03 21 2005 PAC Agenda
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND WNING BY-LAW &
PROPOSED PLAN OF SUBDIVISION
IN THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
2004-0PA-02,2004-ZBA-09
& 2004-SUB-Ol
TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation ofthc Township ofOro-Medonte will hold a Puhlic Meeting on
Monday, March 21, 2005 at 7:05 p.m. in the Municipal Council Chambers. The purpose of the public meeting is to
obtain puhlic comments on proposed amendments to the Zoning By-law and Official Plan, under Section 34 of the
Planning Act, and on a proposed plan of subdivision under Section 51 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P. 13.
THE PROPOSED Official Plan Amendment would redesignate the lands described as Concession 3, Part of Lot 15
& 16 (formerly within the Township of OriHia). The subject lands are proposed to be redesignated from the
Restricted Rural Designation to a Shoreline Designation.
THE PROPOSED Zoning By-law Amendment would rezone the lands described as Concession 3, Part of Lot 15 &
16 (formerly within the Township of Orillia). The subject lands are proposed to be rezoned from the
AgriculturallRural (AlRU) and Environmental Protection (EP) Zones to the Shoreline Residential (SR) Zone with an
exception to allow for a reduced lot frontage ranging from 18.8 metres (61.6 feet) to 28.5 metres (93.5 feet).
THE PROPOSED Plan of Subdivision would include 14 residential lots fronting on Lake Simcoe with lot areas
ranging from 0.6 hectares (1.48 acres) to 0.75 hectares (1.85 acres) and water frontages ranging from 47.5 metres
(155.8 feet) to 61.0 metres (200.1 feet) and bc accessed via a proposed public road off Moon Point Drive. All lots
are intended to be individually serviced.
A KEY MAP illustrating the location of the lands subject to the applications is shown on the copy of the proposed
plan of subdivision drawing attached for information.
ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting and/or make written or verbal representation either in support of or in
opposition to the proposed Amendments and Plan. If a person or public body that files an appeal of a decision of the
Township of Oro-Medonte in respect of the proposed Amendments or Plan does not make oral submission at the
public meeting or make written submissions to the Township before the proposed Amendments and Plan are adopted,
the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss all or part of the appeal.
If you wish to be notified of the decision of the Township ofOro-Medonte in respect to the proposed Official Plan &
Zoning By-law Amendments and Plan of Subdivision, you must make a written request to the address below.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS should be directed to:
Township ofOro-Medonte
148 Line 7 South
P.O. Box 100, Oro, Ontario LOL 2XO
Attn: Marilyn Pennycook, Clerk
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION relating to the proposed Amendments is available for inspection between 8:30
a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Township of Oro-Medonte Administration Building. For further information, contact the
Planning Department at 705-487-2171.
DATED at the Township ofOro-Medonte this 23,d day of February 2005.
/"J ~~
_ i Andria Lei ,MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
~
~
\ ! ~ ~ ~ i i
i ' ~ "\ -
, ....- , ^ 5 ~ ~ \ \ ~ , \\ ~ \\ \ ' ", , h,
\ ~ ~ gw ~ \\~ \ . \ j~ ~ 'i h ~ i n ~ ; \\
~\ ~ \\\~~f'~ %~, \ \ \ ~~~ h'W '. }.
\\t \ \\\ \\\\ n\\\\n ~ \\\ u'
~~ ~~~B.,i'~\g!to~ t \ \ \ . \~ \" \ ~ ~ ~ \ \%~ \\
'"~ ,,1 ~ \.~ \ '0 ~
~\ ~~~~~>>~ ~ ~ \~\\ \ ~\\ \ "~", n\ \ ~\ \ % \\.
P <'!.J::'i"~jU'Jo S\\ % \\\ % \\\\\\\\\ \\\\~\\ i \\~ ~ \.0
~ ;J ~'@~'1 zu
A-O~..! ~3-
~ 0
o ,...
'"
h\~
'j \~
'\\1~
h\1i
, '; \ \ \
I.;
\,\ g 0
\ t _~~1
\ 6 3~ 0
I ~ ~ .
\ ' "
~ ' ~,
i;'!\..~
~ \ \~ \ '}i,\tl
~ \ ';}~ 1
~ \\ { i'~\ \
";\ ";i \ ~S
\ ~'\ \ it
H~ 1 C'"
~A\\ H
\,D\! (I.
\.>.1 \\1
''i.~~ \ ~
8 ,'(r,', ,
,",\
~ .:.
'hi
If) ','-I
~ \~
i\~
""~
.-J ,.,\ \
"".".\
. ~r.. \ t
;.:,'.j
\Ii!
t :%~
~~ ),
'i
'0 , ~
,~ ,
.~ ,0 ~
" \~ >
t~
~~ "
\\
,e ,"
" ,
.\ ,
,
i~ J-~-
~ ",
" ~ \
.- ~ i
~,
. E \
,
'\' .,
, ,
'f'. ~:':; . '
~, ' ~\
- ;:'1\ \ "
-- ,- ,
:;:1 ,~ '
'0 ,
f; \" ,
"
w'
\ ~\
~,
!,'( ~\
,-", "
.'
0'
~ ~ \
,
> ~,
0'
.,
\ ,
. .):~ "..J\
\ ,
;.\ ,
....,.~ ~, ,
"~~.~" ,
- . , ,
, ,
r"""-~ , ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
\ \
\ ,
\ \ \'c
\
MAf(-lI-<:UU~ IHU Uc:jj rn nt/CU1hi1 ru.m fn:\ I'lL..},
'- -_.'- _. '~.~ i 1.......-' I "'!....V LV
- --. - --
, .
Andrew Fyfe, 5128/043:01 PM. -0400, Moon PI. Development - Oro -1\1edonte Twp. 1
Envelope-to: )robinsonl@unis<~--:om ~
From: Andrew Fyfe <afyfe@city.orillia.on.ca>
Rep!y- To: "afyle@dty .ormia.on.ca" <aly le@city.orillia.OIi.ca> 7:3(3
To: '"jamie@meridianp!an.ca''' <Jamie@meridianp!an.ca>
Subject: Moon Pt. Developm<mt - Oro -Medont. Twp. ( ;{ @
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 1$:01:59 -0400
Organization: City of Orilli.:!
EncodiI\g: 5 TEXT
X-Scanner: OK. 5<:anned.
As. discussed with yourself and Andria Leigh, stall have been brief~d on
this proposal by the County 1'Ia!1I\iI\g Director Md the proponent. Due to !V~~\\'- ~\'\\~
the Hmited size of the propos a! and it$ lotation retative to the City,
City p!anniI\g stalf have not identified any planning concerns regardi."g the
proposal on the part of the City 01 Grillia. \Q \'\'S.~ Q"i l
'0
\,~
- . . P. - '._'6 Q"hiMon <iamie@meridianphm.c1J> 1
~~\,<. ~\:"'.
~ Simcoe County District School Board C':~~,. t 'cl C~
1170 Highway 26 West Phone: (705) 728.7570 I RECEIVEIrl
Midhurat, Ontario Fax: (705) 728-2265 I I
LOL 1XO ww~qlcdsb.o".ca I t.,gO " 4 2005 I
I I
I ORO-MEDONTE I
j
! TOWNSHIP I
March 10, 2005
Ms. Andria Leigh
Director of Planning
Township of Oro-Medonte
148 Line 7 South
P.O. Box 100
Oro, ON
LOL 2XO
FILE NO. 2004-0PA-02, 2004-ZBA-09, 2004-SUB-OI
Dear Ms. Leigh:
OFFICIAL PLAN &ZONING BY -LAW AMENDMENT
DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION
MOON POINT DEVELOPMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
Thank you for circulating Notice of the Public Meeting for the proposed amendments for
the above-noted property to this office. The development proposal contains 14 estate lots to
be serviced by individual wells and septic systems.
Planning staff have no objection to this development proposal. Elementary students will be
bussed to Harriett Todd Public School and secondary students will be bussed to Twin
Lakes Secondary School. Both schools are located in the City of OriIlia. Please note that
school busses will not enter cuI de sacs to drop off or pick up students.
Should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned.
Yours truly,
M~~-
Holly Spacek, MCIP, RPP
Planning Officer
cc: Ms. Andria Leigh, Planner
Township of Oro-Medonte
NO, 923 0 1 , t/
r, ,
MAP i8 200S ii27AM lSPCA
Sent by Facsimile: 1-705-487-0133 (j~"60;~ 7
March 17, 2005 FiJe Nos.: 2004-StJB-Ol, 2004- P A-02 & 2004-ZBA-09
TI\1S Nos.: PSDClI4CI3, POFC234 & PZOC465
Ms Andrea Leigh, Director of Planning
Township of Oro-Medonte
P.O. Box 100
Tel: 90S -$95- U81 Oro, ON LOL 2XO '\ \J\,h "'~~\,\
1.~CO-46S.04}7 CIJ\'H~.\Gt \d
Fax: 905- 853. 5881 Dear Ms Leigh:
E.-Mail: inf~h;tt.!.on.C:\ Q)
Web: \\,'\V'tt;.1srt:a.on.ca Proposed Official Plan and Zonin~ By-law Amendments
RE:
uo Iby'\'iew Parkway Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision
Box 282
Ne\'1JIDJ:rket; Om::uio Columbus Club of To roo to
L3 Y 4Xl Part Lots 15 and 16, Concession 3
T01'>"Jlshlp of Oro Medoote
Staff of the Lake Simcoe Region qonservation Authority has received your circulation requesting
comments on these applications. We have received an Environmental Impact Statement & SWM
and Natural Hazard Study (Waters*ed ManagrmentEcology and Greenland Consulting Engineers,
ver. February 2005) prepared in s1.\pport of this project.
The O'Nner is proposing to develQp the site for 14 shoreline residential lots by draft plan of
subdivision. The subject lands hav~ water frontage on Lake Simcoe and there are no Watercourses
crossing the property. We have ~et with the consultants regardin.g the study reports and are
expecting additional information c1arifying the extent of alterations anticipated with this proposal
and demonstrating that the enviroru;nental impacts of this proposal will have no adverse effects on
the nat\11'ar features a.nd functioris of the site. Preliminary comments on the stonnwater
management report is that the methbds of water quality control proposed are genera]]y acceptable
based on retaining a maximum are~ in natura] vegetation through establishment oftight buiJding
envelopes. We wiI! provide the TO)NTlship with final comments once we have had an opportUnity
to review the additional infonnatiob.
Please advise this office of any dec~sion on these applications. We have received our draft plan
A review fee of $5,000.00 for these applications.
i
Please contact me if you have any guestions. Please reference the above file numbers in future
fPater.shed correspondence. I
fl7L!fi Yours truly,
~}DOJ1~
Janet Wong, MCJP, RPP !
Senior Planner
c.c. Jim Hartman, Greenland Int~mationa], fax only: 705-444-5482
Jones Consulting, fax only: (05-734-2538
JW/sam
I
,
subMQr01iledonre.moon point 2.wpd I
. . ,
\I~')\\l \'h.-\\:'~ ~.f\L.
C<:::'H"'.id~ \~\.\d.
:-S)
March 21, 2005 Mary lou Kirby
136 Matchedash St. N.
Orillia, Ontario
l3V 4V1
Township of Oro-Medonte RECEIVED I
148 line 7 South
P.O. Box 100
Oro, ON lOl 2XO I MAR212005 I
Attention: Marilyn Pennycook, Clerk ORO-MEDONTE I
TOWNSHIP
Dear Mayor Craig and Members of Council,
Re: 2004-OPA-2, 2004-ZBA-09 & 2004-SUB-01 Moon Point Development
I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed development at
Moon Point. My concern stems from my interest in seeing the health of lake
Simcoe improve, not continue to deteriorate. The perspective that I bring to the
matter is that of a former planning consultant with over 20 years of experience.
For the most part, I worked on behalf of developers, creating plans similar to the
one before you tonight.
In many cases, the project that resulted went as planned, but in other cases,
particularly on sensitive sites, the results have been discouraging and at times
even painful to witness. A case in point is the Davidson property on the south
shore of Bass lake. That particular project evolved over a period of a few years
from a standard 20+ lot subdivision concept to a 4 lot estate development
created by severance. The challenge was to preserve the sensitive
environmental features including a steep post-glacial shoreline bluff, a coldwater
stream and the mature coniferous forest that covered the low-lying area between
the bluff and the lake. The importance of this forest in maintaining the flow of
cool springs and subsurface drainage to the lake was clearly evident.
The planning tools that were put in place to protect these features included an
Official Plan amendment to extend the Environmental Protection designation on
the lands, a corresponding zoning amendment, conditions of severance and Site
Plan Control. Building envelopes, driveway locations and sewage disposal
envelopes were defined on the individual site plans.
The first house that was constructed was in an open field close to the Bass lake
Sideroad. So far so good. The other two lots took a few years longer to sell, but
2
they eventually did. Recently, two very large houses were built on the ridge. As
could be expected, the owners wanted a view from each of the many windows
that face the lake. The owner of the retained lot was of a similar mind.
Tragically, hectares of forest have been clear cut to create those views. (See
photo attached.) This work would not be something that could be done in a
weekend. It would have gone on for several days if not weeks. The group who
raised the alarm were the Bass Lake Ratepayers Association.
I will not go into any further details as I am sure Council is aware of the events,
but suffice it to say that the regulatory system failed and failed badly. The
Township, the County, the Provincial Ministries of Natural Resources and the
Environment, and the Federal Department of Fisheries failed to halt the
destruction. I understand that there may be an order for shoreline restoration,
but the fact of the matter is that the trees are gone, the drainage is altered, the
shade and protection that the forest offered to the waters and the fish of Bass
Lake is gone, and will not be restored to the same degree for many years, if
ever.
This brings me to the issue of whether or not Council should allow the
development of 14 lots and a road on 9.66 hectares of wooded land with 675
metres of Lake Simcoe shoreline. I have reviewed most of the reports prepared
on behalf of the Developer as well as Ms. Leigh's planning report of January 17,
2005.
Many recommendations have been put forward by the various consultants
involved that are intended to mitigate the impact of the proposed development.
While they are obviously well-intentioned, taken as a whole these measures are
sometimes in conflict with each other especially as they relate to achieving the
necessary drainage from the building and sewage disposal sites while
attempting to preserve vegetation.
What really concerns me is who is going to enforce all of these measures?
Does the Township have enough trained staff to ensure that future residents are
using native shrub and tree species in their landscaping, or to encourage
residents on an ongoing basis to avoid pesticides and chemical lawn fertilizers?
Will the LSRCA be willing and able to keep a constant vigil on these 14 lots?
What if a homeowner decides that a 12 metre clearing through the 20m wide
"shoreline protection zone" is not wide enough to give him the view he desires?
What penalties will be in place for lot owners who remove more vegetation than
is permitted? Will these penalties be enough to discourage others from doing
the same thing? How will future lot owners be made aware of all of the
restrictions? Will this be left up to real estate agents and lawyers?
3
Ms. Leigh's planning report states that in order to satisfy the Official Plan, the
expansion of shoreline development must be small in scale and the majority of
existing tree cover on the proposed lots must be retained and protected.
Regardless of the number of lots, the potential degradation of 675 metres of
wooded Lake Simcoe shoreline does not fall into my definition of small scale.
Given the nature of this forest, with high groundwater conditions and second
growth characteristics, I would expect that once the forest is opened up by road
construction and clearing and filling on the lots, many of the remaining trees will
succumb to wind damage, sunscald and other impacts and eventually there will
be a few remnant groups of unhealthy trees that could in no way provide the
same wildlife habitat and beneficial effects on groundwater that the current forest
does.
Finally, I wonder why Council would consider amending the Township's Official
Plan to permit more development on Lake Simcoe when the province has just
announced $2.25 million in funding for a 4-phased plan to address population
and growth concerns in Simcoe County. Surely it would be prudent to at least
defer any decision until the first phase - a study of the ability of Lake Simcoe to
handle any more growth and development - is completed.
Please keep me advised of any decisions made in regard to this development.
)l/;~
Mary Lou Kirby
encl.
.
t
\J
...
~
'H
itl
l~
t\J
~
~
::;
~
~
~
k
~
~
.~
~
.
"
..0
'h
J
-.
,~
'-0;",
~
C
'v
. "t\cv\(\"" 'd..l \ 'd-CJ05
\J)<;~ . .1'0
PROVISTA GROUP (: \ ~ u,
INC. C'.),"-U -i ";) ~
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
--
C. .\\l
Moonpoint Residents Association
Oro-Medonte Township
Attention: Gerald Murfitt, Chairman,
March 14,2005
Re: Moon Point Development
Part lots 15 & 16, Concession 3
Roll # 030-012-42700
REVIEW OF PLANNING DOCUMENTS AND TOWNSHIP POLICY
Our proiect no. 005-96
Introduction:
Provista Group Inc. has been retained by the Moonpoint Residents Association to review the studies
and Township Policies in regard to this proposed development.
Mr. Barry Peyton, MCIP, RPP professional planner is the senior planner for Provista Group
Inc. and the author ofthis document. Mr. Peyton has considerable experience in the planning and
design of similar developments throughout Simcoe County over the past 25 years totaling over 50
individual developments.
We have reviewed three documents including the Hydro-Geological, Rural Servicing Study prepared
by Rural Developments Limited and dated April 2004, Revised Planning Report prepared by Jones
Consulting Group Ltd. dated Feb 2004 and the Environmental Impact statement and Storm water
Management and Natural Hazard Study prepared by Greenland Consulting Engineers and dated April
2004.
Futher to this we have reviewed the County Official Plan, and Township Official Plan and
Zoning By-Law with amended policies for Shoreline property.
Comments and Concerns:
I). Our largest concern is centered around the Hydro-geological work or lack of work undertaken
for this proposal.
We understand that no test wells have been drilled on this property. It has been our experience
that test wells are always drilled on the property and tested in conjunction with surrounding existing
wells "before" planning approval is given. This ensures that there is adequate water available and of
suitable quality and the pumping of these wells will not interfere with surrounding wells.
The Hydro-Geological Study uses terms such as Likely, of the opinion, are expected, to be
confirmed, these are unacceptable assumptions for responsible planning to take place.
The water sample taken to analyze the quality of water appears to have come fTom a shallow
test pit this again is unacceptable, This sample seems to be far removed fTom the deeper aquifer the
future wells will be drawing from.
Box 3 J Green River Drive RRJ Ph: (705)689-0852 Fax: (705)689-0853
Washago ON LOK 2BO provistagrp(@on.aibn.com
2
The study states that test wells have not been drilled since they may be in conflict with a lot line. We
cannot see how a 6 inch diameter well will be in much conflict.
The test holes dug or drilled on the property clearly show in virtually all cases that there is
flowing or standing water at the two foot level. I would think that this means fill or no basements. The
basement footings would need to be at least around grade to properly drain and at least 5 feet offill
placed around the home. The trees around the home will need to be taken down due to this fill. Further
to this since tile beds are proposed, again these will need to be raised and again the trees would need to
be removed.
Nitrates have been measured slightly over the max 10mgll at the property line set by the
Ministry of the Environment, most other developments would be made to conform to this figure by
reducing the number oflots accordingly. The study states that since this is flowing into Lake Simcoe
then this is OK. We disagree, many people drink the water :from Lake Simcoe and dilution is not the
solution to pollution.
This is like saying " to sweep the dust off the coffee table onto the floor makes your house
cleaner, it simply moves the problem to another place where it is less detectable. "
Since there is flowing water at a depth of2 feet under this property as per the test hole
information, it would appear lechates would reach Lake Simcoe with ease.
2). This property is located in a "Restricted Rural Designation" according to section DI Ion
page 83 of the Official Plan, this designation was created as a buffer to discourage development
around the urban settlement of the City of Orillia for the purposes of maintaining the rural character by
clearly defining the urban boundary.
D 11.3. I states that the creation of new lots for residential purposes shall generally not be
permitted in the Restricted Rural designation.
3). The minimum lot :frontage for Shoreline Residential zones is 30m. The Planning Study
suggests the reduction of this figure to 22m on page 3 of the report and 18m on page 6 of the report.
Any reduction of this figure again reduces the number of trees to be saved on the lots. This
virtually reduces the :frontages almost to half producing a strip development rather than an estate look.
This is a major reduction to the :frontage policies and these were not changed in the new amendment
adopted by Council on December 1,2004 for obvious reasons.
4). As stated before, the removal of trees is virtually unavoidable given the present day plan and
the proposed lot widths, fill, septic systems etc, however we must not overlook the tendency oflot
owners to " Strip the lots clear of trees to the waterline to obtain a view of the lake" Lot values go
up considerably if the lake is in view.
It is often very hard to police any protection of these trees no matter what policies are in place.
5). We see no reference to an Archaeological Study or information :from the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans.
Archaeological information is often sort after especially on lake shore properties.
Box 31 Green River Drive RRI Ph: (705)689-0852 Fax: (705)689-0853
Washago ON LOK 2BO provistagrpcmon.aibn.com
.
3
6). The new Shoreline Residential policies state that an Official Plan Amendment would be
considered if the development was infilling or is small in scale.
This area is definitely not infilling and is a matter of opinion if it is small scale, without an accurate
definition.
7). Many schedules, and maps including the Zoning By-Law and Official plan show a water
course traversing the property and in fact the lands are zoned EP in the Zoning By-Law. All studies
deny that this watercourse exists. Why then does it show up in the Environmental Report as a blue line
on the Schedule after page 6. Unfortunately we have been retained in mid-winter and have not had the
opportunity of seeing the ground drainage.
8). Apparently there is a natural berm along the lake shore that has been either naturally formed or
built during the funning of this land sometime ago. There is mention in the drainage portion of these
studies that this berm be modified to drain these lands. This again will mean the removal of trees. We
believe that this natural berm causes surface drainage to pond and to naturally cleanse the runoff
before reaching the lake. Consideration should be made in leaving the berm as is.
Conclusion:
This completes our summary of the most significant of concerns we have identified during our review.
If Council accepts the concept of a development on this property we ask that you take these
summarized points into consideration.
We believe that this development should not proceed until further hydro-geological work has been
undertaken especially the drilling of test wells.
We also believe that the plan should be modified to lots containing the maximum nitrate
concentration allowed as set by the Ministry of the Environment and to adhere to the Townships policy
regarding 30m lot frontages for the Shoreline Residential policies.
If this development is allowed to proceed, we do not believe that an adequate protection plan or
zone could be placed to protect the trees on this site.
Respectfully Submitted
Provista Group Inc.
Barry Peyton, MCIP, RPP
Box 31 Green River Drive RRI Ph: (705)689-0852 Fax: (705)689-0853
Washago ON LOK 2BO Pfovistagrp@on.aibn.com
\;'\cV\.d- 'd. \ ,l,}Oo5 ......---
\ \:)i<;\.'10 ~~ C.I\.I-.
\1~~o-lh.li ;)~"'~"'~
PUBLIC MEETING Monday, March 21, 2005.
Mr. Mayor and Councillors,
The proposed site for a subdivision is designated restricted rural with environmental
protection zones.
This should NOT be changed.
It is a very WET property providing a NATURAL FILTER system for Lake Simcoe.
There is a natural, elevated and treed BERM forming a BREAKWATER along most of
that shoreline.
The applicant wants to modify this berm.
In places behind the berm, the level of land is a foot lower than the average high water
level of Lake Simcoe.
The runoff ponds behind the berm are up to 3 feet deep in April and they gradually
release water over the next few months.
These ponds slowdown runoff, provide an area for water to settle, and give plants a
chance to filter out pollutants before the water reaches Lake Simcoe.
If permitted, this modification of the berm would destroy that protection.
If a SUBDIVISION were allowed, the storm water management would become a major
issue.
The Environmental Impact Statement requires ditches, swales, rock check dams,
silt fences and filters, which must be maintained and inspected regularly.
They must also be repaired immediately when something goes wrong.
Who maintains, inspects and repairs?
Who will pay for this?
How do you get rid of the sediment once it's in the lake and the damage is done?
The application includes clearing of up to 446 feet of shoreline for dock access and
Lake Vista.
That would destroy wildlife habitat, filtration, and erosion protection.
Who is responsible for this?
Septic Systems are also a concern.
A variance for permission for FILL to encroach on the floodplain for septic systems on
6 of the 14 lots should NOT be permitted.
2- ,
The staging area for migrating birds, nesting for birds, as well as habitat for animals,
amphibians and fish SHOULD NOT be damaged!
This area is very important to the HEALTH of Lake Simcoe.
WE MUST NOT DISTURB ITS NATURAL ECOLOGY.
The designations are in place for VALID reasons.
PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THEM..
Janet Bumstead, (a seasonal resident for the past 24 years)
~ \\ \
, ~..~ ~ \ ,\
\:;'"v~\ \ ~ .~~ J
"", ,,~... ~
"\G~\ cJ~ 2J \ ~.)
, ~\\M.(~ 'd-\, \}Q(J5 ~l-
\)\<,4.., \\:) ~~(~ "-
P"" .'"JC\~'-\ vi!\:)--I~t1
Re: Moon Point Development Corp.- 2004-0PA-02, 2004 -ZBA-09, and 2004 - SUB,
Concession 3, part of Lots 15 &16 Orillia
Public Meeting
My concerns about the negative impact on the natural ecosystem of the proposed site were
confirmed by the applicants Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Watershed
Management Ecology and Greenland Consulting Engineers.
(Final report page 9) 2.7.7 April, 2004 - a site visit showed ponds up to I meter deep. By June,
(page 10, -2.7.8), they were over.5 meter deep. This area is very wet and has many ponds which
provide a natural filter system by slowing down runoff, providing areas for water to settle and
give plants a chance to filter out various pollutants and microorganisms before the water reaches
the lake. This area also supports amphibian life and creates a good habitat for wildlife.
The average high water level is 219.15 masl (appendix B page 2). The lots along the shoreline
are as low as 218.75 masl. What will happen to the shoreline when the natural berm is modified
as requested on page 6 of the Final Study?
In appendix B, the proposed Stormwater Management Plan (pages 7, 8, 9, 10 and part of I I) is
very involved and requires monitoring and impact mitigation. To quote trom page II, "In order
to ensure the effectiveness of the various erosion and sediment control measures, an appropriate
inspection and maintenance program is necessary." How will this be implemented? How
effective will it be? How long will it be in place? Will Oro Medomte be responsible for the cost
of monitoring?
The next statement is also concerning" All noticeable erosion both within and outside of the
subject site during construction should be repaired immediately and mitigation measures should
be implemented in order to prevent recurrence." What happens if too much damage has
happened and we see our fish population suffering and our water quality even worse than it is at
present?
How do you plan to monitor and enforce?
It proposes a 8 to 12 meter clearing of each lot be provided to the lakeshore line within the 20 \ '^.+- \"""""''\'''I>\.
meter shoreline protection zone. There could be between 112 m and 168 meters of shoreline 1" "j .\ 7
cleared (that's almost 550 feet!!) This definitely interferes with the natural shoreline. Will this ,\=:-,,,,,-\
be acceptable? ?-\-"-6v~
(Appendix A page 5) LSRCA has indicated "it would be necessary to ensure that all building
lowest openings and septic systems are located above the 100 year Wave Up Rush Shoreline
Flood Elevation" Later on the same page, for the proposed development concept there are only
minor encroachments (less than 5 meters) proposed for proposed lots 3, 4,5,6,7 & 9, where
only the septic systems encroach into the floodplain. How can this be proposed? How could this
be acceptable?
My concerns are so many. WiII a complete HydrogeoIoy Study be done?
Has a drilled well study been completed before rezoning?
Please consider the wildlife, habitat, and staging for the many
migrating bird.. I know the lists in the study are incomplete,
.
.
But they could have been missed on limited site visits.
I suggest you request a site visit after the snow is mostly gone for Council, LSRCA, work
department and planning to see the land, ponds, and benn referred to in the Environmental
Impact Statement.
NO rezoning, redesignation and variances should even be considered until a site visit and further
!estings are completed.
This shoreline is too important for Lake Simcoe. We must not disturb its natural process.
There are already 12000 cottages on the shoreline. Water quality is important and the shoreline
cannot tolerate the extreme measures it would take to create a subdivision on such a wet
property.
The designations are in place for valid reasons. Please do not change them.
Please consider the proposals carefully.
Janet Bumstead.
~~~~~ \(J':;
~~~ '2-\
..A,),\o,v..\.. 1~ . 'J oat)
~t\bv-\.J<" "\0 S''''-\\r
~""'\- \yl("'<n\\ -R ..
0", ~r\
Mark & Margaret Rose:ti ..
223 Moon Point Drive
FIR #1 Ortllia. 13V 6H1
Members of Council
Township of Oro Medonte
148 Line 7 South, P.O. Box 100,
Oro, Ontario LOL 2XO March 19th, 2005
Re: Proposed Amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw pertaining to
Concession 3, Part of Lot 15 & 16.
Dear Members of Council,
As concerned year round residents of Moon Point Drive, Oro Medonte Township, we are
finnly opposed to the proposed amendments to the official plan and zoning bylaws that
would result in the development of a subdivision on Lake Simcoe Shoreline at Moon
Point Drive.
This area is one of the last remaining undeveloped portions of Lake Simcoe shoreline and
as such, offers a unique habitat for many species of birds, mammals and vegetation. It is
an important staging area for many species of migrating birds. As well, this wetland area
acts as a natural filter for run off into Lake Simcoe. The proposed residential
development will destroy this habitat and have adverse effects on the shoreline and Lake
Simcoe itself. The natural vegetation will be severely affected by construction and the
deposition of large amounts of infill to compensate for the low-lying wetland
environment.
It would be an irreplaceable loss and a great shame if the Oro Medonte Township
Council allowed these proposed amendments to pass. It would result in the destruction of
a unique part of the Lake Simcoe waterfront in our township.
Sincerely,
-1/2 J;."~j~' 2 c~c rr
Dr. Mark Rosati and Dr. Margaret Qurghardt