The Corporation of the Municipality of Meaford

By-law Number 060- 2014

Being a by-law to Adopt Official Plan Amendment #16 (Waterfront Strategy and Master Plan Implementation)

Whereas the Council of the Municipa l ity of Meaford deems it in the public interest to adopt Official Plan Amendment #16; and

Whereas pursuant to the provisions of Section 17 and 21 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, as amended, Official Plans may be amended by Council; and

Whereas the proposed amendment is an amendment to the Municipality of Meaford's Official Plan to implement area-specific recommendations of the Waterfront Strategy & Master Pfan;

The Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Meaford enacts as follows:

1. Amendment # 16 to the Municipa lity of Meaford Official Plan is hereby adopted.

2. The Director of Planning & Building Services is hereby authorized to su mit AmendmentCOPY # 16 and the supporting documentation to � the County of Grey for approval.

3. This by-law shall come into force and ta ke effect pursuant to the provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended.

Read a first, second and third time and fi nally passed this 28th day of July, 20 14.

Francis Richardson, Mayor

blay, Clerk COPY AMENDMENT No. 16 TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF MEAFORD OFFICIAL PLAN

Waterfront Strategy & Master Plan Implementation

COPY

Prepared by: Municipality of Meaford June 2014 COPY AMENDMENT No. 16 TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF MEAFORD OFFICIAL PLAN INDEX PAGE

The Constitutional Statement (i)

PART A - THE PREAMBLE

Purpose (ii)

Basis (ii)

PART B - THE AMENDMENT

Details of the Amendment 1

PART C - THE APPENDICES

COPY COPY AMENDMENT No.16 TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF MEAFORD OFFICIAL PLAN

THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATEMENT

PART A - THE PREAMBLE does not constitute a part of this Amendment.

PART B - THE AMENDMENT consisting of the following text, Schedules and Attachments constitute Amendment No. 16 to the Municipality of Meaford Official Pla n.

PART C - THE APPENDICES attached hereto do not constitute part of this Amendment.

These documents contain background data, planning considerations and record of public involvement associated with this Amendment.

COPY

(i) COPY PART A - THE PREAMBLE

PURPOSE The purpose of the proposed Official Plan Amendment is to update the Municipality of Meaford Official Plan to reflect recommendations arising from the Municipality of Meaford Waterfront Strategic and Master Plan.

BASIS In 2013, The Municipa lity of Meaford , with the assistance of Dillon Consulting, initiated a Waterfront Strategy and Master Planning process to :

• implement the Meaford Economic Development Strategy recommendations regarding preservation and promotion of the waterfront;

• develop waterfront-specific policy recommendations to guide decision making in the face of future development pressures; and,

• provide the necessary info rmation to update the Meaford Harbour Strategic Pla n with consideration to a broader waterfront context.

This process resulted in the development of a preferred concept plan; recommendations fo r policy updates affecting the urban waterfront area and adjacent land ; and, a number of recommendations for potential funding strategies to bring about the updated vision, in accordance with the guiding principles established for these lands.

The final preferred concept plan - the "Harbour Village"- was selected as it is believed to provide the "greatest opportunities for creating a balanced mix of uses, tourCOPYism activities and economic development in Meaford".

Section 6.2 of the Final Waterfront Strategy & Master Plan (May 2014) outlines a number of policy recommendations which have been incorporated within this proposed Official Plan Amendment. These changes affect lands within the Downtown Core Commercial & Transitional Areas and in the Urban Waterfront & Special Policy Areas adjacent to Georgian Bay and the Meaford Harbour.

In addition to text amendments affecting the areas noted above, the amendment also proposes a change to Schedule A-1 of the Plan to reflect the renaming of the Harbour Open Space Area designation to Urban Waterfront Area to be more consistent with the wording in the Waterfront Strategy & Master Plan.

(ii) COPY PROCESS Key dates in the process were:

• Under Section 17 & 21 of the Planning Act, the Municipality held a Public Meeting on July 28th, 2014, Notice having been issued in on July 2nd, 2014

Numerous other formal and informal opportunities for public input were providedthroughout the preparation of the Waterfront Strategy & Master Plan. This included public meetings, use of an online PlaceSpeak page, stakeholder interviews and a design charrette.

PART B - THE AMENDMENT

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

All of this part of the document entitled "Part B - The Amendment" consisting of the following text, Schedule and Appendices constitute Amendment No. 16 to the Official Plan of the Municipality of Meaford.

DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT

The Official Plan of the Municipality of Meaford is amended as shown on the following chart entitled:

DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT COPYJune 2014

1 COPY PART C - THE APPENDICES

The following Appendices do not constitute part of this Amendment. The following are included as information only supporting the Amendment:

1) Waterfront Strategy & Master Plan -dated May 2014 2) Resolution of Council - Adoption of WS&MP dated June 23rd, 2014

COPY COPY Number Policy Modification Number PARTB-THEAMENDMENT DETAILS OF THEAMENDMENT June 2014 Number Policy Modification Number 1. TABLE OF The words "Harbour Open Space Area" after '81.5' are CONTENTS hereby deleted and replaced with "Urban Area Waterfront". 2. A3.1.5 The words "Harbour Open Space Area" are hereby deleted and replaced with "Urban Area Waterfront". 3. 8.1.3.1 Is hereby amended by adding the following text as a 81n bullet point reading:

"Promote new uses along Bayfield Street that support viability, connection and synergy between the Waterfront and Downtown." 4. 81.3.3 Is hereby amended by adding the words "including outdoor education centers" after the words 'Private and commercial schools'. 5. 81.3.5.2 c Is deleted and replaced with the following text: "Hospitality, tourist oriented and waterfront supportive uses that will enhance the pedestrian linkage between the Meaford Harbour and Sykes Street are encouraged. Ground floor commercial uses are encouraged on Nelson Street, east of Sykes Street to the water." 6. 81.3.5.4 Is amended by adding the fo llowing text to the end of Paragraph 1, Sentence 1: "however, ground floor commercial uses are strongly encouraged along Nelson Street east of Sykes Street and along Bayfield Street between Trowbridge and ParkerCOPY Streets." This section is fu rtherame nded by adding a new clause e)

"e) the use does not undermine the objectives of the Urban Area Waterfront designation"

7. 81.3.7 Is hereby amended to read: "Lands to be used for commercial purposes shall be placed in a Downtown Commercial Zone in the implementing zoning by-law."

8. 81.5 This section is hereby renamed "Urban Area Waterfront"

9. 81.5.1 This section is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:

4 COPY Number Policy Modification Number "B1.5.1 Objectives

It is the intent of this Plan to:

• Recognize the Waterfront for its tourism and recreation opportunities;

• Develop a balanced mix of uses, including recreation, harbour, commercial, natural heritage, open space and harbour support;

• Maintain boat access to boat services and fuel operations in the Old Harbour, as feasible;

• Improve the layout and operations of the New Harbour;

• Attract businesses to Meaford's Waterfront at the Harbour Village;

• Improve connectivity between the Waterfront, Downtown, and the Georgian Trail;

• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats of the Georgian Bay Shoreline and Bighead River mouth; and,

• Implement the recommendations of the Municipality of Meaford Waterfront Strategy & Master Plan, as may be amended from time to time." 10. 81.5.2 Is amended by deleting the words "Harbour Open Space Area" and replacing them with "Urban Area Waterfront" and by adding the words "Urban Waterfront and" before 'Meaford Harbour'. 11. 81.5.3 Is hereby deleted and replaced as follows: "B1.5.3COPY Vision for the Urban Area Waterfront "The Municipality of Meaford takes pride in its Urban Waterfront for the exemplary approach and design that encompass the 'Environment First' philosophy through sustainable design elements and ecological features, becoming one of the most frequently visited locations on the Georgian Bay.

The modest intervention in the Old Harbour acknowledges the decreasing water-level trends, and embraces the existing location of the boat service and fuel operations while providing boat dockage for small boats along designated areas of the east and west harbour walls. The Old Harbour also features reclaimed lands, where feasible, in the Bighead River mouth with fish habitat enhancement measures and fishing piers,

5 COPY Number Policy Modification Number as well as the Harbour Village.

The New Harbour is improved with additional mooring spines and reconfiguration of the docks to expand the number of berths, providing excellent facilities for the boating community of Meaford and beyond. The Coast Guard Search and Rescue Station's presence is of great value and pride to Meaford's waterfront lands.

The Ha.rbour Village attracts local residents and tourists alike with its shops and restaurants along the west wall overlooking the Bighead River mouth that is animated with anglers and water-based activities on kayaks, canoes and small sailboats. Community fairs and events spill over from the Harbour Village to the extended sidewalks on Bayview Street that are enhanced with street trees, lighting, benches and decorative paving.

Nelson Street, is animated with ground level commercial activity and is a key pedestrian corridor from the Downtown to the waterfront and the pedestrian bridge across the river. The Rotary Harbour Pavilion, with striking views to both harbours and the bay, shines as the gathering place for small and large community events.

The waterfront is a vibrant space within the Municipality of Meaford and is well connected to the existing urban fabric. The open spaces and beaches along the waterfrontCOPY back onto natural heritage areas that support a continuous pedestrian trail along the lake, connecting to the Georgian Trail and the Downtown"

12. B.1.5.4 Is hereby amended as follows:

By deleting the words "Harbour Open Space Area" after 'designated' and replacing them with "Urban Area Waterfront".

By adding the text "shall be permitted until such time that their removal is warranted in order to facilitate implementation of the Waterfront Strategy & Master Plan" after the words 'Limited Recreational Vehicle Site Rentals'

6 COPY Number Policy Modification Number By deleting the word "food" between 'seasonal' and 'vendors'

By adding the following text as a final bullet point within the section: "Other uses which support implementation of the Waterfront Strategy and Master Plan and uphold the Guiding Principles for land in the Urban Area Waterfront designation."

13. B1.5.5 A new Section B1.5.5 "Guiding Principles" is inserted and subsequent sections renumbered accordingly.

The new Section B1.5.5 shall read:

"The following principles are intended to guide land use and development in the Urban Area Waterfront. Land use decisions should aim to:

a) Protect the environment for the benefit of current and future generations. b) Promote a healthy waterfront. c) Promote the urban area waterfront as a gateway and focal open space area. d) Enhance the role of the waterfront as a cornerstone of public open space with a mix of public and recreation-oriented uses. e) Consider the compatibility, access and synergies with the adjacent Special Policy Areas and the Downtown Core Commercial area. f) ProtectCOPY and enhance lands for boating opportunities. g) Protect and enhance passive waterfront recreation. h) Protect and enhance public access to the waterfront lands. i) Provide safe access through design and minimize community impacts. j) Provide safe, continuous public trail access along the water's edge. k) Enhance the physical and visual connectivity of the pedestrian circulation and links. I) Promote excellence in design. m) Celebrate Meaford's heritage. n) Enhance economic benefits."

14. B1 .5.5 (now Is hereby deleted and replaced as follows:

7 COPY Number Policy Modification Number 81.5.6) "B1 .5.6 Future Planning

It is a policy of this plan to carry out those implementation activities outlined in the Waterfront Strategy & Master Plan, including the preparation of detailed Implementation & Business Plans for the Urban Area Waterfront land use concept plan. Any capital projects or works should be completed in a manner that considers the implications for floodplain management and be done in consultation with the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority."

15. 81.5.6 (now Is hereby deleted and replaced as follows: 81.5.7) "B1 .5.7 Implementing Zoning By-law

Lands designated Urban Area Waterfront shall be placed in an Open Space or Urban Area Waterfront zone, as appropriate, in the implementing zoning by­ law. Site Plan control shall apply to the establishment of . new uses on the lands." 16. 8 1.8.1.1 Is hereby amended by deleting the word "shoreline" between the words 'on the' and 'and immediately' and replacing it with "Urban Waterfront".

17. 8 1.8.1 .2 Is hereby amended by adding the following text after the word 'lands' in clause d): "andCOPY will maintain public access to the waterfront" This section is further amended by adding a new clause f) as follows:

"f) the development will support the objectives of the Urban Area Waterfront designation and the Waterfront Strategy and Master Plan, as may be amended from time to time."

18. 81.8.1.3 Is hereby amended by adding the words "or Harbour Village" between the words 'core commercial' and 'area' in the final sentence of clause g).

19. 81.8.2.1 Is hereby deleted and replaced with the fo llowing text:

"B1.8.2.1 Vision for Special Policy Area #2

8 COPY Number Policy Modification Number

Special Policy Area #2 is comprised of five lots which abut the Meaford Harbour and, as a result of this close proximity to the Harbour, have good potential to accommodated open space and small-scale seasonal commercial uses which complement the harbour area. The general open space nature of these lands is intended to act as a buffer to adjacent residential uses, while small-scale seasonal commercial development in this area retains the opportunity for use of these lands in a manner that supports the Meaford Harbour and will assist in making this area an attraction for tourism.

In addition to the above uses, low-rise residential uses may be permitted in this area, however the consideration of residential uses on these lands should only occur where all lands within the Special Policy Area are to be planned comprehensively, and where to permit residential development would clearly uphold and support the general objectives of the Waterfront Strategy and Master Plan."

20. 81.8.2.2 Is hereby deleted and replaced as follows:

"81.8.2.2 Development Principles

The following development principles will guide the redevelopment of the Special Policy Area #2 lands:

a) The lands will be planned as a primarily open space extensionCOPY to the Meaford Harbour, providing a definitive boundary to the harbour and acting as a buffer to surrounding residential uses; b) The lands will be used for a suitable mix of small­ scale seasonal commercial uses related to the hospitality, tourism and service sectors which shall be generally supportive of the harbour area; c) Uses will be compatible with surrounding residential uses and the lands shall be landscaped to an enhanced standard to further the buffering capacity of these lands to adjacent uses; d) Development will provide pedestrian space and access to the waterfront and will minimize the amount of space used for parking cars; and, e) Any proposed residential use on these lands is to be planned comprehensively and should only be

9 COPY Number Policy Modification Number considered where such development would clearly uphold the objectives of the Waterfront Strategy and Master Plan."

21. Schedule A-1 is hereby replaced with an updated Schedule A-1 on which those lands identified as "Harbour Open Space' have been renamed "Urban Area Waterfront" 22.

Attachments 1 Schedule A-1

COPY

10 COPY Detail A Municipality of "" Mea ford Official Plan Schedule A-1 Land Use

Georgian Bay ·-�, Legend

Urban Living Area

... - Shoreline - Urban Employment Area Urban Highway Commercial COPY Rural Highway Commercial

Downtown Core Transitional

Institutional

Urban Area Waterfront

Major Open Space

Two-Zone Policy Area

Rural I:H@d Special Policy Area - Agricultural - Specialty Agricultural - EP_Amend

• Waste Disposal Site - Closed

:___ _ : Subject to Official Plan Section L�:.JSchedule Boundary --- River/Stream

��!!5iiiiiiiil!!"!5iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiikm

'-- ·+· HE�!Q!�� � Upd;ltlld .lllnil20141 COPY ""'" ...... c 0 ro N - ;::.-, C'O a.. � I.... Q) +-1 (f) ro � � COPY >, en Q) +-1 ro I.... +-1 (/) +-1 c 0 I.... '+- I.... Q) +-1 ro $ u

z

LLI 0: c :I VI � z­

, \\ 3_,f=. � --

COPY TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VI

INTRODUCTION 1.0 1 SITE CONTEXT 2.0 4 2.1 Harbour Historyof Change 5 2.2 Meaford Harbour Strategic Master Plan 7 2.3 Planning Context 9 2.4 Physical Site Conditions 16 2.5COPY Local Knowledge Exchange - Stakeholder Interviews, Phase 1 Consultation 24 2.6 Local Knowledge Exchange - CommunitySurve y, Phase 2 Consultation 26 2.7 Ontario Waterfront Precedents 27 2.8 Marina Market Overview 33 2.9 Meaford Waterfront Context Summary 37

PRELIMINARY CONCEPT OPTIONS 3.0 44 3.1 Preliminary Concept Options 44 3.2 Preliminary Concept Comparison 4 7 3.3 Exploring Vision, Objectives and Guiding Principles - Community Consultation 48

GUIDING PRINCIPLES 4.0 52 4.1 Tw o Concepts 53

4.2 Option 1 - Harbour Village Concept 55 4.3 Option 2- Intensified Boating Concept 60 4.4 Meaford Harbour Remediation Ta sk Force Committee 63 4.5 Regulatory Requirements 65 4.6 WaterfrontPlan Cost Estimate 66 4. 7 Potential Waterfront Uses 67 4.8 Concept Comparison 68 a DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED I SHOREPLAN I URBAN METRICS FUNDING STRATEGY 5.0 73 5.1 Meaford's Existing Financial Tools 73 5.2 Private Sector Partnership Opportunities 74 5.3 Funding and Community Involvement 76 5.4 Opportunities to Collaborate with Upper Levels of Government 76

RECOMMENDATIONS 6.0 78 6.1 General 78 6.2 Policy 79 6.3 Implementation 84

LIST OF REFERENCES COPY 86

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 - Consultation Appendix 2- Precedents

Appendix 3 - Costing LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Municipality of Meaford Public Waterfront Lands Figure 2: Meaford Waterfront Plan Study Area Figure 3: Meaford Waterfront Plan Study Area Land Ownership Figure 4: Historic Meaford Map Figure 5: Georgian Tra il Map Figure 6: Municipality of Meaford Official Plan Land Use Designations Figure 7: Municipality of Meaford Special Policy Areas in the Study Area Figure 8: Downtown CIP Study Area Boundary Figure 9: Downtown CIP Streetscape and Urban Design Strategy Figure 1 0: Phase 1 ESA Areas of Investigation Figure 11: Sources of Environmental Contamination within the Meaford Waterfront Plan Study Area Figure 12: Precedent Size Comparison Study Figure 13: Gravenhurst Waterfront Redevelopment (MuskokaCOPY Wharf) Summary Figure 14: North Bay Waterfront Redevelopment (Community Waterfront Park) Summary Figure 15: Activities of Boaters while on Shore Figure 16: Employment Growth in the Boating Industry Figure 17: Competitive Analysis - Nearby Marina Operations

Figure 18: Site Context Review & Synthesis Figure 19: Preliminary Concept Option 1 -Cultural Heritage - Sta tus-Quo Figure 20: Preliminary Concept Option 2 - Ecologically Sustainable - Harbour Village Figure 21: Preliminary Concept Option 3-Active Harbour, Reconstructed River Mouth Figure 22: Preliminary Concept Comparison Figure 23: Public Design Charrette Waterfront Concepts Figure 24: Option 1 - Harbour Village Concept Figure 25: Harbour Village Illustration Figure 26: St. Vincent Street Illustration Figure 27: East Beach Illustration Figure 28: Option 2 -Intensified Boating Concept Figure 29: Potential Waterfront Uses Figure 30: Tw o Concept Option Comparison Figure 31 : Meaford Waterfront Preferred Concept

DllLON CON")I..lL, H RGAN MfTRI.:� EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the Meaford Waterfront Plan is to: Over a century ago, Meaford played a key role as an industrial waterfront with direct access to the transportation of goods and later passengers via the Grand Tr unk Railway. The Georgian Bay shoreline and

1. Implement the Meaford Economic Bighead River mouth were inundated with commercial and private ships, as well as recreational boats. The Development Strategy {2070} through remnants of this history are vivid in the stories of the local residents, memorabilia, and its natural heritage the development of recommendations landscape. Over the last few decades, the waterfront lands have seen continuous transformations that have

regarding the preservation and promotion heightened the dedication of these lands as open public space, bringing the community together through of the waterfront events and festivals, boating, fishing, passive recreation, trail use and direct water access.

2. Develop waterfront-specific policy recommendations to guide decision The Municipality has had a long-standing interest in developing the waterfront to enhance economic making in the face of future development development through tourism activity and encouraging the establishment of new businesses to supportthe pressures to urban waterfront lands and commercialCOPY use of the Downtown Core. Many projects have been undertaken to supportand enhance the adjacent Special Policy Areas. lands surrounding the waterfront including the restoration of the Meaford Museum and Meaford Hall. An

3. Provide the necessary information to interest has also emerged in the last few years from local entrepreneurs to invest in the development of the update the Meaford flarbourStrategic waterfront and the Downtown. Plan {2009} with consideration to a broader waterfront context. Over the last two decades, the Municipality invested in plans that shaped the future of the waterfront lands in the urban area. The most recent was the Meaford Harbour Strategic Master Plan {2009) which identified 4. In addition to the development of the strategic actions to ensure that the harbour lands were developed and managed consistent with the vision, Meaford Waterfront Plan, the Meaford Harbour Remediation Task Force goals and values outlined in the Meaford 2005 Official Plan. The Community Improvement Plan {2008} Committee was established with a reinforced the need for strong physical and visual connections between the Downtown and Harbour, and separate mandate to advise Council the Meaford Economic Development Strategy {2 010) recognized that seasonal tourism traffic in Meaford

on a plan that identifies and technically should be better connected to the waterfront lands. evaluates the options to remediate the navigability and use of the Old Harbour at The Meaford Waterfront Plan urban study area includes the open space and harbour lands along Bayfield the Bighead River mouth. Street, the Old Harbour walls, the Bighead River mouth, the open space lands east of the harbour, the beaches, and the New Harbour. The Municipality owns most of these lands, however, some of the lands are privately owned (i.e. Richardson Boats) or leased from the Small Craft Harbours Branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (i.e., wharves and marine-related facilities). Consideration is also given to the land use and connectivity of Special Policy Areas 1 and 2 given their proximity to the study area and their potential to act as a catalyst to drive change and economic growth in the Municipality.

vi MUNICIPALITY OF MEAFORD PHYSICAL SITE CONDITIONS

The review of the study area was one of the initial steps to better understanding the physical site conditions and any limitations that may impact future land use change and redevelopment of the site. The research undertaken by the Meaford Harbour Remediation Ta sk Force Committee is also included in this report, providing the context for the existing infrastructure, operations and the coastal processes within the study area. A review of the existing waterfront uses within the study area was also of importance in order to balance and protect the range of public interests throughout the waterfront lands.

In 1983, 2007 and 2009, Public Works and Government ServicesCanada prepared Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) of the Meaford Harbour as part ofthe transfer of the lands from the federal government to the municipality. At that time, it was confirmed there were locations of impacted soils (metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)) at the Coast Guard Search and Rescue Station, across the Harbour open space area, and in an isolated location along the east beach area in proximity to Stanley Knights Limited. It also confirmed that a very small volumeCOPY of petroleum hydrocarbons was present on the leased Richardson Boat lands. Impacted groundwater (metals and PA Hs) was also confirmed on the Harbour open space area likely related to former railway activities. The impact of these contaminants depend on the ultimate uses on these lands. Site-specific remediation can be employed to address these issues. Both the Old and New Harbours have been confirmed to have impacted sediments (metals and PAHs primarily). These conditions are. however. common in harbours throughout the Great Lakes and in other communities where redevelopment of the harbours to a diverse range of tourism uses has been achieved .

It was concluded that appropriate risk management measures for the impacted soils will require further investigation into the extent and source of the metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Risk management measures could include: excavation of soil with metals and/or polycyclic aromatic · hydrocarbon concentrations above the generic MOE standards and/or use of a Risk Assessment to determine property-specific standards for the site that are protective of human health and the environment.

SHORELINE INFRASTRUCTURE AND COASTA L PROCESSES

A review of the shoreline infrastructure was undertaken including an on-site assessment by a coastal/marine engineer and identification of notable deficiencies in shoreline structures or notable erosion of natural shores. The site review did not uncover any such notable deficiencies. The breakwaters of the New Harbour appear to be in good condition with normal amount of fractures in the armour stones. The shores of the basin appeared stable with no obvious signs of erosion. The shores of the Old Harbour in the Bighead River • DILLC.N CUNSUlTiNu L 1\IITE..ci )HORCPLAN I uRBAN 1VlETF<.;(', EXISTING WATERFRONT USES mouth are also functional. They do show greater signs of deterioration, including the concrete cap on the south side of the Old Harbour basin; however, no signs of structural instability were observed. Any repairs or Although the waterfront historically supported a planned improvements to the shoreline infrastructure should consider the declining water levels of Georgian range of industrial functions in the 19th and 20th Bay. century, the last 20 to 30 years have focused on recreation uses. The urban waterfront lands are A review of background information regarding coastal processes along the shoreline beyond the Harbours comprised of Fred Raper's Park along the Georgian was undertaken to provide comments with respect to function and possible enhancement of existing Bay shoreline, the Meaford Museum with its beaches. It was concluded that a major extension of the beach south of the New Harbour in a southerly adjacent parkland, the green space located east direction beyond its present location would be difficult. The alignment of the shoreline is not appropriate for of the Bighead River including the picnic areas a beach. A very long groyne would be required with substantial infill to realign the shore before the beach the Rotary Harbour Pavilion, the Harbour Complex could be constructed. However, the existing beach could be improved if the groyne at the south end of the Building, Coast Guard Search and Rescue Station, beach was expanded. Expansions of the beaches on the north side of the Old Harbour were also assessed. historical railway storage shed, sailing school. It was concluded that the north cell has the most potential for beach improvement due to very shallow near chip wagon, public washroom building and a fish shore. Detailed modeling would be required as would material supplied from external sources because cleaning facility. A large grassy-gravel area is used naturalCOPY littoral material is not available to naturally enhance the beaches. for concerts, community events, parking, and in the winter as boating storage. The green spaces have a A review of the sedimentation of the Harbours was conducted with coastal information from the Grey number of large mature shade trees and ornamental Sauble Conservation Authority Shoreline Management Plan (Sandwell, 1992) and reports regarding erosion landscape features. A second naturalized, less­ and sedimentation issues on the Bighead River (Ainley and Associates, 1979, Cumming-Cockburn, 1985, maintained beach is located on the east end of the Cumming-Cockburn, 1985/86, Cumming-Cockburn, 1987 ,) to assess and understand dredging of the Old study area providing open views to Georgian Bay. Harbour. From the background reports, it became clear that the rate of infilling of the Old Harbour has not The marine uses include: transient dockage, been established with any accuracy, and there is no reason to believe that the rate of infill would be any seasonal dockage, commercial charter fishing, boat different in the future than it has been in the past. The source of sediment is not only from the river, but also servicing and repair, winter storage, sailing lessons the lake. Sediment moves along the Georgian Bay shoreline from north to south and enters the entrance of and launching. The shoreline supports, shore the Old Harbour (Bighead River mouth). Some sediment is flushed out during large flow events, but some fishing, swimming, festivals, parking, recreational remain and accumulate in the shallows where littoral transport moves the sediment back towards the river vehicle camping for fi shing patrons and trails. mouth. Future dredging proposals needs to consider further expected reductions in the water levels of Georgian Bay. Although also impacted by lake level decline, the New Harbour is not subject to the same It is also important to acknowledge and protect rate of sedimentation traditional uses of the waterways, shorelines and lands in and around the Municipality of Meaford for the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation, Saugeen First Nation (referred to as the Saugeen Oj ibway Nation) and the Metis .

• IJI STAKEHOLDER CONSWLTATION

Key stakeholder interviews and survey results exposed Meaford's waterfront authenticity, charm and intimacy and how significant that was to the 'sense of place' for so many local residents. The community takes pride in the events and festivals on the waterfront that attract visitors to Meaford for Canada Day, concerts , Farmer's Market, Scarecrow Invasion to name only a few. Residents and tourists alike use the waterfront lands for boating, beaches, swimming and walking, while also accommodating access for the

Aboriginal traditional activities. The community also identified the deficiencies in the existing waterfront lands and the key opportunities for future imp1 ovements.

At the initial stage of the projeer, key stakeholder interviews were held over a two day period to provide information and an update on the Meaford Waterfront Plan process and to obtain input from key informants who actively use the waterfront and have contributed to the development of the amenities along the waterfront. Representatives from the Rotary Club of Meaford, Coast Guard Search and Rescue Station, Stanley Knight Limited, Chamber of Commerce, Meaford PublicCOPY Library, Friends of the Meaford Harbour, Reef Boat Club, Richardson Boats, Councillors and Municipal Staff participated in the discussions.

A community survey was also circulated at the early stages of the project to gather input from the public on the existing site conditions and the 'top of mind' concern. Approximately 50 surveys were received and, although not statistically representative of the entire population of the Municipality, it provided insight into the preferences of the public who were engaged and really passionate about the future of the waterfront lands.

A design charrette is an intensive, visionary hailds-on workshop that brings people from different disciplines, backgrounds and interests together to explore land use and design options for a particular site. A public design charrette was held on a summer evening in July at the Meaford Hall to engage the community in the creative process of guiding the overall vision for the waterfront, as well as the potential locations for business development, pedestrian connections, beautification, Harbour improvements, enhanced green space, tourism generators, and cultural and natural features.

Community members attending the public design charrette worked in four groups to prepare conceptual alternatives to the options that had been provided to stimulate discussion. As each group presented their revised concepts, it became apparent that many elements had the unanimous support of the participants, while there were other issues, related to the Bighead River Mouth, where the participant's views differed.

l::lJ u N IVIETR!C WATERFRONT PRECEDENTS There was consensus on themes and ideas that included the importance of connecting the waterfront with the Downtown, fostering commercial activity along Bayfield Street. maintaining and expanding boating in Best practices and precedents in other municipalities the New Harbour, and enhancing recreation in Fred Raper Park, around the Rotary Harbour Pavilion and the on a similar scale with recent waterfront renewal east waterfront lands that back onto Special Policy Area # 1. There were differing opinions on the need to focusing on economic redevelopment (i.e., Keswick, maintain and expand boating in the Old Harbour if it required long term dredging to manage sedimentation. Crate's Landing in Georgina, Dryden, Thunder Bay, As part of the consultation process, Council provided feedback on the outcomes from the public charrette Deseronto, Cobourg and Port Perry) were reviewed and stakeholder engagement activities. The briefing session was also an important opportunity to explore to help identify a range of new uses that would how the work of the Meaford Harbour Remediation Task Force would be integrated to provide direction for enhance Meaford's waterfront. Kincardine and the future use of the Old Harbour. Saugeen Shores were also looked at as examples

for Meaford. Kincardine provides an example of In acknowledgement and to protect the traditional uses of the waterways, shorelines and lands in and a nearby waterfront community that has recently around the Municipality of Meaford by the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation, Saugeen First been able to attract investment in a new hotel. Nation (referred to as the Saugeen Oj ibway Nation) and the Metis, the Municipality met the consultation while Saugeen Shores recently completed its own requirements in recognition of the importance of pro-active relationship building. Input from this consultation Waterfront Master Plan. was COPYincluded in the recommendations of the Meaford Waterfront Plan.

The two waterfront community precedents that A public open house was held in late October to present the Draft Meaford Waterfront Strategy and Master are particularly informative to Meaford's current Plan content. including the two preferred concepts that emerged from the public charrette and Council situation and future direction were highlighted: input. The session also presented recommendations for the Official Plan policies, economic development Gravenhurst and North Bay. Both precedents and implementation strategies and the overall preferred concept. provide examples of communities which have successfully revitalized their harbour/waterfront areas into important economic and tourism generators. MARINA MARKET OVERVIEW They also provide examples of distinct waterfront In Meaford, the Marina component of the waterfront was reviewed in detail. While marinas serve an redevelopment strategies: Gravenhurst. a waterfront important function in the boating industry, it is also important to recognize that public marina operations redevelopment involved a partnership between the provide significant community benefits, offering support for economic development and/or additional municipality and private developer; and North Bay, community recreation space. Marina operations help to stimulate the local economy, attracting a municipally retained site being redeveloped for expenditures from visiting boaters and local boaters alike. In addition, marinas are often a focal point recreational purposes. for recreation within waterfront communities and provide a gateway function, beyond providing boating infrastructure and services. Although currently there is some short-term momentum in the boating industry due to an increase in recreational boat sales and signs of recovery for the boating industry, the business outlook for Marinas in Canada and Ontario is generally rated as 'moderate' given the decline in marina employment. rising marine fuel costs and the impacts of declining water levels. Locally, there has been growth in the sailing segment of the market and decline in the motorized boating primarily due to fuel costs. Meaford is suited to sailing and could capture a share of the larger sailboat market with suitable moorings

• ll and support facilities. New and Old Harbours in the Municipality of Meaford are running under-capacity, TWO CONCEPTS and the combined docking space requirements could be accommodated in the New Harbour, while still It became evident that the status quo - maintaining operating below 75% capacity. Any future economic development would make the marina operations more attractive to boaters, but market research shows the New Harbour would most likely have the capacity to the existing Harbour did not meet the Guiding handle the increased demand. Principles and was not realizing the potential economic benefits that a more diverse tourism destination could provide. Following the public PRELIMINARY CONCEPT OPTIONS meetings, it also became clear that both concepts

Three preliminary concept options were developed in response to the physical conditions, opportunities needed to be further refined and evaluated because and challenges identified through the background review, site evaluation and consultation. The preliminary the Remediation Ta sk Force had not concluded concepts explored the potential land use distribution, site access, natural heritage features, pedestrian their study, the boating community was advocating connections, vehicular access and marine infrastructure. The three concepts were characterized as: maintaining the moorings and Richardson Boat Cultural Heritage - Status Quo; Ecologically Sustainable - Harbour Village; and Active Harbour Option ­ Works in the current location in the Old Harbour. Reconstructed River Mouth. There remained an underlying uncertainty around the COPY viability of maintaining boating in the Old Harbour due to the cost of dredging and current lack of CONCEPT COMPARISON market for expanding boat moorings to justify

The three options for the redevelopment of Meaford's urban area waterfrontlands were evaluated with managing two harbours. The pivotal distinction between the two concepts was the primary function criteria that ranked potential impacts and contributions to: culture and tourism; natural environment and open space; along with afford ability. The criteria represent the planning objectives for the Meaford urban of the Old Harbour at the Bighead River mouth, area waterfront lands, as identified in the Official Plan policies and Meaford Economic Development which impacts the potential uses on the adjacent strategies. An initial comparison illustrated that the Ecologically Sustainable - Harbour Village Option lands and the opportunity for diversifying economic overall had the strongest contribution to and potential for enhancement of the waterfront lands, balancing opportunities. the integrity of the natural environment and the diverse demands of the community and visitors. The Active Harbour - Reconstructed River Mouth option provided tourism opportunities mainly for the boating/ In response to the community's interest in marina related services, with limited contributions to the natural environment and limited open space maintaining boating in the Old Harbour, the Harbour enhancements. The cultural heritage - status quo concept provided open space enhancement potential, Village Concept was refined to maintain access to while having a modest opportunity to improve the natural environment and little contributions to enhance Richardson Boats and some existing docks on the Meaford's culture, tourism and economic impact. west harbour wall, presumably with modest annual dredging to facilitate mooring where sedimentation could be managed.

II DILLON COI\J'.JULTING Lii'VIITED I SHOREPLAN I URBAN METRICS PREFERRED CONCEPT

The preferred concept was developed to maximize the potential social, economic development and tourism, and environmental long term contributions and impacts. Although some uncertainty exists about the future of many environmental. social, financial, technical and economic factors in the Municipality and beyond, it is important to recognize at the early stages of planning. the preferred concept option allows for the flexibility ' ...... __ to change course as necessary in the longer planning horizon as conditions change.

• Natural Heritage Enhancement: the improvements of the aquatic and terrestrial habitats, the urban forest and wildlife corridors are strongly supported by the Municipality's Official Plan policies.

Option 1 - Harbour Village Concept provides a considerably stronger case for the enhancement of the natural heritage with fish habitat improvements in the Bighead River mouth, less disturbance of the aquatic habitat. and less parking requirements that increase the open space area along the waterfront.

• Open Space Enhancement: the improvements to the open.space are essential to supportac tive COPYtransportation, healthy living and an authentic waterfront. Although both concept options provide considerable improvements to the open space network along the waterfront. Option 1 - Harbour Village Concept offers better connectivity between the open spaces with the additional lands that are used for parking in Option 2- Intensified Boating Concept.

• Affordability : the Municipality of Meaford will need to asses the cost implications for each concept.

Option 1 - Harbour Village Concept provides a strong case for affordability, given its partial strategic dredging of the Old Harbour in comparison to the full-harbour intervention and dredging for Option 2-Intensified Boating Concept. Option 2 also requires a large number of costly studies to resolve sedimentation issues in the Old Harbour.

• Redevelopment Opportunities: the redevelopment of the waterfront area is a priority in the Meaford

Economic Development Strategy. Option 1 - Harbour Village Concept provides a considerable range of commercial, tourism and recreation opportunitiesto build itself as a vibrant waterfront gateway with successful development of related businesses.

• Economic Climate: the redevelopment of the waterfront reflects the current and future market conditions in Meaford and beyond. Although both concept options reflect on the importance of

boating activities, Option 1 - Harbour Village Concept provides a stronger response to the economic climate by maintaining the current harbour functions with major improvements to facilitate the operation at full capacity, while diversifying the range of waterfront users by accommodating other uses, such as commercial, non-motorized boating, and recreational.

• Economic Input: the redevelopment of the waterfront provides significant contributions to Meaford's waterfront and the Downtown, as supported by the Official Plan and the Meaford Economic Development Strategy. • To urism Impact: the redevelopment of the waterfront draws tourists to Meaford and the waterfront. RECOMMENDAT IONS Although both concepts provide significant improvements to attracting tourists to Meaford and The Preferred Concept for the Meaford Waterfront the waterfront. Option 1 - Harbour Village Concept accommodates a broad range of users and economic development that ensures year-round tourism activity. Strategy and Master Plan (Meaford Waterfront Plan) is based on the input received from the community, • Recreation Impact: the improvements to the recreation areas are essential to support active stakeholders, staff and Council. The purpose of the transportation, healthy living and provide both passive and active recreation opportunities. Both options equally provide moderate opportunities for tourists and locals to embrace and enjoy the Meaford Waterfront Plan was to develop a waterfront beaches, parks and trails. master plan as an update to the Meaford Harbour Strategic Plan (2009) and policy recommendations • Compatibility: the improvements of the waterfront need to be compatible with the adjacent land that implement the strategies developed through the uses to maintain strong and stable neighbourhoods and/or areas of the municipality. Although both Meaford Economic Development Strategy (2 070). concepts are compatible with the adjacent land uses, Option 1 - Harbour Village Concept provides the commercial opportunity along the Old Harbour west wall that complements the strategic direction to have commercial development along BayfieldStreet. while creating a stronger link between the In the development of the Mea ford Waterfront waterfront and Downtown areas. Plan, two concept options were considered for the Municipality of Meaford urban area • COPY Value to the Community : the redevelopment of the waterfront provides additional amenities for local waterfront redevelopment - the two concepts' residents. Although both concepts provide significant improvements to the waterfront amenities, land use, harbour functions, and tourism and Option 1 - Harbour Village Concept provides a diverse set of waterfront uses, including a potential economic development potential were the main restaurant along the waterfront which was identified as extremely important through community differentiators. Based on a deep understanding consultations. of the Municipality of Meaford's Official Plan policy • Va lue to the Municipality: the redevelopment of the waterfront provides value to the Municipality gaps and 'environment-first' mandate, the technical. through implementation of its existing policy framework and improves municipal finances. Overall, regulatory and navigation challenges in the Old Option 1 - Harbour Village Concept illustrates the strongest case to reduce operating costs and Harbour, community support, and the economic improve revenue. development and market conditions evaluation, it is • Precedents: the redevelopment of the waterfront has already been tested elsewhere and has been the recommendation of the Meaford Waterfront Plan successful. that the - Harbour Village Concept be adopted as

• Commercial Feasibility: the redevelopment of the waterfront draws commercial partners and other the preferred waterfront master plan. The Harbour

development interests to invest in Meaford. Option 1 - Harbour Village Concept provides the Village Concept provides the greatest opportunities strongest case for commercial feasibility given the already established entrepreneur interest to invest for creating a balanced mix of uses, tourism activities in commercial uses along the waterfront and partnership and funding opportunities. and economic development.

Ill DILlON CON�ULTII\JG�i iVI iTED I SHOREPL.AI'J i uRBi-\i\i i\•1 t :·RICS COPY 1.0 INTRODUCTION

Waterfronts are much celebrated public spaces in any community that fronts a body of water. Although the past, present and future uses and interactions with the waterfront differ from one community to another, the undeniable energy, drive and excitement to make contact or catch a glimpse of the sparkling water remain the same across all locations. The Municipality of Meaford's urban area has an extensive public waterfront on the Georgian Bay - the continuous chain of public lands spans the Bay shoreline and wraps around the mouth of the Bighead River. Although the study area for the Mea ford Waterfront Strategy and Master Plan is defined within the urban area of Meaford, consideration is also given to the connectivity of the study area to adjacent municipal waterfront lands (see Figure 1).

The Municipality has had a long-standing interest in developing the Harbour to enhance economic development through tourism activity and encouraging the establishment of new businesses to support the commercial use of the Downtown Core. Many projects have been undertaken with both public and priCOPYvate funding sources, including the Services Clubs of Meaford, to support and enhance the Downtown and Harbour, including streetscaping, pavement repairs in the Harbour, construction of the Rotary Harbour Pavilion, restoration of the Meaford Museum and Meaford Hall. An immense interest has also emerged in the last few years from local entrepreneurs to invest in the development of the waterfront and the Downtown.

Over the last two decades, the Municipality invested in plans that shaped the development of the waterfront lands in the urban area. The most recent was the Meaford Harbour Strategic Master Plan {2009) which identified strategic actions to ensure that the harbour lands were developed and managed according to the vision, goals and values outlined in the Meaford 2005 Official Plan. The Downtown Community Improvement Plan {2008) reinforced the need for strong physical and visual connections between the Downtown and Harbour, and the Meaford Economic Development Strategy {20 10) recognized that seasonal tourism traffic in Meaford should be better connected to the waterfront lands.

Successful waterfronts require a clear and strategic direction, and realistic and achievable master plans that guide the redevelopment. The need to update the strategy to recognize new trends and community needs has led to the development of this Meaford Wa terfrontStrategy and Master Plan (Meaford Waterfront Plan) .

• D!UCH�CO I\JSULTII\i G LI IVIITED I SHOREPLAI\J ! JRBAN 1\iiETRiCS FIGURE 1 - Municipality of Meaford Public Waterfront Lands

<.;, "f.,ol' . �0 "" -1>�

COPY '{�6 �\9nllla "'

' �.f• • .P,s-�

Georgian Bay

- Watercourse

Mun icipal Waterfront Lands ; The purpose of the Meaford Waterfront Plan is to:

1. Implement the Mea ford Economic Development Strategy (201 0) through the development of recommendations regarding the preservation and development of the waterfront as a tourist attraction. PlaceSpeak Visit - https://www. placespeak.com/topic/7 49-meaf�ord-waterfront­ 2. Develop waterfront-specific policy recommendations to guide decision making in the face of future strategy-and-master-plan/ development pressures to urban waterfront lands and adjacent Special Policy Areas. 3. Provide the necessary information to update the Meaford Harbour Strategic Plan (2009) with consideration to a broader waterfront context. Meaford Waterfront Strategy and Master Plan

- · The development of the Meaford Waterfront Plan was based on a comprehensive review and analysis of the DID site context in Section 2, and in-depth traditional and online consultation (Sections 2.5, 2.6 and 3.3) with the • t�Z M community and key stakeholders and community leaders who actively use the waterfront. The consultation included key stakeholder interviews, community surveys, a COPYpublic design charrette, an online discussion COP\,..rl \111'""'-l\1'11 forum via PlaceS peak and a Public Open House. Sections 3 and 4 of the Meaford Waterfront Plan present ""' the preliminary conceptual design process, the development of the two concept options, as well as the _ ...... -� preferred concept for the Municipality's urban area waterfront lands...... ,...... 11 _'-"� - a •

In addition to the development of the Meaford Waterfront Plan, the Meaford Harbour Remediation Ta sk Force Committee was established with a separate mandate to advise Council on a plan that identifies and technically evaluates the options to remediate the navigability and use of the Old Harbour at the Bighead River mouth. The conclusions and recommendations of this work will strengthen the preferred vision and policies for the future development of the waterfront lands. The final recommendations developed for the Meaford Waterfront Plan are presented in Section 6.

DILLON CONSULTING L/1\.�ITED I SHOREPLAN I URBAN METRICS 2.0 SITE CONTEXT

The Mea ford Waterfront Plan urban study area is approximately 23 ha and includes the open space and harbour lands along Bayfield Street. the Old Harbour walls, the Bighead River mouth, the open space lands east of the harbour, the beaches, and the New Harbour (refer to Figure 2) . The Municipality owns most of the lands within the study area (see Figure 3), however, some of the lands are privately owned (i.e., Richardson Boats) or leased from the Small Craft Harbours Branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (i.e., wharves and marine-related facilities). Consideration is also given to the land use and connectivity of

Special Policy Areas 1 and 2 given their proximity to the study area and their potential to act as a catalyst to drive change and economic growth in the Municipality.

The next section explores the Municipality's rich cultural heritage, policy framework and strategic plans that guide the physical and economic development of the Municipality, and the existing physical conditions that deepen the understanding of the opportunities and challenges in the redevelopment of the waterfront lands. The COPYlocal knowledge was conveyed through key stakeholder interviews and a community survey. Finally, the study area's size, functions and economic development models were compared with other mainly northern municipalities through a waterfront precedent study.

Legend 0 VVaterfrontStudy Boundary

FIGURE 2 - Meaford WaterfrontPlan Study Area • !\ iUf··J!liPi\l ' :·y ,Jt 1\ ltAh,I KD 2.1 HARBOUR HISTORY OF CHANGE

Small-town waterfronts have changed dramatically over the last century and often have remnants of their past character and use. Traces remain of the early settlements and industries that enabled regional prosperity and growth. As portrayed in Pictorial Meaford {1991} and the draft Meaford Heritage Conservation District Study {2013}, the Municipality of Meaford was a desirable settlement location along the shoreline of Georgian Bay in the vicinity of the Bighead River due to the generally well-drained soil, potable water sources and multiple navigation routes. Petun native people (Algonquin and Hurons) traveled the area, and a mid-19th century map (see Figure 4) shows records of an 'Indian Camp' on the waterfront lands. The Bighead River was named after early settlers found a large skull at a point jutting out near the mouth of the river which was presumed to be the burial grounds of the Aboriginal chief.

Early settlers had also developed lands along the waterfront by the mid-19th centurythat were supported by a continuous expansion of the industrial economy base (i.e., planing mill, foundry. tannery, etc.). The Harbour was used for shipping and receiving goods (i.e., coal)COPY. passenger steamers, small commercial fishing industry, and recreational fishing and boating. By the end of the 19th century, the 1872 North Grey Railway was replaced by the Grand Trunk Railway which was constructed along the Harbour allowing Meaford to become an important waterfront-rail port. The 1901 harbour plan resulted in improved harbour

FIGURE 4 - 1864 Map of Meaford

Legend

l!·.i�7.1Private Lands - Municipal WateJfront Lands � Leased lands c::JWaterfront Study Boundary

FIGURE 3 - Meaford Waterfront Plan Study Area Land Ownership • D UNSULJINt: LIMITED HORf-PLAN RBAN l'vH:fRICS walls, dredging, new storage elevator, new station and associated sheds, siding, round-house, turntable and water tank. The rail and harbour station served both passenger and freight needs for sixty years, through two world wars and a depression, until the services were fully discontinued in the mid 1980s due ------to a continuous decline in service. To day, the former railway corridor is enjoyed as the Georgian Trail (see Figure 5).

The Bighead River's dynamic fluvial processes near the river mouth have also been rerouted to now within the grid layout of the Downtown urban area. In more recent history, the southeast end of the shoreline was filled to construct the Coast Guard Search and Rescue Station in 1992, which continues to have a key role and presence on the waterfront lands. As typically seen across many other 19th century harbours in Ontario and Canada, Meaford's Harbour, adjacent lands and the shoreline itself have been altered to continuously accommodate the changing uses that support community needs, and market demands at the time. Meaford's waterfront lands have evolved from being a prime working industrial area to a more passive publicCOPY recreation, boating and open space area for the residents and tourists alike.

� � 'J'c:o

Staying on Track!

TJI.Ail lENGltl: ]4 km ..._. _ .. r� Gt'o'Jfr��dlt.lrlJooi ln rN:'wn1 rhcrr"�fr; m.Jn)' •un1 pojt'lh ,.fu,r

RATING: fesy I "'tM�b4• USES: Hiking, c;;ydlng, i�llillnU, H.eathcOlf trOU-vry: 13 lim � TO TMrl'\bVt)' (01lln ')1 1< .....,...,._,�·- ,, ..

FIGURE 5 - Georgian Trail Map (source: http://www.georgiantrail.ca/trailmap.html) 2.2 MEAFORD HARBOUR STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN In 2009, Council approved the Meaford Harbour Strategic Master Plan (Meaford Harbour Plan), a document which sought to integrate stakeholder input, Meaford Official Plan policy objectives, and a review of operational and capital challenges to generate specific strategic directions and actions that would guide the development of the Harbour area in the face of anticipated future development trends and pressures. The Meaford Harbour Plan's strategic directions and actions were founded on the 2005 Meaford Official Plan (Official Plan) vision for the Harbour Open Space Area:

The Meaford Harbour lands are intended to be one of the cornerstones of public open space in the Municipality. It will be maintained and developed to be an all-seasonpublic parkand centrefor community events. The Meaford Harbour is one of the most attra ctive and accessible waterfront parks in the Georgian Tr iangle and efforts will be made to promote this fa cility to citizens and tourists who tra vel by fo ot, car, boat or via the Georgian Trail, which is directlyCOPY connected to the Harbour. Seven high-level Guiding Principles were developed through the Harbour Master Plan:

Environment - With 'environment first' philosophy, precedence is given to the protection of significant natural heritage features and functions in the Municipality for the benefit of current and future generations. In the redevelopment of contaminated sites, studies and plans in accordance to Ministry of Environment guidelines are required to ensure no adverse effects on the proposed uses or adjacent lands.

Community Impact and Safety - Design minimizes any potential negative impacts to adjacent residential uses through the use of planting, fencing and the provision of appropriate access and parking, appropriate lighting and safe pedestrian access from adjacent residential areas.

Operations and Security- Management to be in-line with the broader corporate visions: to be recognized as a leading edge organization engaging best practices in technology, customer satisfaction, finance and operations.

Connectivity and Pedestrian Focus - Connection to the trail systems, cycling routes and natural heritage corridors, as well as the Downtown and Georgian Trail via pedestrian linkages. Be accessible to individuals with all levels of ability and in line with Provincial Accessibility Standards.

Signage, Design and Promotion - Improve the visitor experience with those traveling by foot. car, boat or via the Georgian Trail, and establish the Meaford Harbour as a prominent recreational focal point and public

DllLO N CONSULTING LIIVI IlED ':>HORfPLAN I URBAN MURICS open space area in the municipality as well as the regional area. Meaford Harbour is acknowledged as a gateway into the Municipality, with improved connections between the Harbour and the Downtown.

Special Policy Areas - Develop with consideration to the adjacent Special Policy Areas (see Section 2.3.1 .4).

Public Access and Use - Become a cornerstone of public open space with a mix of public and recreation­ oriented uses.

Strategic actions were established in the Meaford Harbour Plan for each one of the principles discussed above to address the specific items that will need further work and implementation plans. While implementation started on a number of the strategic actions, it has been recognized that the plan did not comprehensively address the broader urban waterfront area or include an optimized concept plan for the HarbourCOPY or adjacent waterfront lands. Legend

Urban Ll\llna Area

Shoreline

UrbanEmploy men! Area Urban Htghway Commercial

Rural Highway Commercial - Georgian Bay - Downtown COre Commercial - DoW('ltOwn CoraTra,nsltlo nal - lnslllullonal - Harbour Open Space - Major Open Space

� Major Recreation � Two -Zone Polley Area Rural

Special Polley Area [� !F••< ffi ��tl��··· - Agricultural ... SpeciallyAgricultural - -- Environmeniaf Protection • Wasle Disposal Site - Closed �� -- �: Subjecl to OffiCial Plan Section C�'JSchedwe Boundary Alver/Siream

FIGURE - 6 Municipality of Meaford Official Plan Land Use Designations II o\ IP 2.3 PLANNING CONTEXT

As part of a comprehensive review of the current planning framework and strategic plans within the Municipality of Meaford. the following documents were reviewed: 2005 Meaford Official Plan and the Draft Official Plan Amendment. Meaford Vision 2020, Downtown Community Improvement Plan and Meaford Economic Development Strategy.

2.3.1 OFFICIAL PLAN

An Official Plan describes policies on how lands are used within a community to ensure planning and development will meet the specific needs of the community and future generations. The Municipality has nearly completed the five (5) year review and update of the 2005 Official Plan. as required by the Planning Act of Ontario. The Official Plan Amendment was adopted by Council on June 24, 2013 and submitted to the County of Grey for final approval. Objectives and policies that are relevant for the Meaford Waterfront Plan study area lands, as described in the 2005 Official Plan. were reviewed with consideration of the proposed Official Plan Amendments. COPY

The 2005 Official Plan has an 'environment-first' mandate to protect and give precedence to significant natural heritage features and functions over development, while also recognizing that further intensification should happen in the urban area and that urban waterfront areas should be redeveloped with mixed- use development in such a way to attract major tourism opportunities (Sections A2.2.2 and A2.5.2). The development of additional employment and tourist commercial uses are to be encouraged in the Downtown and Harbour areas (Section A2:5.2),as well as hospitality and tourist-related uses that enhance pedestrian connections between the Harbour and Sykes Street (Section B1 .3.5.2c). Under Section 81.3. 1 of the proposed Official Plan Amendment. an improved "visual, economic and pedestrian connection [should be made] between the Downtown and the Meaford Harbour to create a unified central area."

The study area falls within the 'Urban Area' and 'Environmental and Open Space' land use designations in the Municipality's Official Plan. The more specific land designations are 'Harbour Open Space' and 'Major Open Space', as shown in Figure 6. In addition, properties abutting the Georgian Bay shoreline and the Bighead River mouth have also been designated as an 'Environmental Protection' area under the proposed Official Plan Amendment. Key relevant policies in the Official Plan are discussed below.

• d, l ,, . ., \J . ·rtf .r� ·J t 1\J •_ l.... i ;"/1 --J,_i ::;'_ �:_. ,..\ !'-.... -' � t'_-\_ t\� \·1t=T�.t -=(· 2.3.1.1 Harbour Open Space Under Section A3. 1. 5 of the Official Plan, "public lands in the Harbour area of the Mea ford urban area ... will continue to be used for open space, recreational uses. " The objectives for the Harbour Open Space (Section 87.5. 1) in the Official Plan are to:

• Establish the Harbour lands as a prominent recreational fo cus point and public open space area in the Municipality as well as the regional area;

• Develop a mix of public and recreation-oriented uses on the Harbour lands; and

• Create a pedestrian environment and linkage between the Harbour, the Downtown and the Georgian Tra il.

Under Section 5. 1.5.3 of the Official Plan, the vision for the Harbour Open Space area is: "The Mea ford Harbour lands are intended to be one of the cornerstones of public open space in the Municipality. It will be maintained and developed to be an all-seasons public park and centre for community events. The Meaford Harbour is one of the most attractive and accessible waterfront parks in the Georgian Triangle and efforts COPY will be made to promote this fa cility to citizens and tourists who tra vel by foot, car, boat or via the Georgian Trail, which is directly connected to the Harbour. "

Among the permitted uses within the Harbour Open Space designation are: public uses including parkland and picnic facilities, tourist information centers, festivals and special events, libraries, boat rental establishments, storage of boats, sailing schools, tourist-oriented retail uses, parking areas, museums and art galleries, seasonal food vendors, marinas, and limited recreational vehicle site rentals1 .

2.3.1.2 Major Open Space

Section 83.2.2 of the Official Plan defines the location of open space lands with the Major Open Space designation, including "allma jor community parks in the Meaford urban area, the settlements and the shoreline area." The objectives for the Major Open Space (Section 83.2. 7) in the Official Pan are:

• Ensure that the use and development of open space lands is consistent with the 'environment-first' philosophy of this Officia l Plan;

• Ensure that the impacts of the use of the open space lands on adjacentland uses are minimized; and

• Lmited Recreation Vehicle sit rental is a new bullet in the Ensure that the residents of the Municipality have access to a properly planned and accessible 1 parkland system. proposed Official Plan Amendment (201 3) .

• ''-I�JN,( Ll-\.OKI Among the permitted uses within the Major Open Space designation are "limited to passive and active recreational uses, conservation uses, fo restry uses in accordance with good management practices and accessoryuse s."

Under Section B3.2.4 of the Official Plan. the components of the Major Open Space designations are identified. which include the Georgian Trail. Small Community Parks and Road Allowances in the Shoreline Area.

The Georgian Trail component is described in Section B3.2.4. 1 as the following: "The Georgian Tr ail is located on the former Canadian National railway line. It is the intent of this Plan to encourage the use of this trail by a wide variety of non-motorized uses, such as hiking. wa lking. cycling and cross-country skiing. Motorized vehicles and hooved animals are not permitted. It is further the intent of this Plan to encourage development of fa cilities and uses in close proximity to the trail that may take advantage of tourists and related economic de velopment opportunities. Such uses and fa cilities may include bed and breakfast establishments. bicycle-rental establishments and interpretaCOPYtion centers. Th e development of 'feeder trails ' into the Meaford Tr ail system is also encouraged. provided such a trail conforms with the 'environment-first' objectives of this Plan."

The Small Community Parks and Road Allowances in the Shoreline Area component is described in Section B3.2.4.3 as the following: "In addition to the major community parks, there are a number of other Municipality- owned lands that are used fo r recreation purposes. These include the smaller park areas 4 and road allowances accessing Georgian Bay Although these areas are considered to be part of the l Municipality's open space system, they are not considered to be major open space areas since they are intended to be used on a low intensity basis."

Although not directly in the study area for the Meaford Waterfront Plan, Memorial Park. Beautiful Joe Park and McCarroll Park are considered in the wider context for connectivity; therefore. the Major Community Parks in the Urban Area and the Settlements component is described in Section B3.2.4.2 of the Official Plan as the following: "The major community parks in the settlements area are also considered to be part of the Municipality's major open space system. These parks include Memorial Park and Beautiful Joe Park. It is a policy of this Plan that these parks will continue to provide a wide range of recreational opportunities for the Municipality's residents."

1-1 u N £\.1£.TRICe; 2.3.1.3 Environmental and Open Space The Georgian Bay shoreline and Bighead River mouth contribute to the health and function of the Municipality's natural heritage system. Section 83. 1.2 of the amended Official Plan defines the components of the Municipality's Natural Heritage System. which includes floodplains as confirmed by the Conservation Authority or the Ministry of Natural Resources. The objectives for the Environmental and Open Space (Section 83. 7. 7) in the Official Pan are:

• Maintain and enhance the ecological integrity of the natural heritage system;

• Eliminate the potential for the loss or fragmentation of significant wetland and the habitats and ecological functions they provide;

• Provide the tools to properly assess development applications located in close proximity to environmentally sensitive features and areas;

• Implement the 'environment-first' objectives of this Plan; and

• COPYTo maintain, restore and improve natural fe atures and fu nctions by recognizing linkages among natural heritage fe atures and areas, surface water and groundwater features2.

Among the permitted uses within the Environmental and Open Space designation are "limited to forestry. conservation and passive recreational uses. For the purpose of this section. a golfcourse or similar land use is not a passive recreational use ...Buildings. structures or site alterations are generally not permitted in this designatiofil."

Under Section 83. 1.4.4 of the proposed Official Plan Amendment. "the diversity and connectivity of natural fe atures in an area, and the long term ecological fu nction and biodiversity of natural heritage features should be maintained, restored or; where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface wa ter fe atures and groundwater fe atures. The cumulative effects of new development on the natural environment and surrounding land uses shallalso be addressed."

A new bullet inserted in the proposed Official Plan

2 Amendment (2013).

Revised section From the proposed OfficialPlan Amendment 3 (2013).

A new bullet inserted in the proposed Official Plan

4 Amendment (2013) .

• '\.l t ''II'l 1.1 .:.�.HH· 2.3.1.4 Urban Special Policy Areas Th e fo llowing principles shall guide the redevelopment of the Special Policy Area # lands: The study area for the Meaford Waterfront Plan is adjacent to Special Policy Area # 1 and Special Policy 1 Area # 2, as shown in Figure 7. Under Section A3. 7.8 of the proposed Official Plan Amendment, Special • Th e lands will be planned and redeveloped in Policy Areas provide a designation for "lands that are planned to be the site of new recreational, residential their entirety as opposed to being developed and/or commercial development." in an ad-hoc or piecemeal basis.

• Special Policy Area # 1 The lands will be used fo r a suitable mix of residential, open space and commercial uses Under Section 81.8.1.1 of the proposed Official Plan Amendment. the vision for Special Policy Area # 1 is related primarily to the hospitality, tourism and as follows: "Special Policy Area # 1 is a contiguous area of land that was previously designated for industrial service sectors. use and which is still occupied by existing and fo rmer industrial uses and buildings. It is the intent of this Plan to encourage the redevelopment of this area into a pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use area. Th e lands indentified • Th e development willbe compatible with in Special Policy Area # 1 are considered to be integral to this objective, given their location on the shoreline surrounding residential uses.

and immediately east of the Meaford Harbour area." • The development will create and improve COPY linkages to existing open space and harbour lands.

• The development will provide pedestrian space and access to the waterfront and will minimize the amount of space used for parking cars.

Prior to development, a Zoning By-law Amendment will need to be approved with the following criteria: a mixed-use land use plan with active transportation linkage to the Downtown, Geotechnical Assessment. Functional Servicing Report, Traffic Impact Assessment, Phase 1 and 2 Archaeology Assessment, and an Economic/Market Impact Study4.

Cegend c:JWatarfronl study Boundary � Spada!PoUcy Aru

FIGURE 7 - Municipality of Meaford Special Policy Areas in the Study Area Ill OILLO N CONSULTING LIIVI TI::. D I SHORE PLAN I URBAN IV LTRIC� Special Policy Area # 2 Under Section 81.8.2. 1 of the proposed Official Plan Amendment. the vision for Special Policy Area # 2 is as follows: "Special Policy Area # 2 is comprised of fivelots which abut the Meaford Harbour and, as a result of this close proximity to the Harbour, have good potential to accommodate commercial uses such

as restaurants, inns, craftand gift shops, studios and artgalleries which complement the harbour area. The .wl/.. ,_....9'1 ...,. intent of allowing small-scale commercial development in this area is to create an opportunity to use these 1'-�"'Y·"" ,.. ,., lands in a manner that supports the Meaford Harbour and will assist in making this area an attra ction for tourism. In addition to the above uses, low-rise residential uses may be permitted in this area, if there is no market for additional commercial uses. However, the consideration of residential uses on these lands should only be considered 1f it is determined that a greater long-term public interest would be served 1f such uses are developed instead. "

The following principles shallguide the redevelopment of the Special Policy Area # 2 1ands:

----- a) The lands will be planned as a logical extension to the Meaford Harbour, providing a definite - ..,.----.,...... ,.,_- boundary to the Meaford Harbour: COPY - IIi b) The lands will be used fo r a suita ble mix of commercial uses related primarily to the hospitality, jON" tourism and service sectors. FIGURE 8 - Downtown CIP Study Area Boundary c) The development will be compatible with surrounding residential uses.

d) Th e development will provide pedestrian space and access to the waterfront and will minimize the Ckt--·.:-·-\.-ollll � �(lpenSpao. � amount of space used for parking cars. ....f'IGII "-'"-'.....U ilctiY.. '-- --1�, - ___ ._ .. �•r•co-n- 11::) Ultwoft�...... Upllf'--...... , - All development in Special Policy Area # 2 shall be subject to rezoning. Prior to considering a proposed CI..-..f'IDom tOUI I ()peno .,._* R... Tlllill l,. ,.,. zoning by-law amendment Council shall be satisfied that: F1..-rst -- ·

a) Th e use will have minimal impacts on the established residential neighbourhood to the south. b) The uses are oriented to the Harbour area. c) Parking can be adequatelyaccommod ated by a combination of on-site parking and publicparking. I 1J Nlll tor�S1W d) The use will contribute to the vitality of the Harbour: I I I I .. ifV,.tntt;.St , 2.3.1.5 New Official Plan Sections : I I I Amongst many revisions and updates to the Municipality's Official Plan are new sections that also I ...... ,_ St 2005 I ...... ;;r••••• !!!ii I relate to the Meaford Waterfront Plan, including policies on sustainable forms of land use and development I I It! I s (including provisions for the development of Green Development Standards, energy and water I ... j I!OerSI conservation, tree canopy protection and enhancement and outdoor lighting) and active transportation "' (including recreational and active transportation infrastructure, trails, and safe, convenient and attractive FIGURE 9 - Downtown CIP Streetscape and Urban streetscapes). Design Strategy Ill ,:;·!'ci _:f-'.i-.• ! ·( J! !VI t.'-':�CH\L• 2.3.2 DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN

The Downtown Community Improvement Plan (2008) (Downtown CIP) boundary contains lands within the Downtown Core Commercial. Downtown Core Tra nsition and Harbour Open Space designations within the Municipality of Meaford (see Figure 8) . The east waterfront area and the westerly portion of the harbour lands are included in the study area. A background review of the study area revealed the following deficiency: "poorly defined pedestrian and vehicle linkages to Meaford Harbour, the waterfront, the Bighead River, residential neighbourhoods and other community amenities" . A redevelopment strategy was identified, "create a strong pedestrian and streetscape connection fr om the Downtown to the wa terfront', in recognition that Nelson Street provides a significant link between the Downtown and the waterfront (refer to Figure 9). General guidelines were established in the Downtown CIP on the community gateways, and the Harbour was presented as an important arrival location for visitors arriving to Meaford from the water-side. It was noted that the gateway should be a point of reference or landmark, with way-finding, signage and other landscape amenities. The Downtown CIP also identified all the available financial incentive programs and funding sources for rehabilitation of lands and buildingsCOPY within the study boundary, as well as the implementation action plan and monitoring.

There are a number of existing policies and incentive programs that encourage redevelopment in the Downtown and Harbour areas, which have already been implemented through the Downtown CIP.

2.3.3 MEAFORD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

The Meaford Economic Development Strategy (MEDS). developed in 2010, identified that the Municipality of Meaford's tourism traffic is highly seasonal. making it very difficult to sustain a strong tourism business. The MEDS indicates that there are a limited number of retailers currently servingthe outdoor recreation market locally. Moreover, there is also a lack of arts & cultural retailers in Meaford. To address these issues, a number of strategic actions and objectives with respect to the 'Tourism' pillar of economic activity are proposed, including the preservation and promotion of Meaford's existing attractions.

The Municipality is currently in the process of updating the Economic Development Strategy. One of the key deliverables is expected to be the implementation of the Meaford Waterfront Plan.

DILLON CCJN'-..J li I Nu 11TE'D I JRt:P;..AN I URBAN MEmt c..5 2.4 PHYSICAL SITE CONDITIONS

A site review was one of the initial steps to better understand the physical site conditions and areas of concern, along with the necessary mitigations to support future land use change and redevelopment of the site. The research undertaken by theMeaford Harbour Remediation Task Force Committee is also included in this section, providing the context for the existing infrastructure, operations and the coastal processes within the study area. A review of the existing waterfront uses within the study area was also of importance in order to balance and protect the range of public interests throughout the waterfront lands.

2.4.1 PROPERTY TRANSFER ASSESSMENT (PTA) MEAFORD SMALL CRAFT HARBOUR

Commissioned by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) through Public Works and Government Services Canada, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed to Canadian Standards Association (CSA) principles. The Phase 1 ESA targeted a soil and sediment sampling program combined to produce a PTA of the Meaford Small Craft Harbour to determine environmental liabilities associated with the site.COPY

Phase 1 ESA activities identified the following potential areas of concern at the site:

• Surficial soil and fill of unknown quality adjacent to the east wall of the Old Harbour (former coal storage activities and grain elevator fire).

• Fill of unknown quality at the Coast Guard Search and Rescue (SAR) Station.

• Surface and subsurface petroleum hydrocarbon impacts on leased Richardson Boats lands on the west side of the Old Harbour (existing and former fuelling facilities).

• Waste materials, impacted soil and groundwater below the site from a former dump site (reportedly located south of the SAR Station).

• Impacted sediments within the Old (river mouth) and New Harbour.

• Impacted groundwater migration to the site from the former Georgian Foundry (previously located on the northwest corner of Bridge Street and Bayfield Street) .

• Impacted groundwater migration to the SAR Station portion of the site from the former Imperial Oil Property (located south of the SAR Station).

• Fill of unknown fill quality located behind the east and west walls of the Old Harbour (river mouth) and along the shoreline south of the New Harbour. The sediment sampling program expanded on DFO samples collected and analyzed for metals, oil & grease and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in 1983. Samples submitted in 1983 were screened against the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) sediment guidelines and Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Ta ble 1 sediment standards. Samples collected in 1983 were only from the Old Harbour, and most of the samples submitted from the inner portion of the harbour had metals exceedances (typically chromium and copper). One sample also exceeded the CCME Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) for DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane).

Seven sediment samples were collected as part of the 2007 sampling program; six locations were within the New and Old Harbours and one was collected outside of the Harbour areas to represent "background" sediment chemistry. Of the seven samples submitted for analysis, five had metals exceedances of CCME and/or MOE Ta ble 1 standards (typically copper and nickel). One location adjacent to the SAR Station also had polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon exceedances.

Environmental drilling was completed at the SAR Station propCOPYerty and the leased Richardson Boats land to collect soil samples as part of the sampling program. One borehole location (two subsurface soil samples collected) and two surficial soil samples were collected from the Richardson Boats land. Petroleum hydrocarbon exceedances of CCME values (F2 and F3) were present in one of the surficial soil samples collected near fuel pumps. The volume of impacted soil is estimated to be 0.2 m3. Significant concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons were not detected in subsurface soil.

Six borehole locations were advanced on the SAR Property and subsurface soil samples collected to analyze the fill present. Fill thickness was reported to range from 2.4 metres to 3. 7 metres across the site and consisted mainly of silt and clay fill, layers of dark brown to black sand and other poor quality fill materials. The layers of poor fill do not appear to be continuous between boreholes and are likely pockets of heterogeneous fill. Metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons concentrations were above the CCME guideline values from three of the six borehole locations.

Contamination is present at levels above generic standards in soil, groundwater and sediment. There is also some uncertainty related to the location of a former waste disposal site. These issues can be addressed through additional site characterization work followed by remediation and/or risk management measures to either generic property standards (i.e., MOE O.Reg. 153/04, as amended) or to property-specific standards developed through a risk assessment process.

urv1 1HC URb M( \ 2.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT (PHASE 1)

A Phase 1 ESA was completed in 2007 following CSA principles to identify environmental liabilities that could impact the redevelopment of the harbour lands. The harbour lands were separated into two areas of investigation; Area A (Harbour Area) located immediately south of the Meaford Small Craft Harbour (New Harbour) and Area B (East Shore Area) located to the east of Area A, consisting of a water lot with frontage along Georgian Bay (see Figure 1 0).

Phase 1 ESA identified no actual sources of environmental contamination; however, the following potential sources of contamination were identified on-site (see Figure 11):

• Impacted soil and groundwater by petroleum hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and metals due to historical CN rail line operation and associated infrastructure.

• Soil of unknown quality adjacent to the east wall of the Old Harbour where large quantities of coal were stored;

• COPY Waste materials, and the potential for impacted soil and groundwater below the site from a former waste disposal site located south and east of the Old Harbour;

• Poor quality fill located behind the west wall of the Old Harbour and along the shoreline east of the New Harbour, where significant modifications to the shoreline have been made; and

• Dredged material from the Old Harbour was deposited along the shoreline on Site B - sediment samples collected in 1983 reveal metals at levels above the current CCME sediment quality guidelines, but below MOE Ta ble 1 Standards. ,,.,..,. /Sr:TE'B PLAN The Phase 1 ESA also identified potential sources of contamination originating off-site:

Poor quality fill materials and the potential presence of metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons on the adjacent Coast Guard SAR property; IDMeaford • Former Imperial Oil Ltd. property located south of the site was used to store oil (suspected above ground storage tanks); and ('l!ll._.. s .. • Stanley Knight Limited, hardwood flooring manufacturing facility, located at the east end of Site B, in .. � operation for many years (at least since 1925), had impacts from historical operations. FIGURE 1 o - Phase 1 ESA Areas of Investigation

1!1 .. I � i, i\.'l f-.P rC!R.u f\.� �r�t:...- L:·t-� 1 ,- t if .. '

\ '

' ...

'...... �_

...... -- --.._

'

'

impacted sedi!TR!tlts

' petroleum hydro· carbon contamination mpaaed sediments (small volume), COPYpoorfill

.;:, 11'1"1piG1ed � v potentialfor vuste soli and cont•nnlrwed� ..... �d gJOUndwater �# /? lmpaaed5011 �� and groundwater � ; \ e

1mpaaed

.... sool ......

,,

\

\

FIGURE 11 - Sources of Environmental Contamination within the Meaford Waterfront Plan Study Area

• DILLO N CONSULTING LIMITED I SHOREPLAN I URBAN METRICS 2.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT (PHASE 2)

A Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed in 2009 for the municipal harbour lands with the objective to evaluate areas of potential concern identified by the Phase 1 ESA. At the time, the Municipality of Meaford was considering redevelopment of Site A and B (see Figure 1 0) for public recreation use as well as the possibility of constructing a small recreation vehicle parking area. The Municipality intended to use the Phase 1 ESA and Phase 2 ESA reports to supportthe filing of a Record of Site Condition (RSC).

The environmental Phase 2 ESA field program included the advancement of ten boreholes, with six boreholes completed as monitoring wells, collection of subsurface soil samples from these locations, collection of three additional shallow soil samples and the subsequent measurement of water levels and collection of groundwater samples from installed monitoring wells.

Soil profile encountered at the site was sand and gravel fill and silt and clay layers, with increasing depth. A coal-likeCOPY material and/or slag was encountered at depths ranging from 1 to 3 metres below ground surface at the site. The water table was recorded between 1.1 and 2.8 metres below ground surface.

Sample results were compared to MOE Ta ble 1 or 3 Standards (Table 1 if < 30m from Georgian Bay, Ta ble 3 if > 30m from Georgian Bay).

Site A: Soil parameters above appropriate criteria included metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Lead, in particular, was found in numerous samples across Site A. Groundwater parameters above appropriate criteria included metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Site B: Antimony and petroleum hydrocarbons (F3) were above the appropriate criteria at a sample located in proximity to the hardwood flooring factory. Groundwater parameters were below the applicable standards.

It was �oncluded that appropriate risk management measures for the site will require furtherinvestigation into the extent and source of the metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon impacts. Risk management measures could include: excavation of soil with metals and/or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations above the generic MOE standards and/or use of a Risk Assessment to determine property­ specific standards for the site that are protective of human health and the environment. 2.4.4 SHORELINE INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS

A visual review of the shoreline infrastructure was undertaken during an initial site visit. The review included a site walk by a coastal/marine engineer and identification of notable deficiencies in shoreline structures or notable erosion of natural shores. The site review did not uncover any such notable deficiencies. The breakwaters of the New Harbour appear to be in good condition with normal amount of fractures in the armour stones. The shores of the basin appeared stable with no obvious signs of erosion. The docks are floating relatively straight and level indicating well-functioning anchoring system and proper flotation. A considerable amount of aquatic vegetation was noted in the east part of the basin.

The shores of the Old Harbour are also functional. Some show greater signs of deterioration, like the concrete cap on the south side of the Old Harbour basin; however, ho signs of structural instability were observed. Any repairs or planned improvements to the shoreline infrastructureCOPY should consider the changing water levels of Georgian Bay. The water levels of Georgian Bay are not likely to reach historic highs as they did in the late eighties based on present understanding of factors controlling water level. There are two factors that may be contributing to lowering of the lake levels, climate change and possible increased outflow from Lake Huron. These are very complex issues that are being addressed by senior governments and agencies; however, the impact on the level of Lake Huron/Georgian Bay is that predicted water level reductions in Lake Huron would be lower by 0.5 to 1 metres, on average in 30 to 50 years. These assessments/predictions were already achieved in the early 1990s and more recent reports do not contradict these initial predictions. Therefore, any infrastructure work along the shoreline, such as repairs of shore structures or dredging should consider lower water level scenarios.

2.4.5 COASTAL PROCESSES

A review of background information regarding coastal processes was undertakento provide comments with respect to function and possible enhancement of existing beaches. Within this context, the following comments are provided:

• The extension of the beach south of the New Harbour in southerly direction beyond its present location will be difficult. The alignment of the shoreline is not appropriate for a beach. A very long groyne would be required with substantial infill to realign the shore before the beach could be constructed. The existing beach could be improved by providing smaller gravel on the beach slope. This would require lengthening of the existing groyne at the south end of the existing beach.

--- -- Dll LUI\! ll>N ED I ·;Huf�tP..AN I UH6.ll.f\1 ME�R' • Expansions of the beaches on the north side of the Old Harbour will be also hampered with the alignment of the shoreline. The "middle" cell is not the appropriate alignment. The north cell is slightly better, but will require longer groynes and supply of cobble or coarse gravel. Only cobble or coarse gravel beaches are suggested because sand beaches would require substantial sheltering. The north cell has the most potential for beach improvement due to very shallow nearshore.

• The alignment of the beaches in the study area is difficultto assess using only aerial photography, which is the first approximation normally used, because there are many long groynes along this shore. A detailed numerical model assessment would be required. Any beach improvement will require that gravel or cobble material is supplied from external sources, because natural littoral material is not available to sufficiently enhance the beaches.

A review of coastal information contained in the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority Shoreline Management Plan (Sandwell, 1994) and a number of reports dealing with erosion and sedimentations issues on Bighead River (Ainley and Associates, 1979, Cumming-Cockburn, 1985, Cumming-Cockburn, 1986, Cumming­ Cockburn,COPY 1987) were reviewed within the context of dredging of the river harbour. • The rate of infilling of the Old Harbour has not been established with any accuracy. There is no reason to believe that the rate of infill would be any different in the future than it has been in the past.

• The source of sediment is not only the river, but also the lake. Sediment moves from north to south and will enter the mouth of the Old Harbour basin. The sediment may be flushed out during large flow events, but remain within relatively shallow area where littoral transport can move the sediment back towards the river mouth.

• Any dredging proposal needs to consider the expected reduction in the water levels of Georgian Bay described above.

• The New Harbour is not subject to the same rate of sedimentation, but is impacted by lower water levels. 2.4.6 EXISTING WATERFRONT USES

Although the waterfront has historically supported a range of industrial functions in the 19th and 20th century, in the last 20 to 30 years, it has been used as a recreation space and for community events. The urban waterfront lands are comprised of Fred Raper's Park along the Georgian Bay shoreline that includ�?S picnic tables, benches, a gazebo, two beaches, a lookout area and a promenade. The Meaford Museum is adjacent to this park. Public open area is located east of the Bighead River, with a large picnic area, the Rotary Harbour Pavilion, along with the Harbour Complex Building, Coast Guard Search and Rescue Station, historical railway storage shed, sailing school, chip wagon, public washroom building and a fish cleaning facility. A large grassy-gravel area is used for concerts, community events, parking, and as a boating storage area in the winter months. The green spaces have a number of large mature trees, as well as some ornamental landscape features. A second naturalized, less-maintained beach is located on the east end of the study area, contributing to sustaining an accessible waterfront with open views to Georgian Bay. COPY The full spectrum of marine uses along the urban waterfront lands include: transient dockage, seasonal dockage, boat servicing and repair, winter storage, sailing lessons, launching, shore fishing, swimming, community events and festivals, parking, recreational vehicle camping for fishing patrons, walking, picnicking, passive recreation, biking and commercial charter fishing.

It is also important to acknowledge and protect traditional uses of the waterways, shorelines and lands in and around the Municipality of Meaford for the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation, Saugeen First Nation (referred to as the Saugeen Oj ibway Nation) and the Metis.

DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED I SHOREPLAN I URBAN METRICS 2 . 5 LOCAL KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE - STAKEHOLDER I NTERVIEWS, PHASE 1 CONSULTATION

At the initial stage of the project, key sta keholder interviews were held over a two day period to provide

information and an update on the Meaford Waterfront Plan process and to obtain input from those who

actively use the waterfront and/or protect the public's interest. Representatives from the following groups were in attendance: Rotary Club of Meaford, Coast Guard Search and Rescue Station, Stanley Knight

Limited, Chamber of Commerce, Meaford Public Library, Friends of the Meaford Harbour, Reef Boat Club,

Richardson Boats, Councillors and Municipal Staff. Knowledge was exchanged on the site conditions

and uses, history, deficiencies, challenges, celebrations and potential opportun ities for future new uses.

Interview questions are included in Appendix 1.

The highlights of the stakeholder discussions include:

• Main characteristics: access and intimacy/charm of waterfCOPYront. not too big, a uthenticity, farming­ culture to urist oasis, Richardson Boats the only commercial use, aging population, and marina as the jewel of the municipality.

• Well-liked community events : fa rmer's market. fish fry, ice-cream at chip wagon, ScareCrow Invasion Parade that ends at the Harbour. concerts, Canada Day festivities, Harbour Open House event and Bighead River salmon run.

• Current waterfront uses: walking along the waterfront. attending community events. picnics at the pavilion, dog walking, great Harbour and marina access, boat servicing, beaches, passive recreation, plays/skits, family-oriented activities, fishing, biking, and First Nation access.

• Main concerns fa cilities are neglected, need repair, decline in water level and inadequate dredging, need growth/improvements, lack of entrepreneurial initiatives, perpetual dredging for navigation of boats, too much parking and gravel, privatization of waterfront, green spaces are 'broken' and old, pedestrian access on the existing bridge is dangerous, high maintenance costs for the Old Harbour, use of marina revenues not applied to marina, activities at the waterfront will take away from the Downtown activities, seasonality of commerce, lack of vision to drive investments, New Harbour not

operating at full capacity, liability and safety of the pier (no railing or ladder), and the decline in the number of boaters and racing. • Main opportunities: cafe, splash pad, commercial uses and restaurants, canoe and sailing club, health and wellness as a development theme, hotel, boardwalk, patios, regattas, amphitheatre, winter shows, boat clubs, Mallets Bay Boat Club on Lake Champlain in Vermont east-west pedestrian connection, pedestrian bridge, fitness, connection between Downtown and the Harbour, more green areas, railway station replica, cultural heritage theme, library, rail/marine/harbour related shops, improve way-finding and signage, vistas, provide car with trailer parking, maximize public access, economic sustainability, environmental sustainability, linkage with Georgian Trail. connectivity to Beautiful Joe Park, attract developers that provide quality built form, and public/private partnerships.

• Other much-liked waterfront destinations: Kingston Ontario Park, Granville Street Market in Vancouver, North Bay, Owen Sound, Gravenhurst. Thunder Bay, Gananoque (Thousand Islands), Perry Sound, Keswick (Town of Georgina), Cobourg, Burlington, Oakville and Halifax. COPY

• Dll. L0 \1 CUN�UL-:-INGUMITED I SHOREPLAN I URBAN METRICS 2.6 LOCAL KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE - COMMUNITY SURVEY, PHASE 2 CONSULTATION

Hard copies and electronic copies (via PlaceS peak) of the community survey were also circulated at the early stages of the project to gather input from the public on the existing site conditions and the 'top of mind' concerns (see Appendix 1). Approximately 50 surveys were received, and although not statistically representative of the entire population of the Municipality, the following provides a small window into the preferences of the public who were engaged and really passionate about the future of the waterfront lands:

• Waterfront use: walking, biking and the use of trails was the most preferred activity along the waterfront, along with the use of the beaches and swimming, boating and sailing and attending community events. The use of the parks and passive recreation was another popular preference.

• Summer use: the waterfront was heavily used in the summer - the majority of respondents had daily access, with a very large proportion also accessing the waterfront for the entire season and/or on a weekly basis. COPY • Winter use: the waterfront was less used in the winter - the number of respondents that made weekly trips was approximately the same as in the summer, while the number of respondents using the waterfront lands on a monthly basis or never increased significantly. A smaller percentage of respondents accessed the waterfront lands on a daily basis or for the entire season.

• Mixed-use tourism : the majority of the respondents liked the waterfront lands to reflect mixed-use development with tourism opportunities.

• Recreational vehicles: the majority of respondents disliked having recreational vehicles on the waterfront lands.

• Role of Meaford's waterfront: the majority of respondents agreed that the waterfront lands should be used as parkland and for recreation, with preferences for public access, tourism, mixed development and marina uses.

• Like : the most frequently mentioned items included the views and landscape, harbour/marina/ boating, walking and trails, and public access.

• Dislike: the most frequently mentioned items included that there was no maintenance, low water levels, missing amenities and attractions, and the lack of food services.

• Attracting new businesses: the most frequently mentioned items included green spaces, food services and waterfront-related business.

• Missing: the most frequently mentioned items included the lack of food services and waterfront plan or v1sion . • .1 UN•CIPALIf'( MEAFORD 2. 7 ONTARIO WATERFRONT PRECEDENTS In order to fully appreciate the scale and potential for economic activity on Meaford's waterfront lands, a 'size-comparison study' (see Figure 12) was undertaken. The urban area waterfront lands in Meaford are quite extensive and can be compared to Gravenhurst and Kincardine's waterfront land base, which are both successful and unique waterfront tourist destinations in Ontario. North Bay and Owen Sound are also well known and established waterfrontsthat span along a longer waterfront edge. The precedent photo-collage (see Appendix 2), with photographs of Harbours, green parking lots, waterfront ambiance and public beaches, was developed as a tool for the public design charrette (see Section 5.3) to test and discuss waterfront design approaches, treatment and suitability for the redevelopment of Meaford's waterfront lands.

Best practices and precedents in other municipalities with similar waterfront redevelopment projects (i.e., Keswick, The Forks in Winnipeg (MB), Crate's Landing in Georgina, Dryden, Thunder Bay, Deseronto, CobourgCOPY and Port Perry) were reviewed to help identify a range of uses that would enhance Meaford's waterfront. Kincardine and Saugeen Shores were also looked at as examples for Meaford. Kincardine provides an example of a nearby waterfront community that has recently been able to attract investment in a new Marriott hotel, while Saugeen Shores recently completed its own Waterfront Master Plan.

The two waterfront community precedents that are particularly informative to Meaford's current situation and future direction are highlighted below. Gravenhurst and North Bay provide examples of two communities which have successfully revitalized their harbour/waterfront areas into important economic and tourism generators. Both of these communities provide examples of a distinct waterfrontredevelopment strategy: Gravenhurst. a waterfront redevelopment involved a partnership between the municipality and private developer; and North Bay, a municipally-retained site being redeveloped for recreational purposes.

Iii OILWN �ONSUI:T IN6 �IMtTED I ShOREPLA.N I URBAN lVETRtCS COPY

c 0 V1 · .:::: 0 C1J a:: Cl. 0 E 0 � u .... Q) :2 N (/)

E >- 0

�-ro s �

N z ;:, U,J 0::: ::? ::::J <..!) u... II 2.7.1 GRAVENHURST (MUSKOKA WHARF)

Although waterfront redevelopment has been an important economic development challenge in Gravenhurst since the 1980s, it was in 2005 that the Muskoka Wharf project was completed and the waterfront was revitalized with a mix of shopping, dining, cultural/historic features and community events, in addition to residential and hotel space.

The waterfront redevelopment in Gravenhurst has been concentrated on a 90-acre parcel at the south end of Lake Muskoka. The total cost of the Muskoka Wharf development was approximately $120 million, and the project was structured as a partnership between the municipality and Evanco, a private sector developer.

The economic impact of the Muskoka Wharf project has been significant in the local community, creating approximately 300 jobs during construction, in addition to the employment related to the ongoing operation of the development. In a short period of time, the Muskoka WharfCOPY development has quickly become a focal point for tourism and economic activity in the local community.

Gravenhurst provides an example of many potential uses that would be appropriate for Meaford and helps to promote local economic development and tourism, including:

• ArtStudio/Gall ery;

• Outdoor Recreation Retailer;

• Spa/Wellness Centre;

• Restaurant(s); and

• Hotel/Resort.

These types of commercial uses would not only be suitable for Meaford's waterfront, but they have already been included in the Meaford Economic Development Strategy and/or the Meaford Harbour Strategic Plan. Moreover, some features of the Muskoka Wharf, such as a museum and medium density residential development already exist in Meaford's waterfront (i.e., Meaford Museum and Harbourside Condominiums). With the development of a range of commercial uses in the waterfront area, Meaford has the potential to replicate the success of Gravenhurst, while also supporting the local policy framework. Figure 13 illustrates the land uses included as part of the Muskoka Wharf development and also identifies the various incentive programs available for waterfront properties in Gravenhurst in comparison to those available in Meaford. • DllLON \I')JLTIN .... IITf D I St-IORtPLAN I URBAN METRI Gravenhurst

Population 11 : services (approximately20, 000 square feet) Improvement Loan Program 11,640 Year Completed 12 : Dock of the Bay 2005 Sunset Grill Size of WaterfrontArea: The Wolf's Den Cafe

90 acres Ice Cream at Muskoka Wharf I Residential Development Charge Grant Program retailing (approximately 35, 000 squarefeet ­ Estimated Cost : �;....,,;;,fl.i, Incremental Equivalent Grant Program 13 includes commercia l services space) $170 million Applause Toy Store Parkland Dedication Fee Grant Program Funding Structure: Blue Willow Tea Shop A single private partner David Dawson Studio & Gallery COPY was engaged to develop Due NorthAppar el the waterfro nt in Hawkestone Soap Co. Granvehurst The Spa at Sagamo !commercial servfces Century21 Muskoka Steamships Stratus Construction Muskoka !Recreation (approximately 25,000 squarefe et) Muskoka Boat & Heritage Centre Muskoka WharfMarina Children's playground Sportsfacilities

Condominiums (3 buildings - 129 units)

SOURCE: urbanMetrics inc. 1) Population refers to the unadjusted 2011 Census population 2) Town of Gravenhurst, http://www.graven hurst.ca/en/discoverus/muskokawharf.asp 3) Discover Muskoka: Muskoka Wharf, http://www .discovermuskoka.ca/directories.html?pid=696&sid=384:M uskoka-Wharf- 4) Town of Gravenhurst Community Improvement Plan

FIGURE 13 - Gravenhurst Waterfront Redevelopment (Muskoka Wharf)Summar y m 2.7.2 NORTH BAY (COMMUNITY WATERFRONT PARK)

Like Gravenhurst waterfront redevelopment has been a longstanding priority in North Bay. The vision for the waterfront in North Bay is now being realized due to a series of programs and investments originally established in 2000. The objective was to create a plan to beautify North Bay's waterfront area, revitalize the community and contribute to an improved quality of life for local residents.

In 200l , Community Waterfront Friends (CWF) was officially established as a non-profit organization, and developed an environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable plan for the redevelopment of North Bay's waterfront. While the waterfront redevelopment in Gravenhurst focused on commercial uses and economic development North Bay provides an alternate example of a waterfront redevelopment strategy that is more focused on leisure and recreation. The CWF's mandate was to come up with an alternative to commercial development on the 38 acres of reclaimed rail lands situated between the Downtown Core and waterfront along Lake Nipissing. The new waterfront vision was adopted by municipal council in 2003, which included the development of a captivating, prominentCOPY waterfront park, featuring a variety of socially, environmentally and economically sustainable features. More than $l 0 million in total investments have been made to-date. The majority of these improvements in North Bay have been oriented towards providing outdoor reaction space on the waterfront in order to enhance tourism and create a focal point for the community.

Many of the investment strategies to revitalize the North Bay waterfront are applicable to Meaford as well. Providing additional outdoor recreational space on the waterfront in Meaford would recognize the interests of local residents and support the existing policy framework. The Official Plan emphasizes the importance of establishing the harbour lands as a prominent recreational focal point featuring a combination of public and recreational uses. Furthermore, the Harbour Master Plan seeks to establish the waterfront area as a "thriving, sustainable, multi-use public recreational destination."

Figure 14 illustrates the land uses included as part of the North Bay waterfrontredevelopment (Community Waterfront Park), and also identifies the various incentive programs available for waterfront properties in North Bay, in comparison to those available in Meaford.

ILLCN ULTJN...... � 0 I �H PlAN I URBAN \'IEfR I .... Location: North Bay Education/recreation centre for children Planning and Building Fees Grant Program

Population 11 : Events/staging area Facade Improvement Grant Program 53,651 Museum Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Loan Program

Year Completed 12 : Children's playground(s) n/a I Residential Development Charge Grant Program On-going Swimming pool/water play areas Increment-Based Grant Size of WaterfrontArea: n/a nd Dedication Fee Grant Program

38 acres Es timated Cost 13 : COPY $49 million Funding Structure: Th e municip ality acquired the site and has retained !Commercialservices ownersh ip, while the Community Waterfro nt Frien ds organization has n/a led the re development Residential effo rts Marina Point Retirement Residences (200 units)

SOURCE: urbanMetrics inc. 1) Population refers to the unadjusted 2011 Census population 2) North Bay Community Waterfront Friends 3) Community Waterfront Friends is currently undertaking a study to determine capital and operating costs. Figure based on an article in The Nugget (http://w ww. nugget .ca/2009/07/15/waterfro nt-funds-d ry-u p) 4) City of North Downtown Com munity Improvement Plan

FIGURE 14 - North Bay Waterfront Redevelopment (Community Waterfront Park) Summary

El � 2.8 MARl NA MARKET OVERVIEW

In the redevelopment of any waterfront. it is essential to understand and identify the market for recreational marina/harbour operations in Ontario and, more specifically, the local context for the Municipality of Meaford that is situated on the Georgian Bay. The sections below provide a high-level overview of the existing trends and future indicators for the growth or decline of certain marina/harbour operations.

2.8.1 ROLE OF MARINA OPERATIONS IN ONTARIO

Marinas in Canada are operated by federal, provincial and municipal government organizations, or private organizations, which are responsible for the management of the facilities and services associated with their commercial operations. According to data published by the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA), there are 642 marina operations in Ontario. Marinas have the potential to provide the widest range of goods and services to all other boating sectors, including moorage, transient docking, boat sales and rentals, boat repairs, fuel sales, winter storage, retail sales, and other services. In many communities, marinas serve an important economic function, by directly offCOPYering these services and/or partnering with private companies to operate various services, including restaurants and/or accommodations.

While marinas serve an important fu nction

in the boating industry. it is also important to .. recognize that public marina operations provide

Overall significant community benefits. offering support for economic development and/or additional

community recreation space. Marina operations

QC help to stimulate the local economy, attracting

expenditures from boaters visiting from outside

the community. and also local boating residents. ON In addition, marinas are often a focal point for

recreation within waterfront communities and

provide a gateway fu nction, beyond providing BC boating infrastructure and services. Of note are

also marina operation's direct impacts on the Infrequent Occasional Frequent tourism industry. According to the NMMA. the Tourist Attractions Dining • Shopping • top activities of boaters in Ontario while on shore included: (1) Dining; (2) Shopping; and (3) To urist attractions, as illustrated in Figure 15. FIGURE 15 - Activities of Boaters while on Shore (source: The Economic Impact of Recreational Boating in Canada 201 2)

33

' '' ' · '· • ''� , L• !\J , JLT I !'J l. L I i\'1 1 n lJ : '• H CJ f\ PLL AN I U R 8 AN 1\11 [ T R I CS 2.8.2 MARINA MARKET INDICATORS

According to a survey completed by the NMMA in 2012. approximately 35% of Canadian households (9.4 million residents) participated in recreational boating activities . More than 20% of Canadian households owned at least one recreational boat, and Canadian residents own approximately 4.3 million boats, including an estimated 1.8 million boats in Ontario. Ontario. in fact, has the highest percentage of residents who participate in recreational boating activities.

The demographic characteristics of a "typical" Canadian boater include:

• Household income: less than $80,000;

• Employment: full-time;

• Education: university certificate, diploma or degree;

• Family/household characteristics: have children still living at home; and

•COPY Marital status: married.

The market demand for marina business operations is closely related to boat sales and the demand for recreational boating activities. Despite the high percentage of Ontario residents who participate in boating activities, the sales performance levels for recreational boats in Canada have not been very strong during the past five years. The declining sales performancelevels observed in the boating industry have coincided with the onset of the global economic downturn in 2008. However, recent statistics from the NMMA indicate the boating industry is once again showing signs of recovery, with sales of new recreational boats in Canada rising by 13% in 2012. Sales of used recreational boats also increased dramatically in 2012, rising by 17%. It is, however. important to note that Tra nsport Canada does not require human powered boats or engines under 9.9 horse power to be registered. As a result, these sales projections may not reflect the strength of the sailing market and the growing popularity of the sport, particularly in communities situated along the shores of Lake Huron and Georgian Bay (i.e. Meaford). In terms of attracting the sailing market. Meaford has a favourable location on Lake Huron, which is known for some of the best sailing conditions in Ontario. There is also a sailing club operated in Meaford, which helps to introduce sailing to those who are new to the sport. Recognizing that sailing has been growing in popularity it is anticipated that there will be demand for some additional docking slips to accommodate sail boats in future years.

The increased sales performance observed in the boating industry in 2012 reflects an improvement in consumer confidence amongst Canadians, and the overall recovery of the boating industryfollowing the 2008 economic downturn. Although the improved sales performance levels also indicate increasing Ill • ' I momentum for the boating industry in .the short-term. it is important to emphasize that the commercial prospects for marinas are not as buoyant as the boating industry in general. According to data released by the NMMA. there is expected to be negative growth in marina employment in future years, despite the fact that growth in marina employment has been strong in the past. as illustrated in Figure 16.

In addition to projected declines in marina employment, rising marine fuel costs are another important consideration limiting the demand for marina operations in future years. along with the continuous impacts of declining water levels. In fact. dramatically declining water levels in Georgian Bay and the Great Lakes region in general are already impacting marina operations. and requiring regular dredging to maintain accessibility.

Based on data provided by the NMMA, the business outlook for marinas in Canada is generally rated as "moderate" (between neutral and positive rating). although weaker than most other segments of the boating industry. As a result, it seems highly unlikely for a dramatic increase in the demand for marina operations in the Municipality of Meaford that would warrant any significantCOPY increase in the number of boat slips, given the employment growth projections by sector, declining water levels and rising fuel costs, amongst other factors.

School

Repair & Maintenance

Rentals & Charters · I J ------i ·------L .... ----······ t I ••, ••••• - •• ' I l������������������������Bro�kerage�!i?����� ������[���������������������- Boat Dealer and ServiceStore

Boat Manufacturer

Boat Club

Boat Accessory Store

Accessory Manufacturer

-20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

• Future Growth • Past Growth

FIGURE 16 - Employment Growth in the Boating Industry (source: The Economic Impact of Recreational Boating in Canada 201 2) • DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED SHOREPLAN I URBAN METRICS 2.8.3 LOCAL MARINA MARKET OVERVIEW

In evaluating the local market for marina operations, Meaford was compared to the three nearby There seems to be a sufficient number of communities of Thornbury, Midland, and Wiarton. As illustrated in Figure 17, the demand for a significant existing boat slips to serve the current and future amount of additional docking space is limited based on the existing operations of these nearby marinas. boating demand in Meaford. without adding any Meaford's two harbours are operating under-capacity as the existing docking spaces are not fully occupied .. additional docking facilities. In recognition that the According to the local community feedback, there is continuous loss of recreational boaters to other nearby redevelopment of the waterfront area in Meaford will marina facilities, including Thornbury and Wiarton. In discussion with marina staff of the three communities, provide marina operations that are more attractive to it became apparent that there is a waiting list at only one of these facilities, Thornbury. A more detailed boaters, and the prospects for the boating industry in review shows that Thornbury's waiting list is mainly for boats over 21 feet in length. Although the waiting list general are positive, Meaford still has the opportunity captures 22 to 27 feet and 28 to 35 feet boats, the annual turnover rates in these categories are normally to "re-capture" the recreational boaters and to reach sufficient to meet the current demand. As a result, there appears to be only excess demand for docking the existing capacity. With improvements to the space to accommodate larger boats in excess of 36 feet. waterfront area, there is potential for some additional docking space, but the development of commercial Thornbury's waterfront features restaurant space and a hotel/resort, which have helped to stimulate tourism uses in the Harbour will be essential in order to and economic development. Although Thornbury has a muchCOPY smaller local population than Meaford, it create compelling destination that generates a encompasses more commercial activities in the vicinity of the harbour/waterfront area and is, therefore, a increased demand for marina operations in Meaford. more popular marina.

boats on wait list ' - 27' - 10

boats on wait list - 30

Richardson Boats) Diesel Diesel Pumoout

FIGURE 17 - Competitive Analysis - Nearby Marina Operations (source: urbanMetrics inc .. based on the OMOA Member Database and discussions with marina staff members.

• 2.9 MEAFORD WATERFRONT CONTEXT SUMMARY Over a century ago, Meaford played a key role as an industrial waterfront with direct access to the transportation of goods and later passengers via the Grand Trunk Railway. The Georgian Bay shoreline and Bighead River mouth were inundated with commercial and private ships, as well as recreational boats. The remnants of this history are vivid in the stories of the local residents, memorabilia, and its natural heritage landscape. Over the last few decades. the waterfront lands have seen continuous transformations that have heightened the dedication of these lands as open public space, bringing the community together through events and festivals, boating, fishing, passive recreation, trail use and direct water access.

Key stakeholder interviews and survey results exposed Meaford's waterfront authenticity, charm and intimacy and how significant that is to the 'sense of place' for so many local residents. The community takes pride in the events and festivals that put Meaford on the map as the place to visit for Canada Day, concerts, Farmer's Market Scarecrow Invasion to name only a few. Residents and tourists alike use the waterfront lands for boating, beaches. swimming and walking, while alsoCOPY accommodating access for the Aboriginal traditional activities. The community also identified the deficiencies in the existing waterfront lands and the key opportunities for future improvements, which are discussed in Section 2.9.2.

While marinas serve an important function in the boating industry, it is also important to recognize that public marina operations provide significant community benefits, offering support for economic development and/or additional community recreation space. Marina operations help to stimulate the local economy, attracting expenditures from boaters visiting from outside the community, and also local boating residents. In addition. marinas are often a focal point for recreation within waterfront communities and provide a gateway function, beyond providing boating infrastructure and services. Although there is some short-term momentum in the boating industry due to an increase in recreational boat sales and signs of recovery for the boating industry, the business outlook for Marinas in Canada and Ontario is generally rated as 'moderate' given the decline in marina employment. rising marine fuel costs and the impacts of declining water levels. The New and Old Harbours in the Municipality of Meaford are running under-capacity, and the combined docking space requirements could be accommodated in the New Harbour, while still operating below 75% capacity. Any future economic development would make the marina operations more attractive to boaters, but market research shows the New Harbour would most likely have the capacity to handle the increased demand.

Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) of the Meaford Harbour confirmed the locations of impacted soils (metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) at the Coast Guard Search and Rescue Station property, across the Harbour open space area, and an isolated location along the east

l�f N Rk� beach area in proximity to the hardwood flooring factory, Stanley Knights Limited (see Figure 18). It also The Meaford Harbour Plan identified a vision for confirmed that a very small volume of petroleum hydrocarbons is present on the leased Richardson Boat the harbour lands that supportsthe objectives lands. Impacted groundwater (metals and PAHs) was also confirmed on the Harbour open space area, and policies in the 2005 Official Plan. The Guiding and is likely related to former railway activities; however, the definition of impacted may depend on which Principles for development were: environment standards are ultimately required for the site. Both the Old and New Harbours have been confirmed to have community impact and safety, operations and impacted sediments (metals and PA Hs primarily). These conditions are, however, common in harbours security, connectivity and pedestrian focus, signage, throughout the Great Lakes and in other communities where redevelopment of the harbours to a diverse design, promotion, special policy areas, and range of tourism uses has been achieved. public access and use. Both the Official Plan and Meaford Harbour Plan acknowledge the likelihood Former municipal landfills were operated at Bridge Street - CNR Right of Way - Bighead River (MOE of additional demand for recreational and residential Reference No. 2077) and the 'Fuller Street Dump' at the corner of Bridge Street and St. Vincent Street (MOE space in the Downtown and Harbour areas in Reference No. 2089), reportedly also active in the 1940s while accepting rural municipal/domestic waste future years. The primary objective of the Meaford and closing around 1946. There is a possibility that these reference numbers are for the same site. Harbour Plan was to establish the Harbour area as a "thriving, sustainable, multi-use public recreational The Downtown CIP emphasizes the importanceof clearly definedCOPY pedestrian and vehicular (streetscape) destination." linkages, especially between the Downtown and the Harbour. In addition, the MEDS identifies Meaford's tourism to be highly seasonal and, in order to achieve sustainable tourism business, the Municipality needs Meaford Vision 2020 provided direction that the to consider multiple strategic actions under the To urism pillar of economic activity -the strategic objective update of the Meaford Harbour Plan was a way to to introduce businesses connected to the waterfront by the year 2015 is addressed through this Meaford drive environmental sustainability in Meaford's built Waterfront Plan. and natural environments.

The 2005 Official Plan and the proposed Amendments to the Official Plan, through the 5-year official plan review and update process, emphasize the importance that the harbour iands be developed with a mix of public and recreational-oriented uses, be recognized as a regional and municipal prominent recreational focus point, and that visual, pedestrian and economic connections are made between the Harbour, Downtown, and the Georgian Trail. The proposed Official Plan amendments introduce new policies on the sustainable forms of land use and development and active transportation, which the development of the waterfront lands should adhere to. The adjacent Special Policy Areas 1 and 2 are to be well-connected to the harbour lands and contribute to the vitality of the Harbour.

El t A�ORL < LEGE�>:> - W.1:r.l•oM · DHHJilar,;o l.'.aJP' Oper ' Sp.l<:<' ' [=::J 1\'•:doo: D.Mrgn:t<'d ' 1;:, ;s� . sUI� ;�-.;:_�; �� ��t Do.\nt�et Corr:rr·�,,�t:;r�� . ' fi.gh:;Op"'l Sp��(!!,:-ppo-;ur·:: �\""'

' I ;;:Ill'!),;�:. ' •let1�111 COPY • ••• St�:P� tkln!! _ • ·t�':lre

' c

. '

����, ,..

--- --;,'-tI

• . • • ?>

...... --� .,--

:r==- ·.

•.< '>' ou(n St 1\ IW'�

' ';!i I s .-· ;;� St . ; --- ;?. nal _., ,\ a's '!i W� Big"lri�d - - · Rvl'r

FIGURE 18 - Site Context Review & Synthesis El DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED I SHOREPLAN I URBAN METRICS 2.9.1 POLICY GAPS

Through a comprehensive review of the Municipality of Meaford's strategies, plans and policy directions, the following gaps were identified:

• Vision, objectives and policies for the larger context of the waterfront lands, and those within the urban area of the Municipality.

• 'Environment-First' policies that protect and enhance the ecological functions of the Georgian Bay shoreline and Bighead River mouth.

• Policies on the Environmental Protection shoreline designation along the waterfront lands.

• Policies promoting the waterfront area for tourism activity.

• Implementing zoning by-laws that permit new uses at the waterfront lands.

• Inclusion of Waterfront/Harbour Guiding Principles for the waterfront lands. • Development policies; protection of existing buildings whichCOPY are historically or culturally significant, guidelines for any new structures or buildings, and parking.

• Provisions for economic development/revitalization of the waterfront lands.

• Provisions of public space/sustainable design elements.

• Policies on maintaining public access to the water's edge.

• Policies on the physical and visual connectivity between the waterfront lands and Special Policy Area # 1.

• Provisions for providing waterfront accessible to all ability-levels.

• Provisions for preserving cultural heritage or scenic significance through the Heritage District Designation .

• '\t iUf\JiuPALin Of IVI EAF-URO 2.9.2 OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES

A thorough background review, site analysis and synthesis, and engagement with the local community lead to a well-established set of opportunities and challenges for the economic development and physical redevelopment of the Municipality's urban waterfront area, as outlined below. These opportunities and challenges establish key considerations in the development of the Meaford Waterfront Plan.

• Contaminated sites - specific areas of the waterfront lands have contaminated soil. groundwater and sediment levels above the generic standards. These issues may be addressed through additional site characterization work followed by remediation and/or risk management measures to either generic property standards (i.e.,, MOE O.Reg. 153/04, as amended) or to property-specific standards developed through a risk assessment process.

• Declining water levels - water levels are dropping quicker than forecasted, affecting the operations and viability of many harbours across Ontario, including the Old and New Harbours in Meaford. COPYThere is the potential to develop a sustainable long-term strategy based on the environmental, regulatory and market-driven factors that will sustain the most appropriate use of the two harbours to address the existing continuous need to dredge due to declining water levels.

• Dredging and operation costs - granted approval from the Grey Sauble ConservationAutho rity, the Municipality has considerable annual costs associated with dredging of the Old Harbour to maintain navigability to the existing Richardson Boats and slips. There is an opportunity to re-consider an operational and financial strategy that reflects the environmental conditions, regulatory requirements, boating market and municipal spending.

• Recreational space - recreational spaces are not well connected, are out-dated and lack an array of

D !Lr_c·� \! '-· �d·..; t_, ' LTi l\J � � II\.�:- :-L D 'SHOk E F' LA I\J ! L� RS.4:\J \,.1[ -;-h!C� uses that reflect current demands to make the waterfront lands the focal point of the community. There is an opportunity to protect, expand and re-energize the open space and recreational amenities on the waterfront lands to meet future community growth and programming demands.

• Connectivity -there is a disconnect between the Harbour and Downtown, and the physical extent of the public waterfront lands is not known. Creating a strong physical (i.e., streetscape and design elements) and visual connection (i.e. signage, views) between the Downtown Core and Harbour, specifically along Nelson Street East to link the Downtown to the waterfront lands, presents itself as a great opportunity. There is also the potential to create a strong physical and visual connection to the Georgian Trail to welcome tourists using the regional trail system, and to plan for future connectivity between all public waterfront lands at a wider municipal context.

• Sustainable development-revitalize waterfront lands with exemplary sustainable development measures and design elements, endorsing Meaford's 'environment first' philosophy while also attracting green industries/business.

• Active transportation - provide multi-modal networks that improve circulation, as well as the streetscapes and trails in and around the waterfront lands.COPY • Natural heritage - ecological restoration of the Georgian Bay shoreline and Bighead River mouth to ensure health of local ecosystem and protection for the enjoyment of future generations.

• Cultural heritage - incorporate the historic and culturally significant properties and landscapes to uncover the significant contributions of Meaford's industrial past.

• Gateway location - incorporate a prominent gateway feature for the waterfront lands, from both land and water-based points of entry.

• To urist destination - tourism traffic is highly seasonal. which impacts both direct tourism-related businesses and indirect tourism businesses. The redevelopment, revitalization and all-year round programming of the waterfront lands will help establish Meaford as a successful tourist destination.

No critical mass or major attraction - no critical mass in Meaford's tourism industry to distinguish it from other nearby communities. There are a large number of relatively small attractions and events in Meaford - but very few compelling attractions to encourage people to stop and stay for an extended period of time. Creation of a distinguished feature and program for visitors will be very important in the development of the tourism sector.

• Accommodation - There is an opportunity for additional accommodation space in Meaford given the limited existing supply of 75 motel/hotel rooms and 34 bed and breakfast rooms.

• Commercial uses - significant competition from big-box retail being established outside the Downtown

El nil �� area, and in neighbouring communities with more aggressive retail activity. There is limited retail draw to attract traffic going to Owen Sound and Collingwood/Biue Mountain. Further, the current retail areas have little connection with each other, little retail support for tourism activities, too much service commercial (real estate offices, etc.) and not enough retail space. The establishment of additional compatible uses on the waterfront lands that are connected to the waterfront, including restaurants, banquet facilities, inns, craft and gift shops, studios and art galleries have tremendous potential in Meaford.

• Commercial market - limited number of retailers currently serving the outdoor recreation market locally, as well as the lack of arts and cultural retailers in Meaford provide a good economic opportunity for additional space for the above-mentioned uses.

• Adjacent lands - redevelopment of Special Policy Areas 1 and 2 could energize the programming and provide vibrancy and connections to the waterfront lands.

• Hotel and/or spa - leverage the close proximity to the Blue Mountain Resort area to strengthen Meaford's tourism sector (contributing to less seasonality), with the potential to also develop a COPYhotel adjacent to the waterfront lands and the development of a spa or wellness centre operated in combination with a hotel, or as a free-standing attraction.

• Arts and cultural attractions - large number of local artists than what can be supported by existing local retail art outlets or galleries; therefore, there is an opportunity to strengthen both the retail and the arts and cultural sectors of the local economy by introducing more retail/gallery space.

• Dll_LO N CO I\JSULl iNG LII\IIITED URBAN 1\/I ETRICS i SHOREPLAN I 3.0 PRELI MINARY CONCEPT OPTIONS

3.1 PRELIMINARY CONCEPT OPTIONS

Three preliminary concept options were developed in response to the physical conditions, opportunities and challenges identified through the background review, site evaluation and consultation. The preliminary concepts explored the potential land use distribution, site access, natural heritage features, pedestrian connections, vehicular access and marine infrastructure. The three concepts were characterized as: Cultural Heritage -Status Quo; Ecoligcally Sensitive - Harbour Village; and Active Harbour Option - Reconstructed River Mouth.

3.1.1 CULTURAL HERITAGE - STATUS-QUO

This option proposed modest improvements to the connectivity of the waterfront with the Downtown (see Figure 1 9) . The concept required continued partial dredging of the Old Harbour to provide access to the HarbourCOPY Services (Richardson Boats) and the dozen small boat slips along the eastern harbour wall. The New Harbour operations continued to exist, with dock and moorings layout improvements and increased boat security and privacy. Harbour Support uses, such as parking, boat servicing and fuel, the Coast Guard Search and Rescue Station (SRS). ramps and the fish cleaning station, were relocated to the New Harbour. This option presented the opportunity for Harbour Commercial uses to be proximate to both harbours and future mixed-use development remained flexible to respond to market demand.

The two new recreation areas around the Rotary Harbour Pavilion intensified the waterfront open space system with provisions for an expanded pedestrian connection to the Georgian Trail and the urban trail network. Improved recreation areas along Georgian Bay provided better access and enjoyment of the lake and potential beaches. The streetscape improvements along Bayfield, Trowbridge, Nelson and Collingwood streets strengthened the pedestrian linkage between the Downtown and the two harbours. The infilling commercial uses along these streets also fostered stronger links between the waterfront and the Downtown. This option primarily focused on modest changes and interpreting Meaford's rich cultural heritage through streetscaping, park improvements and programming. 3.1.2 ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE - HARBOUR VILLAGE

This option proposed reimagining the Old Harbour as the location of a new waterfront village that expanded uses that appealed to residents and visitors (see Figure 20). This option responded to the reality that dredging the river mouth would be perpetual given siltation from the river and that climate change research anticipated declining water-levels. This option suggested that the need to commit to long-term dredging was not sustainable financially or ecologically and that repurposing the Old Harbour and expanding the New Harbour were options that should be investigated. Once dredging is discontinued, the natural river flows will create new self-sustaining habitats fostering improved aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Small craft and non-motorized boat activity would continue to utilize the Old Harbour and naturalized river, and the New Harbour accommodated the relocation of motorized and sail boats into an improved marina basin, with reorganized docking and additional moorings. The potential for marina expansion at the south east side of the New Harbour was presented as an option if market demand warranted this. Harbour Support, such as parking, boat servicing and fuel, the Coast Guard SRS, ramps and the fish cleaningCOPY station, were re-located to New Harbour. The Harbour Commercial uses provided opportunities for waterfront-related commercial activities at the New Harbour and at the river mouth. The river mouth Harbour Commercial area provided continuous commercial activity on a shoreline wharf along the west harbour wall. This location provided views to the _riverand the bay, with an elevated pedestrian boardwalk/pedestrian crossing the Bighead River at Nelson Street. The Future Development area adjacent to the east end of the waterfront lands remained flexible for a larger mixed-use development to add an influx of people, services and businesses to the waterfront.

The new enhanced recreation facilities and parkland improvements at the Rotary Harbour Pavilion and near the New Harbour contributed to the waterfront's open space system and provided an opportunity for an integrated trail connection to the Georgian Trail, as well as the urban trail network. The Recreation areas along Georgian Bay provided physical access to and the enjoyment of the lake and beaches. The streetscape improvements along Bayfield, Trowbridge, Nelson and Collingwood streets, as well as the pedestrian connection across the river mouth strengthened the pedestrian movement between the Harbour and the Downtown. Commercial uses are located in the Downtown, except for an expanded commercial node on the southwest side of the bridge that could attract the movement of people between the waterfront and the Downtown.

m OlLLUI\I LON�ULT"I NG LIMITED I SHOREPLAN I URBAN METRICS 3.1.3 ACTIVE HARBOUR - RECONSTRUCTED RIVER MOUTH

This option embraced the intensification of marina uses and assumed a substantial market demand for the operation of both harbours at full capacity, justifying the ongoing maintenance costs to keep the Old Harbour entirely navigable (see Figure 21 ). The Old Harbour was modified to accommodate approximately 400 boats, and improvements were made to the New Harbour docks and mooring layout, as well as increased boat security and privacy. Harbour uses, such as parking, the Coast Guard SRS, ramps and the fish cleaning station, were located to the New Harbour. This option presented the expansion of boat services at Richardson Boats, and that the Harbour Commercial uses supported all waterfront-related activities. The Future Development area to the east of the Waterfront lands remained flexible for a larger mixed-use development to add an influx of people, services and businesses to the waterfront.

Improved recreation and landscape amenities around the Rotary Harbour Pavilion contributed to the waterfront's open space system and provided an opportunity for a more integrated trail connection to the Georgian Trail, as well as the urban trail network. The recreation areas along Georgian Bay provided access and the enjoyment of the lake and potential beaches. COPYThe streetscape improvements along Bayfield, Trowbridge, Nelson and Collingwood streets strengthened the movement of people between the two harbours and the Downtown. Additional commercial infill uses along these streets fostered an exciting synergy between the waterfront and Downtown .

• MUNiliPALITY 01 rvl EAFORD 3.2 PRELIMINARY CONCEPT COMPARISON

The three options for the redevelopment of Meaford's urban area waterfront lands were evaluated with criteria that ranked potential impacts and contributions to: culture and tourism; natural environment and open space; along with afford ability. The criteria represent the planning objectives for the Meaford urban area waterfront lands, as identified in the Official Plan policies and MED strategies. An initial comparison, as shown in Figure 22, illustrated that the Ecologically Sustainable - Harbour Village option overall had the strongest contribution to and potential for enhancement of the waterfront lands, balancing the integrity of the natural environment and the diverse demands of the community and visitors. The Active Harbour - Reconstructed River Mouth option provided tourism opportunities mainly for the boating/marina related services, with limited contributions to the natural environment and limited open space enhancements. The Cultural Heritage - Status Quo preliminary concept provided open space enhancement potential, while having a modest opportunity to improve the natural environment and little contributions to enhance MeafordCOPY's culture, tourism and economic impact.

OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 high medium low • • status quo harbour village

ourism + Cultural ncement

Natural Environment Enhancement

FIGURE 22 - Preliminary Concept Comparison

t i!L.L... -) !\j ;�.- �-' !\; _--u:_ :-1 '\j �, · �!\!rT:��' �> :-i tJRt�L.�. i\J i u�

The three preliminary concepts became the focus of the community consultation and were used to stimulate discussion on the broad vision for the Meaford urban area waterfront lands. The preliminary concepts were a tool to obtain valuable input from the community, stakeholders, staff and Council.

3.3.1 EXPLORING THE VISION - PUBLIC DESIGN CHARRETTE, PHASE 2 CONSULTATION

A design charrette is an intensive, visionary hands-on workshop that brings people from different disciplines, backgrounds and interests together to explore land use and design options for a particular site. A public design charrette was held on a summer evening in July at the Meaford Hall to engage the community in the creative process of guiding the overall vision for the waterfont. as well as the potential locations for business development, pedestrian connections, beautification, Harbour improvements, enhancedCOPY greenspace, tourism generators. and cultural and natural features. Community members attending the public design charrette worked in four groups to prepare conceptual alternatives to the options that had been provided to stimulate discussion (see Figure 23). As each group presented their revised concepts, it became apparent that many elements had the unanimous support of the participants, while there were other issues where the participants'views differed.

Unified themes and ideas included the importance of connecting the waterfront with the Downtown, fostering commercial activity along Bayfield Street. maintaining and expanding boating in the New Harbour, and enhancing recreation in Fred Raper Park, around the Rotary Harbour Pavilion and the east waterfront lands t�at back onto Special Policy Area # 1. There were differing opinions on the need to maintain boating in the Old Harbour or expand boating in the Old Harbour if it meant dredging to manage sedimentation in the long term.

3.3.2 EXPLORING THE VISION - COUNCIL BRIEFING SESSION, PHASE 3 CONSULTATION

As part of the consultation process Council provided feedback on the three preliminary options. outcomes from the public charrette and stakeholder engagement activities. The briefing session was also an important opportunity to explore how the work of the Meaford Harbour Remediation Ta sk Force would be integrated to provide a clear and unified direction for the future use of.the Old Harbour.

• I I\ I

u L.J

z

I.J.J0..

:r.

0

(J) c.. (I) u ..::; 0c: � u ....) c 0 z .e

+-'(ij ro :z s 'J (I) ::::� Cis ..c: u c: Ol ·v; (I) 0 .!:::1 :0 ::J a...

M N LJ..J a: :::J S:2 COPY u... 3.3.3 EXPLORING THE VISION - ABORIGINAL LAND CLAIMS, PHASE 2 & 3 CONSULTATION

In acknowledgement and protection of the traditional uses of the waterways, shorelines and lands in and around the Municipality of Meaford by the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation, Saugeen First Nation (referred to as the Saugeen Oj ibway Nation) and the Metis, the Municipality met the consultation requirements in recognition of the importance of pro-active relationship building. Input from this consultation {see Appendix 1) was included in the recommendations of the Meaford Waterfront Plan.

3.3.4 TESTING AND REFINING THE CONCEPTS - PHASE 4 & 5 CONSULTATION

Critical contributions were made by the local community, key stakeholders, Municipal Council and staff in the development of the two preferred concepts for the urban area waterfront lands (see Section 4.1).

3.3.5 COMMUNITY CONCEPT PREFERENCE SURVEY

Hard copies and electronic copies (via PlaceS peak) for the community waterfront concept preference surveyCOPY were circulated to seek input on the two preliminary preferred concepts, three illustrative drawings and the vision, objectives and principles for Meaford's urban waterfront lands (see Section 4.0 and Appendix 1). Approximately 45 surveys were received, and although not statistically representative of the entire population of the Municipality, the following provides insight into the preferences of the public who were engaged and passionate about the future of the waterfront lands:

• Guiding principles from the 2009 Waterfront Plan: the majority of the respondents found them still relevant and applicable to include in the Meaford Waterfront Strategy and Master Plan.

• Proposed additional principles: providing waterfrontaccess and a healthy harbour were deemed as the most important considerations.

• Preliminary Concept 1 - Harbour Village Concept:

• LIKE: sustainable healthy community for the long term, improving terrestrial and aquatic habitats, variety of uses, relocated Richardson Boats still viable in New Harbour, pedestrian bridge, commercial along Old Harbour, business connectivity, pedestrian focus, improved visitor experience.

• CONCERNS: overcrowding of the New Harbour, loss in revenue from Old Harbour, viability/ access to Richardson Boats and sailing school, compatibility/viability of commercial area, cost, historical significance of the river mouth as a harbour.

• \ ( • Preliminary Concept 2 - Intensified Boating Concept: 3.3.6 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE

• LIKE: stimulate boating focus and local marine business, Harbour connectivity, attractive to A public open house was held in late October to boaters and public, keeping the historic use of the Old Harbour, more slips, improvements to present the Draft Meaford Waterfront Strategy and pedestrian access, pedestrian bridge, consistent with adjacent communities' harbours. Master Plan content, including the two preferred

• CONCERNS: need for ongoing dredging, traffic and parking congestion, loss of peaceful concepts that emerged from the public charrette, Harbour, feasibility, taxpayer contributions, cost, loss of boardwalk, limited because use is recommendations for the Official Plan policies, seasonal only, focus on boaters needs only, loss of other tourism opportunities, not ecologically economic development and implementation sustainable, opposes guiding principles, eliminates sailing school, uncertain market for strategies and the overall preferred concept. boating.

• Preferred Concept: majority of respondents preferred Option 1, citing harmony with nature and In general, the feedback was positive at the public sustainable in the long term, ecologically and economically beneficial, balanced mix of uses for larger event and through the PlaceSpeak discussion user groups, diverse tourism opportunities, pedestrian focus board. However, concerns remained related to the fate of Richardson Boat Works and the impacts of • Harbour Village Illustration: sediment accumulation if there was no maintenance • LIKE: safe and direct connection with Downtown,COPY healthy, sustainable river mouth, improved dredging. The naturalization of the entire Old New Harbour, family-oriented parkland, boardwalk, supports projected water-level decrease, Harbour was a concern if it blocked the seasonal allows non-motorized boating activities. flow of ice and debris in the spring and during storm • CONCERNS: naturalizing a man-made harbour, too shallow for boating traffic, cost location of events. Other concerns were related to costs, the bridge, disruption of the open views, limitations for sailing club, boat storage necessity of the pedestrian bridge and the location

• St. Vincent Illustration: of boat maintenance facilities. The feedback received and the discussions held at the public open • LIKE: promotion of active transportation, buried power lines, attractive, landscape treatments house influenced the final concepts. and abundance, pedestrian safety, planting around the pavilion

• CONCERNS: sidewalks unnecessary, trees blocking views, priority given to cars, lack of commercial activity, more recreational space, paved parking

• East Trail Illustration:

• LIKE: beautiful, multi-trail. boardwalk, landscape treatments, open views, welcoming, connection with entire waterfront

• CONCERNS: more parking, paved trail, presence of poison ivy, separate human and natural areas (extensive bird habitats), maintain beach access for small boats and canoes, lack of broader trail linkages beyond the urban area.

Ill DILLO N COI\JSULT!I\J(-iLIM ITED i SHOREPLAI\J J UkBA!\J METRICS 4.0 GUIDING PRINCIPLES

The Guiding Principles serve to provide an overarching set of mtentions to guide the long term redevelopment of the waterfront lands in Meaford. The following principles are based on the 2009 Meaford

Harbour Plan's guiding principles and were informed by the values conveyed throughout the consultation

process, as well as the best practices in the waterfront planning and design.

1. Protect the environment for the benefit of current and future generations.

2. Promote a healthy waterfront.

3. Promote the urban area waterfro�t as a gateway and focal open space area.

4. Become a cornerstone of public open space with a mix of public and recreation-oriented uses.

5. Consider the compatibility, access and synergies with the adjacent Special Policy Areas and the Downtown Core Commercial area.

6.COPY Protect and enhance lands for boating opportunities. 7. Protect and enhance passive waterfront recreation.

8. Protect and enhance public access to the waterfront lands.

9. Provide safe access through design and minimize community impacts.

10. Provide safe, continuous public trail access along the water's edge.

11. Enhance the physical and visual connectivity of the pedestrian circulation and links.

12. Promote excellence in design.

13. Celebrate Meaford 's heritage.

14. Enhance economic benefits.

,:-:---.,..___

-�

� r-� 4.1 TWO CONCEPTS A check between the values and needs of the community, the Guiding Principles, and the Cultural Heritage - Status Quo preliminary concept revealed that maintaining the existing Harbour operations does not meet the intent of the Municipality's policies and strategies, while also not realizing the potential economic benefits of a diverse tourism destination. The other two preliminary concepts (Ecologically Sustainable ­ Harbour Village and Active Harbour Option - Reconstructed River Mouth) were also further refined and evaluated with the Guiding Principles and community's input. The boating community was advocating maintaining the moorings and Richardson Boats in the current location in the Old Harbour, without the key conclusions and recommendations of the Remediation Ta sk Force's study that was prepared at a later date. At the time, there remained an underlying uncertainty around the viability of maintaining boating in the Old Harbour due to the cost of dredging and current lack of market for expanding boat moorings in Meaford to justify managing two harbours. The pivotal distinction between the two concepts going forwardCOPY for further public consultation was the primary function of the Old Harbour at the Bighead River mouth, impacting the potential uses on the adjacent lands and the opportunity for diversifyingeconomic opportunities.

DILLON CONSULTING LlrVIITED I SHORCPLAN I URBAN METRICS recrea�,

COPY

FIGU RE 24 - Option J . Harbou r ViUage Concept • \i! U f\1 /i ti''iJ.. U(\' t ; f i'vlt.'-'. t G iU) 4.2 OPTION 1 - HARBOUR VILLAGE CONCEPT

The Harbour Village Concept accepts a continuous decline in water levels, a market for commercial diversification along the waterfront, issuance of an annual permit for partial dredging of the Old Harbour to maintain access to Richardson Boats and small boat slips, and the market for boating to support the New Harbour at full capacity (see Figure 24). This strategy maintains the status-quo for some boating activities in the Old Harbour, enhances fishing access with modest habitat enhancement opportunities within the Bighead River mouth where the flows of the river can sustain healthy fish habitats and establishing new Harbour Village commercial uses along Bayfield Street and the west harbour wall (see Figure 25). The vision, objectives and economic development evaluation for Option 1- Harbour Village Concept are discussed below.

4.2.1 FUTURE VISION

" Th e Municipality of Mea ford takes pride in its urban area waterfront for the exemplary approach and design that encompass the 'Environment First' philosophy through sustainableCOPY design elements and ecological features, becoming one of the most frequently visited locations on the Georgian Bay The modest intervention in the Old Harbour acknowledges the decreasing wa ter-level trends, and embraces the existing location of the boat service and fu el operations while providing boat dockage for 38 small boats along designated areas of the east and west harbour walls. Th e Old Harbour also features reclaimed lands in the Bighead River mouth with fish habitat enhancement measures and fishing piers, as well as the Harbour Village. Th e New Harbour is improved with additional mooring spines and reconfiguration of the docks to expand the number of berths, providing excellent fa cilities for the boating community of Mea ford and beyond. Th e Coast Guard Search and Rescue Station's presence is of great value and pride to Meaford's wa terfront lands.

The Harbour Village attracts local residents and tourists alike with its shops and restaurants along the west wall overlooking the Bighead River mouth that is animated with anglers and water-based activities on kayaks, canoes and small sailboats. Community fa irs and events spill over fr om the Harbour Village to the extended sidewalks on Bayview Street that are enhanced with street trees, lighting, benches and decorative paving. Nelson Street, is animated with ground level commercial activity and is a key pedestrian corridor from the Downtown to the waterfront and the pedestrian bridge across the river. The RotaryHarb our Pa vilion. with striking views to both harbours and the bay. shines as the gathering place for small and large community events. Th e waterfront is a vibrant space within the Municipality of Meafo rd and is well connected to the existing urban fa bric, as illustrated in Figure 26. Th e open spaces and beaches along the waterfront back onto natural heritage areas that support a continuous pedestrian trail along the lake, connecting to the Georgian Tr ail and the Downtown" (see Figure 27).

El DllJO N CONSULTING LIM ITED I SHOREPLAN I URBAN METRICS COPY

I I

COPY 4.2.2 OBJECTIVES

• Recognize the waterfront for its tourism and recreation opportunities.

• Develop a balanced mix of uses, including recreation, harbour, commercial, natural heritage, open space and harbour support.

• Maintain boat access to boat services and fuel operations in the Old Harbour contingent upon the current operator maintaining these services.

• Improve the layout and operations of the New Harbour.

• Attract businesses to Meaford's waterfront at the Harbour Village.

• Improve connectivity between the waterfront, Downtown and the Georgian Trail.

• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats of the Georgian Bay shoreline and Bighead River mouth. 4.2.3COPY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION The Harbour Village Concept provides the best opportunity for the Municipality of Meaford to promote diverse tourism and economic development on the urban waterfront lands. It recognizes that there is surplus mooring capacity in the two harbours and, with modest improvements, there is a sufficient number

·· of boat slips to serve current and future demand in the New Harbour. The Concept maintains access to Richardson Boats and a small number of boat slips with minor dredging near Richardson and the mouth of the harbour. This approach has a lower cost and is less environmentally intrusive than full harbour dredging presented in the Intensified Boating Concept.

The Harbour Village Concept fosters opportunities for increased retail and restaurant businesses along the waterfront, providing a distinct Harbour Village on the water. The advancement of the planning framework for the Harbour Village will foster the redevelopment of the waterfront as a commercial destination on Meaford's waterfront. attracting locals and visitors alike while also recognizing the strategic objectives of the Meaford Economic Development Strategy.

This concept also directly supports the direction and intent of the Official Plan policies in that the Harbour/ waterfront area has "good potential to accommodate commercial uses such as restaurants, inns, craft and gift shops, studios and art galleries." Furthermore, based on existing tourism research conducted in Bruce­ Grey-Simcoe, a strong connection between the waterfront and nearby commercial facilities will help to increase tourism spending and improve visitor experiences. The commercial uses included in the Harbour Village Concept would help promote the new revitalized use of the Old Harbour and also help to establish a greater physical connection between the waterfront and Downtown commercial area . • .,. ,L,: 1\.ltAf()� . I

z :5 a...

a: 0 I Vl

\.] z '::J ::J Vl z 0 u z q

0

COPY 4.3 OPTION 2-INTENSIFIED BOATING CONCEPT The Intensified Boating Concept requires significant remediation of the Old Harbour to mitigate the sediment deposition in the Bighead River mouth in the form of full dredging of the Old Harbour, control of the sediments upstream and reduct!on of the sedimentation from the lake at the mouth of the harbour or engineered structures to promote 'self-flushing' in the river mouth (see Figure 28). In order to support the cost of removing and controlling the sedimentation, it requires a significant expansion of mooring slips to pay for the works. This option intensifies the boating activities at the expense of other tourism opportunities around the Harbour. Increased moorings require a proportionate increase in the land base supportfa cilities such as parking. The vision, objectives and economic development evaluation for Option 2-Intensified Boating Concept are discussed below.

4.3.1 VISION

"The Municipality ofMeaford has fo cused its urban area waterfront to become a destination marina having two expaCOPYnded boating fa cilities in the Old and New Harbours . Major investments have been made to accommodate up to 500 boats in the two harbours, as well as the supporting boat services and parking. The two harbours are recognized by the boating community in Meaford and beyond as premier fa cilities for mooring on Georgian Bay The Coast Guard Search and Rescue Station 's presence is of great value and pride in Meaford.

Nelson Street, with its firststo rey marine-related commercial activity and pronounced streets cape design, becomes a key pedestrian corridor to the waterfront and the pedestrian bridge across the river. Nelson Street also connects the waterfront to the well-established Downtown commercial area. The Rotary Harbour Pa vilion, with striking views to both harbours and the bay, shines as the gathering place along the waterfront that is fo cused on small and large community events. The waterfrontis a vibrant space within the Municipality of Meaford and is well connected to the existing urban fa bric, as illustrated in Figure 26. The open spaces and beaches along the lake back onto natural heritage areas that support a continuous pedestrian trailalong the waterfront lands and connections to the Georgian Trail and the Downtown" (see Figure 27) .

• 1\ COPY

P IGUR£ 28 • Optio n 2 • lntensme d Boating Concep!

DillO N CONS U LTi NG UIV iif[D i S HO R EPLAN / U RBAN METR ICS • 4.3.3 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION

The Intensified Boating Concept focuses economic development in the boating and marina segments of the market. Commercial space supports marine and boating related retailing. The space available for other commercial use is limited in the waterfront because the lands are needed for parking and other marina supportive facilities such as boat storage, service areas and maintenance and repair facilities. This option does not include a range of community uses and there are also fewer opportunities to promote economic development. diverse tourism opportunities or the establishment of 'sustainable' new businesses (as per the Meaford Economic Development Strateg.YJ.

There has been extensive market research conducted in Bruce-Grey-Simcoe to evaluate waterway assets and tourism development. Existing tourism research highlights the importance of the waterfront as a major economic driver. There is also evidence that a strong connection between the waterfront and nearby businesses will improve experiences for tourists and other visitors, while also encouraging increased spending and economic activity. The Intensified Boating Concept does not provide the same level of opportunCOPYity for economic development as the Harbour Village Concept.

The Intensified Boating Concept also is not economically sustainable with the existing underutilization of the two harbours in Meaford and given that the boating and marina market forecasts are weak, poses greater risks for investment from the perspective of the Municipality. The existing harbours are currently operating below maximum capacity and have been losing market share to other nearby communities which offer a broader range of amenities and services. Recognizing the high costs of the Intensified Boating Concept. the

investment in new facilities and costly ongoing maintenance could only be justified if all of the approximately 500 boat slips were occupied. Even if marina operations were expanded under the Intensified Boating Concept. there would be limited economic benefit to the Municipality relative to the tourism and economic benefits of the Harbour Village Concept. Given the significant investment required, it is not recommended that the Municipality assumes this level of financial risk associated with the implementation of the Intensified Boating Concept. 4.4 MEAFORD HARBOUR REMEDIATION TA SK FORCE COMMITTEE

The Remediation Harbour Ta sk Force was established by the Municipality of Meaford Council to look at options to address the on-going siltation issues within the Old Harbour at the river mouth. The Remediation Harbour Ta sk Force made a number of observations and draft suggestions that included:

1. Rounding out of the corners of the river bend before the Bridge Street bridge. Rounding out the river bend would improve flow capacity of the channel and potentially help with the reduction of ice jams. The costs of this undertaking may be significant and proper cost benefit analysis needs to be carried out.

2. Creation of a "flow-through" in the north breakwater. The benefit of the flow-through is unclear. Based on discussions with local boaters during the Public Open House (see Section 3.3.6), it appears that a flow-through existed in the past and reportedly reduced surges in the harbour. There is no evidence otherCOPY than anecdotal information, and it is difficult to demonstrate a scientific explanation beyond a very minor effect of such a structure on surge within the Old Harbour. The implementation of a second outlet from the river basin would likely reduce velocity through the main entrance and potentially increase siltation within the entrance.

3. Construction of a guide wall in the middle of the harbour, as per Option 2-Intensified Harbour Concept. The concept of a wall/solid pier dividing the harbour to increase the flow velocity and reduce sediment depositions is sound. The practical execution of such a plan is challenging. The plan would need to look at depositions supply and sedimentation rates under various flow and sediment load scenarios and ensure that the net change is a benefit. This benefit would be then need to be considered in light of the loss of aquatic habitat and other undesirable potential impacts, such as increased ice jamming and impairment of navigation. Proper assessment and balancing of all of these effects and impacts needs to be carried out and would be challenging.

4. Creation of new mooring area north of Richardson's Boat Works and relocation of the boat service area to this new location. The creation of a new basin north of the Richardson's Boat Works is also challenging because of the potential siltation caused by any silt-laden water entering from the river. Although the load would be substantially reduced from that experienced in the existing river harbour at the river mouth, the silt will still be present. The bathymetry in the area suggests that more than half of the proposed enclosed area is too shallow (above -2m) and would require dredging. Also, this is a popular swimming area that would be lost if the use was changed to boat mooring. These use conflicts will need to be resolved.

UH�AN MfTH.IC::. 5. Reclaim land areas on the east side of the existing basin that are naturally silting to narrow the channel and concentrate flow. The final idea addresses permitting areas that now silt in to become reclaimed lands. This would achieve the narrowing of the channel and, therefore, potentially cause the sediment to be carried out furthertowards the harbour entrance. A review of the navigational chart of bottom contours in the Old Harbour does not support that the east side is the primary siltation area as suggested in the comments. The siltation patterns would change as areas are reclaimed, thus a very detailed assessment of the siltation patterns and progressive changes would need to be undertaken. It is important to also note that approval for such an undertaking will likely be very difficult to obtain because of concerns related to the loss of fish habitat

In summary. pursuing any structural solution to resolve the siltation issues in the Old Harbour should be done with extreme caution and only after considerable technical assessment. Although basic principles of siltation are relatively simple, the subtleties of any structural changes on siltation are very complex and will imCOPYpact not only where silt deposits occur, but also ice movement, aquatic habitat, water quality, wave penetration into the harbour and many other issues. Such studies will take years to complete and costs for these assessments will be significant for the proponent. It is unlikely that any solution would completely eliminate the need for periodic dredging. Also. the more complex the intervention,the more difficult it will be to evaluate the impact and convince the regulating authorities that there is no harm to the environment.

Further, with the understanding that the existing Old Harbour is subject to substantial wave penetration and agitation during storms from the north, Old Harbour would need additional wave protection to be fully functional as a safe mooring location, regardless of the approach to resolve siltation and dredging issues.

m i'\ �L�:···J il rt';�\ L! I\ �)!· !V1 L DJ CH�G 4.5 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 4.5.4 PUBLIC LANDS ACT

Although the extent of modifications to the harbours varies between Option 1 and Option 2, both will require Public Lands Act (PLA) may be also required. The the following additional approvals once the Environmental Assessment Study, Record for Site Conditions approval is provided under a Work Permit issued and detailed design have been completed. by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Lake and river bottoms are owned by the province and MNR administers these lands under PLA. 4 . 5 . 1 NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT

Approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act protects the public right to boat freely on the waterways Finally, there are land ownership challenges related in Canada. Approval is required for any structure to be placed in any navigable waters. The Navigation to the few parcels that are in private ownership. To Protection Act is expected to come into effect in spring 2014 which will replace the Navigable Waters move forward with the Meaford Waterfront Plan, the Protection Act and may change some of the requirements. acquisition of the remaining public lands should be considered. 4.5.2 FISHERIES ACT Section 35 (1) of the Fisheries Act states that "No person shallCOPY carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in the harmful alteration or disruption, or the destruction, of fish habitat". Fisheries and Oceans Canada will review projects to identify any impact to fish and fish habitat or delegate this authority to a local agency and work with proponents to identify if mitigation measures are possible.

4.5.3 DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS, AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES AND WATERCOURSES REGULATION (ONTARIO REGULATION 161/06)

Proposed shoreline works is regulated by the Nottawasauga Valley Conservation in order to prevent flooding and erosion. Approval will be required for any and all works proposed within the lands regulated pursuant to Ontario Regulation 161/06.

• DILlON CON�L 1.T ING LIM'TE.D I SHORI:oPLAN I URB ETR•r 4.6 WATERFRONT PLAN COST ESTIMATE

The cost estimate for the waterfront has several components including improvements to public parkland, modest enhancements to the harbours and the Special Policy Areas illustrated in the Master Plan. The Master Plan also illustrates streetscape improvements that are part of the Community Improvement Plan area, but outside the designated waterfront lands. A separate cost has been provided for these works.

The Plan recommends repurposing some of the lands on the west side of the Old Harbour for either a new commercial 'Harbour Village', as described in Option 1, or 'Intensified Boating'uses, as illustrated in Option 2. It is recognized that any new commercial redevelopment will require an alternative delivery model such as a public-private partnership, or a long term lease by the municipality to an investor who will finance the commercial redevelopment whether for tourism uses, or expanded marina uses. This is the model that has been used in municipalities like Graven hurst. The cost to the municipality, if any, will be dependent on the natureCOPY of the partnership, the intensity of the commercial redevelopment and revenue sharing agreements. The improvements to the public parkland for the lands designated as waterfront are in the $3 million range. The streetscape improvements in the CIP are estimated at $1.65 million. These estimates are in order of magnitude rather than detailed costs (see Appendix 3) .

• vl lJ !\ liPALI Y •; vi E A CJI<.[, 4.7 POTENTIAL WATERFRONT USES In addition to the potential uses identified in Figure 29, there are also a number of existing Recognizing that one of the primary objectives of the existing Meaford Economic Development Strategy uses which should continue to operate with some is to introduce new businesses connected to the waterfront, potential commercial, recreation, and improvements or enhancements, including: future development uses have been identified based on the review of existing policy documents, public engagement and detailed analysis of existing waterfront redevelopment strategies in various communities Farmers' Market - expand and improve throughout Canada. The potential uses that would complement the waterfront and provide an opportunity the Farmer's Market through the redesign for private sector participation are summarized in Figure 29. of the open space in order to attract more visitors to Meaford throughout the entire It is important to note that some of these potential uses were previously located in the harbour/waterfront year. area. For example, the former Moose building, which was located at the northwest corner of Bayfield Street • Trail system - improve the connectivity and Nelson Street before being demolished in 2012, was previously the home of a number of waterfront between the waterfront trails and the eating and drinking establishments, including the Harbour Moose, Pier 74, and Grant's Restaurant. Georgian Trail. with direct access to active transportation options and other recreation Although there has been some discussion about the possibiliCOPYty of the municipal library being relocated to activities. the waterfront a 2010 potential site review completed by staff did not identifythe Harbour as an ideal site • Boat storage operations - move and and emphasized the role the library plays as a significant and prominent Downtown anchor. Existing policy consolidate existing operations as it is direction and strategic planning in Meaford, including the Meaford Harbour Strategic Master Plan, does not not an essential use on the waterfront, identify the library as a potential use for the waterfront lands. allowing prime waterfront land to be occupied by uses which stimulate tourism and economic development.

Parking - reconfigure the existing parking to improve efficiency, and as

.. a result create greater opportunity for Commercial '�---�- ..._,_..., Food services the development of commercial and ����r1Joz;7f. ['{�·.!-"�;-- r-:�JrJ ;� recreational uses that stimulate tourism Fine din ing restaurant F"gt' __y and economic development. re:Di'V!Iokmenj-� -=-- --�- Other restaurant . � Resid�n � Banquet and/or event facility .._ tial --, � ---= - . -:;;.,..11 Health and wellness ;- - <:oi;�om-;;;i�m --;- ._ � ___: - -;.• 1 L=. . ' ....._ ·. _ I •• Spe cia lty retailing and services �- ,-,::. B�i��'l!�"��ac����odati«;Jn� Art gallery �:- Hot�(�s �- { · :--� 1 -� � . ·1j trSailing flubhouse/: @_9jities Outdoor recreation store � -

FIGURE 29 - Potential Waterfront Uses

67

NC LIMiifD .A. R 4.8 CONCEPT COMPARISON

The two concept options have two very distinguishable visions for the Meaford urban area waterfront lands, adjacent land uses and economic sector development. The comprehensive evaluation of the two options is critical to identify the extent of the potential social, economic development and tourism, and environmental long-term contributions and impacts. Although uncertainty exists about the future of many environmental, social, financial, technical and economic factors in the Municipality of Meaford and beyond, it is important to recognize at the early stages of planning the sufficiency and shortfalls of these plans to meet the desired future outcomes that are expressed through long-range planning policy and strategic plans. Further. understanding the deficiencies of each concept option allows for the flexibility to change course, as necessary, in the longer planning horizon as planning conditions change.

As illustrated in Figure 30, the two concept options were evaluated on their contributions to making a strong, moderate or weak case for specific development criteria to move forward as the preferred concept. The twoCOPY concept options were compared using the following criteria: • Natural Heritage Enhancement: the improvements of the aquatic and terrestrial habitats, the urban forest and wildlife corridors are strongly supported by the Municipality's Official Plan policies.

Option 1 - Harbour Village Concept provides a considerably stronger case for the enhancement of the natural heritage with fish habitat improvements in the Bighead River mouth, less disturbance of the aquatic habitat. and less parking requirements that increase the open space area along the waterfront.

• Open Space Enhancement: the improvements to the open space are essential to supportac tive transportation, healthy living and an authentic watertront. Although both concept options provide

considerable improvements to the open space network along the watertront. Option 1 - Harbour Village Concept offers better connectivity between the open spaces with the additional lands that are used for parking in Option 2- Intensified Boating Concept.

• Affordability: the Municipality of Meaford will need to asses the cost implications for each concept.

Option 1 - Harbour Village Concept provides a strong case for affordability, given its partial strategic dredging of the Old Harbour in comparison to the full-harbour intervention and dredging for Option

2 - Intensified Boating Concept. Option 2 also requires a large number of costly studies to resolve sedimentation issues in the Old Harbour.

• Redevelopment Opportunities: the redevelopment of the waterfront area is a priority in the Meaford

Economic Development Strategy. Option 1 - Harbour Village Concept provides a considerable range of commercial, tourism and recreation opportunities to build itself as a vibrant watertront gateway with successful development of related businesses . • J I D strong moderate weak OPTION 1 OPTION 2 • case case case harbour village itensified harbour

Natural Heritage Enhancement • STRONG CASE for moving forward with concept plan the concept plan improves aquatic and terrestTial habitats.urban forest cover and wildlife Strong economic climate corridors Many redevelopment opportunities Open Space Enhancement Significant impact on eoonomic development the concept plan provides an extension to theexisting greenspace with improved visual Significantimpact an tourism activity and Phvsical connectivity between all Significantimpact on recreation (quality/quantity ofspace) Affordability Few threats or limitations the concept plan reflectsa sound design with just capital and operation costs, while Significant value to local residents multiplefunding opportunities Significant value to municipal government I consistency with policy framework Redevelopment Opportunities Many successful precedents the concept plan provides a range of opportunities for redevelopment, including commercial, tourism and recreational Strong economic feasibility Economic Climate the concept plan reflects local market conditions in Meaford and the surroundingCOPY area both now and in thefu ture • MODERATE CASE for moving forward with concept plan Economic Impact Moderate economic dimate the concept plan helps to support local economic development (e.g. business growth, Some redevelopment opportunities increased tax assessment) in the waterfront area. as well as downtown and other areas Moderate impact an economic development Tourism Impact Moderate impact on tourism activity Moderate impact on recreation (quality/quantity of space) the concept plan helps to draw tourists to Meaford and the waterfront area, encouraging Some tnreots or limitations visitation (freauencv. lenath of stav. overniaht stavs) and Moderate value to residen ts Recreation Impact local Moderate value to municipal government/ consistency witn policy the concept plan embraces the existing public recreation amenities provided in the waterfront area framework Some successfu l precedents Compatibility Moderate economic fe asibility the concept plan poses few potential threats in terms of destabilizing other parts of the

lue to the Community the concept plan provides many additional amenities for local residents (e.g. new [LJWEAK CASE for moving fo rward with concept plan restaurants, additional recreational space. sense of pride in the comm Weak economic climate Few redevelopment opportunities Value to the Municipality Limited impact on economic development the concept plan provides value to the municipality through support forexisting policy framework Limited impact on tourism activity and improved municipal finances(e.g. reduced operating expenses, increased operating revenues) Limited impact on recreation (quality/quantityof space) Precedents Many threats or limitations the concept is consistent with the scale and scope of other successful waterfront Limited value to local residents Precedents in comparable communities in Ontario Limited value to municipal government/ consistency with policy Commercial Feasibility framework Few successful precedents the concept plan will draw theatt ention of commercial partners and other development interests looking to invest in Meaford Weak economic fe asibility

FIGURE 30 - Tw o Concept Option Comparison

l,"r • l.i ! , C1 N ,_- �l 1\J ,U :_-; : i\i L. L! I\ u� . SHLHfl ·':-:: • . � ..,: ...... ":' -:-··r- � , ,_ .. '� - . . �.,.!!IJ,.:.""...... ·- . .� :. ·�r � ...... ' � .� ;:a: �·-· ,� �.,:.'"4 � ,_ .�•L • Economic Climate: the redevelopment of the waterfront reflects the current and future market . . " \. �- ..t. f1• � , f." ' ""'- . ... . ' '"'• -� ..' " . '· ;/_ conditions in Meaford and beyond. Although both concept options reflect on the importance of ."!:-' - • •. ·.:: - • ·:(' Ji. boating activities, Option 1 - Harbour Village Concept provides a stronger response to the economic � .· ... . .i� ;':.. �;· ·. -.: - climate by maintaining the current harbour functions with major improvements to facilitate the ��. � .r� .• -.. ,. ,... . � - - - ��· r - �.. ·""- operation at full capacity, while diversifying the range of waterfront users by accommodating other �- .-; ,.� �r.}_..... r uses, such as commercial, non-motorized boating, ancl recreational. ., __, -·. • Economic Input: the redevelopment of the waterfront provides significant contributions to Meaford's waterfront and the Downtown, as supported by the Official Plan and the Meaford Economic � Development Strategy. '"'� - .• ; � II • Tourism Impact: the redevelopment of the waterfront draws tourists to Meaford and the waterfront. . '-� ;r; • Although both concepts provide significant improvements to attracting tourists to Meaford and I __t . ,..J_, __ j ,.. I IC:::l ('1 ' the waterfront. Option 1 - Harbour Village Concept accommodates a broad range of users and ZLt economic development that ensures year-round tourism activity . -.:# -· Recreation Impact: the improvements to the recreation areas are essential to support active � COPYtransportation, healthy living and provide both passive and active recreation opportunities. Both options equally provide moderate opportunities for tourists and locals to embrace and enjoy the beaches, parks and trails.

• Compatibility: the improvements of the waterfront need to be compatible with the adjacent land uses to maintain strong and stable neighbourhoods and/or areas of the municipality. Although both concepts are compatible with the adjacent land uses, Option 1 - Harbour Village Concept provides the commercial opportunity along the Old Harbour west wall that complements the strategic direction to have commercial along Bayfield Street. while creating a stronger link between the waterfront and Downtown areas.

• Value to the Community:the redevelopment of the waterfront provides additional amenities for local residents. Although both concepts provide significant improvements to the waterfront amenities, Option 1 - Harbour Village Concept provides a diverse set of waterfront uses, including a potential restaurant along the waterfront which was identified as extremely importantthrough community consultations. • Value to the Municipality: the redevelopment of the waterfront provides value to the Municipality through implementation of its existing policy framework and improves municipal finances. Overall,

Option 1 - H.arbour Village Concept illustrates the strongest case to reduce operating costs and improve revenue.

• Precedents: the redevelopment of the waterfront has been already tested elsewhere and has been successful.

• Commercial Feasibility: the redevelopment of the waterfront draws commercial partners and other

development interests to invest in Meaf?rd. Option 1 - Harbour Village Concept provides the strongest case for commercial feasibility given the already established entrepreneur interest to invest in commercial uses along the waterfront and partnership and funding opportunities.

Through this comprehensive evaluation and community support. Option 1- Harbour Village Concept was refined to maintain access to Richardson Boats and some existing docks on the west harbour wall, presumably with modest annual dredging to facilitate mooring where sedimentation could be managed. The preferred concept for the Meaford Waterfront Strategy and MaCOPYster Plan is presented in Figure 31.

Hf:P � J�BA N f'l.ffRI COPY

-_) I 5.0 FUNDING STRATEGY

Many municipalities in Ontario ha�e developed creative financial incentives and other programs to support the redevelopment of underperforming area. The primary objective of the economic development analysis was to identify sources of funding for the Meaford Waterfront Plan. Based on feedback received through The incentives programs available through the consultation and the evaluation of business opportunities, funding mechanisms are identified in this section Downtown CIP could help to attract private sector as well as the recommendations for an overall strategy to minimize the burden on the Municipality of partners to invest in the redevelopment of Meaford's Meaford. The funding strategy explored the existing financial tools available to municipalities. private sector Harbour/waterfront area, including residential partnership opportunities, fundraising and community involvement. partnership opportunities with other and commercial property developers. These agencies, and opportunities to collaborate with upper levels of government. incentives help to increase the return on investment for developers considering investments in the Downtown area. 5.1 MEAFORD'S EXISTING FINANCIAL TOOLS

A number of the financial tools are already used by the Municipality of Meaford to encourage redevelopment It is important to note that Downtown CIP does not and provide financial assistance to property owners in the HarbourCOPY/waterfront and Downtown. These pertain to the redevelopment of brownfields, which programs (including both grants and loans) are available through the Meaford Downtown CIP and apply may require remediation before redevelopment can to the lands within the Downtown CIP Area Boundary, which includes the Harbour/waterfront area, as occur. As noted in a staff report from the Building illustrated in Figure 9. The existing financial tools which are available in Meaford through the Downtown CIP & Planning Services Department (PB071-201 1) include: the inclusion of incentive programs for brownfields could help to assist with the development of certain

• Residential Development Charge Grant Program - provides a one-time grant equivalent to the properties that may not otherwise be redeveloped amount of the applicable residential development charge for property owners whoare investing in due to the financial burden of remediation. redevelopment and/or expansion of existing buildings located within the Downtown CIP; Notably, this staff report also indicates that the • Ta x Incremental Equivalent Grant Program (TIE G) - provides financing for a portion of the increased property taxesassoc iated with any redevelopment or rehabilitation of a downtown property; Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) has permitted private developer funding for the • Building Permit Fee Grant Program - provides a one-time grant equivalent to the amount of the revitalization of brownfields. This funding is applicable building permit fee for property owners within the Downtown CIP Area; available to developers through the FCM, but it is • Parkland Dedication Fee Grant Program - provides a one-time grant, equivalent to the amount of the contingent upon municipal grants or tax assistance Parkland Dedication Fee, in situations where the Municipality of Meaford requires cash-in-lieu of by means of an approved Community Improvement parkland dedication; Plan in the local community. As a result it important

• Fac;ade Improvement Loan Program - provides an interest-free loan to property owners to finance that the Municipality of Meaford amends the existing improvements to the fac;adeof an existing building, and must be consistent with the Municipality of Downtown CIP as planned in order to ensure that Meaford's urban design and fac;adegui delines; and Brownfield incentives are included, allowing private

• Upgrade to Building Code Loan Program - provides an interest-free loan to property owners to finance developers to receive additional funding through the improvements to the fac;adeof an existing building, and must be consistent with the Municipality of FCM. Meaford's urban design and fac;adeguidelines. L) 11 Iii LUN Cut\!_"I �TiNGWJI ITU") : SHOREPLAN ! UR8;.\i'� METRICS 5.2 PRIVAT E SECTOR PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES

The redevelopment and revitalization of the waterfront in Meaford presents a number of private sector partnership opportunities, includingjoin ventures, sponsorships/advertising, and stewardship programs.

5.2.1 JOINT VENTURES

The redevelopment of Meaford's waterfront/Harbour area provides an opportunity to establish a joint venture partnership with a private development company, or a group of companies. This type of partnership structure would be most appropriate for the financing, design and construction of commercial space in the Harbour/waterfront area. As described in Section 2.7 .1, Gravenhurst (ON) provides an example of a joint venture partnershipagreement that could be replicated in Meaford, whereby a private sector partner is secured to develop commercial space in tandem with a clear vision of a people-oriented waterfront experience. 5.2.2COPY SPONSORSHIPS AND ADVERTISING In addition to joint venture partnership opportunities with various private sector partners, the redevelopment of the Harbour/waterfront also provides some discrete sponsorship and advertising opportunities, which would allow sponsors (both corporate and personal) to demonstrate support for new investment and the promotion of tourism and economic development in Meaford. There are a number of sponsorship programs already in place in many other municipalities in Ontario, such as Oakville, Milton, Newmarket and Burlington, amongst numerous others. There are even firms that focus specifically on providing municipalities with assistance identifying and marketing local sponsorship and advertisingop portunities. The Municipality of Meaford could investigate if similar programs could be established in Meaford as a method of encouraging tourism and economic development in the Harbour/waterfront area.

• Naming facilities - Meaford could explore the potential for sponsors to exchange monetary donations for the naming rights to certain recreation facilities on the waterfront (including parks, beaches, etc.).

• Signage - like naming facilities, Meaford could permit sponsors to install signage in strategic locations throughout the community. For example, sponsors could be engaged to provide financing used to improve waterfront park spaces, in exchange for a signage and advertising rights.

• Both Option 1 - Harbour Village Concept and Option 2-The Intensified Boating Concept features recreation space, including trails and a boardwalk that extends across the Bighead River. Meaford could sell the naming rights to the new boardwalk, and the municipality could also capitalize on its extensive trail network by introducing an adopt-a-trail program, where monetary donations are exchanged for recognition on a sign positioned at the beginning of each trail. Meaford currently m IN 'VI lt.\h.lR features 180 kilometres of outdoor recreation trails and proposes to add more through the redevelopment of Harbour/waterfront area. Proceeds from the adopt-a-trail program could be used to finance the ongoing maintenance of the trail system which extends throughout Meaford.

• Recreation guides - sponsorship and advertising opportunities should also be made available on

the Parks & Facilities pages of Meaford's website. The Municipality of Meaford provides an online overview of local parks, trails and recreational facilities, which could be levered as an advertising opportunity (http://www.meaford.ca/parks-a-trails.html). For example, under the Parks tab (which also

includes beaches), on the Parks & Facilities page, Sail Georgian Bay or the Reef Boat Club could benefit from advertising. COPY

rED liN uL... Ir \1 VI I I " LPLAN 1 vP.BAI\J MfTRICS 5.3 FUNDING AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

In addition to opportunities to partner with a private development company in the redevelopment of the waterfront/harbour in Meaford, there could also be an opportunity for community involvement. Some of the strategies that could be employed in Meaford as a method of encouraging fundraising activities and community involvement in the redevelopment of the harbour/waterfront include a "Friends of" program and special events.

5.3.1 SPECIAL EVENTS

Special events provide an opportunity for fundraising activities, but also an opportunity to feature the waterfront and attract tourists to the local community. There are numerous events which could potentially be used for fundraising purposes. For example, the Dragon's Den Meaford event could potentially be used as an opportunity to identify new waterfront businesses. The annual Meaford Scarecrow Invasion presents another potential fundraising opportunity, and is traditionally hosted in the harbour/waterfront area. The synergyCOPY between the Scarecrow Invasion and the redevelopment of the waterfront is evident. as both seek to promote local tourism and commercial activity in the vicinity of the harbour/waterfront and the Downtown. As a result, these events and other similar programs could be used to encourage community involvement in the redevelopment of the waterfront. and to assist in fundraising activities.

5.4 OPPORTUNITIES TO COLLABORATE WITH UPPER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT

The redevelopment of Meaford's waterfront also presents a number of opportunitiesto collaborate with upper levels of government. and secure financing to offset the associated costs, and reduce the burden on local taxpayers. There could be opportunities to secure funding from the Provincial Government and/or the Federal Government to help finance the redevelopment of the waterfront in Meaford.

For example, the redevelopment of the waterfront/rail lands in North Bay has been facilitated by a $2.1 million dollar investment from the City of North Bay, a $2.0 million contribution from the Provincial Government through the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation ("NOHFC"), and $1 .5 million from the Federal Government through the Federal Economic Development Initiative in Northern Ontario ("Fednor"). There was also an additional $1.0 million contribution promised by Community Waterfront Friends, although fundraising is still ongoing, as discussed in Section 4.3. Moreover, Fednor also contributed an additional $500,000, along with another $200,000 by the City of North Bay as a condition of the Fed nor grant. While Meaford would not be eligible for funding through the NOHFC or Fednor, NorthBay provides an example of IZI 1\ !l t__. r\j (_ JPi\ ] (�-\ 1 J� l\'1 �-j\ �-i�J!-{ L) a municipality that has collaborated with upper levels of government to help finance the redevelopment and revitalization of the waterfront. Like NorthBay, waterfront redevelopment initiatives in To ronto have also been facilitated by funding from three levels of government (municipal, provincial. federal).

Meaford could be eligible for funding through the Ontario Provincial Government. For example, the Ontario Trillium Foundation is an agency of the Ontario Provincial Government, which provides funding to charities and not-for-profit organizations through three grant programs:

• Community Grants;

• Province-wide Grants; and

• The Future Fund.

Recognizing that the Ontario Trillium Foundation grants are directed to charities and not-for-profit organizations, a no-profit charitable partner would have to beCOPY engaged by the Municipality to secure this type of funding. Based on the eligibility criteria for each, a non-profit partner would be most likely to secure a Community Grant. which is intended for activities that have a local impact within a single catchment area. The Ontario Trillium Foundation provides grants of up to $375,000 over five years, with the level of funding varying depending on how well each application coincides with the sector priorities, desired outcomes, and areas of focus for the agency.

There are also alternative federal funding programs, which could be used to provide financing for the waterfrontredev elopment in Meaford, such as the New Building Canada Plan. This program was established as a result of the Economic Action Plan 201 3, and promises to contribute $4 7 billion in new funding over the next 10 years. This program builds on the Building Canada Fund that was established in 2007, with the objective of creating a stronger economy, a cleaner environment, and prosperous communities. The New Building Canada Plan has been introduced to provide financial support for new construction and infrastructure projects, which function as key drivers of economic growth and job creation. The program focuses on projects that promote economic development through innovative strategies, including public-private partnerships. As a result, there is a clear synergy between the New Building Canada Plan, and the redevelopment of harbour/waterfront in Meaford.

Ill DILLG r\1 CON'lULTI NG Ll rvi iTEO St IOREPLAN I LJRBAf\1 l\/1 [1 RICS 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

\ __ -� The recommendations for the Meaford Waterfront Strategy and Master Plan (Meaford Waterfront Plan) are based on the input received from the community, stakeholders, staff and Council. The purpose of the Meaford Waterfront Plan was to develop a waterfront master plan as an update to the Meaford Harbour Strategic Plan and policy recommendations that implement the strategies developed through the Meaford Economic Development Strategy.

In the development of the Meaford Waterfront Plan, two concept options were considered for the Municipality of Meaford urban area waterfrontredevelopment - the two concepts' land use, harbour functions, and tourism and economic development potential were the main differentiators. Based on a deep understanding of the Municipality of Meaford's Official Plan policy gaps and 'environment-first' mandate, the technical, regulatory and navigation challenges in the Old Harbour, community support, and the economic development and market conditions evaluation, it is the recommendation of the Meaford WaterfrontCOPY Plan that Option 1 - Harbour Village Concept (see Figure 31) be adopted as the preferred Waterfront Master Plan.

The Waterfront Master Plan provides the greatest opportunities for creating a balanced mix of uses, tourism activities and economic development in Meaford. Although the development of certain features, such as the cantilevered harbour village cluster, may encounter ownership, regulatory and funding challenges, it should not limit or undermine the potential for a successful development of the waterfront, including the promotion of harbour-related uses on the west side of Bayfield Street.

Detailed recommendations for the redevelopment of the waterfront as a Harbour Village are identified below:

6.1 GENERAL

1. The Municipality should invest capital budget into the placemaking elements of the urban area waterfront lands, such as the trail experience as the path meanders along commercial areas, softer edges of the adjacent parks, continuous waterfront boardwalk, flexible street/plaza, beaches and the green system. Other examples include: gateway entrances, signage and way-finding, public spaces (such as the Meaford Rotary Pavilion), and streetscapes. The development of commercial areas that support the tourism activity in the urban area waterfront should come through other funding strategies . • 2. The Municipality should consider the future relocation of boating services and fuel to the New Harbour in the event that Richardson's can no longer provide this service.

3. The Municipality of Meaford should recognize the Metis traditional use of the waterways, shorelines and lands in and around the Municipality's boundaries. All future development and development currently under processing for permitting in the vicinity of shorelines should not impede access of the Metis to these traditional areas. In order to better understand and mitigate the potential impact of such developments, the Municipality of Meaford should consult the Metis community, working

through the MNO Georgian Bay Traditional Te rritory Consultation Committee. ...

6.2 POLICY

1. The Meaford Waterfront Plan becomes a policy of the updated Official Plan (2013) and that the recommendations provide the basis for continuous water and land-based waterfront improvements as funding becomes available. COPY ( 2. Apply an 'urban area waterfront' designation to all lands within the study area of the Meaford Waterfront Plan, with a unified vision and set of objectives that support sustainable redevelopment of the waterfront lands and important connections to the adjacent lands.

3. Objectives:

a) Recognize the waterfront for its tourism and recreation opportunities. b) Develop a balanced mix of uses, including recreation, harbour, commercial, natural heritage, open space and harbour support. c) Maintain boat access to boat services and fuel operations in the Old Harbour. d) Improve the layout and operations of the New Harbour. e) Attract businesses to Meaford's waterfront at the Harbour Village. f) Improve connectivity between the waterfront. Downtown and the Georgian Tra il. g) Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats of the Georgian Bay shoreline and Bighead River mouth.

4. Update the Land Use Plan to reflectthe new vision, strategic objectives and potential waterfront

uses, as reflected and supported by the Meaford Waterfront Plan, for the urban area waterfront and .. I- ..-"\ ,� ,' adjacent supporting lands. ,. ,.., \.....l \,k.. {'·· 5. Apply separate waterfront designations, vision and objectives for all other public waterfront lands (\\-' within the Municipality.

6. Distinguish the importance of the urban area waterfront for tourism activity and the synergy with the Downtown Core Commercial Area.

�ri\11-�· F m l_'t:_ r_�'l r\J ...�" J/\: �� ULf!i\j �·: D • SHCJRCeL..-\f\1 , Uf'\P.�_r\J -...�;·t [Tf.. �\_\.. 7. Define policies for the Environmental Protection shoreline designation along the urban area waterfront lands.

8. Adopt the full set of Guiding Principles for the waterfront lands as policy through the Official Plan:

a) Protect the environment for the benefit of current and future generations. b) Promote a healthy waterfront. c) Promote the urban area waterfront as a gateway and focal open space area. d) Become a cornerstone of public open space with a mix of public and recreation-oriented uses. e) Consider the compatibility, access and synergies with the adjacent Special Policy Areas and the Downtown Core Commercial area. f) Protect and enhance lands for boating opportunities. g) Protect and enhance passive waterfrontrecreation. h) Protect and enhance public access to the waterfront lands. COPYi) Provide safe access through design and minimize community impacts. j) Provide safe, continuous public trail access along the water's edge. k) Enhance the physical and visual connectivity of the pedestrian circulation and links. I) Promote excellence in design. m) Celebrate Meaford's heritage. n) Enhance economic benefits .

Protect the environment for the benefit of current and future generations. i) Protect significant natural heritage features and functions. ii) Promote and encourage sustainable forms of land use and development.

Promote a healthy waterfront. i) Diversity waterfront uses to include a balance and awareness of the marine heritage and boating, recreation, tourism economic and employment opportunities. ii) Foster arts and culture, with the provision of immediate and large event spaces for year­ round events and festivals. iii) Create naturalized areas that increase tree canopy coverage. iv) Expand pathway network within the urban area waterfront and encourage the use of alternative transportation. v) Apply sustainable standards to stormwater treatment and on-site management of pollutants. vi) Address maintenance of the infrastructure and open spaces . • I [J Promote the urban area waterfront as a gateway and focal open space area. i) Promote the authentic character of Meaford. ii) Develop the identity within the regional context. iii) Establish the urban area waterfront as an important public amenity and node. iv) Provide architectural and landscape features to mark the gateway entrance. v) Provide way-finding and signage to help establish the urban area waterfront. vi) Incorporate a meaningful cultural/heritage theme to establish a distinction of the area from other adjacent lands.

Become a cornerstone of public open space with a mix of public and recreation oriented uses. i) Create interconnected parks and open space system. ii) Create high-quality streetscapes and placemaking. iii) Develop Bayfield Street as a 'complete street' over time to allow extended sidewalks, sufficient space for street tree roots, stormwater collection and to allow for flexible public space programming of the street for commuCOPYnity events. iv) Make the urban area waterfront lands a source of enjoyment and pride for the community.

Consider the compatibility, access and synergies with the adjacent Special Policy Areas and the Downtown Core Commercial area. i) Apply an open space designation for Special Policy Area 2, which could also permit seasonal commercial uses that supportthe adjacent harbour and open spaces (such as the chip wagon), to act as a buffer to the adjacent residential zone. ii) Establish height limitations and built form guidelines for the development of the adjacent Special Policy Area 1, in order to minimize the impact and to protect the small-town nature of the Municipality. iii) Ensure compatibility of the new development plans to the adjacent residential land uses. iv) Ensure public realm is integrated into any new development. v) Ensure the provision of visual and physical access to the urban area waterfront. vi) Provide municipal services to the site in a way that best utilized existing infrastructure and minimizes impact on the environment. vii) Ensure the establishment of high-quality development.

Protect and enhance lands for boating opportunities. i) Recognize and celebrate the boating history within the community. ii) Assess the New Harbour configuration, and develop a phasing plan.

Ell DILLONCO I\J'-'lWI II\JGuf \/! !TED i '>HORIPlM� 1 uRBAN 'Vl ET F!.iCS iii) Provide gas dock and marine service facilities. iv) Implement best practices for New Harbour management and operations.

Protect and enhance passive waterfront recreation. i) Expand opportunities for outdoor lifestyles and recreational opportunities. ii) Improve the quality of the open spaces. iii) Improve the quality and access of the beaches. iv) Protect quiet and quaint open areas with views to the water.

Protect and enhance public access to the waterfront lands. i) Protect and provide for equal access to all community members, including the implementation of accessibility guidelines and overall balance between diverse uses (such as boating, swimming, picnicking, walking, sailing. etc.) ii) Protect and enhance open views to the Georgian Bay and the Bighead River. COPYiii) Water and land access for the Metis traditional areas should be protected. iv) . Design spaces that are attractive for both day and night time use and for all seasons of the year.

Provide safe access through design and minimize community impacts. i) Provide a safe and efficient pedestrian circulation system through designated sidewalks. trails and the pedestrian bridge. ii) Provide appropriate lighting. iii) Provide access and security for the New Harbour. iv) Integrate access points and trails through the adjacent land uses. v) Provide natural heritage buffers to allow for greater separation between adjacent land uses. vi) Ensure urban area waterfrontuses are compatible with adjacent land uses.

Provide safe, continuous public trail access along the water's edge. i) Acquire properties to increase and improve public access to the waterfront across the Municipality. ii) Maintain public right-of-way parcels for future expansions as parkland, trails or recreation and boat/launch ramps. iii) Promote the use of bike sharing systems and bike storage facilities. iv) Improve way-finding and signage within the Municipality.

• t f'..1 f 1\J � t J -\.� \:- ;...__1 t Enhance the physical and visual connectivity of the pedestrian circulation and links. i) Develop a trail hierarchy (regional. waterfront and inner-city) and identifya trail classification system. ii) Encourage active and healthy communities by creating pedestrian and cycling friendly environments. iii) Connect the Georgian Trail to the waterfront lands and provide appropriate way-findingand signage.

Promote excellence in design. i) Ensure Meaford's authentic character is reflected through the design of any park, built structure or urban design elements. ii) Develop urban design guidelines for the Downtown and urban area waterfront. iii) Ensure good quality of design and materials. iv) Utilize stormwater management and Low Impact Design. v) Provision of sustainable design elements. COPY

Celebrate Meaford's heritage. i) Recognize that the majority of urban area waterfront lands are within the proposed Heritage Conservation District (HCD). ii) Establish provision for preserving cultural heritage and scenic landscapes through the HCD. iii) Establish guidelines for the development of new buildings or structures within the HCD. iv) Protect cultural heritage assets and encourage interpretative depiction of Meaford's history and character. v) Protect traditional activities of the harbour, such as fishing and boating.

Enhance economic benefits. i) Promote harbour-related uses along the west side of Bayfield Street to support the viability and connection between the waterfront and the Downtown (i.e., ground floor commercial, accommodation, etc.). ii) Expand commercial space on the east side of Bayfield Street, along the west wall of the Bighead River mouth, to complement the harbour-related uses along the west side of Bayfield Street. iii) Explore the opportunities to fund economic development through existing financial tools, private sector partnership, fundraising, agency partnershipsan d upper level of government partnerships.

:::. HORE.PLAN Iii DILLO N CONSULTING LI IV! ITED 1 j URBAN IVI ETRICS iv) Allow the following uses in the Downtown Core Commercial Area, in particular along Nelson Street and Bayfield Street, as they provide the main linkage between the Downtown and waterfront. which support the vibrancy of the urban area waterfrontlands and tourism activity.

Commercial Food services (fine dining restaurants, other restaurant) Banquet and/or event facility Health and wellness Specialty retaliating and services (artgaller y, outdoor recreation store)

Recreation Outdoor education centre COPYEvents/staging area Future Development Residential (condominium, retirement accommodations) Hotel/resort Sailing clubhouse/facilities

6.3 IMPLEMENTATION 1. Complete more work on the former landfill location to target a greater area than investigated through the Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) completed in 2009. Further investigation may be needed where the hydro excavation encountered waste, to be able to properly evaluate and characterize where the former landfill is located.

2. Select the risk management measures (excavation/remediation or risk assessment) to be implemented to address the contamination identified in areas of the waterfront.

3. A mandatory MOE Record of Site Condition (RSC) must be completed before changing the land use of the site to a more sensitive land use, such as residential or parkland. The RSC documentation must demonstrate. once a remedial strategy is complete, that the soil and groundwater on the site meet generic and/or risk-based standards for more sensitive land uses. 4. Update/redo both Phase 1 ESA (2007) and Phase 2 ESA (2009) reports completed for the Municipality compliance with the new (July 2, 201 1) requirements for Record of Site Condition (RSC) submission - the date of the last work on all the components of either the Phase 1 or 2 ESA or P2ESA must be completed within 18 months of filing for a RSC . • \1 i t t .t. ' t ·r· i\... 1_:.-\ 5. Complete a costal process study in order to understand the coastal processes, engineering conditions, potential habitat implications, timeline of required upgrades, and potential for additional public access created during upgrades. These studies will also be required in order to implement any changes to shoreline that might impact alongshore water flow and aquatic habitat. New erosion control structures may require completion of a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment and Conservation Authority approval) .

6. Develop an Implementation Plan that identifies specific sources of funding based on the ultimate composition of uses included in the final Land Use Plan.

7. Develop a Business Plan which identifies the capital and operating costs related to the updated Land Use Plan.

8. Include Brownfield redevelopment incentives in the Downtown Community Improvement Plan in order to allow developers to access funding through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Consideration should also be given to expanding the boundaries of the Downtown CIP to include specific Brownfield properties. COPY 9. Develop a Marketing Strategy to provide a clear direction and mechanisms for communicating with potential markets and/or customers. This could include the development of a 'Shop in Meaford' experience which promotes local businesses in Meaford's waterfront area, as well as the Downtown.

10. Develop a Request for Proposal to engage private sector development partners to participate in the redevelopment of Meaford's waterfront area.

• DILLON UJi\1'-.lJL!INC:.Ll l'vl i!TD ; >H< !RI: PLAN i UR.8.A N IVl ETF'I( ·, LIST OF REFERENCES

Ainley and Associates Limited. (1979}. Bighead River Erosion Control, prepared for North Grey Region Conservation Authority.

Community Waterfront Friends. (2013}. Community Wa terfront Friends: History Discovery North Bay.

Cumming-Cockburn and Associates Limited. (1985). Flood Damage Reduction Study of the Meafo rd Inner Harbour, Bighead River, prepared for North Grey Region Conservation Authority.

Cumming-Cockburn and Associates Limited. (1986). Bighead River Ice Monitoring Program Winter of 1985/86, prepared for North Grey Region Conservation Authority.

CummingCOPY-Cockburn and Associates Limited. (1987). Bighead Clay Bank Erosion and Sedimentation Study. prepared for the Grey Sauble Region Conservation Authority.

Dillon Consulting Limited. (2007). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Municipality of Mewaford Harbour Land, DraftReport.

Dillon Consulting Limited. (2007). Property Tra nsfer Assessment (PTA) Meaford Small CraftHarbour. Final Report.

Dillon Consulting Limited. (2009). Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Municipality of Mewaford Harbour Land, DraftReport.

Johnson, Stephanie. (2005). Marketplace: Gra venhurst creates a waterfront gold mine. Parry Sound North Star, Wednesday January 26, 2005.

Municipality of Meaford. (2005). Meaford Official Plan. Prepared by Meridian Planning Consultants Inc. Municipality of Meaford.

Municipality of Meaford. (2008). Municipality of Meaford Downtown Community Improvement Plan.

Prepared by The Jones Consulting Group Ltd .• ENVision & Su Murdoch Historical Consulting. Municipality of Meaford. Ill ,,, _. , '• ! i_ ,r"\ T Municipality of Meaford. (2009). Meaford Harbour Strategic Master Plan. Municipality of Meaford. Municipality of Meaford. (2010). Meaford Economic Development Strategy

Municipality of Meaford. (201 1). Municipality of Meaford Strategic Plan, Meaford Vision 2020. Municipality of Meaford.

Municipality of Meaford. (2012). Building & Planning Services - Report PB20 12-038: Library Site Selection (Harbour Option Review). Municipality of Meaford.

Municipality of Meaford. (2013). Downtown Meaford Heritage Conservation District Study, Heritage Assessment Report (Preliminary Draft for Public Review and COPYComment). Prepared by MHBC. Municipality of Meaford. (201 3). Part B - Th e Amendment Details of the Amendment, Draft OP Amendments.

National Marine Manufacturers Association. Th e Economic Impact of Recreational Boating in Canada - 2012. Hal Innovation Policy Economic on behalf of the National Marine Manufacturers Association.

Regional To urism Organization 7. (2012). Wa terways To urism Product Report: Building Direction for Region 7's Wa terways To urism Product. Kayak Consulting on behalf of Regional To urism Organization 7.

Sandwell lnc. (1994). Grey Sauble Conservation Authority Shoreline Management Plan, prepared for the Grey Sauble Region Conservation Authority.

Stanley Knight Limited. (1991). Pictorial Meaford: A Pictorial History of the To wn of Meaford 1818 to 1991. Stan Brown Printers Limited.

TAMS 2006: Canadian activity profile: sailing and surfing while on trips. Prepared by Land Research Inc.

Iii u .. ��) I'J '· '""n\J':, ur, L \J u !\u 11r t: 0 ' HuRt:r LJ-1;\j ! L' R s.;; '\J 1v1 R �;.:-: PB201 4-2 1 Appendix 2

197794 Grey Road 7 R.R. #4, Meaford, Ontario Canada, N4L 1W7 Phone: (519) 538-2887 www.BoatinqW ithDawsons.com

May I, 20 14

To Rob Armstrong Director Planning and Building Services The Munic ipality of Mea fo rd 21 Trowbridge Street West, Meaford ON

Dear Rob: ubject: Feedback - llarbour Public Meding April 28

As you know. we were at the public meeting on April 281h. [t was well attended and from the questions and comments, we fe lt there was great support to keep the harbour instead of letting it silt in. The majority ofthe questions and comments were around the "blue" or the water area, and not so much around the "green" or land area.

We we1·e pleased and encouraged with the tone of the meeting and to learn that Dillon Consulting has reconsidered and moved away from "Naturalizing" the old harbour in ta vour of keeping it partially navigable, as well as pulling back on some ofthe green spaces in fa vour of making the Concept more workable.

They addressed some of the concerns that we had submitted previously; fo r example,

• Dredging alongside Richardsons to allow larger boats to have access to fu el and servtces.

• COPY Moving the Sailing School fu rther along the east wall of the old harbour closer to their buildings.

• Eliminating the back ti lling of the old harbour on both sides near the Trowbridge Str·ect Bridge in fa vour of the north end below the lookout.

• Moving the Harbour Village off of Richardsons property to BayfieldStreet.

• Changing the walking path and reducing some of the green space around the

Pavilion to a road fo r vehicular access to accommodate event setup and use of vehicles as pa.1 ofthe Farmers Market booths.

• Removing some of the green space and berms at the end of the pier to allow access to r emergency vehicles.

• Modifying the parking lot at the top ofthe launch ramp to accommodate the trucks and trailers allowing them maneuvering l'Oom to access the ram p to haul and launch boats.

Page 1 of 6 We are in fa vour of these improvements and modifications that we have repeatedly pointed out since the beginning. But, we are concerned that they were only verbal at the public meeting and aren't included in the written portion ofthe Final Recommendation.

More lmproverncnts/ Modifications There are still more improvements to be considered before approving the Concept to become a Plan: some examples:

• The water's edge walking path needs to be re�routed to a safer location. It is dangerous fo r walkers and bikers to be crossing the top of the launch ramp as

boats are being hauled and launched by trucks and trailers. It is also dangerous to route walkers along the service dock where the fuel pumps will probably be located in the next fe w years. Now is the time to do this, so we don't have to re­ route it after it has been built and someone has been injured.

• Further modification of the parking lot is required once parking spaces are taken away to allow space fo r maneuvering trucks and trailers ....etc.

• Establishing a location fo r Metis and local native fishermen. The Final Recommendation (p82) says "water and land access fo r the Metis traditional areas should be protected''. The Saugeen Oj ibway Nation fishermen, tie their fish boats on the wall at the toot of Nelson Street where Concept # I has the Harbour Village located. How docs this plan accommodate the Native Fishe1men? Where will they be able to tie and unload their catches? How much dredging is req uired each year to ensure a deep enough harbour fo r them?

• Dave Richardson said at the meeting, that the Richardson Management Team wants to stay in the current location, and yet the Final Recom mendation is to relocate boating services and fu el to the new harbour (p 79) There is a contradiction in the Policy section p79 saying that one of the objectives is to maintain boat access to boat services and fu el operations in the Old I-Iarbour. ??'? COPY In the verbal presentation, Eha talked about possibly moving the Coast Guard out along the east wal l, leaving space fo r boating services where they currently arc?????

Additionally,

We fe el that the fo llowing should be added to the written portion of Dillon's Final Recommendations and diagrams; so that, the Concept is completely workable and could be completed in phases knowing that each phase of construction will fitwit h previous and fu ture phases, BEFORE it is accepted and approved as "The Official Plan".

• The modifications Eha covered at the Public Meeting verbally

• Additional improvements that we have suggested above as well as others that will arise fi·om your planned public input meetings.

Page 2 of 6 • The Task Force Recommendations. (See page 6 of 6-a question we meant to ask at the Public Meeting)

It is our understanding that "The Plan" in fu ture, will accompany a presentation to regulatory agencies as we ll as various levels of government, when the Municipality of Meaford applies fo r fu nding, in which case all the information should be complete and accurate.

Harbour Asset

Moving toward keeping the harbour partially dredged and a working harbour, allows an interim solution to keep Meaford 's I 0-acre asset. This action would allow the harbour to be

rejuvenated and re-activated in fu ture, to allow fo r development as the demand fo r slips comes to Meafo rd . Because the mod ifications call fo r less i nfi lling to create fi sh ing berms, the whole harbour could be dredged and developed at a fu ture date to accommodate the demand fo r

dockage .

We agree with the Task Force Recommendation that dredging and recontiguringthe river docks in the Old Harbour is a good interim solution .

We also agree with the Task Force Recommendation that "future fu nding sources should be identified and funding fo r longer term solutions secured." Milo Stu1m ofShoreplan

Engineering is quoted in the Task Force Appendix 3, saying that a wall idea (up the center of the old harbour as in concept 2) is "sound" but would be challenging and costly. Every option is challenging and costly, but with revenue producing opportunities to help pay fo r it, it is worth

cons idering .

Source of Prohlem

The Municipality ofMeaford still needs to address the source of the problem-the silt from up the river. It makes sense and is probably easier and less expensive to manage the silt in the river rather than waiting to r it to drop in the harbour and manage it there with constant dredging. Th is is the way it was done many years ago, as John Tippin explained at the meeting . The solution may be a combination of gab ion baskets along the river bank curves, silt dams and/or silt collection holes, fish ladders.COPY There has to be a way to solve the problem at the source and sat is fy all the regulatory bodies.

l.ong Term Solution

We think it would be wise to extend the mandate of the Remediation Task Force to continue to work on a long term solution as they recommended in their Report. (Page I) This would give them an opportunity to so lve the silting problem and plan fo r a revenue-generating fu ture development ofthe old harbour using technology-computer simulator opportunities to explore solutions that we know would work instead of investing money on a trial and error basis.

nevenue

We still believe the coming demand tb r docks is real and the Municipality should take advantage of the opportunity and prepare fo r fu ture revenue - generating harbour development that would bring millions to Meafot'd "s economy-200 boats times $10,000 per boat per year

Page 3 of 6 totals $2. 1 million. Over this 50 year plan it would add up to $ 100 million (that doesn't include price increases over 50 years fo r dockage).

New Harbour Designs

Today's boaters expect service, services, activities, security, privacy and protection to r their asset.

There is another good atticle in the April 20 14 issue of Boating Industry magazine on "ShiftingMarina Design Trends" to match the needs of the boaters. "Gone are the days of tying their boat up to a rickety old pontoon (floating dock). Customers are investing more money in their boats, they want to make sure their asset is looked after... [and] maximize the benefits of their leisure time". Boaters are also looking more fo r marinas as destinations where there are lots of activities and service.

The writer urges marina operators to "think very carefully about who [customers are], what size boats they've got, what services they need and how does your site respond and what access to boating opportunities does it provide, because that will dictate who the customer is at the end of the day." (for a copy of the article, email rcnda@Boatint.!.W i lhDawsons.com )

We believe that ifthe Municipality of Meaford provides the right combination of attractions and the services that boaters expect; as well as the t•ight sized slips and utilities to match the coming demand, boaters will come and fillboth harbours, providing a great reven ue stream tor the Municipality.

Eager Help

It was evident at the meeting that Meaford is blessed with knowledgeable interested people who are eager to offer their expertise to staff and council to refineand perfect the modified Concept # I even fu rther. We are two of those individuals.

Mayor Richardson told everyone at the meeting, that he would keep us all intormed. We are eagerly awaiting communication fro m the Municipal ity of Meaford . When is the ti rstmee ting? COPY

Respectfully submitted by Doug and Brenda Dawson 197794 Grey Road 7 Meaford, ON N4L I W7 (5 19) 538-2887 Brenda@B alingWilhDaws m; .com Doug@BoaLingWithDaws n . . c m www. BoatingW ithDawsons.com

Page 4 of 6 cc: Mayor Francis Richardson - fr [email protected] (5 1 9)-538-5998 cc: Deputy Mayor Harley Greenfield - [email protected] (5 1 9)-538-2570 cc: Councillor Barb Clumpus - [email protected] (5 1 9)-538-3345 cc: Councillor Mike Poetker - [email protected] (5 1 9)-538-4075 cc: Councillor Deborah Young - dyo [email protected] (5 19)-376-9646 cc : Councillor Lynda Stephens - [email protected] (5 1 9)-538-9239 cc: Councillor James Mcintosh - [email protected] (41 6)-705-1404 (cell) cc: Denyse Morrisey, CAO - [email protected] 519-538- 1 060 ex. II02 cc: Liz Buckton - Senior Planner [email protected] 519-538- 1060 x. l l20 cc: Dan Buttineau - Director Community Services - [email protected] 519-538- 1 060 x. l215

COPY

Page 5 of & Task Force Question to r Public Meeting - Apr 28/ 14

This question has to do with the Meaford Harbour Task Force. By-law Number 03 1 -2013, established the Meaford Harbour Remediation Task Force and appointed members.

The by-law mandate To advise Council on a plan that will identify and evaluate options to remed iate the navigability and usage of M eaford's Harbour.

The by-law Focus

• The Meaford Harbour Remediation Task Force will focus on the navigability and issues/challenges of navigability for recreational and commercial traffic. • The Task Force will identify, access and review the technical reasons impacting navigability.

• It will outline recommendations for mid and long-term solutions to remediate the current issues of navigability.

• It will also review the available potential fu nding sources to support remediation work.

1h On February 20 20 14, the Harbour Remediation Task Force presented their Report in which they:

• Recommended an interim solution to address the annual siltation, to remove the finger docks on the east side of the Old Harbour to the west side at the foot of Nelson Street. This work is already being done by the Town.

• They also recommended 3-4 1engths of finger docks be removed from the east side and placed along the wall along Bayfield Street fo r transient boater and commercial slips.

• They also recommended that the mandate be continued to find a long term solution.

Page 63 and 64 of Dillon's Final Report has a fe w paragraphs from Appendix 3 ofthe Task Force's notes fr om their meeting with Shoreplan Engineering, but IT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THE TASK FORCE RECCOPYOMMENDATIONS. The Task Force spent a tremendous amount oftime and effort to rming their recommendations and they have offered an interim solution and recommended that we continue to to rmulate a long te1m solution fo r the Old Harbour and that all makes complete sense.

My question is: Why wasn't important information like the Task Force Recommendations, included in Dillon's finalrec ommendation?

Page 6 of 6 COPY c) Report OP2014- 12 - Tender Award - Meaford Elevated Water Ta nk Interior I Exterior Lining and Refurbishment

Moved by: Deputy Mayor Greenfield Seconded by: Councillor Poetker

That Council of the Municipality of Meaford approve the award of the Meaford Elevated Water Tower Interior 1 Exterior Lining and Refurbishment project to Heritage Restoration Inc. for $610,280. 16, including the Municipality's non-refundable allocation of HST. Carried Resolution #17-113-2014

d) Report PB2014-21 - Waterfront Strategy and Master Plan

Moved by: Councillor Clumpus Seconded by: Councillor Stephens

That Council of the Municipa l ity of Meaford approve Concept 1 - Harbour Village as the preferred Master Plan, and the recommendations contained in Section 6.0 of the report and direct staff to commence implementing the recommendations. Carried Resolution # 17-114-2014

8. Formal Resolutions (Notice Previously Given)

None presented .

9. Adoption of Minutes COPY Moved by : Councillor Clumpus Seconded by: Councillor Stephens

Be it resolved that Council of the Municipa lity of Meaford adopt the minutes of the council meeting held June 9, 2014. Carried Resolution # 17-115-2014

10. Communications

a) Grey County - June 3, 2014 Counci l Minutes b) Grey Sauble Conservation Authority Board Minutes - February 12, April 9 and May 14, 20 14 c) Citizens' Charter Working Group Minutes - June 2, June 4 and June 11, 2014

Minutes - June 23rd, 2014 Page 6 of 7 COPY ��W CountyGrey Planning Department 595 91h Avenue East, Owen Sound Ontario N4K 3E3 519-376-2205 I 1-800-567-GREY I Fax 519-376-7970

September 11, 201 4 •Muni cipality of Meaford RF.'08iVed Robert Tremblay, Clerk Municipality of Meaford 5EP ·, 5 1014 21 Trowbridge Street West Meaford, ON N4L 1A1

Re: Decision on Local Official Plan Amendment No. 16 to the Municipalityof Meaford Official Plan County File No.: Meaford LOPA 16 (Waterfront Strategy and Master Plan Implementation)

Dear Mr. Tremblay:

This letter is to advise that approval has been given for Official Plan Amendment No. 16 to the Municipality of Meaford Official Plan as set out in the attached Notice of Decision given on this date.

Attached is a copy of the original official plan amendment and a copy of the notice of decision.

Please be advised that once the appeal period is over, a subsequent letter will be sent to confirm whether the decision is thenCOPY final. Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

cc. Bruce Curtis, MSO Southwest Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Clerk, City of Owen Sound Amy Cann (via email only - [email protected]) Rob Armstrong, Municipality of Meaford

Grey County: Colour It Your Way File No: LOPA-16 (Meaford) Date of Decision: September 11, 2014 Municipality: Municipality of Meaford Date of Notice: September 11, 2014 Subject Lands: Multiple Properties Affected Last Date of Appeal: October 1, 2014 Municipality of Meaford Effective Date:

NOTICE OF DECISION With respect to an Official Plan Amendment Subsection 17(35) and 21 of the Plannins Act A Decision was made on the date noted above to approve all of Official Plan Amendment No. 16 to the Municipality of Meaford Official Plan as adopted by By-law No. 060-2014

Purpose and Effect of the Official Plan Amendment

The purpose and effect of Amendment No. 16 is to update the Municipality of Meaford Official Plan to reflect recommendations arising from the Municipality of Meaford Waterfront Strategic and Master Plan.

When and How to File an Appeal

the Ontario Municipal Board, there are reasonable Any appeal to the Ontario Municipa l Board must grounds to add the person or public body as a be filed with the County of Grey no later than 20 party. days from the date of this notice as shown above as the last date of appeal. When the Decision is Final

The appeal should be sent to the attention of the The decision of the County of Grey is final if a Director of Planning, at the address shown below Notice of Appeal is not received on or before the and it must, last date of appeal noted above. (1) set out the specific part of the proposed official plan amendment to which the Other Related Applications appeal applies, (2) set out the reasons for the request for the appeal, and No related applications. (3) be accompanied by the fee prescribed under the Ontario Municipal Board Act in Getting Additional Information the amount of $125.00 payable by certified cheque to the Minister of Additional information about the application is Finance, Province of Ontario. available for public inspection during regular office COPYhours at the County of Grey Planning & Who Can File An Appeal Development office at the address noted below or from the Municipality of Meaford. Only individuals, corporations or public bodies may appeal a decision of the approval authority to the Mailing Address for Filing a Notice of Appeal: Ontario Municipal Board. A notice of appeal may Coun of Grey Planning & Development Dept. not be filed by an unincorporated association or �1 group. However, a notice of appeal may be filed in 595-9 Avenue East the name of an individual who is a member of the OWEN SOUND, ON N4K 3E3 association or group on its behalf. Tel: (519) 376-2205 Fax: (519) 376-7970 No person or public body shall be added as a party to the hearing of the appeal unless, before the plan was adopted, the person or public body made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council or, in the opinion of DECISION With respect to an Official Plan Amendment Subsection 17(34) of the Planning Act

The County of Grey hereby approves all of proposed Amendment No. 16 to the Municipality of Meaford Official Plan as adopted by By-law No. 060-2014.

th Dated at Owen Sound this 11 day of September 2014

a '"'""'�-"-' Director of Planning & Development County of Grey

COPY The Corporation of the Municipality of Meaford

By-law Number 060 - 2014

Being a by-law to Adopt Official Plan Amendment #16 (Waterfront Strategy and Master Plan Implementation)

Whereas the Council of the Municipality of Meaford deems it in the public interest to adopt Official Plan Amendment #16; and

Whereas pursuant to the provisions of Section 17 and 21 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, as amended, Official Plans may be amended by Council; and

Whereas the proposed amendment is an amendment to the Municipality of Meaford's Official Plan to implement area-specific recommendations of the Waterfront Strategy & Master Pfan;

The Council of The Corporation of the Municipa lity of Meaford enacts as follows:

1. Amendment # 16 to the Municipa lity of Meaford Official Plan is hereby adopted.

2. The Director of Planning & Building Services is hereby authorized to sui;>mi t AmendmentCOPY # 16 and the supporting documentation to the County of Grey for approval.

3. This by-law shall come into force and take effect pursuant to the provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended .

Read a fi rst, second and third time and fi nally passed this 28th day of July, 2014.

Francis Richa rdson, Mayor

mblay, Clerk AMENDMENT No. 16 TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF MEAFORD OFFICIAL PLAN

Waterfront Strategy &. Master Plan Implementation

COPY

Prepared by: Municipa lity of Meaford June 2014 AMENDMENT No. 16 TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF MEAFORD OFFICIAL PLAN INDEX PAGE

The Constitutional Statement (i)

PART A-THE PREAMBLE

Purpose (ii)

Basis (ii)

PART B - THE AMENDMENT

Details of the Amendment 1

PART C - THE APPENDICES

COPY AMENDMENT No.16 TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF MEAFORD OFFICIAL PLAN

THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATEMENT

PART A - THE PREAMBLE does not constitute a part of this Amendment.

PART B - THE AMENDMENT consisting of the following text, Schedules and Attachments constitute Amendment No. 16 to the Municipality of Meaford Official Plan.

PART C - THE APPENDICES attached hereto do not constitute part of this Amendment.

These documents contain background dat�, planning considerations and record of public involvement associated with this Amendment.

COPY

(i) PART A - THE PREAM BLE

PURPOSE The purpose of the proposed Official Plan Amendment is to update the Municipa lity of Meaford Official Plan to reflect recommendations arising from the Municipa l ity of Meaford Waterfront Strategic and Master Plan.

BASIS In 2013, The Municipal ity of Meaford, with the assistance of Dillon Consulting, initiated a Waterfront Strategy and Master Planning process to :

• implement the Meaford Economic Development Strategy recommendations regarding preservation and promotion of the waterfront;

• develop waterfront-specific policy recommendations to guide decision making in the face of future development pressures; and,

• provide the necessary information to update the Meaford Harbour Strategic Plan with consideration to a broader waterfront context.

This process resulted in the development of a preferred concept plan; recommendations for policy updates affecting the urban waterfront area and adjacent land; and, a number of recommendations for potential funding strategies to bring about the updated vision, in accordance with the guiding principles established for these lands.

The final preferred concept plan - the "Harbour Village"- was selected as it is believed to provide the "greatest opportunities fo r creating a balanced mix of uses, tourCOPYism activities and economic development in Meaford".

Section 6.2 of the Final Waterfront Strategy & Master Plan (May 2014) outlines a number of policy recommendations which have been incorporated within this proposed Official Plan Amendment. These changes affect lands within the Downtown Core Commercial & Transitional Areas and in the Urban Waterfront & Special Policy Areas adjacent to Georgian Bay and the Meaford Harbour.

In addition to text amendments affecting the areas noted above, the amendment also proposes a change to Schedule A-1 of the Plan to reflect the renaming of the Harbour Open Space Area designation to Urban Waterfront Area to be more consistent with the wording in the Waterfront Strategy & Master Plan.

(ii) PROCESS Key dates in the process were :

• Under Section 17 & 21 of the Planning Act, the Municipality held a Public Meeting on July 28th, 2014, Notice having been issued in on July 2nd, 2014

Numerous other formal and informal opportunities for public input were providedth roughout the preparation of the Waterfront Strategy & Master Plan. This included public meetings, use of an online PlaceSpeak page, stakeholder interviews and a design charrette .

PART B - THE AMENDMENT

INTRO DUCTORY STATEMENT

All of this part of the document entitled "Part B - The Amendment" consisting of the following text, Schedule and Appendices constitute Amendment No. 16 to the Official Plan of the Municipality of Meaford .

DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT

The Official Plan of the Municipality of Meaford is amended as shown on the fo llowing chart entitled :

DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT COPYJune 2014

1 PART C - THE APPENDICES

The fo llowing Appendices do not constitute part of this Amendment. The fo llowing are included as information only supporting the Amendment:

1) Waterfront Strategy & Master Plan - dated May 2014 2) Resolution of Council - Adoption of WS&MP dated June 23rd, 2014

COPY Number Policy Modification Number PART S-THE AMENDMENT DET AILS OF THE AMENDMENT June 2014 Number Policy Modification Number 1. TABLE OF The words "Harbour Open Space Area" after '81 .5' are CONTENTS hereby deleted and replaced with "Urban Area Waterfront". 2. A3. 1.5 The words "Harbour Open Space Area" are hereby deleted and replaced with "Urban Area Waterfront". 3. 8.1.3.1 Is hereby amended by adding the following text as a am bullet point reading:

"Promote new uses along Bayfield Street that support viability, connection and synergy between the Waterfront and Downtown." 4. 81.3.3 Is hereby amended by adding the words "including outdoor education centers" after the words 'Private and commercial schools'. 5. 81.3.5.2 c Is deleted and replaced with the following text: "Hospitality, tourist oriented and waterfront supportive uses that will enhance the pedestrian linkage between the Meaford Harbour and Sykes Street are encouraged. Ground floor commercial uses are encouraged on Nelson Street, east of Sykes Street to the water." 6. 81.3.5.4 Is amended by adding the following text to the end of Paragraph 1, Sentence 1: "however, ground floor commercial uses are strongly encouraged along Nelson Street east of Sykes Street and along Bayfield Street between Trowbridge and ParkerCOPY Streets." This section is further amended by adding a new clause e)

"e) the use does not undermine the objectives of the Urban Area Waterfront designation"

7. 81.3.7 Is hereby amended to read: "Lands to be used for commercial purposes shall be placed in a Downtown Commercial Zone in the implementing zoning by-law."

8. 81 .5 This section is hereby renamed "Urban Area Waterfront"

9. 81.5.1 This section is hereby deleted and replaced with the fo llowing:

4 Number Policy Modification Number "B1 .5.1 Objectives

It is the intent of this Plan to:

• Recognize the Waterfront for its tourism and recreation opportunities;

• Develop a balanced mix of uses, including recreation, harbour, commercial, natural heritage, open space and harbour support;

• Maintain boat access to boat services and fuel operations in the Old Harbour, as feasible;

• Improve the layout and operations of the New Harbour;

• Attract businesses to Meaford's Waterfront at the Harbour Village;

• Improve connectivity between the Waterfront, Downtown, and the Georgian Trail;

• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats of the Georgian Bay Shoreline and Bighead River mouth; and,

• Implement the recommendations of the Municipality of Meaford Waterfront Strategy & Master Plan, as may be amended from time to time." 10. 81.5.2 Is amended by deleting the words "Harbour Open Space Area" and replacing them with "Urban Area Waterfront" and by adding the words "Urban Waterfront and" before 'Meaford Harbour'. 11. 81.5.3 Is hereby deleted and replaced as follows : "B1.5.3COPY Vision for the Urban Area Waterfront "The Municipality of Meaford takes pride in its Urban Waterfront for the exemplary approach and design that encompass the 'Environment First' philosophy through sustainable design elements and ecological features, becoming one of the most frequently visited locations on the Georgian Bay.

The modest intervention in the Old Harbour acknowledges the decreasing water-level trends, and embraces the existing location of the boat service and fuel operations while providing boat dockage for small boats along designated areas of the east and west harbour walls. The Old Harbour also features reclaimed lands, where feasible, in the Bighead River mouth with fish habitat enhancement measures and fishing piers,

5 Number Policy Modification Number as well as the Harbour Village.

The New Harbour is improved with additional mooring spines and reconfiguration of the docks to expand the number of berths, providing excellent facilities for the boating community of Meaford and beyond. The Coast Guard Search and Rescue Station's presence is of great value and pride to Meaford's waterfront lands.

The Harbour Village attracts local residents and tourists alike with its shops and restaurants along the west wall overlooking the Bighead River mouth that is animated with anglers and water-based activities on kayaks, canoes and small sailboats. Community fairs and events spill over from the Harbour Village to the extended sidewalks on Bayview Street that are enhanced with street trees, lighting, benches and decorative paving.

Nelson Street, is animated with ground level commercial activity and is a key pedestrian corridor from the Downtown to the waterfront and the pedestrian bridge across the river. The Rotary Harbour Pavilion, with striking views to both harbours and the bay, shines as the gathering place for small and large community events.

The waterfront is a vibrant space within the Municipality of Meaford and is well connected to the existing urban fabric. The open spaces and beaches along the waterfrontCOPY back onto natural heritage areas that support a continuous pedestrian trail along the lake, connecting to the Georgian Trail and the Downtown"

12. B.1.5.4 Is hereby amended as follows:

By deleting the words "Harbour Open Space Area" after 'designated' and replacing them with "Urban Area Waterfront".

By adding the text "shall be permitted until such time that their removal is warranted in order to facilitate implementation of the Waterfront Strategy & Master Plan" after the words 'Limited Recreational Vehicle Site Rentals'

6 Number Policy Modification Number By . deleting the word "food" between 'seasonal' and 'vendors'

By adding the following text as a final bullet point within the section: "Other uses which support implementation of the Waterfront Strategy and Master Plan and uphold the Guiding Principles for land in the Urban Area Waterfront designation."

13. B1.5.5 A new Section B1.5.5 "Guiding Principles" is inserted and subsequent sections renumbered accordingly.

The new Section B1.5.5 shall read:

"The following principles are intended to guide land use and development in the Urban Area Waterfront. Land use decisions should aim to:

a) Protect the environment for the benefit of current and future generations. b) Promote a healthy waterfront. c) Promote the urban area waterfront as a gateway and focal open space area. d) Enhance the role of the waterfront as a cornerstone of public open space with a mix of public and recreation-oriented uses. e) Consider the compatibility, access and synergies with the adjacent Special Policy Areas and the Downtown Core Commercial area. f) ProtectCOPY and enhance lands for boating opportunities. g) Protect and enhance passive waterfront recreation. h) Protect and enhance public access to the waterfront lands. i) Provide safe access through design and minimize community impacts. j) Provide safe, continuous public trail access along the water's edge. k) Enhance the physical and visual connectivity of the pedestrian circulation and links. I) Promote excellence in design. m) Celebrate Meaford's heritage. n) Enhance economic benefits."

14. B1.5.5 (now Is hereby deleted and replaced as follows:

7 Number Policy Modification Number 81 .5.6) "B1.5.6 Future Planning

It is a policy of this plan to carry out those implementation activities outlined in the Waterfront Strategy & Master Plan, including the preparation of detailed Implementation & Business Plans for the Urban Area Waterfront land use concept plan. Any capital projects or works should be completed in a manner that considers the implications for floodplain management and be done in consultation with the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority."

15. 81.5.6 (now Is hereby deleted and replaced as follows: 81.5.7) "B1 .5.7 Implementing Zoning By-law

Lands designated Urban Area Waterfront shall be placed in an Open Space or Urban Area Waterfront zone, as appropriate, in the implementing zoning by­ law. Site Plan control shall apply to the establishment of . new uses on the lands." 16. 81.8.1.1 Is hereby amended by deleting the word "shoreline" between the words 'on the' and 'and immediately' and replacing it with "Urban Waterfront".

17. 8 1.8. 1.2 Is hereby amended by adding the following text after the word 'lands' in clause d): "andCOPY will maintain public access to the waterfront" This section is further amended by adding a new clause f) as follows:

"f) the development will support the objectives of the Urban Area Waterfront designation and the Waterfront Strategy and Master Plan, as may be amended from time to time."

18. 81.8.1.3 Is hereby amended by adding the words "or Harbour Village" between the words 'core commercial' and 'area' in the final sentence of clause g).

19. 81.8.2.1 Is hereby deleted and replaced with the fo llowing text:

"B1.8.2.1 Vision for Special Policy Area #2

8 Number Policy Modification Number

Special Policy Area #2 is comprised of five lots which abut the Meaford Harbour and, as a result of this close proximity to the Harbour, have good potential to accommodated open space and small-scale seasonal commercial uses which complement the harbour area. The general open space nature of these lands is intended to act as a buffer to adjacent residential uses, while small-scale seasonal commercial development in this area retains the opportunity for use of these lands in a manner that supports the Meaford Harbour and will assist in making this area an attraction for tourism.

In addition to the above uses, low-rise residential uses may be permitted in this area, however the consideration of residential uses on these lands should only occur where all lands within the Special Policy Area are to be planned comprehensively, and where to permit residential development would clearly uphold and support the general objectives of the Waterfront Strategy and Master Plan."

20. 81.8.2.2 Is hereby deleted and replaced as follows:

"81.8.2.2 Development Principles

The following development principles will guide the redevelopment of the Special Policy Area #2 lands:

a) The lands will be planned as a primarily open space extensCOPYion to the Meaford Harbour, providing a definitive boundary to the harbour and acting as a buffer to surrounding residential uses; b) The lands will be used for a suitable mix of small­ scale seasonal commercial uses related to the hospitality, tourism and service sectors which shall be generally supportive of the harbour area; c) Uses will be compatible with surrounding residential uses and the lands shall be landscaped to an enhanced standard to further the buffering capacity of these lands to adjacent uses; d) Development will provide pedestrian space and access to the waterfront and will minimize the amount of space used for parking cars; and, e) Any proposed residential use on these lands is to be planned comprehensively and should only be

9 Number Policy Modification Number considered where such development would clearly uphold the objectives of the Waterfront Strategy and Master Plan."

21. Schedule A-1 is hereby replaced with an updated Schedule A-1 on which those lands identified as "Harbour Open Space' have been renamed "Urban Area Waterfront" 22.

Attachments 1 Schedule A-1

COPY

10 Detail A Municipality of •.Ill Meaford Official Plan Schedule A-1 Land Use Georgian Bay -��ill�� Legend

Urban Living Area

Shoreline � U'rb<�n Employment Area Urban Highway Commercial COPY - Rural Highway Commercial - Downtown Core Commercial - Downtown Core Transitional -- Instituti onal

Urban Area Waterfront Mejor Open Space Major Recrea11on :::.� Two-Zone PolicyArea Rural �� ��);;! Special PolicyArea - A.gnoult:ural -- SpecialtyAgricultural EP_Amend • Wasle Disposal Site- Closed :� � ��: Subject to Official Plan Se.ction L�:.}Scbedule Boundary -- Rlver/Siream

- - -= 1km " � �!�JQ.l�� ·+· � ...-. m�<�