Loading...
04 20 1999 PAC Agenda TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 1999 Call to order by Chairman. 2. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof - in Accordance with the Act. 3. Adoption of the Minutes of March 16, 1999. 4. Correspondence and Communication (a) Letter dated Apri16, 1999 from MillsPlan Consulting Services Re: • Hanninen/Dodson Preliminary Proposal (b) Letter dated March 21, 1999 from Mending Fences (Orillia Neighbourhood Mediation) 5. Deputations (a) Bayquest Group -Proposed Plan of Subdivision P-79/98 Concession 1, Part of Lot 1 and 2, and Concession 2, Part of Lot 2 (Oro) Proposed Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment (b) George Smith -Sustainable Rural Community Research -focus group session on the rural planning process and the effectiveness of the Official Plan process in facilitating rural community sustainability 6. Other Business Adjournment -26-99; 9: 56aM:JGNES GCNSULTIN6 GRG-MEDuNTE Tit P. ;7057347656 w i/ April 20, 1999 VIA FACSIMILE B~JONES C O N S D L T[ N G G 1 0 C P L i 0 ervm~as & ENCnvL~xs • • Ms. Andria Leigh Planner Township of Oro•Medonte Box , OD Oro. Ontario LOL 2X0 Dear Ms. Leigh, Re: RequesYfor a Special Planning Advisory Committee Meeting Bayquest Group (Woodlands Property} 2981 Ridge Road Thank-you for providing me with a copy of Azimuth Environmental's `peer' review comments on the Hydrogeoloaical & Slope Stability Assessment. and the Environmental Irnoact Studv & Management Plan prepared for the Bayquest property located at 2981 Ridge Road. I am writing to provide you and members of the Planning Advisory Committee with a general brief summary of a meeting held yesterday morning at Azimuth Environmental's office. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the Azimuth's concerns as stated in their April 13, 19991etter to your attention. Attendance at the meeting included: Paul Neals and David Ketcheson of Azimuth, Geza Gaspardy of LGL Environmental, Kirk Johnson of Tercaprobe, and Ray Duhamel of The Jones Consulting Group. The meeting was very productive with the end result being chat both the Tercaprobe and Environmental reports will be revised to provide additional information, which will tse submitted as an addendum to the respective relwrts. All parties in attendance at the meeting agreed on the general methodology undertaken during the preparation of the reports; however, Azimuth was simply looking for additional information on a number of areas, in order to consider the reports content and recommendations complete. Examples of which include expanding on general stormwater management techniques, the current state of the slope and recommended tree preservation measures. The addendum's to the original reports will be forwarded to you and Azimuth Environmental on Friday April 20, 1999. Given that all outstanding issues should be deatE with prior to the end of April, and that the next Planning Advisory Committee meeting is not scheduled until May 18, 1999, we respectfully request that Committee give consideration to holding a special meeting before that date. We appreciate you on-going assistance with this project, and should you have any comments or questions, or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ray Duhamel, M.C.P. Planner c. Bayquest Group Azimuth Environmental 5{ Ccd~ PdwcAn-, Uwc 14P3,Sati4Ont LiN 4t7 ones@joauconsuhingcom Tclcphona (705) 7342538 Facsimilc (705) 7341056 04/06/99 15:23 S 1 T85 734 3585 MILLSPLRN P.02 Hi1lsPlsn Consulting Services Box 207. 22 Cburch Street S., ALLISTON. tlntsrio. L9R 1V5 (905) 435-6269 Fag: 935-1037 April b, 1999 Township of Oro-Medonte P. O. Bog 100 Crop Station, Ontario LOL 2X0 Attention: Andrea Leigh Dear Andrea: Subject: H,.n~plinen/DodsQA .P**~~ 1>.innr4 P~ooos~l . I confirm our recant telephone conversation wherein sue agreed t.O wait until the May meeting of Planning Committee Defore we revisit the above noted proposal. We have asked our agrologist to carry out her investigations in the field and prepare her report, so that we will ali have a better basis upon which to proceed to the negt steps in our respective roles concerning this matter. As you can apgreciate, there is considerable work involved, and it will take soma time to complete - thus the reason Lor the delay. I also agree with you that 1t would be beneficial to submit the report in advance of your meeting to give you an opportunit to have the information reviewed by a qualified professional, fore the May meeting of Planning Committee I confirm that the lot upon which we have proposed the subject golf course development is indeed a separate parcel. Z trust that this is apgropriata, and remain. Yours very truly ~~ i!~~ Ron M111s, Mi1lsPlan c.c. D. Hanninen/B. Dodeon 1Vlending Fences Orillik Neighbourhood Mediation March 11, 1999 Mr. Peter Wigham, Chair Planning Advisory Committee Township of Oro-Medonte Box I00 ORO, ON LOL 2X0 Dear Mr. Wigham: ~ ,i>.. ~~ ,. ,- c/o P. O. Box 275 Orillia, ON L3V 6J6 In the course of the work of the Planning Advisory Committee, you likely encounter disputes between parties that are either unresolved or that escalate to the point of being brought before the courts. No doubt you would agree [hat both these alternatives cause conflict and disharmony • in our community. There is another answer. Mending Fences is a new, local, non-profit organization that is dedicated to enhancing the Orillia community by helping people resolve their disputes through mediation. This community-based method of resolving disputes will provide impartial, trained, volunteer mediators to give support and guidance to two or more parties to provide them with an opportunity to resolve their conflict. We would like the opportunity to meet with you to respond to any of your questions and to discuss how we can work together to build peaceful relationships in our Orillia community. Attached is an outline of our services. Someone from our organization will call you soon to propose a meeting. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 326-6444, extension 13, should you have any questions. Yours ver~ truly, i//, ~" ~~ ~ /~ R~chael Howes • Encs. ~fi~.~ - eM_ ~ v F`r:;' St~t' x ~q ra r -.:~ arts .r sax- a_ ~~ {.:. :. ~. ...t:fi 4 a '~ ;.-~,~„ V _ _ ._ _ "To enhance the Orillia community by helping people resolve their disputes through mediation' What is Mending Fences ., i7 ~ P ~ • ~ ~ t~ 4 ~ ~ ~,~;>> r ~~.A non-profit organization~rvn by a community Board of '~~":~~ ~. `` Directors that provides mediation services to Orillia and area -~: by trained mediators. `' %' What'is mediation? ~`« ° > ` Mediation is a process by which. an impartial third party helps .~ Y ' iwo or more people wh~o}}rk out how to reAsolvet~~~ a ciio}~~n~ggflict "`'~`' ; E ,dr ~ ' i 3. ~i . ~ ~. Y. _'.: ~ .. ' :.,.~.t"~f:+~`''+L~fa rl `Y ~ l :".v. Y Y ..-i:h ~4rFYh`_v'~rvy ~}~ A'~[~F ~,~ ~ ~~'> ;conflict affects relaUOnships ~~,;,~ {= ~ s`--~ ~ "- '`=" ~''~ i 'conflict can cost money, waste time and increase tensions ~ ~~ Benefits to individuals: > encourages parties to focus on the problem and not each other > gives both parties an opportunity to tell their version of events fully and hear what the other party has to say > reaches agreements that are appropriate to the particular situation _ > ,, provides a confidential process _. Y.; > gets to the root of the problem t; Benefits to the community: > reflects healthy social and community values > educates and empowers the overall community Mending Fences - Orillia Neighbourhood Mediation offers: user accessibility • time efficiency • affordability • privacy A project sponsored by Simcce Legal Services Clinic, P. O. Boz 275, Orillia, ON l3V 6J6 705-3266444 y £: ~ hi ~~~a phi ~~~~ ~.>_. ~.. ,. Funded in part by: ,~, human Resources Deverovvement tles Oevegpment Canaca resources numames Canatla 04/14/99 09:50 $7057218926 AZI3fUTR ENV 1-.-+ ORO lSEDONTE TWP f~j 001 i ,~~ ~~ZJMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. To: ~~i ~~ ~ ~`% Fax #: y~ 7~ G~~ 3 ~ Date: !'~ 1%~_ AZ Reference: q ~~D 2 7 Re: Originals will be: t'Yl / i ~ Z° Number of pages (r including cover sheet: _~_ Sent by: ~~~~ly 122 Saunders Rd., Unit 7 Barrie Ontario L4M 6E7 telephone: (705} 721-8451; fax: (705} 721-8926 azimuth@barint.on.ca 04/14/99 09:51 $7057218926 AZIMU'T'H ENv ~~AZ/MUTH ENVIRONMENTAL ' CONSULTING, INC. Envimnmentai Assessments 8. Approvals Aprii 13, 1999 -.-.-. ORO MEDONTE T1YP 98-071 Township of Oro-Medonte Box100 Oro; Ontaio LOL 2X0 Attention: Andria Leigh, Township Planner Re: Peer Review for Bayqnest Group, Development Application P-79/98, Concession 2, Part o[ Lots 1 and 2 {Oro) Deaz Ms. Leigh: As pec.your request we have reviewed the Environmental Impact Study and Management Plan prepared by . LGL Limited and the HydrogeoIogic Study and Slope Stability Assessment prepared by Terraprobe Limited. Our peer review of the two reports is focused on ensuring all relevant enviranmental features have been addressed in the two studies and rationale for then decision-making and recommendations is documented and supports their conclusions. We used the EIS newsletter prepazed for the Planning and Development Committee as the guideline for zeport content Environmental Impact Study and Management Plan The review of the LGL report, Environmental Impact Study and Management Plan For 2981 Ridge Road, Township of Oro-Medonte {Much 1999), resulted in the identification of the following issues thatwe recommend the Township obtain further clarification prior to proceeding with your decision on the development application. 1. The zcport does not address the adjacent land uses, e~sting or proposed, and the implication that development of the subject lands may have on the adjacent lands. Figttre 2 identifies residential and rural residential labels east and north of the subject property. However, there is no discussion in the report if the adjacent lands azc proposed for development and what implication this may have on the environmental features on the subject property {e.g., linkages along the shoreline) 2. Figure 2 shows Block 14 and 1S but there is no indication what is the planned land use for these azcas. Development of the entire wocdlot would significantly affect the use of the property as summer habitat for white-tailed deer and wildlife movement west-east along the shoreline. 3. Page 4, paragraph 2 states "Since the Oro-Medonte Official Plan environmental mapping indicated an old growth forest component, we need to ask questions such as: Do wildlife travel from adjacent woodlou into a lazger wrc old growth fozest?" The repots contains no fiuther discussion on this-issue t~tooz 122 SaOnders Raad, Unit 7, Barrie, Ontario t_4M 6E7 telephone: {7051721-8451: fax {7051721:-8926: azimuthCa~barint.on.ca 04/14/99 09:51 `8`7057218926 AZI3IUTR ENV -~~+ ORO ~DONTE TWP Q 003 or how the property functions in providing Sinkage along the generally foresud shoreline corridor. 4. The discussion on wildlife impacts is limited to Section 7.3 Incidental Wtldlife Observations. There is no discussion an the existing quality of wildlife: habitat and the impact of the proposed development We recognize theFebruary field survey limits the ability to observe many species (e.g., birds), however, a discussion of potential species composition based on the habitat type would be appropriate. to determine the potential of impact on wildlife on and off-situ. For example, the report has no assessment of the potential for forest interior bird species and the impact of fragmentadon. It would also assist in the development of a Homeowners Manual if observed or potential species ware included. 5. The Oro-Medonte Natatal Heritage Background Report (Ecoplans 1495) identified the property as significant vegetation with old growth area. On page 12, paragraph 4, it states the old growth community and candidate specimens are limited to vegetation Community 3 and it is present only in patches. It further states "extensive forest clearing in those portions of the pmperiy could effectively reduce or eliminate entirely the mart significant remnant community: ' The configuration of Community 3 on Figure 2 indicates that development of lotr 7, 8, 9 or 10 with a 2500mr building envelope could potentially eliminate the significant portons of old growth azeas. For example, if the reconnnended 2,SOOmr banding envelope is applied on lots 7-IO where the old growth forest is located, it represents approximately 40% of the total lot area. If you subtract the areas within the proposed gcotechnieal setback from the total lot area available for the building. envelope, the 2,SOOmr or 0.6 acres becomes a significantly lazger portion of the lot. Hence the ability to avoid the old growth forest is further induced. • LGL also indicates the old growth specimen trees represent a potential safety hazazd to residential use, another reason they may require removal Therefora, based on this infomaation it would appeaz the development could result in a significant reduction or toss of the old growth comrntmity on the property. 6. Section 6.2 seems to indicate the woodlot may not be significant because it is less than 240 hectazes, but there is no deaz statement as to its significance. Exports' opinions vary on the issue of woodlot size and significance. The Oro-Medonte Official Plan Natural Heritage Background Report (Ecoplans 1995) states within the KukfieldlSimcoe Loamy Plain Landscape Unit, located north of Ridge Road and adjacentto the subject property, Ecoplans applied an area criteria of 40 hectazes and a minimum width of 200m to define a significant woodland. The LGL report states is Section 6.2 "the contiguous forest block of which the subject property occupies the south central portion is less than 50 ha". Figure 2 shows the property greater than 200m wide. Therefore, if you apply the Ecoplans criteria, it would be appropriau to assess the funetiou of the subject property with the surtoundmg lands to comment on its potential to be defined as a significant woodland. The report did not cleaziy document an assessment of the significance of the. woodlotbased on itr ecological functions and features and its relationship with the adjacent woodlands, bnt seemed to apply only the azea criurion. 7. The report's refei once to the assessment of raze species is only in the executive stzmmary. The body of the report did not provide as indication of the literature source used to confimr this fact or if LGL assessed the potential for the site conditions to provide suitable habitat for rare species during the February field visit. 8. There is no indication there was any contact with the local Ministry of Natural Resources regazding the starus of the creek and the potential for cold water habitat Considering the site geology, the potential exisu for cold water habitat It is widely recognized that, generally, ground water levels are a: very low elevations due to the tack of precipitation over the last few years, and seazonal levels aze low in February and Mazch. The report recommends a fisheries biologist participate in the design of the crossing to BIocks 13 and 15. It would be appropriate consider the abtlity to implement a buffer greater than 15m if it is determined that that watercourse is cold water habitat dining the construction of the crossing. The temperature regime of the neck should also be re-visited during warmer weather. 2 04/14/99 09:52 $?05'7218926 AZI?dtITH EW +~~ ORO ~DO'VTE TV9P =~/ •~ 9. The impact assessment on the "Loss or degradation of fish habitat" (page I3) states significant impacts could arise if insensitive roadway aouring designs, but provides no indication what the riparian conditions aze at the road crossing, their sensitivity, or if alternative crossing locations far the road ware considered. Providing more specific information on the habitat conditions at the road crossing would assist Township staff in determining the appropriate actions for the site plan approval stage. 10. The report provides generic recommendations for mitigation and makes no indication that the client "will" implement any of the proposed measures. A commitment from the proponent to' implement any LGL recommendations would provide Township staff wilt a mechanism far tractdng the implementation of mitigation measures or the submission of additional studies daring site plan approval (e.g., old growth community, shoreline stabrlizadon, creek crossing). LGL recognizes this need through then recommendation for retaining a fish habitat biologist during design of the creek crossing shltctures. 11. The recommendation is made for restrictive covenants on title (pg. 16, Para 2j. This is a concept that has been put forward in other compazable situations to promote conservation. The problem with Zestrictive covenants, for example on tree removal, is they aze difficult to police. Recent discussions with the Ministry of Natural Resources staff determined they do nor support the concept as a method of assuring environmental protection because of the inability to ensure compliance. We agree with LGL's desire to preserve the ecological features, however, we question the long term practicality of restrictive covenants. 12. The report indicates there is existing slope instability concern (pg. 13, paza 4) along the waterfront However, Section 7.0, Aquatic Flabitat liar no discussion on the shoreline conditions and if any impact an the shoreline habitat is occurring fromerosion of the on site slopes.. ' 13. Short term mitigation recommendations (pg.14} far reduction of Old Growth Forest & Specimens states "maintain minimum drip line phrs 15m undisturbed buffer azound all specimens to be retained.- Figure 2 shows dte majority of Hte lot widths ih Vegetative Community 3 aze 30 - 32m at the north end and 46m at the shoreline. We do not understand how a 15m buffer can be accommodated within these lot sizes. 14. LGL indicates there could be potential impacts from storm dischazge into the creek (pg.18, para 4). The report does not indicate how storm water runoff from the road or lots will be managed. Hydrogeological Study and Slop Stability Assessment The review of the Terraprobe Limited (T'erraprobe) report, Hydrogeological Study and Slope Stability Assessment Proposed Residential Subdivision, 298I Ridge Road, dated March8, 1999 resulted in the identification of the foIlowing issues. We recommend the Township obtain further clarification prior to proceedmg with your decision on the development application. 1. There is no indication whether Terraprobe has considered the ramifications of the long-term climatic conditions at this site. It must be recognized that Ontario is currently experiencing an extremely dry climatic period that has dramatically affected ground water conditions, especially, near-surface resources. Such conditions should be considered in the site development 2. A "bowl-lrlce" feature was referred to in Section 5.1.5 of the report flat is focusing the ground water flow. However, a crass section east-west through the site from the Geospec TP#1 m TY#17 suggests that there is a uniform tr11 contact across the site at about 230 m ASL, thus the "bowl" feature was not readily observed. Seconaly, the report did not explain the importance or impacts; if any, with the inclusion or exclusion of this "bowl-like" feature. 3. Terraprobe suggests that the ground water is perched above the silt till unit and therefore wet soil conditions are typfcaIly seen just above this feature. -Test pit ~7 encounters the till yet there is no detection of ground water, C~j 004 3 04/14/99 09:53 '$7057218926 AZIMUTH EW +++ ORO MEDOIVTE TWP X005 ~ ' / ~~ ~ • ~ \ which would be expected. Thus, are there some other factors influencing the shallow ground water flaw that have not been identified that could account for this discrepancy in the interpretation. 4. Figure I 1 in the Tesaprobe report references a anss section (Figure 12) away from the subject site. It is noted that the ground water elevations closer to the site are 20m lower than that noted oa the cross section shown. Is thew a reason for this occuuence or does it suggest a changeiia the atratigraphy and hence regional hydrogeotogy? 5. Terraprobe indicates that the underlying aquifers} appeaz to be adequate to service the proposed development There is concern that the ttaaow lots in zhc subdivision will result in overlapping drawdown cones when individual wells are developed for the site. An assessment of rho potential well inference that can be expected should be evaluated. It would be ideal to illustrate the anticipated radius of influence for each lot on the coaceptuaI plan. Similarly, Teaaprabe has ao concrete proof that the aquifer being considered ran sustain the requirements of 14 dwellings in close proximity to each other. Such an assessment is required to determine the tong-term sustainability of the resource. 6. Well setbacks from septic beds aze to ensure that as cross contamination occurs. Ideally wells aze situated upgradient of the septic bed to avoid this possibility. Terraprobe suggest that the wells wi12 draw water from a deeper, con5ned aquifer. However, well drtlling techniques can allow for vertical seepage within the borehole annulus, even if sealed properly. P.s well, the confining twit is assumed to be discontinuous from the information presented, therefore, wmplete protection is not assured. It would be judicious to place the private wells upgradient of the septic beds to minimize any future problems. 7. Tetraprobe has not provided any !ot specific evaluation of the required septic bed siu for the development It is • uncleaz whether there is sufficient room on oath lot to accommodate a primary and reserved septic bed azea, the ildi b f i d ng u ootpr nt, an water well with the necessary setbacks. It is felt that the proposed lots sizing should have accounted for these needs, if it has not bcea considered,! and ideally the required areas cleazly presrnted on the conceptual plan. The tree proservadon program must be considered when siting the septic bed locarion(s) since root growth can affect septic bed performance. It should be noted that the dle pipe orientation should be perpendicular to the d'treciiaa of flow. 8. Normally, the septic bed is located down gradient of the building footprint to prevent the collection of sewage efflurnt in the basement file drain. Sewage odours in the basement of stmcnue have been documented in other developments, should the septic system not function properly, thus this situation should be avoided if possible. 9. The Reasonable Use Policy (RUP) calculation for the nitrous loading is incorrect (section 6.2.4}. The total volume of fresh water should be 24,500 m' not 29,500 L (i.e. 11.8 ha times 250 ruin). The calculations should be coaected and the conchtsioaa re-visited. ' 10. The RUP evaluation completed in the report is for the entire development However, the RUP is lot-specifically defined, therefore, the evaluation should be made for the. worst lot condition, (i.e., smallest lot), to ensirre all lots will comply with stated objective. 11. The average daily sewage dischazge of 1,004 Lday is not consistent with the Ontario Building Code's (OBC) total daily design sanitary sewage flow (Table 8.2.1.3.A, OBG~. It is anticipated that the dwellings for this development will be ai least 4-bedroom estate dwellings. The dwelling size should be stipulated and an appropriate sewage IIow calculated, based on the proposed dwelling size. The calculations in the report should be corrected and the conclusions re-visited. Similar comments apply to the phosphorous loading calculations. 12. Tesaprobe references a phosphorous adsorption test on sandy soils "similar to those encountered ... on the site". This reference documentation should be appended so that it can be properly evaluated and compazed to the site soil conditions. 4 04/14/99 09:54 '8`7057218926 3ZI)fUTH EW -.~-+ ORO '_HEDONTE TVPP h 1 ~ •/~ Logisfical Considerations The following comments based on the review of the Tenaprobe report aze offered with respect m the site logistics. 1. Abridge spanning the water course may be more logistically challenging then introducing a separate road access to the properties on the east side of the tnbtttary: SimiLtrly, the Township's infrastructure cost for upkeep should be evaluaud for both scenazios. ~. The use of infiltration galleries along the roads is environmentally sound, but may pose maintenance costs not initially considered by the Township. The galleries will have to be routinely maintained to function properly. The exact system to be used has not been idenrified, thus issues with winter freezing and spring freshet mnoff cammot be evacuated, btu should be considered at some point in the development process. Have the ramification of the failure ofthis passive systcm been considered to the development, specifically the potential to scour the streambed from ditchdischazges? 3. Reference is made to the possrbrlity of diverting dwelling drainage to the subsurface (ie., roof leaders) to improve environmental conditions. These statement lack commitment on the part of the developer to follow through with such rewmmendations. Therefore, a commitment should be explicitly made to include these issues in the development plan or they should be removed from the report since they suggest activities that will not be undertaken and therefore are not to be considered Stormwater Management (Quality and Quantity) No Stormwater management phm was presented. It is felt the hydrogeologic aspects of the development should have • been presented to enstue that the development concept is appropriate. Beyond general comments about the use of infiltration galleries in roadside ditching, no calculations were presented on the infrasmrciure requirements for adequate Stormwater control and management Erosion Control It must be recognized that comments related to erosion control aze of an environmental nature as opposed to a geotechnical context The Teuaprobe report identifies some important slope stability issues related to the sire development The following comments are offered. 1. It is noted that the Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority (I.SCA) has implemented a Level 1 Stormwater management and erosion control policy for all developments dischazging to Lake. Simcoe. It would seem pendent, at the very least, to consider similar requnements for the Township so that there inconsistency in matters relating to the development of Lake Simcoe lands. Mow do the MNRpolicy guidelines compare with ffiose of the LSCA? 2. T'he long-term requirements and best management practices far the stability of the slope should be discussed since it is incumbent on the developer or the owner to establish these standazds to prevent continued erosion. Terraprobe has indicated that portions of the doge are currently unstable and, therefore require mitigation It would seem reasonable to suggest that the developer should develop and implement an appropriate long-term slope stability management plan to ensure that the proposed strategies have effectively mitigated all concerns, poor to development. The development plan should be based on the success of this plan. 3. Terraprobe notes in Section 6.1.1 that the slope stability would be reduced during wet periods. Given that the climatic conditions have been abnormally dry for the past three yeazs and a dry winter has ocetsred, it seems reasonable to assess the ramifications of the slope stability for a more conservative situation as opposed to the • current site situation. Thus, what is the estimated high ground water level, or worst case, for this site setting. 4. There was no mention of the specific constmction safeguazds that would be required for the site development ~joos 5 C4/14/99 09:x5 $7057213':i2E 9Z I3II7TH E,`IF' -+-~-. ORO NEDONTE TWP 1007 A \~/ /~ It would seem reasonable to stipulate these requirements, is detail, from both a geotechnical and environmental perspective so that there is no misunderstanding on the level of protection that needs to be afforded for the site development 5. The vegetation removal that w~71 occts with the site development will exacerbate the erosion potential at this ; site. Flowever, no evah~ation of the ramifications of this lies been provided It is not unreasonable to suggest that homeowners will want access the shoreline and affect changes such as nuisance vegetation removal that could have geotechaical ramification, thus this should be considcral at the outset of the site development. Conclusions We reco~nend the Township seek clarification on the aforementiancd issues prior to determining the acceptability of the application: In our opinion, the Township should consider obtaining commitments from the applicant on the mitigation recommendations to help establish the environmental studies or mitigation measures that need to be implemented for site plan approval This will provide all participants with a clear understanding of the environmental work required for the next stage of agprovaL To fully assess the impact of these changs, we recommend the issues identified in this ieview be addressed by the proponent and their wnsultaats as as addendum to the EIS prior toTownship staff providing their recommendation to Council • Yours truly, AZRSIJTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. `~;%; Paul Neals, B.ScAgr. PCN: 03/„18/99 18:53 F.~S 718 Si$9 SMITH AND ASSOC f~101 FAX COVER SHEET 8mrpc r. smith ma o.e.l.a fu 1-519-7485749 piwee t -515-?48-1169 email ~th(6?goldeanet web site: wav=.smirhassociates.oo.ca Date: ~larc6 18,1499 :1tt: Andria Leigh, BA MC1P FAX: 705-487-0133 Re.: Foots Group sessions Hello Andria: Thank you for your quick and positive response and your interest in and support of my research program. Please note the following as a basis for proceeding . Your suggestion regarding the involvement of the Planning Advisory Group is excellent for the first Focus Group sessio4 and April 20'" is a good date for the first focus group session to take place. Evenings are fine for me. Actually, I atn aiming for 10 to 12 individuals per session 'These would probably be drawn from public stakeholders, facilitators of decision making such az yourself, derision makers (politicians), and representatives of special interest groups (business, educator, social organizations, and so on). if we included yourself and the Advisory Committee, az weil az a mix of 3-6 others this would work out fine. :Vote that the second focus group in May is intended io be composed of an entirely new group of participanu who will review and comment on the results of the first session. Again, we would need 10-12 • individuals from the various categories as available. I will provide an introduttory letter for the groups, explaining the intent and the process. This will be forwarded to you for distribution prior to the focus group session. Each session will take between one hour and a half and two hours (say, an hour and a half). At the session I would appreciate the use of a flip chart to make notes on. At the start of the focus group session 1 wii) outline approximately 5-6 key questions for the group to `focus' on and discuss in sequence, with the responses being recorded. At the wnctusion of the session participarns will be requested to complete a 1 to 2 page survey of relevant questions. On completion of the focus group sessions in June. resuhs will be compiled and made available to participating municipalities, Regarding information for research purposes, I would very much appreciate if you can provide me with copies of any documents related to the municipal Official Plan. Because of the distance and cost i would have difficulty in making a separate trip to pick these documents up, bin if a reasonable number of these (or copies) can be sem to me 1 can make copies and return documents where necessary when I come up for the fun session. I wilt also spend time the day of the session doing research at your office if this is acceptable. Thank you again for your agreement to participate. I look forward to hearing further from you (R'egards ` f V •~~'l~ Geore..e R Smith Box 100 Oro. Ontario lOL ZXO Telephone 1705)487-2171 Fax (7051487-0133 G.R. Smith, M.A.,OALA Fax # 1-519-748-57491 March 18, 1999 RE• Sustainable Rural Community Research University of Guelph Sustainable Rural Community Studies Ph.D. Program • • Deaz Mr. Smith: Further to your facsimile dated Mazch 17, 1999 the Township of Oro-Medonte would be willing to participate in your reseazch program. The Council for the Township ofOro-Medonte adopted our new Official Plan in February 1997. This was then forwazded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for their review and approval. On August 15, 1997 the Ministry subject to a number of modifications adopted the Official Plan. Portions of the Official Plan were appealed to the Ontario Municipal Boazd and most of these appeals have been addressed. There are still site specific designation of certain properties within the Official Plan which aze not in force and effect but the policies aze now in force and effect. The Municipality included an extensive public process as part of the Official Plan review which included several newsletters to the public at various stages of the process. In your letter you discuss stakeholder focus group sessions in April and May. The Township has a Planning Advisory Committee, which is made up of five members of the public, and three Council members. I am not sure whether or not this would fit within your intent of the focus group however I raise this as a possibility as the public is well represented on this Committee. The Planning Advisory Committee has scheduled meetings for April 20 and May 18 at 7:00 p.m. which would fit within the time frames in your letter. Any documentation which you require (i.e. Official Plan) for reseazch review purposes would certainly be made available to you. I would appreciate you advising me as soon as possible of any assistance I can provide regarding the stakeholder focus group sessions. Please contact the undersigned when you require further information or input. Yours Truly, Andria Leigh, Hons B.A., AMCT, MCIP, RPP Planner 03/17/99 19:39 F.~1% 798 5799 SMITH :IND 3SSOC FAX COMER SHEET G R Srrtitk MA GALA george r. smim m.a. o.a.l.a. fez r-514-74a-57x9 phone 1-519-748-1159 email grsmith@fgolden.nerwebsite: wwwsmithassodates.on.n March 17. 1999 FAX: 1-705-487-0133 Paees: 2 pages in total Att: Andtia I.cigh, Planner, Township of Oro-Medonte Re.: Stutaina6le Rural Community Research Univcrsity of Guelph, Sustainable Rural Community Studies Ph.D, Program Hello Andria: T am a Ph.D. Candidate in the Sustainable Rural Community Studies Ph.D. Program at the Uttivctsity of Guelph. I am currently in the midst of completing my thesis reseazch data collection. My research focus is on the rural municipal planning grocers and the effectiveness of the Ufficisi Platuting Process in facilitating rural eommtmity sustainability (see attached abstract). • I am seeking the cooperation 5 rural municipalities who would be willing to assist me in undertaking a series of 2 `stakeholder focus gaup' sessions in April (between April 12ih and Apri130m) and May (between May l0a' and May 28~'). T havc selected to approach your municipality based on predetermined criteria Please answer the following: a.) Is your municipality interested in participating in this research program? b.) Tf so, what is the sterns of yotu Official Plan? (currently tutder review, in place, will be reviewed in 1999... ) c.) If you are willing to participate, would you make available OP and related documents for research review purposes? T appreciate your time and consideration ofthis matter. Regards. b,~ George R. Snuth M.4 OALA [~ 01 Q3l17/99 19: J4 F.9% 738 5799 S3IITH &'~'D ASSOC FARMS: An Applied Qualitatiwe Method for Evaluating Rural Community Sustainability The following discussion addresses a Ph.D. research program related to rural community sustainability. The specific focus is on developing and testing a process for construction of publidy derived rural community sustainable indicators (52). The methodology to be applied involves refining the effectiveness of public participation within the rural municipal Offidal Planning process (OP) as a way of faalitating rural community sustainable development. Research Hypothesis: The research hypothesis is that the OP is a vehicle for facilitation of rural community sustainability. The OP is the primary publidy evolved planning document that addresses the public perspective of sustainable community. By process of proposing, testing and refining art analysis framework for evaluation of the OF planning process's responsiveness to issues of community sustainability, a mechanism (FARMS) can be made available for rural communities to evaluate the effectiveness of the OP in achieving community SD. Through evaJuat/on, the process can be managed (monitored and refined) to enab/e effective, publcJy-based facilitation of community sustainability. Research Process: Stage #1. Literature review to: . ~ Establish a conceptualltheoretical baseline for data collection, analysis, conceptual model development and analysis of the research results. Stage #2.: Based on the lits<rature review: conceptualization and substantiation of the FARMS model, 'r development and pre-testing of the focus group format, > substantiating the criteria for selection of 5 ru21 municipal case study sites Stage #3.: Data collection to indude: Seledion of the case study Sites based on the criteria substantiated in Stage #2, Specifically, select research sub)ects drawn from lists of public representatives and stakeholder groups within each community, In each municipality, conduct an initial half day focus group session with `Group A' for purposes of obtaining public perceptions on issues of community sustainability, the Official Plan process, and selection of community sustainability indicators, Analyze the results and draw preliminary conclusions on the effectiveness of the OP process in fadlitating public participation and rural community sustainability. > Conduct a second half day focus group session with `Group B' to obtain public input on the results of `Group A' focus group sessions, and specifically, the results of my analysis of the public perspective on public participation in the OP process, and issues of community sustainability. Stage #5.: Conclusions of Research Analyze the results of the second set of foNS groups Draw research conclusions based on the analysis of the second round, artd the overall process analysis, Based on conclusions, formulate recommendations for further areas of related research needs. Prepare a write up of results for thesis defense ~ 02 TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 16, 1999 PRESENT: Sue Grant, Garry Fell, Peter Wigham, Paul Marshall, Councillor Ruth Fountain, Mayor Ian Beard, Deputy Mayor Don BeII ABSENT: Jeff Proctor STAFF PRESENT: Andria Leigh 1. Chairman Peter Wigham called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. "DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF - IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT." None declared. • 3. Minutes Moved by Ruth Fountain, seconded by Susan Grant That the minutes of the meeting of the Township of Oro-Medonte Planning Advisory Committee held on February 16, 1999 be adopted as circulated. Carried. 4. Correspondence and Communication None Received. 5. Deputations Hanninen/Dodson P_83/99 Concession 2, Part of Lots 8,9, 10, and D (Oro) Present: Don Hanninen and Bruce Dodson, Applicants, Ron Mills, Planner, Bev Agar, Agrologist Andria Leigh explained that this was apre-consultation application to • amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit an 18-hole golf course and related accessory structures. The applicants and their • 7. Adjournment Moved by Gary Fell, seconded by Paul Marshall That this meeting now adjourn at 8:50 p.m. Carried. Peter Wigham, Chairman Andria Leigh, Planner