2005-029 Adopt Amendment no 19 to the Official Plan
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
BY-LAW 2005-029
Being a By-law to Adopt
Amendment No. 19 to the Official Plan
WHEREAS The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte is empowered to Amend
its Official Plan as required;
AND WHEREAS the process for considering such an Amendment was in accordance
with Section 17 and 21 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.P 13.
AND WHEREAS the amendments to the Official Plan are deemed to be appropriate and
in the public interest:
NOW THEREFORE it is resolved that:
1. Amendment number 19 to the Official Plan, attached hereto as Schedule 'A-1"
and forming part of this By-Law, is hereby adopted and;
2. This by-law shall come into force and take effect as specified in the Planning Act
R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13.
READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME on the 6th day of April, 2005.
READ A THIRD TIME and finally passed this 6th day of April, 2005.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
S?r- ~~
. Neil Craig, Mayor
Schedule 'A-i'
Official Plan Amendment 19
Township of Oro-Medonte
This is Schedule 'A~1' to By-Law 2005-029
passed the 6th day of April, 2005.
-/~
/. Neil Craig, Mayo~
, "-1d ~
Marilyn \ nnycook, C~ k
Lake Simcoe
100 0 100 Meiers
111111 I
Legend
~ Lands to be Re-Designated from Restricted Rural
. To Shoreline
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 19
(COOKE APPLICATION)
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
Township Application # P159/03
MARCH 8, 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONSTITUTIONAL STATEMENT 2
PART I: THE INTRODUCTION 3
1.0 BACKGROUND 3
2.0 LOCATION 3
3.0 BASIS FOR THE AMENDMENT 3
3.1 Description of Proposal
3.2 Official Plan Context
3.3 Planning Issues 3-4
3.4 Conclusion 4
PART II THE AMENDMENT 5
PART III THE APPENDICES
Appendix A: Planning Report PD 2005-014 dated March 8, 2005
Appendix B: Environmental Impact Study prepared by Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc,
dated August 2004
Appendix C: Addendum Report prepared by Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc. dated
January 12, 2005
Appendix D: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority correspondence
dated January 28, 2005.
Appendix E: County of Simcoe correspondence dated January 11, 2005
BY-LAW 2005-
The Corporation of the
Township of Oro-Medonte
Being a By-law to Adopt
Amendment No. 19 to the Official Plan
WHEREAS The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte is empowered to Amend its Official
Plan as required;
AND WHEREAS the process for considering such an Amendment was in accordance with
Section 17 and 21 of fhe Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.P 13.
AND WHEREAS the amendments to the Official Plan are deemed to be appropriate and in the
public interest:
NOW THEREFORE it is resolved that:
1. Amendment number 19 to the Official Plan, attached hereto, is hereby adopted
and;
2. This by-law shall come into force and take effect as specified in the Planning Act
R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13
Read a first and second time on the _day of March 2005
Read a third time and finally passed this _ day of March 2005
J. Neil Craig, Mayor Marilyn Pennycook, Clerk
Official Plan Amendment 19
(Cooke Application) Page 1
Township of Oro-Medonte March 8, 2005
-
CONSTITUTIONAL STATEMENT
Part I: The Introduction, provides general information regarding the general policy
update. Part I: The Introduction does not constitute an operative part of
Amendment No. 19to the Official Plan.
Part II: The Amendment, provides the details of the Official Plan Amendment. Part
II: The Amendment, including Schedule A constitute the operative part of
Amendment No. 19 to the Official Plan.
Part III: The Appendices, provide more specific information regarding the Amendment
and the background work that led to the preparation of the Amendment. Part III:
The Appendices do not constitute an operative part of Amendment No. 19 to the
Official Plan.
Official Plan Amendment 19
(Cooke Application) Page 2
Township of Oro-Medonte March B, 2005
PART I: THE INTRODUCTION
(this is not an operative part of Official Plan Amendment No. 19)
1.0 BACKGROUND
The intent of this Amendment is to place certain lands in South Part of Lot 17, Concession 3
(Orillia) in a Shoreline designation to permit the creation of three residential lots by consent.
2.0 LOCATION
This Amendment affects 1.82 hectares (ha) of land in the South Part of Lot 17, in Concession 3
(Orillia).
3.0 BASIS
A comprehensive Planning Report on the application to amend the Official Plan is contained
within Appendix 1 to this Amendment.
3.1 Description of Proposal
This amendment would re-designate a portion of the South Part of Lot 17, Concession 3 (Orillia)
from the Restricted Rural designation to the Shoreline designation. Once re-designated this
would allow for the consideration of applications to create three residential lots each having 45.72
metres (150 Feet) of lot frontage, 134.11 m (440 It) of lot depth and 0.6 ha (1.5 acres) of lot area
with driveway access available from Moon Point Road.
3.2 Official Plan Context
The Township Official Plan designates the subject lands as Restricted Rural. The applicant
wishes to re-designate these lands in accordance with the policies in Section D10.3.8 by
expanding the limits of the shoreline development area.
3.3 Planning Issues
Section D1 0.3.8 of the Official Plan contains policies that allow for the expansion of the shoreline
development area onto lands not designated Shoreline through the consideration of an Official
Plan Amendment. The expansion is required to be small in scale and is considered to be infilling.
Infilling being defined as development that abuts a developed area on two sides and/or is located
within a block of land that is surrounded by public roads on at least three sides. The proposed
expansion must also satisfy the following criteria:
a) The lots will have an area of 0.6 hectares or greater;
b) The majority of the existing tree cover on the proposed lots is retained and protected as part
of the approvals process;
Official Plan Amendment 19
(Cooke Application) Page 3
Township of Oro-Medonte March 8, 2005
c) The development is compatible, in terms of scale, density and character, with existing
development;
d) The proposed lots, if located on the shoreline, have a water frontage of no less than 45
metres; and,
e) The lots would conform to the general subdivision and consent policies of this Plan.
An analysis of these policies as they apply to the application is contained within Appendix 1 to
this Amendment.
3.4 Conclusions
II is Council's opinion that the applicants have supplied enough supporting information to allow for
a fairly complete assessment of whether establishing the principle of development for the creation
of three residential lots is appropriate.
Official Plan Amendment 19
(Cooke Application) Page 4
Township of Oro-Medonte March 8, 2005
PART II: THE AMENDMENT
(This is the operative part of Official Plan Amendment No. 19)
ITEM # 1
Schedule AS is amended by re-designating the lands shown on Schedule A-1 attached from the
Restricted Rural designation to the Shoreline designation.
Official Plan Amendment 19
(Cooke Application) Page 5
Township of Oro-Medonte March 8, 2005
PART III: THE APPENDICES
Appendix A: Planning Report PO 2005-014 dated March 8, 2005
Appendix B: Environmental Impact Study prepared by Azimuth Environmental Consulting lnc,
dated August 2004
Appendix C: Addendum Report prepared by Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc. dated
January 12, 2005
Appendix 0: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority correspondence
dated January 28, 2005.
Appendix E: County of Simcoe correspondence dated January 11 , 2005
Official Plan Amendment 19
(Cooke Application) Page 6
Township of Oro-Medonte March 8, 2005
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE
REPORT
Dept. Report No. To: Prepared By:
PD2005-014 Planning Advisory Andria Leigh, RPP
Committee
Subject: Department:
Council Planning
Lester and Cristina Cooke,
C.ofW. Development Application Date: March 8, 2005
P-159/03
Motion # Concession 3, South Part R.M. File #:
of Lot 17 (Orillia) D09 013294
Date: RolI#:
030-012-43100-0000
II BACKGROUND: ,
The purpose of this report is to review this application subsequent to the Public Meeting held on
January 15, 2005 and provide a recommendation on the Official Plan Amendment applying to lands
within the South Part of Lot 17, Concession 3 (Orillia) owned by Mr. And Mrs. Cooke. A planning
report was presented to the Planning Advisory Committee in September 2004 which recommended
proceeding to the public meeting on the basis that the technical information required with the
application (EIS) had been received and reviewed internally.
At the present time, the lands are designated Restricted Rural in accordance with the Official Plan
and zoned Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) by Zoning By-law 97-95. The policies of the Restricted Rural
designation do not permit the creation of new lots by severance on the property and as a result, a
change to the Official Plan designation is required. The intent of the Zoning By-law change is to
implement the changes to be made to the Official Plan and to implement the recommendations of the
EIS and comments contained in the January 12, 2005 LSRCA correspondence.
, POLICY CONTEXT: ~
In December 2004, Council adopted an amendment to Section 010 - Shoreline designation that
proposed to replace the current policies that restricted expansion of the shoreline area and implement
criteria for evaluating the OPA required in the policies to permit such an expansion. This amendment
was approved by the County on February 9, 2005, no appeals have been received, and this
amendment is now in force and effect. The revised policies are as follows:
"The further expansion of the shoreline development area onto lands that are not designated Shoreline
is not permitted by this Plan. Exceptions may be granted through the approval of an Official Plan
Amendment if the expansion is small in scale and is focused on the shoreline or is considered to be
infilling. Infilling is defined as development that abuts a developed area on two sides and/or is 'ocated
within a block of land that is surrounded by public roads on at least three sides. The creation of strip
development across from existing development on existing public roads is not contemplated by this
Plan.
Council may consider such minor amendments to the Official Plan to re-designate lands' for such limited
shoreline development, provided Council is satislied that:
a) The lots will have an area of 0.6 hectares or greater;
b) The majority 01 the existing tree cover on the proposed lots is retained and protected as part of the
approvals process;
c) The development is compatible, in terms of scale, density and character, with existing development;
d) The proposed lots, if located on the shoreline, have a water frontage of no less than 45 metres; and,
e) The lots would conform to the general subdivision and consent policies of this Plan.
For Plans of Subdivision that involve the creation of lots with water frontage, only a single tier of lots
shall be created, all with water frontage, as set out in Section D10.3.6 of this Plan. In addition, no new
lots with direct access to County Roads are permitted.
If major development is proposed (which is defined as development that does not meet the above
criteria), a detailed review of the entire shoreline area shall be carried out to determine if the proposed
location is suitable and appropriate Irom a growth management perspective."
The policy does indicate that a number of issues have to be reviewed to determine the suitability of
an amendment including: environmental suitability, servicing feasibility, impact on character and
traffic impacts.
With respect to (a) and (c) above, the three lots proposed all satisfy this requirement being 0.6
hectares (1.5 acres) in lot area and are larger than the existing developed area along Moon Point
Drive and their location would be compatible with the scale and density of the existing development,
particularly as Moon Point Drive is a fully developed shoreline residential area.
In terms of (b) above, the area of the three lots is limited in terms of existing tree cover. The area
surrounding the watercourse does contain tree cover that will be protected with the implementation of
an Environmental Protection (EP) zone. A by-law that would establish this property as an area
subject to Site Plan Control is attached for the Committee's reference and it is recommended that this
by-law be given favorable consideration by Council in order to ensure that the recommendations of
the EIS are implemented though the Zoning By-law and the Site Plan Control process. The
applicants have applied for the Zoning By-law Amendment that would implement the development
proposal; however it is the Township's practice not to approve such an amendment until the
corresponding OPA has a decision from the County of Simcoe. The zoning by-law amendment will
be required to identify an Environmental Protection area that incorporates the 30 metre buffer of the
water course identified in the Azimuth report and required by the LSRCA in their January 28, 2005
letter.
The proposed lots are not located on the shoreline and therefore subsection (d) of the policies is not
applicable.
The three proposed lots would confirm with the general consent policies as the lots have frontage on
a year round road maintained by a public authority, are not located in an area that will cause a traffic
hazard, can be appropriately services with individual well and septic systems and would therefore
- 2 -
confirm with subsection (e) identified above. The applicants will have to apply to the Committee of
Adjustment for the creation of the three lots once the Official Plan Amendment is approved by the
County of Simcoe.
On the basis of the comments above, it is my opinion that the proposed development is in conformity
with the above criteria.
, SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS: I
A Public Meeting occurred on January 17, 2005 at that time written comments were received from:
Lake Simcoe Re9ion Conservation Authority, J.V. & L.E. Winterton, Clair Jazbec, Simcoe County
District School Board, County of Simcoe, J.W. Davies, Greg Stewart, Ralph & Kelly Dominelli,
Salvatore Dominelli, Craig Cotton, Randy Kitchen, Tom Kovacs, and Jim Skentos.
Subsequent to the Public Meeting written comments have been received from: James Seligman, Jay
Harris, and A. Steinberg.
Copies of the correspondence requiring discussion in this report are attached for the Committee's
review. All the other correspondence received indicated that they were in support of the application
as submitted.
The four letters that require discussion include:
1. Claire Jazbec
- indicated her concern that the home of the abundant animal species on the site would be lost
with a continued decrease in natural vegetation
- ecological impact on the watercourse that runs through the property and into Lake Simcoe
The Township had requested the completion of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for the
subject property even though the watercourse located on the property is not currently within an
Environmental Protection zone. The EIS was also required since a portion of the property was
wooded and the impact of development on this vegetation area needed to be determined.
This study was prepared by Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc on behalf of the applicant and
submitted to the Township on August 24, 2004 and an addendum was received on January 12,
2005 that addressed previous correspondence from Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority.
A site visit of the subject property was conducted on June 21, 2004 to identify the features and
functions of the natural environment on the site. The EIS identifies two current conditions on-site
(i) an open area void of treed vegetation in the southern western portion of the property and (Ii) a
forested area located in both the east and northern portion of the property which also contains the
watercourse. The study indicates that all development activities on the site related to the
development of residential lots have the potential to affect the natural environment on the site. On
this basis the report recommends that there be special zoning by-law provisions to restrict the
building envelope on the site to the southern portion of the property consistent with the extent of
the existing cleared lands, and no disturbance should occur beyond the recommended 38 metre
from the south creek bank in order to permit the maintenance of the watercourse and associated
swamp. The study also recommends the implementation of appropriate protection measures
related to the site construction re: erosion and runoff. The recommendations of the EIS will be
implemented through a site specific zoning by-law amendment and the Site Plan Control process
as identified above.
- 3-
2. James Seliqman
_ was originally agricultural area with wetland area - amendment already given to allow one home on
subject property now another amendment being requested for three more homes
- filling of subject property - benefiting from creation of lots in filled area
- no water access for lots created - concern about trespass on private property
- drainage - potential for impact on neighbouring properties
- property values and taxes
The subject property is currently zoned Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) in Zoning By-law 97-95 and has
been since November 5, 1997. The lot was previously zoned Urban Fringe in the former Township of
Orillia Zoning By-law 1993-50. Both of these zoning provisions allowed for the single detached
dwelling that was constructed on the lot in 2001 with a buildin9 permit. No Official Plan or Zoning By-
law Amendment was required for the issuance of the building permit. Also as indicated previously,
there is currently no portion of the property that is zoned environmentally protected and none was
previously zoned in the former Township of Orillia by-law either. The applicant has now applied for an
amendment in accordance with the policies as reviewed above.
There has been fill placed on the subject property. The Township does not have a by"law that restrict
fill in agricultural/rural areas and therefore the placement of the fill would not contravene a municipal
by-law. However the applicant's consultant was required to review the filled area to determine any
issues related to the development of the three residences with associated services in this area. The
Azimuth report indicates that the existing fill is comprised of clay mixed with some gravel and has not
resulted in any significant erosion from the property. The existing slope is considered stable
indicating that the fill type and slope are suitable for the development on the property. The study did
recommend the implementation of appropriate protection measures related to the site construction re:
erosion and runoff which will be implemented through the site plan control process and have been
supported by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority who will be consulted through the Site
Plan process.
The Official Plan policy discourages development in the shoreline area where residents will not have
access to the Lake; but does not preclude development from occurring. It should be noted that there
are currently road allowances to the lake that would offer the three new residential lots access to
Lake Simcoe.
Lot grading and drainage during and after construction would be reviewed through the site plan
control process and subsequently implemented through the building permit process. A property
owner is required to maintain existing drainage conditions from pre-development after
development/construction is completed. On this basis the impact on neighbouring properties would
be addressed.
The proposal is for three additional residential lots in an area that already contains residential
dwellings. The lot areas maintain the character of the existing residential community and therefore
would not appear to affect property values.
3. Jav Harris
_ was originally agricultural with wetland area - amendment to allow one home now another
amendment for three more homes
_ filling of subject property - benefiting from creation of lots in filled area
- no water access - illegal access across private property
- drainage - impact on neighbouring properties
- 4 -
. .
The comments noted above for Mr. Seligman would also apply to the similar comments raised by Mr.
Harris.
4. A. Steinberq
_ was originally agricultural with wetland area - amendment to allow one home now another
amendment for three more homes
- filling of subject property - benefiting from creation of lots in filled area
- no water access - illegal access across private property
- drainage - impact on neighbouring properties
- property values and taxes
The comments noted above for Mr. Seligman would also apply to the similar comments raised by
Ms. Steinberg.
I OPTIONS: ~
On the basis of the above, Planning Advisory Committee has two options:
Option 1 - Adopt Official Plan Amendment
If this option was selected, the Official Plan Amendment document would be presented to Council for
consideration of adoptions.
Option 2 - Refuse the Application
If this option was selected, the application would be refused and the applicant would then have the
ability to appeal that refusal to the Ontario Municipal Board.
II CONCLUSIONS: I
It is my opinion that the proposal is small in scale and generally satisfies the intent of the Shoreline
policies contained in the Official Plan. The Environmental Impact Study has been completed and
supports the proposed form of development on the site and the limited number of residential lots to
be developed with private wells and sewage systems and has been supported, in writing, by the Lake
Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. On this basis, it is recommended that Option 1 be selected
and that it be recommended to Council that favorable consideration be given to Official Plan
Amendment #19 for Lester and Cristina Cooke on lands described as Concession 3, South Part of
Lot 17 (Orillia). And further, it be recommended that the By-law to designate these lands as an area
subject to Site Plan Control area be given favorable consideration by Council.
- 5 -
I RECOMMENDATIONS: ~
11 is recommended:
1. THAT Report PO 2005-014 (Cooke) be received and adopted; and
2. That the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council that Official Plan Amendment
No. 19, Part of the East Half of Lot 9, Concession 14 (Ora), submitted by Lester and Cristina
Cooke be considered favorably for adoption; and
3. That the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Council the favorable consideration of a
by-law to designate Concession 3, South Part of Lot 17 (Orillia), as an Area of the Township
subject to Site Plan Control.
Respectfully Submitted,
-----1~ --e~
Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
C.A.O. Comments: Date:
C.A.O. Dept. Head
- 6 -
"/
~@-
/'
Cooke EIS
South Part Lot 17. Concession 3
Township of Oro-Meaonte
Prepared For:
L.R. Cooke Construction
Prepared By:
Azimuth Environmeutal
Consulting, Inc.
August 2004
AEC 04-124
RECEIVED
\ AUG 111100\
\
i
, ORO-MEDONTE i
i
1
\
, TOWNSHIP
~ i ,/
-rA,ZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL
/' I" CONSULTING, INC.
Environmental Assessments & Approvais
August 23, 2004 AEC 04-124
L.R.CookeConscruction
c/o
Lester Cooke
18 Moon Point Dr
Orillia, ON L3V 6H1
Attention: Mr. L. Cooke
Re: Environmental Impact Study
Development Application, Concession 3, South Part of Lot 17 (Orillia)
Dear Mr. Cooke;
Azimuth is pleased to provide our Environmentallmpact Study for the abovementioned
property to assist in the acquisition of a Development Application for Official Plan and
Zoning By-law Amendments. As requested, three copies of the report are enclosed such
that two may be forwarded to the Township for review.
Should you wish to discuss the material provided or require additional information,
please don't hesitate to contact us.
Yours cruly,
AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING INC.
~.. \'-\ '
~;; \~f)\'-V\
Sara Murphy, RSc.,
Aquatic Biologist
SMM:
111 Saunders Road, Unit 2, Barrie, Ontario L4M 6E7
telephone: (705) 721-8451; fax: (705) 721-8926 info@azimuthenvironmental.com
~---~~~- ------ --~------~------------------- _ M______ ------
",/ Cooke EIS, Town of Orillia
Township ofOro-Medonte
-@-
;" ' TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of transmittal page
1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................1
2.0 STUDY APPROACH ................................................................................................ 1
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................2
3.1 Land Use .................................................................................................................. 2
3.1.1 On-Site Land Use.............................................................................................. 2
3.1.2 Adjacent Land Use............................................................................................ 3
3.2 Soils and Topography .............................................................................................. 3
3.3 W atercourses ........................................................................................ .................... 3
3.4 Fisheries................................................................................................................... 4
3.5 Vegetation ...................... ....... ........... ...... ......... ............................................. ............. 5
3.6 Wildlife.. .................... .............................. ................................................................ 7
4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 8
5.0 IMP ACT ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................... 8
5.1 Land Use ..................................................................................................................8
5.1.1 On-Site Land ..Use............................................................................................ 8
5.1.2 Adjacent Land Use............................................................................................9
5.2 Soils and topography................................................................................................9
5.3 Watercourse .............................................................................................................9
5.4 Fisheries.... ................ ......... ............. .......... ................ ............. ......... ......... .............. 10
I 5.5 V egetation .............................................................................................................. 11
i 5.6 Wildlife .................................................................................................................. 11
6.0 MITIGATION .......................................................................................................... 11
I 7.0 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 12
8.0 REFERENCES......................................................................................................... 14
I
List Of Fil!:ures
I Figure I: Study Area
Figure 2: Township ofOro-Medonte Official Plan Schedule A8
Figure 3: Property Features Mapping
! Photol!:raphs
I Photographs 1-4
I
-
I
,,/ Cooke EIS, Town ofOrillia
Township of Oro-Medonte
-@-
,/, '
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Azimuth Environmental Consulting (Azimuth) was retained by L.R. Cooke Construction
to undertake an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for three l.s acre parcels of land
located at South Part of Lot 17, Concession 3 in the Town ofOrillia, Township ofOro-
Medonte. The property is comprised of three lots that front onto Moon Point Drive to the
south, and Woodland Drive to the west. The location ofthe study area is shown on
Figure 1.
The three lots are currently designated Restricted Rural in the Township of Oro-
Medonte's Official Plan (OP) (FebruaI)', 2001), and zoned Agricultural/Rural in Zoning
By-law 97-95 adjacent to lands designated Shoreline (Figure 2). Policies for the
Restricted Rural designation do not permit the creation of new lots adjacent to Shoreline
Area's, therefore, an Amendment to the OP or to the Zoning By-law is required to permit
the proposed development. The Township has requested that an EIS be completed for
this property to address the requirement for an Amendment, and to address the
Township's criteria for new development proposals adjacent to the designated developed
Shoreline.
The purpose of the EIS is to identify the existing natural environmental features on the
property and the potential impacts that may be associated with the development. A
watercourse that traverses the rear of the property is considered an environmentally
significant feature (Section F1.2, OP, 2001) however it not designated within the
Environmental Protection Two designation. This feature will be addressed in the EIS.
The ElS will focus on all aspects of a natural environment within the lands proposed for
development including topography, aquatic resources, vegetation communities, potential
habitat for wildlife, and associated features and functions on the property. The ElS will
recommend an appropriate environmental mitigation strategy to ensure that the areas of
the property identified as significant are preserved in the final development plan.
2.0 STUDY APPROACH
Azimuth completed a field investigation of the property on June 21, 2004 to identify the
features and functions of a natural environment that could potentially be impacted by the
proposed development of the three lots. Azimuth completed the following activities to
fulfill objectives of this study:
. Conducted a background information search and review of existing relevant
documents that address lands within the study area and the portion of the
property proposed for development;
,,/ Cooke EIS, Town ofOrillia I
Township ofOro-Medonte
-@- . Requested background information ITom the Ministry of Natural Resources I
/ ' '
(MNR) and Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) relating to
the watercourse on the property; I
. Investigated and assessed the existing environmental features within and
adjacent to the lands proposed for development, including the watercourse, I
fisheries, vegetation and wildlife;
. Assessed the potential impacts of the proposed conceptual development plan
on sensitive or significant environmental features as described above; I
. Developed an appropriate avoidance/mitigation/restoration strategy to address
the potential environmental impacts; and I
. Prepared one draft and one final report documenting the abovementioned
activities for review and comment.
I
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Land Use I
3.1.1 On-Site Land Use I
The three lots are currently designated Restricted Rural in the Township's Official Plan
(OP Schedule AS, 1997, appended), and zoned Agricultural/Rural in Zoning By-law 97- I
95, therefore an Amendment to the OP or to the Zoning By-law is required to permit the
proposed residential development. The property is also immediately adjacent to the area
designated Shoreline, requiring that the development satisi'y the requirements for a new I
plans of subdivision under Section D 10.3.6 of the OP.
As shown on Figure 3, the proposed lots wiHeach have a ITontage of 45.7m (150') and 1
depth of 133m (440'). The land is currently comprised ofan open area void of treed
vegetation located in the southern western (frontage) portion ofthe property (Photograph J
I), and a forested area located in both the east, and northern portions of the property.
The proposed westerly lot that fronts Moon Point Drive has been historically cleared of I
vegetation and filled to elevate the property to that of the adjacent roadway. It is
estimated, based on site conditions, that clearing occurred approximately five years ago J
(not confirmed) and is currently comprised of a mix of exposed soils and herbaceous
vegetation. The clearing extends approximately Slm (266') from Moon Point Drive
northerly (Figure 3). L.R. Cooke Construction is proposing that the footprint ofthe 1
proposed residences be located at the southerly portion of the property, which for Lot I I
and part of Lot 2, is within this cleared area.
1
Cooke EIS, Town ofOrillia
Township ofOro-Medonte
An unnamed watercourse traverses the rear ofthe property, flowing ITom west to east
discharging to Lake Simcoe on the east side of Moon Point Drive (Figure 2 and 3,
Photograph 2). The channel banks are low such that the surrounding flat topography
functions to provide flood relief.
The property is not located within the area of the Township of Oro-Medonte identified as
Environmental Protection Two (Township OP, 2001), and is not within the Greenlands
Designated Area for County of Simcoe (Gartner Lee, 1996).
3.1.2 Adiacent Land Use
The lands to the north of the property are treed to John Moon Road (Figures 1 and 3).
Lands to the north of John Moon Road, and west of Moon Point Drive are used for
agricultural purposes. South and east of the property are currently developed as seasonal
and permanent residences within the Shoreline Land Use Designation Area adjacent to
Lake Simcoe.
3.2 Soils and Topography
Orillia is located within the Simcoe Lowlands physiographic region that borders
Georgian Bay and Lake Simcoe, with the western shores of Lake Simcoe included in the
Lake Simcoe basin (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). The southern part of the Township of
Orillia lies within a flat clay plain interrupted by limestone outcrops, glacial hills and
patches of sand and gravel (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). During the development of the
existing house on the adjacent property to the east hardpan clay was encountered
indicating that the soils comprise a low permeability stable layer at depth.
The topography ofthe three lots slopes northward to the watercourse, with the highest
point of elevation located at the intersection of Woodland Drive and Moon Point Drive
(Figure 3). The existing residence to the east is also at a higher elevation and slopes in a
general north west direction to the watercourse. The topography at the watercourse and
floodplain in the approximate northern third of the property is flat.
3.3 Watercourses
There is one unnamed watercourse on the property that originates approximately lkm
west of Moon Point Drive. The creek traverses the northern portion of the property,
flowing ITom westto east and discharges to Lake Simcoe through a small corrugated steel
pipe culvert under the roadway (Figure 3, Photographs 2 and 3). Upstream to the west of
Woodland Drive, the creek traverses active agricultural land with cattle access and
discharges to an online pond immediately adjacent to the roadway (Photograph 4).
-
,/ Cooke EIS, Town ofOrillia I
, ' Township of Oro-Medonte
/~- On the property, the channel is artificially straightened likely to accommodate historical I
agricultural use. Consequently, the channel morphologically lacks diversity however it
does provide moderately diverse aquatic habitat conditions. The creek is approximately I
5-6m wide with a wetted depth of approximately 30cm (at the time of the field
investigation). Aquatic plants were present albeit sparse including floating arrowhead
(Sagittaria cuneata) and water lettuce (Ludwigia spp.). The aquatic plants combined with I
the contributions of woody and organic debris in the channel would provide habitat for a
variety of aquatic organisms. I
The banks ofthe channel and surrounding topography are low allowing for flooding of
the surrounding forest during small scale storm events. Much of the forest adjacent to the I
creek was wet at the time of the field investigation, creating pockets of saturated soils
indicative of a wetland. There are numerous tree stumps in the northerly portion of the
property that appear to have been historically cut. These stumps are located throughout I
the wetted areas, that combined with the fallen trees are functioning to retard the rate of
overland flow to the channel. Consequently, the area adjacent to the creek functions to I
provide ephemeral wetted conditions likely attributable to this anthropogenic influence.
It is possible that the wetted nature of the floodplain is attributable to near to surface
ground water conditions given that the creek is approximating lake level, however such I
contributions would not be permanent since the property dries considerably during the
summer months (confirmed through communication with adjacent landowner to the east).
Based on discussions with the LSRCA the creek is not within the up-wash zone of Lal:e I
Simcoe is not considered flood prone. Therefore, the creek on the property does not
flood in response to fluctuations in water levels in Lake Simcoe (LSRCA, telephone I
conversation). The LSRCA does not have flood and fill line mapping for this drainage
area. I
3.4 Fisheries I
There is no background fisheries information available from the LSRCA or MNR for the
unnamed watercourse. The outlet of the system is directly connected to Lake Simcoe
therefore it is assumed that species from Lake Simcoe would have access to the property. I
Additionally, it is expected that fish would be present in the pond located immediately
upstream the property (on the west side of Woodland Drive) and would have access to I
the creek on the property.
The system lacks morphological diversity however the treed vegetation provides good I
shading of the watercourse (70%-90% cover). The marginal aquatic and wet-adapted
plant species combined with the woody debris in the channel would provide good habitat
for a variety of fish species. Given the proximity to the lake and low flow characteristics I
it is expected that the watercourse may provide seasonal habitat for Northern pike (Esox
"
~
Cooke EIS, Town of Orillia
Township ofOro-Medonte
lucius). Other species that may use the channel would include centrarchids (sunfish,
largemouth bass, rock bass, black crappie), catfish, carp, and a variety ofrninnow species
common to the littoral zone of Lake Simcoe, however no fish were observed during the
field investigation.
Water temperature measured at the pond upstream the property (Figure 3) was 17.9OC,
decreasing to 15.30C in the channel midway through the property. Temperatures then
increased to 160C at Moon Point Drive, indicating that the tree cover on the property
provides shading of the watercourse to minimize solar radiation and ameliorate water
temperatures in the creek.
3.5 Vegetation
The southern portion of the property is void of tree cover as a result ofland clearing and
has been filled to elevate the property to the desired grade at Moon Point Drive. The
northern and eastern portions of the property are naturalized, comprised of treed
vegetation.
The cleared area at the south western limits of the property is comprised primarily of
weedy annuals and perennials with some shrub species (including staghom sumac),
typical of old field succession communities. Such species are typicaIly considered
opportunistic colonizers of disturbed areas and are :fTequently non-native species.
Consequently, there are no vegetation species that are considered to be ecologically
significant witilln this area.
The northerly treed portion of the property is predominantly associated with the perennial
wet areas adjacent to the watercourse. The canopy closure was estimated at 60-80%,
limiting sunlight penetration to the forest floor. Common understory species include
sensitive fern, eastern white cedar, and poison ivy with grasses, sedges and other ferns
comprising the dominant vegetation at the watercourse. A summary ofthe species
documented on the property are shown on Table 1 below.
Table 1. Vegetation Documented on the Subject Property
Tree Dominant
Layer: Species Eastern white cedar (Thuja oCcidentalis), sugar maple (Acer
saccharum), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), red maple
(acer rubrum)
Other ironwood (Ostyra virginiana), white birch (Betula
Species papyrifera), trembling aspen (Populus tremulaides), eastern
hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), yellow birch (Betula
alleghaniensis), American beech (Fagus grandifalia), black
cherry (Prunus seratina), white spruce (Picea glauca),
"
I
,,/ Cooke EIS, Town ofOrillia I
Township ofOro,Medonte
-@ white elm (Ulmus americana), mountain ash (Sorbus I
/, decora), green ash (Fraxinum pennsylvanica), speckled
alder (Alnus incana), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), I
white pine (Pinus strobus)
Shrub Dominant eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), poison ivy I
Layer Species (Toxicodendron radicans), ground hemlock (Taxus canadensis)
Other virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), wild red I
Species raspberry (Rubus idaeus), dwarf raspberry (Rubus
pubescens), grape (Vitis spp.), grape woodbine
(Parthenocissus inserta), fly honeysuckle (Lonicera I
canadensis), alder,leaved buckthorn (Rhamnus alnifolia),
round leaved dogwood (Cornus rugosa)
Herb Species awl-fruited sedge (Carex stipata) I
Layer: black snakeroot (Sanicula marilandica) I
blue cohosh ((Caulophyllum thalictroides)
common burdock (Arctium minus)
common speedwell (Veronica officinalis) I
drooping wood sedge (Carex arctata)
false solomon's seal (Smilacina racemosa)
fueweed (Epilobium angustifolium) I
grapevine (Vitis sp.)
herb Robert (Geranium robertianum) I
moss (Campyliom stellatum)
orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum)
ostrich fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris) 1
red baneberry (Actea rubra)
sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis)
sedge (Carex arctata) I
sensitive fern (Onoc/ea sensibilis)
smooth bedstraw (Galium spp.) I
spinulose woodfern (Dryopteris carthusiana)
trillium (Trillium grandifolium)
woodland horsetail (Equisetum sylvaticum) !
wormseed (Erysimum cheiranthoides)
yellow avens (Geum aleppicum)
In accordance with the Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario, (1998), the 1
vegetation associated with the watercourse and ephemeral wet areas is classified as a
White Cedar Mineral Mixed Swamp Ecosite (code SWM 1), characterized by the
presence of cedar, white and yellow birch, with ash, trembling aspen, red maple and elm.
S
Cooke EIS, Town of Orillia
Township of Oro-Medonte
MNR and LSRCA have no records ofrare, threatened or endangered species associated
with this property (telephone conversations with MNR and LSRCA staff). Our field
reconnaissance did not identifY rare, threatened or endangered species on the property.
The property is not located within the County Greenlands area (Gartner Lee Ltd., 1996),
and is not identified by the MNR as a designated wetland, Area of Natural and Scientific
Interest (ANSI), or Environmentally Significant Area (ESA).
3.6 Wildlife
The property is located adjacent to a fully developed shoreline residential area, and is
bordered to the north ofJohn Moon Road and to the west of Woodland Drive by
developed agricultural lands. Consequently use of the property by wildlife would be
consistent with semi-urban landscapes. Species that may utilize the property include
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginian us), red fox (Vulpes Vulpes), groundhog
(Marmota monax) (noted by the adjacent landowner), skunk (Mephitis mephitis) as well
as small mammals such as mice, voles, rabbits, raccoon and skunk. Racoon (Procyon
10tor) tracks were observed on the property at the watercourse.
An active den site, comprised of three entrance holes was found on the topographic slope
between the east proposed lot and the adjacent existing residence. Groundhogs have been
observed in the area by the adjacent landowner however no tracks were observed at the
den site to confinn the species using the site. The size of the entrance holes and their
location within woodland cover suggests that they were likely dug originally by
groundhogs as a winter den site but have been used over the years as by other animals
common to the area like red foxes and striped skunks.
Bird vocalization activity was high at the time of the field investigation. Species
observed at the site include black-capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus), and American
robin (Turdus migratorius). The property is encircled by developed land (both
agricultural and residential).
The downed woody debris, ephemeral pools and understory vegetation within the
floodplain of the channel would provide good habitat for amphibians and reptiles.
No vulnerable, threatened or endangered fauna were observed or documented to occur on
the property.
I
i
I
I
7
I
",/ Cooke EIS, Town of Orillia I
Township ofOro-Medonte
;~- 4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT I
The proposed development includes the creation of three lots for residential use ITonting I
Moon Point Drive, each with a lot ITontage of 45.72m (150'), and a lot area ofO.6lha
(1.51 acres), (Figure 3). The currently cleared area at the southern portion of the property
includes Lot 1 and part of Lot 2. The footprint for the proposed residences on these lots I
will be located within the currently cleared area, and is not proposed beyond the existing
toe of the fil1 slope. Due to the srnal1 scale of the development and large lot size, suitable
servicing of the three lots is by private wel1s and septic systems. I
The back slope ITom the existing fill within the proposed development area on Lots I and I
half of Lot 2 to the tree line is approximately 4: 1. This slope grade will remain in the
final development plan. Development of the easterly portion of Lot 2 and Lot 3 will
require the removal of vegetation as well as additional grading to achieve the 4:1 back I
slope on the building envelope on these two lots.
The proposed development plan does not include the removal of vegetation north of the I
existing toe of the fill. The watercourse and associated riparian within the swamp ecosite
will be ful1y retained in the final development plan. I
5.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT I
5.1 Land Use
5.1.1 On-Site Land Use I
The on-site land use will be changed to residential with large ITontages to Moon Point
Drive. This land use is not consistent with the OP for Oro-Medonte therefore an I
Amendment to the OP or to the Zoning By-law is required to permit the proposed
development. I
Although the watercourse is not contained within the Environmental Protection Two land
use area, it is considered by the Town to be an environmentally significant feature that I
requires protection. The OP and the Zoning By-law stipulates "no building or structure
shall be located within 30m of the top of bank of any watercourse", (Section 5.33 of the
Zoning By-law). The buildings or structures are proposed within the southerly portion of I
the lots and will remain outside the SWMl ecosite that includes the riparian zone and
30m setback of the watercourse. Therefore the proposed development conforms to this I
development criteria.
The implementation of the development plan would be expected to result in an increase I
in passive recreational land use within the riparian corridor of the watercourse, although
access to the feature currently exists given the surrounding shoreline residential
J
8
I
Cooke E1S, Town of Orillia
Township ofOro-Medonte
development and parkland immediately to the east of the property. Use of this type of
corridor by humans and pets cannot usually be mitigated or avoided, and is not expected
to harmfully alter the onsite land use.
5.1.2 Adiacent Land Use
Since the adjacent land use to the south and east of the site is residential shoreline
development, development of the subject property for residential use will not result in
adverse land use impacts to already developed areas. The development area is relatively
small (only three lots) therefore there will be negligible increase in traffic volume to the
area.
5.2 Soils and topography
Half of the proposed development area has been historically cleared of vegetation (Lot I
and half of Lot 2) and is currently stable. The rear of the property slopes to the north at a
slope of approximately 4: 1 and will remain at a 4: 1 in the final development plan. The
existing fill is comprised of clay mixed with some gravel and exhibits small gully's
formed from surface runoff however these areas are minor and are not resulting in
significant erosion on the property. The 4: 1 slope is considered stable indicating that the
fill type and slope are suitable for the development. The LSRCA should be consulted
prior to development to ensure that the 4:1 site grading slopes are acceptable given the
proximity to the northerly watercourse.
The development of the easterly portion of Lot 2, and Lot 3 will require the removal of
trees and the addition of fill to achieve the required grade. The topography towards the
I eastern portion of the development area slopes north westerly and includes the building
I envelope of Lot 3. Consequently the architectural design for Lots 2 and 3 should
conform to the landscape, and may require the development of a walkout basement type
I residence. The existing residence to the east was constructed atop the hill slope and
required the removal of hardpan clay to construct the concrete footings. The clay
I foundation provides a completely stable foundation for the home, and is expected to
similarly provide a stable foundation for the easterly lot.
I 5.3 Watercourse
The proposed lot depth for the three lots is 133m (440') from Moon Point Drive northerly
I (Figure 3). The south bank of the watercourse is located 129m (428') from Moon Point
Drive indicating that the lot line is located approximately at the north bank of the creek.
I The banks of the creek are very low allowing for the dispersal of flows following small
increases in water levels. The wetted condition is prL'TIarily attributable to the inability
I
9
I
/ Cooke EIS, Town ofOrillia I
, Township ofOro-Medonte
/~- for surface drainage to reach the watercourse as a result of disruption of overland flow I
due to fallen woody debris. At the time of the field investigation, wetted conditions in
the swamp ecosite extended approximately 38m from the creek bank southerly. The toe I
of the existing fill line extends 81m (266') from Moon Point Drive, with the remaining
52m located within the treed area (Figure 3). Therefore it is recommended that the
development not intrude into the 38m zone adjacent to the creek, such that based on the I
current toe of the embankment, it is recommended that development be permitted
northerly to a maximum of 14m from the existing toe of fill. I
The retention of the buffer area in its natural state is considered an appropriate setback
from the development area to ensure that the identified natural areas are protected. The I
LSRCA indicated through telephone discussions that the preservation of a minimwn 30m
buffer would be appropriate for this project. Nonetheless, the LSRCA is the ultimate
authority responsible for the designation of flood and fill regulated areas, and should be I
consulted prior to project implementation to ensure that the proposed development limits
are in accordance with the provisions of the Conservation Authorities Act. I
The development plan includes the placement of structures or buildings within the
southern portion of the property towards Moon Point Drive in order to retain the I
northerly natural features on the property. This will minimize the requirement for tree
removal and effectively minimize potential disturhance to the watercourse to satisfy the
Township's criteria for the consideration of new residential plans of subdivision. I
Additional fill within the developable area should be graded to no less than a 4:] back
slope, and the toe of the additional fill should not extend beyond the limits of the existing I
toe of slope. Additionally, any proposal to place the building envelope towards the rear
of the proposed development area adjacent to the undisturbed forested should evaluate
plans for a walk out basement or comparable design to accommodate the topography of I
the property and minimize the requirement for additional fill placement.
Sedimentation of a watercourse adversely impacts fish habitat conditions and is I
prohibited under the Federal Fisheries Act in the absence ofthe appropriate approval
granting such authority. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that silt controls be I
properly installed and maintained throughout the development phase to ensure that fill
does not enter the creek or associated floodplain.
5.4 Fisheries I
The proposed conceptual development plan does not involve any watercourse crossings I
or alterations to the channel and associated floodplain therefore the proposal is not
expected to adversely impact fish habitat conditions. The plan includes the retention of I
the treed buffer to the watercourse to maintain the shading and water temperature
regulating feature on the property, as well as to protect the quality of fish habitat. To
I
10
I
Cooke EIS, Town ofOrillia
Township of Oro-Medonte
ensure that exposed soils do not migrate to the watercourse during construction, the
development plan should include a sediment and erosion control strategy for onsite soil
management.
5.5 Vegetation
The development plan includes the retention of the existing treed area in the northerly
third of the property but does require the removal of treed vegetation in the south easterly
portion of Lot 2 and southerly portion of Lot 3 to prepare the building envelope. The
removal of trees to the recommended 38m protection zone is not expected to adversely
impact natural features or ecological functions on the property.
Tree removal will be required to prepare the building envelope on Lots 2 and 3 however
such clearing will not result in the loss of documented rare, threatened or endangered
species, or wetland vegetation.
5.6 Wildlife
The small size of the development will result in minimal noise and disturbance impacts to
wildlife resulting ITom human activity. There will be no loss of vegetation in the swamp
ecosite and no alteration of the downed woody debris, understory or ephemeral pools.
Therefore it is expected that herpetile habitat will not be disturbed as a result of the lot
development.
The east west movement of wildlife across the northern boundaI)' of the property and
adjacent lands to the north to John Moon Drive will not be affected as a result of
development.
The development of the easterly portion of Lot 2 and 3 will result in the loss of a wildlife
den site located on the existing hill slope. The den site is active and is composed of three
entrance holes that appear to be used at times by various species of wildlife (i.e.
groundhog, striped skunk and possibly red fox). All these species utilize multiple den
sites within their home ranges and tend to VaI)' their use of den sites both within and
between years. Consequently, these dens don't represent the only dens used by wildlife
in the area and loss of this one den site will not affect the survival or reproduction oflocal
wildlife populations.
I 6.0 MITIGATION
I The following mitigation strategy is recommended to ensure that potential impacts of the
development of the three lots is minimized:
I
I
/ Cooke E1S, Town ofOrillia I
, ' Township ofOro-Medonte
/~-. Prevent the migration of erodable soils to the watercourse and associated floodplain I
within the swamp ecosite through the use of properly installed and maintained
sediment controls. Sediment and erosion controls should be instaned along I
Woodland Drive, the northern boundaI)' of the existing toe of the fill slope, and along
the eastern boundaI)' of the development area returning to Woodland Drive to enclose
the area of disturbance. Sediment controls win also function to prevent the accidental I
intrusion of machinery equipment into the recommended protected areas;
. The boundaI)' of the sediment controls should function to delineate the area of
disturbance, All fill and debris should be contained within the area enclosed by I
sediment fencing to prevent the accidental disturbance of natural areas;
. Due to the low creek banks, the top of bank is at the creek with the surrounding I
riparian and associated swamp extending to the south by approximately 38m. This
area should be avoided and should remain in its natural state requiring that it be
protected during construction. All construction equipment should remain outside the I
drip line of trees associated with the top of bank vegetation, and appropriate set-
backs should be confinned in consultation with the LSRCA PrelirninaI)' discussions I
with the LSRCA indicate that the retention of a minimum 30m buffer is appropriate
for this project We recommend a ternporaI)' barrier be erected during construction to
protect the area trorn disturbance during construction; I
. Fil1 has been placed on Lot 1 and part of Lot 2, however additional fill is expected to
be required to elevate the development area on Lots 2 and 3. Therefore, extensive use
of silt fencing is required prior to commencing any construction activities to protect I
adjacent lands trorn sedimentation and washout;
. The design of the septic systems and wens must comply with the Ontario Building
Code and the Ministry of the Environment regulations and guidelines. We I
recommend that the building envelope for the septic and well be placed within the
existing and proposed cleared lands in the southern portion of the property; and, I
. Slopes on rear lots towards the area recommended for protection should be graded to
the satisfaction of the LSRCA. Slopes of 4:1 (to 5:1) are recommended to minimize
the potential for erodable slopes adjacent to the natural corridor to the creek. The I
soils are comprised predominantly of clay therefore the recommended slopes are
considered appropriate to ensure slope protection on the property. I
7.0 CONCLUSIONS I
The results of our study indicate that the developable lands on the proposed three lots
should be confined to the southerly portion of the property consistent with the extent of
the existing cleared lands. Development should not encroach on the recommended set 1
back trom the watercourse, and there should be no disturbance beyond the recommended
38m trom the south creek bank to pennit the maintenance of the watercourse, and
associated swamp. Development within this specified area would not negatively impact
the natural features and functions on the property.
. ~
L
Cooke EIS, Town ofOrillia
Township ofOro-Medonte
The development will result in the loss of edge forest cover on the southerly part of Lot 2
and Lot 3, and will impose minimal disturbance to soils and topography. Development of
these lots will also likely result in the loss of a wildlife den site on the property. The loss
of forest cover loss is not considered significant :/Tom a biological perspective, and the
loss of the den site is not expected to have an impact on local wildlife populations Since
development ofthe property is located in previously cleared and filled lands outside the
swamp habitat associated with the watercourse wildlife habitat on the property will
remain relatively unaltered.
Development must have regard for protecting the watercourse and associated swamp
through the diligent application and maintenance of sediment controls.
I
I
I
I
I
13
I
",/ Cooke ElS, Town ofOrillia I
Township of Oro-Medonte
-@- I
/ ' ' 8.0 REFERENCES
Brockman, C. F., 1968. Trees of North America, Western Publishing Company, Inc. .
Chambers, B.C., K. Legasy, and C.V.Bentley 1996. Forest Plants of Central Ontario, I
Lone Pine Publishing.
Chapman, 1. J. and Putnam, D. F., 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario; Ontario I
Geological Survey, Special V olurne 2, 27Op.
Gartner Lee Ltd. 1996. Development of a Natural Heritage System for the County of I
Simcoe, GLL 94-28!. I
Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhig and S. McMurray.
1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario. First Approximation and I
its application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Southcentral Science Section.
Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.
Newcomb, 1., 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little Brown and Company. I
Township ofOro-Medonte Official Plan, FebruaI)', 2001. Consolidated Version with I
Modifications & Amendments.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1,1
-~
Vc~'
, ' SUBJECT PROPERTY
I
Cedal'mont
I
I Ugend: ,~,~
-(AZIMUTH EN'ARONMEr,"TAL QJ,'.JSUL7JNG, INC.
/",.-,
I SITE LOCATION
0a1a~~: _~____,,,~l.HWzcc.<1,_~,___ RgtfflNo,
COOKE 1
I E!S
I
~ ~ ~ ~O2
1''1:'''~:' 0 ' ow,
iiiii <I \ I" 0 " \
\0;:>A t=1 " ,,' ~
ii\;i~ 'J<I tlJ~r
, <;r ~
'~~' R O~
..~ ;.../, ~ .. " (;)
Q'" "1 tfI; -
~ ,~ t::i '() S C. ~
~~ \'J, I< " ~ 'Z
'OS 'is "^ t. d
() ~" Z 'J<I
..1~ ~ ~
4'\ ~~ '':! ~
-' ~
~ {/.!
.... ~t
{tI .,
. .,
~ t-
'1;'~
0
'i ..\<
1;.
" .. g"
~..o ..
d' ~~ "'~
'6 "a~ ~t
~~",,,,.IJr 9..
~'4E~~-;t. U.
,,~~~ ?.~
....
'" ",~~'1 \~
.... 0"',% ~~
'" ~;i.... ~.
? oo~ '$
g o;t, ~ ~?,
..I<
'" ~ 0; <:,:'i
?.~
\ i.~
~ ..
\ ~ ..t
" ~ ..
~ ~~
! '"
\ .
'"
\
\
L
\' ~~
'. ..
,
'" "
\ rl ao~
" ~....
~
(/J ';t.
\ ("J ~
~"....
o~>1j
\ ~';:lo
~~~ t ~"
\~~
; ~~""""
\ '""~'"
....0 ';!\
. \ ~
';?~~I
~""-,,,,"""" ~"'-'"
\e:: ~\ --,--',.., -," ."....,~. .........-~..~..,.....
\ \,~ 'd \
l\ 0\
1\ z\ -~-- -
l' ~, j,
'1\ ~\
',\ ~l ----
lit V "',
AGRICUl TURAl
..J
<!:
L:Jw~
JOHN MOON ROAD zZI-
_:Jz
I-ww
I/)Q::Q
J-io0
FOREST AREA x:r:w
AGRICUl TURAl wl/)Q::
POND
w
> 133M
~
(Y
Q EXISTING
~ ""
<=> lot 1 lo 2 ot 3 RESIDENTIAL
z
<(
I ..J
<=>
0
0
:3
I ~RICUl TURAl
I ';Zl'S:n~~(.
~r\C\R(.'thr\p.\..
R(.Sl\)
I
I
I
I ,..'
Are~ of RecoMMended $etbQck .@1Murn ENVJR{)NMENTAL CONSI1/.T1NG./NC
/. '
I Photos COOKE EiS
Toe of Existing flU
Proper"ty Do."te[ss~ .JUNE: 2004 South of P~rt Lot 17, Figure No.
Created B ' ~R
I Pro No, 04-124 Concession 3, Town of Drill! 3
.... No'"'' ,
I
AEC Project No.
04-124
Environm*ntai
Site Location:
Cooke EIS, Concession 3, south part Lot 11, Orillia
Plloto 1110. Date:
1 June 21, 2004
Descriotion:
Historically cleared area at
the comer of Woodland
Drive and Moon Point
Drive at proposed lots 1-3,
looking north easterly.
I
I
I
Pl1oto 1110. Date:
I 2 June 21, 2004
I Descriotion:
Unnamed watercourse
I along the rear of the
proposed lots, looking
upstream (westerty).
I
I
I
I
I
AEC Project No. I
04-124
Environmenta!
Site Location:
Cooke EIS, Concession 3, south part Lot 11, Orillia
Photo No. Date:
3 June 21, 2004
Description:
Downstream reach of the
unnamed watercourse on
the east side of Moon
Point Drive where the
channel outlets to Lake
Simcoe.
I
,
i
I
I
Photo No. Date:
I 4- June 21, 2004
I Descriotioll:
Online pond located at
I immediately upstream of
the property on the west
side of Woodland Drive.
I
I
I
I
I
\ .
.
,1/
. -@IMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL
/ \. CONSULTING, INC.
Environmental Assessments & Approvals
January 12,2005 AEC 04-124
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
120 Bayview Parkway
Newmarket, Ontario
L3Y 4Xl
Attention: Craig Cooper, Environmental Planner
Re: Application for Zoning By-Law & Official Plan Amendment
Lot 7, Concession 3, Township of Oro-Medonte
LSRCA File No. P-159-04 & 2004-0P-04
Dear Mr. Cooper;
Azimuth has reviewed the comments provided by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority (LSRCA) to Mr. Lester Cooke, (dated November 22, 2004) in response to our
Environmental Impact Study report (dated August, 23, 2004). To assist in finalizing
LSRCA's review of Mr. Cooke's submission, the following infonnation is provided.
The development of Lots 2 and 3 will require clearing of vegetation in the southern
portion ofthe lot to the existing toe of fill on Lot I and the western portion of Lot 2. The
area of vegetation that will be removed is approximately 0.4 hectares.
The vegetation community in the O.4ha parcel is comprised of predominantly deciduous
tree species within a vegetative community designated as a Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple
Deciduous Forest Ecosite (FOD5), (Ecological Lands Classifications for Southern
Ontario (ELC), 1998). This community is characterized by sugar maple, silver maple,
ironwood, white birch, beech, and black cherry, located on upper or middle slopes with
suitable drainage features.
As requested by LSRCA, the species of vegetation documented to occur on the property
was evaluated in conjunction with the Distribution and Status of Vascular Plants of
Central Region (Riley, 1989). Mountain ash (Sorbus decora) was observed on the
229 Mapleview Drive East, Unit 1, Barrie, Ontario L4N OW5
telephone: (705) 721-8451: fax: (705) 721-8926 info@azimuthenvironmental.com
-_.._-~~--~. -----._._--, ..._-_._--~---_.
1 ' .
~ .
,,/
-0-
/ ' '
property and is a species categorized by Riley (1989) as a rare (R-5) native plant in
Simcoe County. Soper and Heimburger (1994, Shrubs of Ontario, Royal Ontario
Museum, Toronto, ON) indicate that Sorbus decora is common on the Bruce Peninsula
and Manitoulin Island and Lake Huron to the north shore of Lake Superior, but less
abundant south of the Canadian Shield and rare south of 450 N. The Natural Heritage
Information Centre (2004) however indicates that Sorbus decora is globally common, to
very common (GRANK G4, G5, rank dated September, 1984), and provincially is also
very common, and demonstrably secure in Ontario (SRANK, S5, rank dated March 31,
2000, Ontario General Status is SECURE). Soper and Heimburger (1994) indicate that
Sorbus decora is very similar in appearance to the non-native European mountain-ash
(Sorbus aucuparia) that has been widely planted in Ontario and occurs as a component of
natural plant communities having been dispersed as seed by birds. Therefore, the
possibility exists that the identified Sorbus decora is in fact its European relative.
Although the species has been noted as regionally rare, the R-5 designation indicates that
this species has been documented at 5 stations. In Riley's approach to assigning regional
rarity, documented presence at 5 or fewer sampling locations is often used as a cutoff
point. Therefore, Sorbus decora is at the highest end of the rare classification scale. An
additional occurrence in of this species in Riley's database for Simcoe County may have
lead to it being designated "not rare"_
There were no other species recorded to occur on the property that are designated using
the 'Riley' classification system.
We trust that the information provided wm be sufficient to address your request for
additional information. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact
me.
Yours truly,
AZ1MUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING INC.
/"
!
~ -. I '
~ ' ~
_____ '~,~ ,_ V\
Sara Murphy, B.Sc., ,
Aquatic Biologist
SMM:
c.c. Lester Cooke
2
jAN.23 2005 4:35PM LSRCA NO. 906 P i
ok 905 -895-1281 Sent by Facsimile 1-705-487-0133
1-800-465-0.137
'v' 905-853-5B81 January 28, 2005 File No.: P-159-04 & 2004-0P-04
-M3.il: iDfot'Wl~t~;1.0n..C0.
i"c:h: '\'I.m.~".ls.fc\t.on.('a. 1MS File NO.:PZ0C376C2 & POFC198
ZQ B<'tyt-iC\o\' P.a.t'ktI'2Y Ms. Andrea Leigh, Senior Planner
'ox 282 Township ofOro-Medonte
~C"vm3rker, Ontario P.O. Box 100
.3Y4X1
Oro, ON LOL 2XO
Dear Ms. Leigh:
Re; Application For Zoning By-Law & Official Plan Amendment
Lot 7, CODcessioD 3
Township of Oro-Medonte
(Lester Cooke)
Ltke Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) staffhave reviewed submission dated
January 12, 2005 prepared by Azimutll Environmental ConsuJting Inc., in regard to the above
noted file and advise we have no objection to the approval of this application. We provide the
following additional infonnation:
The EIS by Azimuth Environmental recommends that there be a 38 Metre buffer adj acent to the
watercourse. LSRCA staff recommend that the buffer area be zoned open space or environmental
protection to restlict further development witrun this area.
I trust this meets your requirements at this time. In order to facilitate oUI processing of this file,
please reference the above noted file numbers in future correspondence.
If you have any questions, please contact the \illdersigned at 905-895-1281, ext. 288.
Yours truly,
~~~~
A Craig Cooper
Environmental Planner
Watershed CC/ph
for Life c. Lester Cooke, Owner, By Mail
Sara Murphy, Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc., 1-705-721-8926 - Fax
s:\Cr:a.i8.0Zone~B)'1..\~\Oro M~dontc\O 1-1.t..:.OS..Cooke-..oRO-20N&O'? "'pc
SC PLANNING/fORESTRY 705 727 4276 01/11 '05 16;18 NO.614 Q1/UL
.
NOTICE OF P\JBLIC MEETING
'_:11, "r,7'~[)
FOR PROPOSm AMENDMENTS '" V IV/:: 1
TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY -LAW L ~:~; 2 3 2iJD1,
OF THE TOWNSHIP OFORO-MEDONTE c'f"'" 0'. r '
P-J59/0 -' .A-LOe
(',;j,-<::':;,; Ti.; ~';(, ~;/Jcr::; asp,;! tT!,1E!\iT
TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the CorporndQD of the Tovmsbip of Oro-MedQrltc wi1l hoW a Public Meeting on
Monday, J.anuaty. 17;2005 at 7:15 p.m. in (he Muoicip-al CQUndJ Chambers. The purpose oftbe public meeting is
to obtain public comments on proposed amendments to the Zoning By-law 3TJd Official Plan. under Section 34 of the
Ptanning Act, R.S.O. t990 c. P. 13.
'TIlE PROPOSED Offici<l1 Plan Amendment wouJd redesignate the Jands described as Concession 3. South Part of
Lot 1.7 (formerly within the Township of OriJJia). The subject J:mds are proposed to be redesignated from tbe
R~tricted Rural Dc~jgnation to a Shoreline Deslgnation. The purpore of the amendment would be to allow for the
creation of three new fe$ideotiallots,
_...... ...__,.'_. ... ._ _ '_n.. _ __._. .. __."
'TIlE PROPOSED Zoning By-law Amendment WQuld rezone the lands described as CQncession 3, South Pan of Lot
17 (formerly within tl1e Township Df Gri1lia). The subject lands are proposed to be rezoned from che
Agricultu.ra1lRural (A/RU) Zcnc [0 the Shoreline ResidentiaJ (SR) Zone.
A KEY MAP For File P-159J03 is provided below.
ANY PERSON may aUend the public meeting andJor make written or verbal representation either in support of or in
opposition to tbe proposed Amendments. If a person or publk body that files all appeal of a decision of the Towns.hip
of Oro-Mcdonle jn TC!ipect of the proposed Arocndmelltli does not make oral submisskm at the public meeting Or make
written s.ubmissions to the Township before the proposed Amendment~ ::Ire adopted. the Ontario Municipal Board may
dismiss all or part of the appeal.
If you wish to be notified oflhc decision of the Township of Oro-Med:on(e in respect to tbe proposed Offieia'l Plan &
Zoning By-law Amendments, you must make a written request to the address below.
CO\:,1t1! ('If S;JnI;O~ rl~~nln~ DiYi~io~
WRfITEN SUBMISSIONS should be dir:cctOO to; Mf1!;ni'.\r~HI)n C~l1tt~
111()HIQl1way26
M,rlh'lf~t. I);; 1.01. 1XO
Township ofOro-Moo(lote NO COMMENT
Tn;" .)fI!"1I!GJ1.;Dn IS subj~!,:1 to ~H ~ppnl'ied
J 48 Line 7 Sourh PfQ\l1nci~l. C"",\lj, ;1I1!1lor,~1 b'lun,,;ip,1.l
P.O. Box 100, Oro, Onwio LOL 2XO pi.wn,n(J ry~f;!I!M!lr~, IiniiCrt>.;,'d iJ/IJW:;"
D]t.~.:t:-...LL,l4r. N.1'11~_C
Attn; Marilyn Pcnnycook, Clerk ')""~I' ""I"" oJ c...."~.Ii''''" '~~"'"','I ;.,V,!1
'- . -, --- ..._-..-- ou___,," . " -.... -- _. .- - --
ADDmONAL INFORMATION relaJiog to the proposed Amendments. is available for inspection between 8:30
a.m, and 4:30 p.rn. at the Township of Oro-Medonre AGministrauon BuHdlng. For further information, contact the:
PlaQDjng Depat11nent" 705-487-2171.
DATED at the Township of Oro-MOOom. this 21" dayof1),,:cmber 2004.
~-L '*< .J
Andria Leigh, Senior Plann) -
I t
:\\ r.j '--
,. . ,.-
~
.~