest and environmental conditions under which they are being applied and that minimize detriments to forest values including significant eco-systems, important fish and wildlife habitat, soil and water quality and quantity, forest productivity and health and the aesthetics’ and recreational opportunities of the landscape;
(k) “Injure” means to harm, damage or impair a tree and includes, but is not limited to, harm, damage or impairment caused by changing grades around a tree, compacting soil over root areas, severing roots, improper application of chemicals, improper pruning or the removal of branches and bark and the term “injury” and “injuring” shall have corresponding meaning;
(l) “Lower-tier Municipality” means the “Township of Algonquin Highlands”, “Municipality of Dysart et al”, “Municipality of Highlands East”, or “Township of Minden Hills”:
(m) “Navigable Waterway” means all bodies of water that are capable of being navigated by any type of floating vessel for transportation, recreation or commerce. Frequency of navigation may not be a factor in determining a navigable waterway.
(n) “Officer” means a person designated by By-law by Council as an Officer for the purposes of enforcing this By-law;
(o) “OPFA Member” means a Registered Professional Forester or Associate Member of the Ontario Professional Foresters Association (OPFA) as defined in the Professional Foresters Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 18, as amended
(p) “Order” means a directive requiring a person to stop the injuring or destruction of trees, rehabilitate the land or plant or replant trees in such a manner and within such a period as the Officer considers appropriate, including any treatment necessary to re-establish the trees.
(q) “Owner” means a person having any right, title, interest or equity in land or any such person’s authorized representative;
(r) “Person” means an individual, a corporation, and the heirs, executors, administrators or other legal representatives of a person to whom the context can apply according to law;
(s) “Qualified Arborist” means an expert in the care and maintenance of trees and includes an arborist certified by the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities or the International Society of Arboriculture, or a consulting arborist registered with the
As at April 26, 2012 2
Page 18 of 28
American Society of Consulting Arborists;
(t) “Qualified Tree Marker” means: (i) an individual who is a Certified Tree Marker in good standing as designated by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Certified Tree Marker Training Program; or (ii) a Registered Professional Forester qualified to do tree marking; or (iii)an Associate Member of the Ontario Professional Foresters Association qualified to do tree marking;
(u) “Remove, Removes or Removal” means to move from a place or position occupied; or (i) To transfer or convey from one place to another; or (ii) To take off; or (iii) To take away; withdraw; or (iv) To do away with; eliminate
(v) “Silvicultural prescription” means a site-specific operational plan that describes the existing forest conditions and the forest management objectives for an area, and professional recommendations for harvesting and controlling the establishment, composition, constitution, and growth of forests from seedlings though to the desired endpoint of the forest stand in a manner that accommodates other resource values as identified;
(w) “Site” means the area of land containing any tree(s) proposed to be inured;
(x) “Spawning Bed” means an underwater solid surface on which fish spawn to reproduce themselves as identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources, County or a Lower-tier Municipality;
(y) “Steep Slope” means any area with a slope of 25% or more, measured over a horizontal distance inland of 45 metres from the high water mark, along a continuous shoreline frontage of 25 metres;
(z) “Tree” means any species of woody perennial plant, including its root system, which has reached or can reach a height of at least 4.5 metres at physiological maturity;
(aa)“Tree Protection Plan” means a plan prepared by a Qualified Arborist.
2. LAND SUBJECT TO THIS BY-LAW
This by-law applies to all lands within the County situated within 30 metres of the high water mark of a navigable waterway, but does not apply to trees in woodlands greater than 4 hectares that are regulated by County Forestry By-law 3196, as amended , or any successor thereof.
3. EXEMPTIONS FROM APPLICATION OF BY-LAW
The provisions of this By-law do not apply to:
(a) activities or matters undertaken by the County or a Lower-tier Municipality or a local board of the County or a Lower-tier Municipality; or
(b) activities or matters undertaken under a licence issued under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994; or
(c) the injuring or destruction of trees by a person licensed under the Surveyors Act to engage in the practice of cadastral surveying or his or her agent, while making a survey; or
(d) the injuring or destruction of trees imposed after December 31, 2002 as a condition to the approval of a site plan, a plan of subdivision or a consent under section 41, 51 or 53, respectively, of the Planning Act or as a requirement of a site plan agreement or subdivision agreement entered into under those sections; or
As at April 26, 2012 3
Page 19 of 28
(e) the injuring or destruction of trees imposed after December 31, 2002 as a condition to a development permit authorized by regulation made under section 70.2 of the Planning Act or as a requirement of an agreement entered into under the regulation; or
(f) the injuring or destruction of trees by a transmitter or distributor, as those terms are defined in section 2 of the Electricity Act, 1998, for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a transmission system or a distribution system, as those terms are defined in that section; or
(g) the injuring or destruction of trees undertaken on land described in a licence for a pit or quarry or a permit for a wayside pit or wayside quarry issued under the Aggregate Resources Act; or
(h) the injuring or destruction of trees undertaken on land in order to lawfully establish and operate or enlarge any pit or quarry on land,
(i) that has not been designated under the Aggregate Resources Act or a predecessor of that Act, and
(ii) on which a pit or quarry is a permitted land use under a by-law passed under section 34 of the Planning Act; or
(i) activities or matters undertaken by the provincial government or federal government or their authorized agents; or
(j) the destruction or injury of trees required in the exercise of the rights or powers of a hydroelectric corporation or any public utility board or commission; or
(k) the injuring or destruction of trees in accordance with Good Forestry Practices described in a Silvicultural Prescription approved by an OPFA Member, and in accordance with tree marking carried out by a Qualified Tree Marker;
(l) the injuring or destruction of trees in accordance with Good Arboriculture Practice described in a Tree Protection Plan prepared by a Qualified Arborist, and in accordance with tree marking carried out by a Qualified Arborist;
(m) the destruction or injuring of trees that is reasonably required in order to install and provide utilities to the construction or use of the building, structure or thing in respect of which a Building Permit has been issued; or
(n) the injuring or destruction of trees that is required in order to erect any building, structure or thing in respect of which a building permit is issued and has taken into consideration the protection of trees surrounding the structure or work within the building envelope, provided that no tree is destroyed or injured that is located more than 5 m from the outer edge of the building, structure, septic system, or thing; or
(o) the injuring or destruction of trees that is required to erect any structure or thing permitted as an exemption to the setback in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law of a Lower-tier Municipality provided that no tree is destroyed or injured that is located more than 3 m from the outer edge of the structure or thing; or
(p) the destruction or injuring of trees that is reasonably required in order to provide a temporary access road no wider than 5m to the building, structure or thing in respect of which a Building Permit has been issued, on a property only accessible by water; or
(q) the destruction or injuring of trees that is reasonably required in order to install a single lane driveway for vehicular access to the building, structure or thing in respect of which a Building Permit has been issued provided that no tree is destroyed or injured that is located more than 2.5 metres from the centreline of the driveway; or
(r) the destruction or injuring of trees that is reasonably required in order to install a pathway no wider than 5m to gain access to the water; or
As at April 26, 2012 4
Page 20 of 28
(s) trees injured or destroyed, with the written permission of the County, that are situated on lands owned or controlled by the County or a Lower-tier Municipality; or
(t) the injury or destruction of trees measuring less than 10 centimeters DBH; or
(u) the injury or destruction of severely damaged trees in the interest of public safety, health and general welfare following any man-made or natural disasters, storms, high winds, floods, fires, snowfalls, freezes, or as a result of insects, disease or wildlife; or
(v) the injury or destruction of dead, dangerous, diseased or severely injured trees or stumps, in accordance with good arboricultural practice; or
(w) the pruning of tree branches in accordance with good arboricultural practice to maintain, improve, or protect tree health and surrounding forest health while maintaining the tree’s natural shape; or
(x) the pruning of tree branches in accordance with good arboricultural practice to permit a view of the water from the primary building provided such pruning maintains, improves and protects tree health and surrounding forest health.
(y) Despite the foregoing, in areas of steep slopes, Section 3(m)(o)(p)(q)(r)(s)(t)(u) and (v) shall only apply when stumps and root systems are not disturbed or removed.
(z) Despite the foregoing, in areas adjacent to spawning beds, Section 3(m)(n)(o)(p)(q)(r)(s) and (t) shall not apply.
4. PROHIBITIONS
Subject to Section 3 of this By-law:
(a) No person shall destroy or injure any tree or permit or cause any other person to destroy or injure any tree located in an area described in Section 2 of this By-law unless:
(i) exempted by Section 3 of this By-law; or
(ii) Council grants relief to the owner pursuant to Section 6 of this By-law.
(b) No person shall destroy or injure or permit the destruction or injury of trees on any municipally owned road allowance or shore road allowance except in accordance with Section 3(s);
(c) No person shall fail to comply with an Order issued under this By-law;
(d) No person shall remove or deface an Order posted under this By-law;
(e) No person shall obstruct or interfere with an Officer, or any person or agent authorized by an Officer, in the discharge of his or her duties under this by-law.
5. DESIGNATION OF OFFICERS
Council may appoint, by by-law, Officers to enforce the provisions of this By-law for such term and on such conditions as Council considers appropriate, and the Clerk is authorized to issue Certificates of Designation to these individuals.
6. RELIEF
If any owner, contractor or person wishes to apply for relief from this By-law, they may do so by submitting a written request identifying the nature and extent of the relief requested and accompanied by a site plan/diagram and a description of the proposed tree removal/cutting to the Director. Council, in deciding whether to grant relief, may require
As at April 26, 2012 5
Page 21 of 28
the applicant to provide such additional information as it deems necessary and Council may impose such conditions as it deems appropriate.
7. ORDERS
(a) Where an Officer is satisfied that a person has contravened any provision of this By-law, the officer may make an Order:
(i) requiring the person to stop the injuring or destruction of trees and shall set out the particulars of the contravention; and/or
(ii) requiring the person to rehabilitate the land or plant or replant trees in such a manner and within such a period as the Officer considers appropriate, including any treatment necessary to re-establish the trees.
The Order shall set out the information contained in Schedule “A”.
(b) An Order issued under this section may be served personally or served by sending it by registered mail to the last known address of:
(i) The owner of the property at the address shown on the municipal tax rolls; and
(ii) The person identified as injuring, destroying or harvesting a tree or trees.
(c) Where service of an Order is made by registered mail, the Order shall be deemed to have been served on the fifth day after the Order is mailed.
(d) Where service cannot be made under the preceding sections of this By-law, it is deemed sufficient if the Officer places a placard containing the terms of the Order in a conspicuous place on the affected lands and the placing of the Order shall be deemed to be sufficient service of the Order on the person to whom the Order is directed.
(e) A person to whom an Order under this section has been directed may request a review of Council by filing a written request with the Director within 30 days after the date of the Order. Council may confirm, alter, or revoke the Order.
(f) If a person fails to comply to an Order, the County or Lower-tier Municipality may carry out the work, enter the property for that purpose and recover the cost with interest all in accordance with Section 446 of the Municipal Act, 2001.
8. PENALTY
(a) Any person who contravenes any provision of this By-law, or an Order issued under this Bylaw is guilty of an offence and upon conviction is liable to a fine provided for under the Provincial Offences Act.
(b) Any person who contravenes any provision of this By-law, or an Order issued under this Bylaw is guilty of an offence and upon conviction is liable to:
(i) A maximum fine of $100,000;
(ii) In the case of a continuing offence, for each day or part of a day that the offence continues, a maximum fine of $10,000 for each day;
(iii) Notwithstanding 8(b)(i), in the case of a multiple offence, for each offence included in the multiple offence, a maximum fine of $10,000 for each offence included in the multiple offence;
(iv) In accordance with Subsection 429(2)(d) of the Municipal Act a special fine may be imposed and may exceed $100,000 in circumstances where there is an
As at April 26, 2012 6
Page 22 of 28
economic advantage or gain from the contravention of this By-Law or an Order under this By-Law.
(c) If a person is convicted of an offence for contravening this By-law or an Order issued under this By-law, the court in which the conviction has been entered, and any court of competent jurisdiction thereafter, may order the person to rehabilitate the land or to plant or replant trees in such a manner and within such period as the court considers appropriate, including any treatment necessary to re-establish the Trees.
(d) If a court makes an order under section 8(b) of this By-law, the County relies on Section 446(3) and 446(4) of the Municipal Act, as amended, for the recovery of costs.
9. CONFLICT WITH OTHER BY-LAWS
Nothing in this By-law shall exempt any person from complying with the requirements of any other By-law in force or from obtaining any license, permission, permit, authority or approval required under any other By-law or legislation.
10. ADMINISTRATION
(a) Schedule “A” shall form part of this By-law.
(b) In the event any Court of competent jurisdiction should adjudge that any section or sections of this by-law may not be valid for any reason, such section or sections shall be deemed to be severable from the remainder of the By-law and the remainder of the by- law shall stand and be enforceable to the same extent as if the offending section or sections had not been included therein.
(c) The short title of this By-law is the “Shoreline Tree Preservation By-law”.
READ a first and second time this day of , 2012.
READ a third time and finally passed this th day of , 2012.
______Murray Fearrey Warden
______James G. Wilson, CAO/County Clerk
As at April 26, 2012 7
Page 23 of 28
SCHEDULE “A”
STOP WORK ORDER COUNTY OF HALIBURTON
Under the authority of Section 7, of By-law YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED AND ORDERED TO forthwith stop, halt, cease, and desist from any and all works associated with the destruction of trees or removal thereof from those lands comprising;
MUNICIPAL ADDRESS / LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY:
LOT:______CONCESSION:______
GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP:
MUNICIPALITY:
OWNER / INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBLE FOR DESTRUCTION OR INJURYING OF TREES:
DESCRIPTION OF INFRACTION:
Date of Inspection: ______
Effective Order Date: ______
Signature of Officer: ______Date: ______
Pursuant to By-law XXXX Section 4, if you fail to comply with this Order you may be guilty of an offence and upon conviction may be liable to a fine as provided in Section 8.
Pursuant to By-law XXXX Section 7(e), where the person to whom an Order has been directed in accordance with this By-law is not satisfied with the terms of the Order, the person may request a review by Council by filing a written request by personal service or certified mail to the Director within 30 days after the date of the Order.
Municipal Address:
County of Haliburton 11 Newcastle Street P.O. Box 399 Minden, Ontario K0M 2K0
Attention: Director of Planning County of Haliburton
As at April 26, 2012 8
Page 24 of 28
County of Haliburton Warden Murray Fearrey P.O. Box 399 – 11 Newcastle Street Minden, Ontario K0M 2K0 Jane Tousaw, CMO Director of Planning [email protected] 705-286-1333 phone 705-286-4829 fax
To: Councillor Reid, Chair and Members of Haliburton County Planning Committee
From: Jane Tousaw, Director of Planning
Re: Housing Study
Date: July 11, 2012
Recommendation: That Haliburton County Council Planning Committee receives for information the July 11, 2012-staff report on the Housing Study and recommends to Haliburton County Council that staff acquire the required data from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to facilitate the Housing Study/Survey.
Background: At the May 23rd, 2012 meeting, the Planning Committee authorized the issuance of a survey to a targeted number of non-resident residential property owners throughout the County. The consultants indicated that cost savings, resulting from the data collected as part of the Housing Needs and analysis work just approved by County Council, the development of the survey would be absorbed within the current agreement. The cost of mailing the 1,870 targeted surveys was borne by the County at a cost of approximately $1,150.00.
It was also agreed that the County would be responsible for providing MPAC data as required. The County can acquire current data through Municipal Connect. However historical data requires a customized report from MPAC.
In order to assess trends in permanent vs. non-permanent dwelling counts throughout the County, MPAC data related to local municipal household counts from 2001 to 2012 was required. This information is provided to the local municipalities annually in a report entitled Household Counts - Unconditional Grants Act. While each municipality may be able to provide some of the data, it appears that records are not kept for the full duration of the time frame required and/or the data is not easily accessible.
Therefore MPAC was contacted to obtain a quote to acquire this data. The initial time estimate would have resulted in a cost of $1,500 – $2,000. MPAC has revisited the time required and advises that the work may be able to be completed in 2-4 hours which would reduce the costs to the $400-$800 range.
Once the custom tabulations from Stats Canada are received, additional MPAC data for past years will also be required. The Stats Canada data will be used to develop the income deciles for the breakdown of each housing type. MPAC will then be contacted to obtain the breakdown of housing type in each of the income deciles for periods related to the census years.
Page 25 of 28
Financial: These are unbudgeted costs. Although this is a project which crosses two budget years, there is little flexibility in the 2012 budget to absorb these costs. The budget for this project will be closely monitored to attempt to limit any overages resulting from these costs.
Reviewed by: Jim Wilson, CAO
Page 26 of 28
County of Haliburton Warden Murray Fearrey P.O. Box 399 – 11 Newcastle Street Minden, Ontario K0M 2K0 Jane Tousaw, CMO Director of Planning [email protected] 705-286-1333 phone 705-286-4829 fax
To: Councillor Reid, Chair and Members of Haliburton County Planning Committee
From: Jane Tousaw, Director of Planning
Re: South Central Ontario Ortho Photography 2013 Project
Date: July 11, 2012
Recommendation: That Haliburton County Council Planning Committee receives for information the July 11, 2012-staff report on the South Central Ontario Ortho Photography 2013 Project and that the Ministry of Natural Resources staff be invited to a future Planning Committee meeting and provide an overview of the proposed project.
Background: In 2008 the County looked into participation in a prior Ministry of Natural Resources project with the acronym of DRAPE 2008. At that time the County was advised that the DRAPE 2008 initiative would only include areas to the east and southeast of the County’s boundaries.
In 2010, the County of Haliburton agreed to partner in the South Western Ontario Ortho Photography (SWOOP) project. After initially confirming that the County of Haliburton could be included, Ministry of Natural Resources subsequently advised that the County could not be included, due to funding limitations. In fact, the project ended at the County’s south-westerly boundary.
Once again the Ministry of Natural Resources is looking for partners for an orthophotography initiative in 2013, entitled South Central Ontario Ortho Photography 2013. A copy of the area under consideration is shown and it includes the County of Haliburton.
County Staff has attended an initial information meeting. Mike Robertson of Ministry of Natural Resources has indicated that he would be willing to attend a future Planning Committee meeting to provide further information about the project and estimated costs.
Financial: None at this time.
Reviewed by: Jim Wilson, CAO
Attachments: Map of area under consideration
Page 27 of 28 Page 28 of