Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05 04 1999 PAC Agenda
TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1999 1. 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 Apri120, 1999. 4. Correspondence and Communication None • 5. Deputations 7:00 p.m. Bayquest Group -Proposed Plan of Subdivision P-79/98 Concession 1, Part of Lots 1 and 2, Concession 2, Part of Lot 2(Oro) (Please bring previously submitted material - copy of addendum reports attached for review) 7:45 p.m. Scandrett -Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment P-87199 Concession 2, Part of Lot 33 (Oro) 8:00 p.m. 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. (Please bring material circulated at the Apri120 meeting) 6. Other Business • 7. Adjournment • TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 20, 1999 PRESENT: Sue Grant, Garry Fell, Peter Wigham, Paul Marshall, Councillor Ruth Fountain, Mayor Ian Beard, Deputy Mayor Don Bell 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 Paul Marshall That the minutes of the meeting of the Township of Oro-Medonte Planning Advisory Committee held on March 16, 1999 be adopted as circulated. Carried. 4. Correspondence and Communication Moved by Gary Fell, seconded by Susan Grant That the following correspondence be received and filed: {a) Letter dated April 6, 1999 from MiIlsPlan Consulting Services Re: Hanninen/Dodson Preliminary Proposal (b) Letter dated March 21, 1999 from Mending Fences (Orillia Neighbourhood Mediation) (c) Letter dated April 20, 1999 from the Jones Consulting Group Re: Bayquest Group Special Planning Advisory Committee Meeting in May" • ... Carried. 5. Deputations 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) Andria Leigh updated the status of this application and explained to the Committee that a meeting had occurred between the parties to discuss the Peer Review of the Environmental Report and an addendum to the original report would be forthcoming to the Committee. 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. Delegation was deferred to a future meeting; however the survey received by the applicant was provided to the members for their response. 6. Other Business • Due to the number of delegations required in May two meetings dates needed to be set as follows: Tuesday May 4 at 7:00 p.m. for Bayquest Group and George Smith Monday May 17 at 7:00 p.m. for Hanninen/Dodson and Hillway Equipment 7. Adjournment Moved by Don BeII, seconded by Susan Grant That this meeting now adjourn at 8:05 p.m. Carried. r • P ter Wigham, Chai an Andria Leigh, Planned TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 20, 1999 PRESENT: Sue Grant, Garry Fell, Peter Wigham, Paul Marshall, Councillor Ruth Fountain, Mayor Ian Beard, Deputy Mayor Don Bell 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 Paul Marshall That the minutes of the meeting of the Township of Oro-Medonte Planning Advisory Committee held on March 16, 1999 be adopted as circulated. Carried. 4. Correspondence and Communication Moved by Gary Fell, seconded by Susan Grant That the following correspondence be received and filed: (a) Letter dated April 6, 1999 from Mi1lsPlan Consulting Services Re: Hanninen/Dodson Preliminary Proposal (b) Letter dated March 21, 1999 from Mending Fences (Orillia Neighbourhood Mediation) (c) Letter dated April 20, 1999 from the Jones Consulting Group Re: Bayquest Group Special Planning Advisory Committee Meeting in May" ... Carried. 5. Deputations 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) Andria Leigh updated the status of this application and explained to the Committee that a meeting had occurred between the parties to discuss the Peer Review of the Environmental Report and an addendum to the original report would be forthcoming to the Committee. 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. Delegation was deferred to a future meeting; however the survey received by the applicant was provided to the members for their response. 6. Other Business • Due to the number of delegations required in May two meetings dates needed to be set as follows: Tuesday May 4 at 7:00 p.m. for Bayquest Group and George Smith Monday May 17 at 7:00 p.m. for Hanninen/Dodson and Hillway Equipment 7. Adjournment Moved by Don Bell, seconded by Susan Grant That this meeting now adjourn at 8:05 p.m. . Peter Wigham, Chairman Carried. Andria Leigh, Planner ~-23-95:'2:~bPM:JDNES CONSULTING DRD-MEDONTE 'WP. :7G57347GSo u JONES C ~ N S II L S I N G C t 0 0 r L T O P1.62A~8E A STIr~H~!RS • TO COMPANY FROM BATE SUBJECT FAX NO. 1--f We are transmitting pages (inGUding cover page). tf you do not receive the number of pages indicated, please call us at (705) ?342b38. Original to folbw by mail - No REMARKS: Gez.~ Gaapt,,.ir~ Z41.. 4.a~„rv~ue~~ Cw ~ ~ ~, T~ re'(~r Bye ~CedarPu~eDri~ ~ tom, g~ ~ ~r g[7 7e1- (/OS) 734.1538 Fes: (7at) 73I-]0f6 FAX INFORMATION SHEET lom®Iw~mn~n%e~e -23-99; 12'98RM;JONES CCNSULTI^iG OR^u-MEOONTE TWP. ;70573AtO5a u 2: '- April 23, 1999 VIA FACSIMILE BMJONES C O N S D L T t N G G a 0 0 P L S D Ptewvsese t~Gnveexs Dear Ms. Leigh, Ms. Andria Leigh Planner Township of Oro-Medorrte Box 100 Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0 Re: Environmental Impact Study & Management Plan Addendum and Hydrogeologlcal 8 Slope Stability Assessment Addendum Bayquest Group (Woodlands Property) 2981 Ridge Road In accordance with Azimuth Environmental's April 13, 1999 letter to your attention, and a subsequent meeting held at their offices, please find attached a copy of addendum's for both the Environmental Im ct Stud & Maria ement Plan and the Hvdroaeoloaical & Slope Stability Assessment, prepared for the Bayquest property located at 2981 Ridge Road. • These addendum's provide the additional information and clarification requested by Azimuth Environmental, in the form of a point by point response. However, two issues identified in the Azimuth letter require further information over and above the comments detailed in the iwo addendum's. These include: stormwater management and erosion control, in addition to the owner providing the Township with a commitment which ensures that recommendations identified in the reports will be undertaken. Although both consultant reports address stormwater management in some form, ft is still necessary to complete a stormwater management report. This report will utilize the recommendations of the Environmental and Hydrogeological reports, in addition to Best Management Practices. To this end, our Senior Project Engineer, Mr. Dale MacKenzie, P.Eng, has met with the Township's engineering consultant to discuss stormwater and erosion control issues and design. The stormwater management report is currently being prepared, with anticipated carnptetion within the next week. With respect to the owner providing a commitrnent to undertake the recommendations provided in the report, please be advised that the Bayquest Group is prepared to provide you with this letter of undertaking. However, enforcement of such an undertaking would not be practical over the duration of this project. Therefore, a more effective means of ensuring the Township's interests are protected would be to ensure the draft plan condftians prepared for this development clearly state the requirements which must be fuNilled prior to registration of the plan of subdivision. For example, should the Township desire all recommendations as stated in the Environmental Impact Study, then a condition of draft plan approval could read "That prior to final approval, the owner be required to undertake all recommendations as identified in the March 1999 Environmental Impact Study, and subsequent April 22, 1999 addendum, to the • satisfaction of the Township ° Perhaps this issue should be discussed further at the upcoming Planning Advisory Committee meeting? ~4Ledaz Ra~Ucrc, Uret t4Pi,)3~e.Oae14V 5R7 Tdephonc (705) 73A-2538 i~~j pp~O~pp$~ Facsimile: (705} 73a-2056 r1 LJ -23-9°: t2t58PM;JONES ~ONSU~TING GRO-ME~ONTE TWP, ;7G573410Sa x 3/ t7 We trust the attached addendum's will be satisfactory, and look forward to presenting and discussing this development at the May 4, 1999 Planning Advisory Committee Meeting. In the meantime, should you have any comments or questions, or require additional inforrnation, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, y u amel, M.C.P. Planner c. Bayquest Group Paul Neats. Azimuth Environmental Geza Gaspardy, LGL Environmental Kirk Johnson, Terraprohe LJ • w r~ e~>~ u~r tact. tom, o~ z~a si<t joas{a~joaeuonwtn~.aam xd~~ pos) Asa-2sss Fxsimilc (J05) 734-1056 ?-23-99;'2~48PM;JONES CONSULTINu ORO-MEOONTE TWP. ;7057341 C55 a 4/ i7 04/23/99 FRI 09:14 FAx 9053332660 • LIMfTED environmental research associates Head Office: 22 Fisher St. P.O. Box 280, ~9 Ofty, Ontario 22 April 1999 Mr. Ray Duhamet, FRCP The Jones ConsuMing Group 64 Cedar Poirrte Drive, UnR 1403 Barrie, ON L4N SR7 Dear Mr. Duhamet TA2314 via fax 8 mail 705-7341056 12e: Peer Review Comments -Azimuth Environmental Consulting, Inc. Bayquest Group, Development Application P-79198 -Concession 2, Part of Lots 1 8 2 (Oro) LGL Limited Environmental Impact Assessment ~ Management Plan - OAarch 1999 The following comments are provided in response to the referenced Peer Review Comments submitted by Azimuth Enviranmental Consulting. Inc. to the Township of Oro-Medorte in a Fatter dated 13 April 1999 and received via fax transmission from your office on 15 April 1999. My comments and responses also • refer to diswssions during our meeting with the repn~entatives of the Peer Review Consultants on 19 April 1999 at their offices in Barrie. My responses are presented in numerical order following the numbered wmments as provide by Azimuth. f. Re: Adjacent Lands Azimuth inquired of the status of development proposals on neighbouring properties. At our 19 April 1995 meeting with Azimuth Mr. Duhamet caniimred that there are no existing plans of subdivision for the neighbouring properties and that the present proposal is consistent with the large lot residential character of those sites. 2 Re: Proposed Land Use, Blocks 74 and 15 The LGL Environmental Impact Assessment and Management Plan (EIA-MP) identified Blocks 14 and 15 on the north half of the properly. No development is proposed on Blocks 14 and 15. Rather, they are to be retained in common ownership and Left in their current natural state. 3. Re: Larger Core Did Growth Forest The'old growth forest btodc' designated on the subject property is the only such designation in the Oro- Medonte Official Plan in this portion of the Township. It is isolated from the nearest similar designation, located in parts of Lots 3 and 4, Concesston 1, apprordmately 1 km distant to the north. Further details in this regard are presented in Item 5 following_ LGL Limited. Burlia8toa t8 001 3228 South Service Road, Unit 100 Burlington, Ontario CANADA L7N 3H8 t: sas.a33-1ss7 ®:905-333-2s6o ®i: burlingtonQlgl.com (~: www.tgl.com CANADA L7B 1A8 x:905-833-7244 ~:905-9331255 tri: Wn9d~Y~~.mm (~:www.lglcan ~:nq St.~e 1871 ONTARIO • BRmSH COL.IA~W • NEWFOUNDLAND • AlA9KA • TEAS • PUI ~ MOSCOW A-23-99~t2'98PM;JDNES CONSULTING ORO-MEOONTE 'wP. :7~J~73mtO5o a ~/ '. 04/23/99 FRI 09:15 FAR 9053332660 LGL Liuited, Burlin6ton 1002 AIi Ray Duhanel, The Jonas CwuuMng ~+rp 22 Apri) t989 • LGL Limited -Response to Peer Revfaw Comments - 9aypuast Group Application. 7own~dp of Oro-lifedonta page 2 of3 4. Re: Significant LVildlife In preparing the EIA MP staff of LGL checked the Natural Heritage Information Centre listing of significant wildlffe for Simcoe County and found the following species listed for the Courrty. ~J S ies Status Preferred Habitat Status on Pro Red Shouldered Hawk Vulnerable Extensive old rowth forest Field checked - no stock nests Black Tem Vulnerable Neatshore and offshore marshes Not possible Prairie Warbler Vulnerable Juni r savana Not ible Cerulean Warbler Vulnerable Mature deciduous forestlswam Site wnsidered too dry to lie attractive habitat Louisiana Waterthrush Vulnerable Dense mixed forest with continuous flow streamtnver Unlikely, small stream Ri rian corridor to be retained S tted Turtle Vulnerable Marshes Not ible Eastern Hognosed Snake Vulnerable Dry mixed forest adjacent to wetland commun Unlikely - lack of adjacent wetlands Eastern Massassauga Rattlesnake Threatened Mixed forest, wetland with extensive, protected rodk txdcro Habig not wrrsistent with documented preferences Pin Plover Endan Bred Extensive sand beaches Not ossib>e Migrating Loggerhead Shrike Endangered Hawthorn fields, grazed Not possible Henslaws S rrow Enda Bred Old fields weed Not ssible None of the habitat preferences of the significant wildlffe are well represented on fire subject properly. In the case of the Cerulean Warbler and Louisiana Waterthrush, the community associated with the small stream corridor offers the greatest likelihood of suitable habitat on site, though still of limited function. The preferred habitats are typically of in dense, mixed conifer and deciduous forest associated with larger discharge, permanent streams. The low potential of habitat capat>ifity of the sut>jed she will be protected within the retained, undisturbed riparian corridor. 5. Re: Building Envelope and Protection of Old Grovrdz Character The protection of old growth character and specimen trees was addressed in the EtA-MP in various elements. Critical to the protecti~ of these features is the implementation of a Tree Saving Plan (TSP), as recommended in the EIA-MP, at the detailed design stage for individual lots. The TSP will identify the limits of the old growth community in detail on each of the tots, as well as individual specimen trees. Based on the results of the TSP and the surveyed locations of those features, the Emits of individual building envelopes will be defined. The limits will specify the appropriate driveway alignment, and the location and arrangement of the building envelope to accommodate the required house and septic system file bed. We discussed the approach to this TSP and building env~ope delineation as a "surgical implant' procedure intended to protect the old growth character of indnvdual lots and the site as a whole. Further discussion is presented in Item t3 below. With respell to the protection of wildlife movement through the subject property and particularly the old growth character of the site, we discussed with Azimuth the limited demand or rapabiGty of the Lake • Simcoe waterfront in this vicinity. This functional capabi~ty is evidentty significantly limited by the existing urban devebpment the City of Barrie to the west; and, the community of Shanty Bay to the east. East tsf Shanty Bay, the extensive system of continuous forest cover, designated "Signficant Vegetation' on Schedule B of the Official Plan, from Shanty Bay to the mouth of the Hawkstone forms a significant corridor for wildlife movement and is directly connected habitat features and functions inland. +-23-99:'2'4flFb1:JONES CONSu!T!NG ORO-MEDONTE Tr+P. ;7057311OSE = o: '. 04/23/99 FRI 09:16 FAX 9053332560 LGL United, Builin8ton 1g 003 All Ray DvAarnel, Tho .leeNS Con9ultlng G+vup 22 gpol 1999 • LGL limited-Response to PeeiReview Corrtrnen6- 9aypaest G~ Appt&arion, To.nship of Olo~Medonte page 1 of 5 6. Re: Size Limits, Significant Woodiots Azimuth inquired of us regarding the rationale for the minimum size limit for determining whether the subject woodbt was significant As noted in our EIA-MP, we reverted to the guidance of the Natural Heritage policies, in the absence of more site specific requirements or recommendations. We do not dispute the 40ha and minimum 200m width limit used by Ecoplans in their baclSground document for the Official Plan review process. However, that limit was set specifrgliy for the KirtdieldtSimcoe Loamy Plain Landscape Unit There is no rationale offered for applying this limit to the Lake Simcoe Lowland Landscape Unit to which the subject property bebngs. The delineation between the two landscape units was drawn was based on sal structures, not in an arbiVary manner. Therefore, in the absence of such rationale, we must take our guidance from the Natural Heritage policies- 7. Re: Rare Species See tabular component of point d, above. 8. Re: Fisheries Status of fhe Trfbrrtary Creek The E1S-MP defined the tributary creek on the subject property as a warm water community based on thermal studies conducted in February 1998. The intent of that survey was to determine whether notable spring discharges were contributing to base flow and thus creating a cold water habitat for Gish. As noted in the report, the survey revealed no evidence of substantial groundwater discharge in the study reach. • In recognition of the agricultural drain character of the headwater reaches of the creek, its low gradient and the absence of groundwater discharges in the study reach, we determined that the creek's greatest fish habitat potential is in a warm water classification. In reviewing this site with Graham Findley, Area Biologist, Midhurst District, Ministry of Natural Resources {pers. com.} it was confirmed that MNR has no file data describing the subject creek. We were advised that other Kempenfeft Bay tributary streams in Oro-Medonte were (mown to suppat cold water communities such as resident brook (rout communities. Those streams, however, are typiglly far larger in catchment area than the sut>jed system and arse in the groundwater discharge zones of the Oro Moraine. Given the perched pltvert identfied at River Road, the agricultural drain character of the headwater reaches and the absence of groundwater discharge in the downstream reaches, the warm water character of the sutyed cxeek system is supported. Therefore, the recommended 15m undisturbed riparian buffer is appropriate for the site. 9. Re: Proposed Greek Crossing for Lot l3 The sper~c creek crossing location ~ in the text of the EIA-MP. The channel is deeply inased in a moderately unstable, confined floodplain within the subject property. The channel is of moderate gradient with substrate dominated by gravel, cobble and sand. In such stream reaches crossings can be accommodated with nominal impact on frsh habitat. Crossing structures such as open bottom arch culverts or countersunk comlgated steel pipe or concrete box culverts can protect local aquatic habitat functions. The road crossing design can also address channel stability sensitivities by incorporating bio- engineering and natural channel design elements- Finally, drainage requirements can also be addressed such that erosion potential minimized and water quality protected in frequent storm discharge events. • We also draw attention to a specific recommendation in the EIA-MP for a fluvial geomorphobgist to wntribute to the detail design for the road crossing. These design parameters will be included in the engineering conditions as part of the subdivision agreement. AS such, those designs must be implemented prior to registration of the subdivision plan. -23-99:'2:48PM:JONES CG'NSU~TING ORO-MEOONTE TV+P. ;70573=105a Q T. ~.T 04/23/99 FRI 09.16 FAX 9053332660 LGL Limited, Burlington 19004 Mr_ Ray Ou/rarnef, The Jones Goes Wtfng Group 22 Ayrd 1~9 • LGL Limited -Response to Aaet Review Conrmenfs - Bayquesr Group Application, rown.ffitp Oro-Medaite Pa4B d of 5 Timing of the stream crossing structure construction can also mitigate potential impacts on the local fish habitat functions. Given the warmwater character of the seek instream work should be scheduled to avoid the typical spawning period for this community type. Instream work should avoided in the period 1May to t July annually. Typical, successful sediment control practices as suggested in the EIA MP can further mitigate the potential impacts of construction of the crossing. 70. Re: Property Owner Commitment Addressed by Mr. Duhamel. 17_ Re: Restrictive Covenants Restrictive covenants on title have been implemented in several municipalities in southern Ontario to fadl'itate protection of sensitive features and functions on private properly. Examples typically indude preferred vegetation communities and specimens. The detail of the covenant are developed based on detailed site investigations, such as the recanmended Tree Saving Ptan for the subject property. The details of the restriction to be included in the covenant are developed in recognfion of the speafic site sensitivities. Enforcement of the covenant is achieved by way of the normal by-law enforcement procedures of the municipality. Ancillary to the munidpality's enforcement is the social pressure and "community polirdng' aspect typiglly observed in such developments and communities. In the case of the Bayquest proposal, the community aspect of property management wilt have a signifgnt manifestation via the common ownership of Blocks 14 and 15. It should also be noted that the Tree Saving Plan will bean integral part of the subdivision plan. Therefore, even 'rf the resirietive covenant is not incorporated, the TSP requiremerrts must still be implemented. This approach is implemented successfully to protect the significant environmental features in the City of Ban-ie. 12. Re: Waterfront 5'tabi/ity The E{A-MP and the geotechnicai report for the Bayquest proposal each referenced shoreline instat~lity along Kempenfelt Bay. However, the magnitude of that instability was perhaps overstated which lead to concerns as expressed by the Peer Review consultants. In fad, the slopes are steep and signiftgntly vegetated with deciduous and coniferous trees, shrubs and herbaceous species. The instability of the slope is demonstrated not in mass slumping but, rather, as evidenced by arched tree trunks and only small amounts of soil movement. Therefore, in disa~ssion with staff of Azimuth, it was determined that fish habitat impacts of the noted instability would be nominal. Again, we stressed the impoRar-ce of protecting that vegetation community and the slope it stabil¢es_ The geotech report recommended a slope stability setback based on the character of the slope. 73, Re: Tree Protection and Drip Lines The EIA-MP suggested that specimens of the ofd growth community should be protected with a 15m butter beyond the drip line of individual trees. As Azimuth noted, in certain cases the generality of the recommendation Gould pose access or developrrrerit oppotiunity limitations for bts 30 to 40m in width. In clarification, we agreed that the details of the Tree Saving Plan would again drive the specifics of the recommendation for protection of both communities and specimen trees. In some cases the individual • tree buffer carld be substantially less than the f Sm generally recommended, based on site specific considerations of existing disturbance, soils conditions and other factors. Based on our field work we are of the opinion that the proposed lot s¢es are appropriate and appropriate building envelopes can he established through the tree saving plan process. '-23-9°; 12'48PM;JGNES CONSULTING 080-MEOONTE TWP. ;70573+?G3o = 9/ 17 04/23/99 FRI 09:17 FA3: 9053332660 LGL Linlted. Burlington 1g 005 Mt- Ray Ouhamer, The Jorres ConSttlHng croup 22 Apg1 t949 • LGL LJrnlhd -Response to Pear Rwfew Commanh- 8ayquesf 6rovp /ipprrcatFOq Township of Oro.A/edonh page 5 of5 14. Re: Storm Water Management The Peer Review comments requested that we address the storm water management impticatiorts of the design proposal. However, the storm water management plan has not been undertaken. Rather, the EIS- MP and geolech report were envisaged ~ lead dowmerds to guide the design of the SWM plan. in this regard, we have understood and recommended that existing overland flows are to be retained as much as possible. The proposed access road is to be designed with rural cross section, ie: no curb and gutter. The road side ditches should be designed and graded to optimize on the infiltration capacity of the native soils. As noted previously, the road drainage at the crossing of the creek is to be directed to the ddd~es as much as possible. Where a small road drainage element is necessarily directed to the creek, the discharge point must be designed to prevent channel or bank erosion and to protect fish habitat capability. We have recommended that a fisheries biologist provide internal review and support to the preparation of the storm water management plan to address aquatic habitat issues, both in terms of quality and quantity management. However this may not be required if frequent storm discharge is not directed to the meek. Genera/ Considerations The construction practices in this proposed subdivision must be managed in r®spect of the sensitivities of the general area and the site specific features of the individual lots. The noted development ernebpe for each site, for example, should be delineated in the field prior to commencement of construction to prevent saE disturbance and damage to vegetation. AS discussed wish Azimuth a commitment tO demarcation, with either tape markers or temporary snow fencing, or approved equivalent, should further protect the site . sensitivities. Conclusion The issues raised in the Peer Review comments were noteworthy. The meeting with Azimuth provided an opportunity to review the issues and to perhaps highlight the relevant sections of our report that addressed (hose issues. 1 believe we have reflected the intent of our discussions with Azimuth. If you have any questions with respect to these responses, please contact me immediately at my Burlingt~ office as noted above. associates r Ecologist • 4-23-99!2'-".BPM;JONES C~NSV~TI NG ORO-ME~ONTE TWP. ;7057347050 x ~. -- • 04-3-99 10:27 AM ARCM TERRAPEOBE BARRIE ~'QrraprobQ Consulting Geotechnical ~ Ekvironntental Engineering Construction Materials Engineerbtg, firspection de Telling ~~~2 April 22, 1999 Bay Quest Group do The Jones Consulting Group 64 Cedar Porte Drive Unit 1403 Barrie, Ontario L4N SRJ Atter¢ion: Mr. Ray Duhamel, M.C.P., Planner Our File No. 99513 RE: ADDENDUM TO HYDROGEOLOGIC AND SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT STUDY PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION 2981 RIDGE ROAD TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE, COUNTY OF StMCOE Dear Sir; Further to receiving and reviewing original report review cornmeats from Azimuth Envuorue>erttal Consulting Inc. and our meeting with Mr. Dave Ltetchcson sad Mr. Paul Neil of same, and yourself on April 19, 1999, tiva aro providing the following response cortetnertts. The following comments pertain to Items 1 through IZ under subtitle "Hydmgeological Study and Slope Stability Assessment". Items I through 3 (Relating to surficial soil conditions and perched water) Y • I The upper site soils on this property comprise primarily of sur6ciat scud deposits overlying a very dense sandy silt fill. The site terraces down front rtotth to south in elevation in general and as would be ecpected shallow depressions in the till layer where sand deposits have accumulated to varying depth. ?hest are also areas whoa snow mdt and other precipitation events will pcrzh and pond. This was highlighted on the site near our Test Pit No. 6. 'T4rt~robttr LYdlod 12l3ram cast, Unit tB 22a BatMCr Dave. Uerll Z6 +O~Z I(eMy take Road, unit t 803 aerton 8tnfe4 UNt 72 BrotnDta+, tMterb t8W 3V1 Berle, Oraedo LAN 7t3 ____ Sudbury, OnSttrb t+3E 5P1 Staley C,rsek. Onlaro L8E fiPS 1-23-99:'2'~BFM:JONES CONSULT, NG OR6-MEGaNTE TWP. ;70573A105o x '. .,, 04-23-09 10:27 Alf FRORi TERRAPROBE BARRIE P003 • 2981 Ridge Road April 22, '1999 Bav flusst Group Our Fite No 995`13 Both the Geospec investigation as well as oar's which was carried out in February 1999 indicated minor perching. As Azimuth wrteetly indicated we have had a fairly dry period over the last year, plus and therefore during wetter seasons you should experience slightly higher shallow ground water elevations. However, rvc do trot atuicipate that this would be a sig~carn factor in the design of dwelliggs or the associated septic beds, the specific conditions rnea,nt©red at the time of constrution, patticularly with respect to placuncnt of basements atxt the construction of a septic bed will need to betaken into account on a tot by !ot basis. The water table and capillary tnoistwe zone will govern final design decisions accordsngly. Near the mouth of the east tribut<y there is a more localized deposit of deeper sand which was encountered in our test pits and several by Geospee. These conditions may be a contributing geologic fauor of why this tributary had developed at that laatl~, do to the taort cosily erodible soils. Item 4 Figures 11 and I2 deal wkh the data which is of a different datum and obtained from MOEE Well Rocord ctfoana[ion. This is provided only to provide indications or trends in hydrogcologic conditions and can not be relied on to be site speeific.l7re "Matthew Well" identified in tkte Well Records locally as Wet! No. l96 indteate the similaz stratigraphic sequencing of shallow surface deposits and a thick agnitard over a confined sand aquifer. From a hydrogeologic perspective the feel that these conditions are similar and would pose no particular constraints with respect to tlris development Item 5 (Water Wells Supply and Lot Interference) At skis design stage only thirteen (13) dwellings are being proposed. T he Wall Records, and the wells on the property and umnediately to the war indicate moro than satisfactory yields and rates for suDPlYing water. Based on this information and. review of other similar strip developmonts along Kempenfelt Shoreline where individual wells ate placed (i.e, west end of Shanty Bay along shoreline} we would not anticipate any serious interference berwern the individua! wells where typically 3 gallons per minute would be required as a minimum. The "Matthew Well" drilled on the propctty indicates 19 m (b0 #t) of available draw down. Ncsv wells drill~tn the same aquifer or if chosen in a deeper aquifer will be expected to have similar drawdrnvn potauial • v~ lartaprob¢ Page No. 2 C:lWP71KJ~98b13.A22 =.-23-99;12:4&PM;JCNES CONSULTi NG 4R0-MEOONTE TwP. ;7u573+705x' u '~i/ '. 04-23-99 10:23 A;~ FRObI TERRAPR4BE BARRIE P004 • 2981 Ridge Road April 22, 1999 8av Quest Grouo Our File No 99513 The Lot configuration will result in 13 weds spaced approximately 35 to 40 m apart, lntetfetp[ce between these wells is expected to be minunal. Item 6 (Siting of Septic Beds) We would concur' with, the suggestion. Clrrreatly the peeeeived deveopment would include a lot plan whew the well would be located nrar the road at the up gradient side of the property foQowed by the buitding envelope, followed by the septic bed, and then the suggested setback from the Katrpe[tfelt Bay shorelir~ for the disposal system. Item'f and 8 (Lot Sine to Accommodate Septic Bed System, With Reserve Area) The attached sketch identified as Figure 1 illustrates for a typical lot size of 4S m lake frontage and 135 m depth the worst case scenario with respect to having to construct a fully raised sand bad. it should be noted es we discussed, the initial process would be to select strategically the location of a house m avid tree . earring and this would then dictate the location of the ~ptu bed. Tbeee are also rgwer technologies which could be considered for septic bed disposal including Bio-filter and filter bed systems, which caild be examined by the home owner in rmjuncrion with the Municigatity for approval 'These options might permit smaller artxt mgw:emeats and therefore lees rree olearirig. Item 9 aad 10 {Reasonable Use Policy Calculations} The 29,5001 should as icle~Sed be "cubic meters" and curt liters. The calculations however still result in the same tearltatu t[iuate concenC'ation of 5.9 mg(t of nitrate based ~ the worst case scenario with respect to properry azea. It should be rested that the area used in the calculation is that only of Lots 1 Through 13 and the road nenwrk and not Blocks 14 and 15. The use of Lou 14 and 15 would result in a lower concentration. Also, the calculation could also be conducted on a lot by la basis. Using the smallest lot of 0.6 hectares the resuUant nit[are cotrcaatrarioa identified at rho property boundary will be agproxims[ely 7.8 mg/l which is still below the 10 my ! 1units suggested by the Ministry of Envitonmeat for residential lot development. Tttatlproba Page No. 3 C:1WP7UCJ\99513.A22 ~-23-99; ~2'AfiPM;JONES CONSULTING ORO-CdEQON?E TWP. :705734tG5o u 12/ '- 04-23-99 10:27 AM FROM TERRAPROBE BARRIE P005 • 2981 Ridge Road April 22, 1999 Bev Ques3 t3roua Our File No 99513 Item 11 With respect to ground water impact, it has been traditionally used and accepted by the Ministry of Environmer¢ to consider an avenge daily flow of 10001itres for septic effluent. It has also been accepted to consider the nitrate concentration its domestic effluent at 40 mg/l which is based on 40 mg of nitrate per dwelling per day tni~ with LOGO lives of fresh water (ref. 1995 MOEE Guidelines for Hydrogeologic Studirs for Land Ilevelopmertt Applications}. The design of the beds however, are based on peak daily flow requirements, and therefore values as depicted in the Ontario Building Code would be used for that purpose. Ittsn 12 (Phosphorous Adsorption) 7crtaprobe overthe last several years has had the opporwniry to cazry out adsorption testing on sandy soils in an attempt to determine the phosphorous adsorption potential of site soils. Physical testing cuss not . carried out on his particular site however, vahug of 5 to 10 tslg per 100 g of soil bavc bcm determined on otber sites inchrding value of 5 - ? mg/l in Muskoka and similar values in the Greater Toronto Area (north limits). This eakulation hat been considered art this project only to illustrate the sigoi5cartt pote~ial for this to occur. The following reply comments refer to ether subsections as follows; LoEisNeal Considerations 1. Bridge Sgaztnirtg the Water Course The design of a bridge or culvert required at this location will be earsidered by the Civil Consultant. Further geot~hnical comments with respect to the design of this bridge can be provided at a later date. 2. Inftration Galleries for Road Drainage The surficial coarse bouldery sand and gravel materials on the site lead for the opportunity fur infltratiou of minor storm events. In discussions with the Environmental Consultant, this is a preferred option which should minimize direct discharge of storm water into the water course. Our Gcporience is that this can • be enhareed in mad construction via the invert design of the ditching to encourage direct infiltration and by ttrtraprobtt Page No. 4 C:tUUP71F(J~99513.A22 b 23-99;12:48PM;JCNE3 CONSJJTING ORO-MEOONTE TWP. :70573+tO5o x +. ,,- 04-23-99 10:27 AM FROG '"ERRAPROBE BARRiE • 2981 Ridge Road Pa0s 22, 1999 puttittg filtered drains below the ditch invtrt to also help encourage storage and infiltration of stone water. Details of these works are normally derived at by the design consultant. Also road surfacing represatts a very small percent of site area. Therefore, impact from hardened surfacing and road runoff is considered minimal, 3. Roof Leaders This development of relatively large lots 0.6 hectares (L,5 acres or greater). It is aaticipated that the majority of the lot areas will be left untouched and therefore post developmert storm water infiltration will be sims7ar m predevelop~nt. In the areas directly arwmd the homes the opportunity exists to reinfiltrate roof rurroffto t}te ground. h would bo our anticipation that this could occur by shallow depressions err swales on the grotud stafaoe which will tend m direct rainwater from eaves trough down spouts away from the actual house azea. The reinfiltrati~ of water from the hoof on this property is not considered a major factor as only • a small percentage of the overall site property will be developed with hardened surfaces. This is more of a problem in urban settings with signifieam potions of land development comprising of asphah, roads, roofs, paved driveways and the like. The following are our response eatnttents with respect ro Azimuth Enviroamratal's "Erosion Control" Item 11Erosion Control Polley) Most Cunscrvadon Audtoriries have developed a generic requirement tar setbacks from slopes for development purposes. The MNR have in more recent years developed new policies which more accurately reflect the wmpo~nts of erosion and slope stability concerns. A copy of the Table used in this mew policy devel~oed in 1448 is attached. It should be rooted that the Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority as well as rho Nottawasaga Valley Cor~servatxm Authority usually uggest a minurutrrt setback which can be encroached with ageotedurica! engineer providing a slope stabihry assessment. This has been conducted on this property and the development setback line delineated. Item Z (Lone Tenn Requirements with Respect to Slope Stability) Our comments tivith n;spoct to instability arc related to evidence of past failures where vegetative • growth has redeveloped. There are soate bared upper slope sections along the water course associated with TaRapin-a Page No. 5 C:\UUP7IKJ\995t3.A22 a-23-99;'2:?3PM;JCNES GCNSULTING CRC-MEDCNTE TWP. :70373+•CSo x 1=/ ', 04-23-99 10:2? A~ FRDM TERRAPRDBE BARRIE P007 • 2981 Ridge Road April 22, 1999 Sa uest Grou ur File No. 99513 more recent localized slips. However, thrs didn't appear obvious along the Kempenfelt Say shoreline. This is why an erosion setback allowance has been suggested to allow for possible finee erosion events, This allowance could be waived if hardened engineered tae protection mwsttres were cleated As discussed with all parties present at our muting, relaying recommendations to the home owner with ~P~T to ~ issr~ of erosion oorritol and diswrbance of vegetation on the slope is important, We understand that more firmer recommendations to the owner will be incorporated into the Homeowtrets Manual by the Planner and Envirottanntal Consui~nt. We would rwt envision that the developer would be responsible for arty specific tong term maintenance or slopo stabilization approaches. Item 3 (Slope Stability During Wetter periods) t)ur slope stability assessmertt does intentionally consider the worst cane scenario of the water table perrlted about the till az the slope crest Ibis analysis has shown that a 1%: ! (borizorttal to vertical} slope with a high water table could result in surface failures. In this regard, the 2:1 {horizontal to vertical} cage from the • toe of the skrpe with perched water has beext recorranerrded and used in out minimum development saback lice. Item 4 (Construction Safe Guards) Based oa the aanue of the site development it is arnicipa~d that no disturbance of soils will occur crar the shoreline or the water course dueetly. The exception may be for the bridge or culvert that may be constructed azthe road crossing. In this regard, the risk for soils to wash to the watercourse rue considered negligible or nil. However, during the sitcllot development it would be appropriate to specify st7t fencing and/or taped off barriers on properties indicating that materials should not be stockpiled az locations dose to the shorelne or rho watercorrse. ThebridgeJculveK will require more specific controls that can be determined once the details of the swewra are finalised. we trust that the above reply eetnmerrss arc to your satisfaction. Based on our meeting it appears that some of the concerns focus ~>~ silo plan being more specific and committal to recommendations which will be implemented as part of a condition of Site Plan Agreement. • Tatraprobv Page No. 6 C:1WP7U(J199573.A22 1-23-99; 12[48PM;JGNES CuNSUJTING 4RC-MEOCNTE TWP. ;7057341GSo x !Si 1- 04-2?-99 10:27 AM FROM TERRAPROBE BARRIE 2981 Ridge Road P008 22, 1998 We truss that the above is adequate far your present requirements. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Tetsaprobe Limited Kirk R. associate tuuwbr Aasie OlFieo Atrached: Figure 1 Erosion Criteria C • T¢rrap~vbQ Page No. 7 G:tWP71KJ199513.A22 ?-23-99; ^.2'38PM;JONES CONSUUTING 04-23-94 ;0:27 APd FROM TERRAPR4BE BARRIE '~• 35m = 10 m set back ~ AUIT,DING EfQfVEZ.DP 45m x 37 m minimtun ~ min, cell set back £rom septic tank 15m - --.~-- - .~ 0 10 m 100% t I, ~ reserves C ,1 ~ 6m-~ i a ~ •y ~ .... r.i t-i - - -~- -° 1Sm ~ mantle ~ - ; i 'y ~. w :: V .~ u d 1 m 1 ~ i . .,F. ,.-.., 45m `. DRO-MEDONTE TWP. ;70573~57C3c °OQ9 u ~a/ '7 NOTES: 1. ~1{3 19 minimum lOt SizB proposed. 2. Septic design asswmes need for fully raised sand bed (fe. 1.5m sand fill) and design floe for 3000 lpd. 3. Design considers miniimm setback requlrementa from property 23nes and wells. 4. Well location shows to illustrate sufficient set back only. Likely would be constructed in front yard. Scale 1:750 m 1999 SCHEMATIC SHOWING SEPTIC BED LAYOUT 99513 ___._..__, FIGURE 1 4-23-59; 12: ~8PM;JGNES CONSULTING 04-23-99 10:27 AM FROM TERRAPROBE BA.RRIE Guideline Table P010 MIlV7MCR4I TOE EROSION ALLO~~ANCE - Rlver within 15 m o€ Slope Toe ~ 'fypc oPklnterini Firidance of A<rive Ersoiun•^ uc No ariderrw of AUiw Erociun•* ar BenkNll Flow Velocity > 1'tav Ystxiry < < Cumpttsa Fluty VeWriq"• Competta Fbw Velmiry••• Nwirc Soil Stnrcture HnrrklWl Widar <Sm 3.3om >~m 2. (lord Rock Igrauita) a -? m O m O m i m :, Suft Rai tNWs. limewaq) 3- S m O m I m ? m Gabhlea Boukkra s. Sri[6Fterd Cu}ucive Suit 1- 8 m { m = m 4 m (t(eya. tiayey +ilU Cau'ac Carasular (gmrele) tab 1. SoBlFirte Cohtaivs Soil B• IS m t• 2 m S m y m Fmc draaaarf~. sBU F11 • if a va{ley Moor is > ISm oridm. stip naq re¢ri ro study or orciuaioa of n ra eroeioo aguwaat. •' Aca+e Ermto u defined ac: barde uromAal is berg sot aapoeod dirsctty ro otsssm [Mr aadtt nr[ural ur tiuod Aow eanditiuro aod. whrm rrrdetCrafit~. wer staperigfl, shrmpi~ of a paNc er high down swam sed'arreor tmdirg Is occurring. An area may be end ro r)vnr ' paw put may m daptay'ecarc t®on (.e. u as Fare a undarvm} eirher as s tesuh of wch rarrtd .cgcudon or os a rscrat of slaBigg ot'Ue duma:l urbecaum Ewa ate rWeti•ery be+ veitsiq. The tae srocion silwsrcee pteaetaed in Ore d83rt hnUoFTabk . a[e suggested Cut sires wiry ttlia curelitioa. ••' Campotom Flow ve{aeiry: Iht Clow •elociq chit dre curl axtaricl in dre stream tan support ariarr>arl reaultir~( in erosion or uuur. Cunsidearion muu olao ps given to poteaial lunar mwnderi~ vCdx wahttWtte epanne). S.errce: •Gcuretlua©I Pr(ruiplm tar Stsbk S1opcC fTemprobc. Apr(l 1998) GPO-MEDONTE TWP. ;765732?65c x ^. , , Prepnrcd for: Omariu ~nisrry ai Nswnl Rmuutcea lands and Newrn) Htriwgt Branch 04/29/99 l0:aa $7057218926 :12IMU1'R ENV -.-,-, ORO 3tEDONTE TWP @1002 ~ ~ ~ /MUTH ENVIRONMENTAL ~" t CONSULTING, INC. Environments} aaesmenis Sa~pprovoLc Apn128,1999 94_Q~7 Township of t}ro-Medonte Oio; Ontario . LOL'2X0 Attention Andria Leigh, Township Planner Re. Addendum Ta Peer Review far Baygnest Gronp, Deve[opmenL Application P-19!98, Concession 3, Part of Lots 1 and 2 {Oro) ' Dear Ms. Leigh: Aamuth Envirazrmeatal staff met with the Bayquest.Gzotip Consultanss on Apn7 19i°: to discuss. the issues raised by our peer review. We discussed each of the issues arid provided direction on thanature of the information zegtrired to address the issues is safficientdetail to provide the Planning Advisory Committee and Township staffwith comprehensive dac~maation oa the potential implimuons of the proposed development.. As per your xcqucst we have iaviewed the zesponse4grovided by LGL Limited and Terraprobe Limited in ' their letters dated Aprrl 22, 1999, regardiaL A~th Envuoninental's review. The following sections provide our responses for yore considezatiorL Environmental Impact Study and Management:Plan Azimuth's original cotnmmts aze provided followed by our comments on the consultant's response under the bold heading that refemnces the LGL Apn122, 1999 2ettei. We have indicated our agreement or - disagreement with the information provided in the coaespandencc. I: the report dots not addzess the adjacent land uses, existing. or proposed, and the izzrplication that development of the subject lands may have on the adjacent lands. Figure 2 identifies rosideutial and nu3l residential labds east anti north of the subject property. However, there is no discussion is dte report if the adjacent lands aie ptogosed for development and what implication this may have oa the environments! features on the snbjcctpropezty (e.g, linkages along the shoreline) Re: Adjacent Lands The LGL response does not addtass the nlatiotrship or ecological functions the subject property has 122 Saunders Road; Unit 7, .Barrie; Ontario L4M 6E7 telephones: (705} 721-8451: fax: {705} 721=8926; aamtrth{o~barititon_ra 04/Z9/99 10:J1 $7057218928 AZIMIITH EA'y -.-.-. ORO REDONTE TWP C~OOJ with the surrounding fozested lands. The issue that needs to be addressed is, what impact wt71 the fdture land uses on adjacent lands, in accordance with the existing ioning;:have on the subject property's ecological . foncdoas. 2_ Figttte.2 shows Block 14 and 15 but there is ao indication what is the planned ]and use far these areas. Develaptncnt of the eadre woodlot would signifimnrly affect the use of the property as staz~er habitat for white-railed deer and wildlife movement west-eastal8ng the shoreline. Re: Proposed Land TJse. BIac1~ 14 and 15 If Blocks 14 and IS arc left is a natural state wt~ there be any changes in wildlife habitat is this area resulting from nc~ fiagmentatioa of the remainder of tiro property? 3. Page 4, paragraph 2 states "Since the Oro-Medontc Oft`icial Plan tnvironmenEal mapping indicated an old growth forest congranmt, we need to ask questions such as: Do wildlife travel from adjacent woodlars into a larger Coto old growth forest?" The report conains ao further discussion on this issue or haw the property functions in providing linkage along the generally forested shoreline coaidor. Re: Larger Core Old'Growth Rozest In'bur dpinian this tespotrse in association with item 5 iisponds to the issue raised. . 4. The disarssion on wildlife impacts is limited to Section 73 Iacide~l WrldIife Observations. There is no discussion on the existing quality of wildlife habiat and the impact of the proposed dcvelopmeni. W c recognize the February field survey limits the ability to 'obsen=c marry species (e.g., birds), however, a discussion of potential species composition based oa the habitat type would be appzopriate to determine the . potential of impaa'oa wildlife oa acrd off-site. 'For example, die repot[ has no assessment of the potential for forest 'interior bird species and the impact of fragmentation. It ?could also assist in the development of a Homeowners Manual if observa4 arpoteatial species were included. Re: Significant R~fldlife LGL has presented a review of designated sigaifrmmt species based on vulnerable, threatened or endangered (ul'~) status, howeveir,.the question ofrxistingquality of wildlife habitat, porearial species based on habitat Type ahd the impact oFrhe develalnnmt ate not addressed. The subject property does not appear to provide impact for YfE's, but there lane information an the potential impact to species that inhabit the subject PmPerry, as discussed in auz original eo+»mm* 5: The Om-Medonte Natural Heritage Baakgrotmd Report (Ecoglans 1995) identified the property as significant vegetarian with old gtowdr area. On page 12, paragraph 4, it states the old growth community and candidate specimens are limited to vegetation Community 3 and it fs present only is patches. It fiuther states "extensive forest clcarin~ in those portons of the property wuid effecriveTy reduce or eliminate entirely. the more si`caificaatrant commtmity." The configtuadoa of Cos~ity 3 on Figtue 2 indicatesthat development of Iota 7, 8, 9 of lQ with a Z500mZ btulding envelope conid potentially eliminate the significant portions of oId growth aeeas_ 2 0.1/29/99 10:3-1 $7057218928 AZIMUTH ENV -+-.+ ORO MEDOA'TE TfPP ~00~ • ~~ Far exaarple, if the recommended 2,SOOmZ burldmg envelope is applied on lots 7-10 wkere the old.gmwth forest is located, it npreseats approximately 40% of the total lot azea. If you subtractthe areas within the proposed geotecbrtical setback from dre total lot area available for the building envelope, tke Z,SOOm' or 0.6 acres becomes a significantly larger pordoa of the lot Hence the abtlity to avoid the old growth forest is fiatlier reduced I.GL also indicates the old growth specimen trees rcprtsent-a potential safety hazard to residential use, another reason they may require zemovaL Therefore, based on this information it would appear tke development could result is a si3niifrcanY redaction or loss of tke old gtnwth cotffiittnity on the property. Re: Bmlding Envelope and Proteetloa of OId Growth Character LGL srates'Based on the results of the Tree Saving Plan. and the surveyed Iocations of those features, the limits of rite individual budding cavclopts well be defined. Tke limits wiIl specify the appropriate diireway alignment, and the location and arrangement of the batlding envelopes to accit~odate the required house and septic system file bed" Azimuth staff agree with LGLtkaz the Tzee Saving Plan based on the detailed assessment of individual old growth specimen trees should define the sin of ruidence and associated building envelope- However, the suggested "stugi~t implanP' of the building envelop to protect the old growdt ckarncter of individual lots may not be comparable with the quality of homes and associated facilities (e.g, raisedseptic bed) etcpected to occupy die lots- 6.. Section 61 seems to indicam tare woadlot may not be significant because ii is Iess than 240 hectazes, btn there is . no clear st-atcmcnt as to its signifcance. Expezis' opinions vary on the issue ofcvoodIot size and significance. The Gro-Medonte Offidal Plan Nanual Heritage Background Report (Ecopians 1995) states widtin the KirkfieId/Sitrrcoc Loamy Plain Landscape Uztit, located north of Ridge Road ahd adjacent to the subject property, EcopIaas applied an area criteria of 40hcctars and a mum width of 200m to define a significant woodland The LGL report stazes at Section 6.2 "tke contiguous forest block of which the subjett.property vecapia thesouth cenaal portion is less than 50 ha"_ Fig~ae 2 shows dre property greatertban ZQOm wide- . Tkerefore, if yon apply the EcoPlans criteria, it world be appropriate to assess the function of the subject " property with the surrounding Iands to corffireut on its potential to be defined as significant woodland Tke repot[ did not clearly documerrt an assessment of the significance of the woadlot base3 on its ccologicai fmctions and fcannes sad its relationship with the adjacent woodlands, but seemed to apply only the arcs criterion.. Re:Bize Limits, Significant Woodlots The original issue rr'~+a+n[ uaansweredby the LGL trsponse, wkat is the significance of the woodlot based on its ecologiml functions and. feanlxes and iu relationship with the adjacent woodlands? Application of the Nan,nt Heritage policies based oa area Daly, dots not provide the Planning Advisory Co~ittce or Township staff with an indication of the significance based an the envitomnenml features present and their ecoIogieai functions within the Lake Simcoc Lowland Landscape Unit _, 7. The report's reference w the °~t:.~eat of rare species is.only in the executive s~azy. The body of the report did roc provide as indication of tite literatutc sources used to cottfitm this fact or ifLGL assessed the • potental for the. sire conditions to provide suitable habits[ foriare species dttriag the February field visit- 3 04/29/99 10:35 $7057218928 AZIMUTH ENV -.+. ORO MEDONTE TWP [7]005 i .®/ • / Re: Rare Spedes )n our opinion this response in association with point 4 responds to the issue raised. 8. There is no indication there was any conraa with dre local Mmisny of Nanaal Resources regarding the status of the creek and the potential for cold water habitat. Considering the site geology, the potential exists for cold water habitat It is widely recognized that, genetaIly, gtotmd water levels are at very low elevations due io dte lack of gzecipitation ov¢ the Ltst few years, and seasonal levels aze low in Febmary and Mazch. The report recommends a fisheries biologist participate in the design of the crossing to Blocks I3 and I5. It would be agproptiate consider the ability to itnplement a buffer gtratet than 25m if it is determined that that warercotase is cold water habitat during the consmmction ofthe crossing. the te~eratnre zegiate of the creek should also be rc-visited during warmer weather Re: Fisheries Stains of the Tributary Creek in our opinion this rasponse adequately responds to the issue raised 9. The impact assessment on the "Loss or degradation of Ssh habitat (page 13) states significant impacts could arise if insensitive roadway crossing designs, but provides no indication what the riparian wadinons are a[ the road aossing, their sensirivity, or if alternative crossing locations for the road were considered Providing mare specific information on the habitat conditions at ffie road crossing would assist Township sta$' in determining • the appmpriaze actions for the site plan approval stage: Re: Proposed Creek Crossing far Lot 13 In our opinion this rt5pnnse adeaaately responds m the issue raised However; dining otff meeting we disrnssed dre potential for eliminating the eiossing through construction of a single driveway to Lot 13 through Lot 14 from Ridge Road. If BIock 15 stays undeveloped the creek aossing may notbe necessary and access to Lot 13 could be accotmnodated through Block 15 with less envirommental disttubaace. No co~cnt on the viability of this option was provided I0. The report provides generic recommendanoiu for autigarioa and makes no indication that the client "wr31" implement any of the proposed measures. A commitment from the proponent to implement any LGL recotnmendatioas would provide Township staff with a mccltanism for tracking the implernenterion of mitigation measures or rho submission of additional studies during site plan approval (e.g.; old growth commtmiiy, shoreline stabrlizauan, creek tmssmg). LGL recognizes this need through their recommendation for retaining a fish habitat biologist diming design of the trcek crossing siructmes_ Re: Property Owner Commitment Tn our opinion this rrsponse adequately responds to the issue iaised I I. The recommendation is made for resaictive covenants as rifle (pg. 16, pats 2). This is a concept that has 6ecn • put forward in othez comparable situations to promote. concrr~ripn, The problem with icstrictive covenants, for example on tree removal, is duy are difficult to police. Recent discussions with the MinisnY of Natural Resources staff detc~ined they do not support the concept as a method of acdming environmental protection 09/29/99 10: JB $7057218928 AZIffiUTH ENV -+-+~ ORO MEDONTE TWY l¢IVUB \~~ / - . ~~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ because of the iaabrlity to costae coatpiiance. We agree with LGL's desire to preserve the ecological fcatiacs, however, we question the long term pracdcaliry of restuctive covenants. Re: Restnetive Covenants' . In out opinion this response adequately responds m the issae raised: 12. The repotz indicates there u existing slope instabtlity concern {pg. 13, Para 4) along the waterfront Aawever, Section 7.0, Aquatic Habitat has no discussion on:the shoreline waditiotu and if any impact on the shoreline .habitat is occurring from erosion of the an-site slops. Re: Water6rontStabtlity Ia out opinion this response adequately responds m the issue zai3ed. 13. Short term mitigation recommenaations {pg.14) far redaction of OId Growth Forest & Specimens states "mainrainminimum drip line pIas 15mmmdisnubedbuffer azound all specimens m be retained_ Figure 2 shows the majority of the lot widths in Vegetative Community 3 are 30 -32m at the north end: and 46m at the shoreline. We do notunderstaad how a 15mbuffer can be accommodated within,these lot sizes. Re: Tree Protection and Drip Lines • In our opinion this response adequately responds to the' issue raised, however it may assist the Planning Advisory Cananiuee m determining the potential for nee loss for LGL to indicate whatsabstantiallyteduced buffets could be expected 1mowing the cxisrmg disturbance, sotl conditions and spccirs larscnt la_ LGL indicates tliete could be potential impacts from storm discharge into the creek (pg.18, pats 4}. The report does not indicate how storm water runoff from the toad or lots,wtTt be managed. Re: Storm Water Management This issue is addressed in the response m the hydrogeological study in the foIlowing section. HVdrogeological Studv and Slope Stability Assessment Ter-.aprobe Limited (Tea2probe) reports entitled"Hydrogrolagical Study and SIope Stability Assessment Proposed Ruidential Subdivision, 2981 Ridge Road', dared Match 8, 1999 and the "Addendum to Hydrogrologic and Slope Stability Assessment Study", dated Apn7 22, 1949 have been reviewed AEC fundaraentatly agrees that the site is developabie to some extent, however, that is insufftciem data at this time to evaluate whefirer the proposed development can proceed at the dmsiry specified without causing degradation of ground warertesources oz impacts an adjacent landowners. • Texragrobe has identified the MGES Guidelines for Hydrogeologic Studies foi Land Develapmati applications { 1995) that "is intended as a guide m the information rt:gniiements ... for hydrogeological studies in support of S 04/29/99 10: a6 $7057218926 AZIMUTH ENV ~++ ORO MEDONTE TVYP f~i 007 i \~/ • ~Q development applications", (MOEE, 199. This reference provides a sound framework oftfie informational requircmcnts needed to assess, a development application. Recognizing this standard, the following issues have been identified and we tecortnnend else Township obtain further cIaxification prior to proceeding with your decision on the development application Items 1 to 3 1. Tenapmbe has no[ defined drt high water table with certainty. Tesagmlx states that "doting wetter seasons you should experience slightly higher sha]low gro~d water elevations". AEC agrees with Tetraprobe's evaluation In the absence oEthis infomration Teaapiobe has proposed the construction of a {oily raised septic bed (Figtue 1) which is safficfenr for the developm~t evaluation in our opinion However, thtsize and orientation of the septic bed footprint inquires minor wtrection Tile tuns should be orieatedperpendicular to the ground water flaw and na cansideradon was provided for, the side slopes an the raised bed m Figure 1. It is our opinion, that a septic bed can It7cely be accommodated on the lot, but it would be woztttwhile to ettsure each lot can conceptually accommodate the infrasmtcture needed to properly develop the lot prior to approving the lot baundaries to avoid fitnut problems. Tenaprobe has stand "the water table and capii]ary zone w171 govern final design deasions aaordingly" and that this needs to be assessed on a "lot by lot basis"_ It seems reasonable to evaluate these aitical factors that can affect the construction details prior to defining the lot boundaries. 2. Tcrraprobe also sTt~ests that the till unit is discontiadous, especially is the proximity of the tn'butary. Terrapiobe has not desrnbed the flow of ground water in this deeper unit' although it is believed that it remahu • towards. Lake Sitncoe. These speculative srctemeats need to be properly defined so that it does not lead to incorrect asattmptions and iiapaar not yet considered item a 3. Tertapzobe states that the information presented is Figures 11 and 12 "provide indications or trends in hydrogeologic conditions and can not be relied on to be site specific". The Matthew well. is identified, however, the stratfgtaphic sequence (ie., sandy clay and clay) indicated in this weII log is not consistent with that reported by Tertaprobe. It is anticipated that other info~atioa collected for a well drilled in 1978 may not mcu the informational requirements identified in the 1995 MOLE! Guidelines for Hydrogeologic Studies for Land Development Applitariotis as cited by Teaaprobe. AEC agrees with Tertaprobe shat it appears that there is sufliciem water quality and quantity for the. 'development However, these claims art made with limited site-specific information as noted above by . Terraprobe. The lvIOEE Guidelines for HydrogeoIogic Smdies for land Development Applications suggest: "Prepatadon of hydrogeological soldier prior m draft approval being granted' wtiI allow a realistic cxpectatian of the n~ber of lots that ~ be obtained on a site before a great deal of money has . been spent doing surveying, engineering drawings and a variety of other things notmaIly done as part of the planning and development process. If the studies reveal at this stage in the process that existing on-site conditons arc not suitable for individual servicing, the proponent will have the abtliry to explore other oprians without already having spent the amount of time and capital associated with conditions of draft approval 17ris approach would allow environmental realities to be met while reducing serious ewnomic expostue far. the proponent" (MOEE, 1995 The MOEE (1995) doamment addresses four central issues for private water supply being: • the water for domesric consumption most be of acceptable quality and quantity, • appropriate well constmcdan techmgaes must be followed, that mast be minhval adverse affects on the well watQ in dte development from sources of contamination on the site or an adjoining lands, and c 04/29/99 10:37 $7057218926 AZIDILTH ENV +-,~ ORO MEDONTE TV9P @1008 ^~ •>/ ' developments mast not result is water quanflty interfitenee conflicts between users. to our ophtion, the data presented by Tesaprobe does not provide the information needed to assess the fourth paint It will be incimbcat upon the developer or purchaser to address the second point when constructing the site yell. A properly selected weIl Ioextion wilt address the third point, which Tcuaprobc bas recognized in their documenntion (Item ~.' The proponent needs to speciScaIly stipulate the actions to be takes in addressing the aestheric parameters that have exceeded the Otrtarin Drinking water Objective. . It is noted that it is the consultant's responstbiliry to address water quality changes over time and to demonstrate that the water quality data are repteseatatiye of the quality of water which future rrideuts can expect in the long term. Item 5 4. Terrapmbe is correct m pointing o~ that only thirteen Iots are being proposed oa the subject lands. Ilie tlrirtecn proposed dwellings for this development may be able to draw sufficient water from the identified aquifer{s), however, some welt imerference is anricipa[ed, thus the concern is whether that interference is acceptable (minimal) for bath average dally requirements and peak usage: In our opinion, the nBOSmi55ivity of the identified aquifet(s} needs to be specified and from this data the estimated radius of influence determined and depicted on a Iot diagram or the subdivision plan. If spccifrc well spacings are regnuaed then the wells should be ittstalIed prior to site devdogme:nr to entstue camplianec, given ehe limitations imposed upon the lat development 5. No pump tat data or exptivaleut mformatioa has been supplied to substantiate claims. The sustainability of the •" aquifer tinder the proposed conditions that wontd approximatei an equivalent single well draw of 39 GPIvi; {i.e., 3 GPM lima i3 dwellings), bas not been evalttated by the Maithews well. Similarly, the ability of the aquifer to provide peak flow rates has not been substantiated to the level indicated is the referenced MOEE document {MOEE, 1995}_ A final concem is the disebntiauotis name of the aquifet(s} as depicted is the Terraprobe cross secaoa (Figttze i2), which might limit the avaIlable water at this development The cotisnltant tutor provide a statement indicatutg that, in their professional opinion and based oa supponable information, the probable well yields. determined on the base of their investigations are zepieseutative of the yields which residents of the development are Irkely to obtain from their well in the long term . 6. As noted by Tesaprobe above, the weIIs sear Shanty Bay "can not be relied oa to be site specific", bus do suggest that there is optimism that the aquifer(s) maybe capable of such yields and could be tested m determine the neural yield(s). .. I[em 6 7. No comment required Items 7 sad 8 8. There is"some dtscrepaacy between the text and Figure 1 since the text suggests a lot Ieagth of 135m and the " figure shows a 145m length. If the lot is only 135m they the pzposed development cannot be adequately. oriented on the lot The lot width u also wider than other lots and given the need to alter the septic bed orientation may be a eaitical factor in the lot sizing. 9. The orie:aration of ate septic bed in Figure lis incoaect score the nle inns are best-oriented perpendicular to ate ground water flow,directiotl The 2:1 or 4:I side slopercq~®ents for the [ailed bead have noibeem accounted for in the lot drawing: • 10_ Terraprolie has indicated that the dweIIing wt71 be limited to aifour-bedroom Ittxury residence since the sanitary design flow is reported to be 3,000 Uday_ If the developer is proposing a large troll thin ibe septic bed size 7 0/29/99 10:38 '$`7057218926 . ' / • A /,. 11. 13: 13. AZI?r([1TH ENV -.-,~ ORO 3SEDONTE TWP C~7j009 should be ahcted to reflex the tme dwelling size being groposed for the lot The septic bed arm and mantle wrTI requite the removal of aU trees from this area, therefore does this plan coaespond with the uce preservation plan discnsecd by I.GIi It is our perception that much of the building .envelope wr12 be cleared forthe house eonstntction and driveway. . Terrapmbe makes refer to newer technologies, but no:cansideradoa should be given unless the proponent intends m use these systems for this development There is also dre suggestion that the development of the septic system wt7i be the zespaast7~rTny of the owner_ It is out opinion that dre developer should be resgousible for the servicing of the Iat and demons¢ating the saitabiliry of the well and septic system to meet the regtrirements of the proposed dwelling prior to granting a budding petnvt. It is noted that Tesapmbc has assumed a background mhates concentration of zeta in the nature soitslgrouad water and this should be wnftmzcd through sampling as stipolated ut the MOEE Guidelines for Hydrogeologic Studies far Laad Developmetu Agplimtions (Section S.I.(c}} 14. AEC is is agreementwith the nitrate diharoa calculations presented by Tetrapmbe assuming all stnfaces aze drained to the subsutfacc_ However, the valves would fluctnsie according to individual lot sizes, thus the issue is whether the evacuation should 6e conducted on the sabdivision as a whole and present an averaged value or evaluated on each individual lot size, as presented by Terra{nbbe. Regardless, the subdivision lots would not exceed the upper limit of 10 mglL for nitrates as set by the MOE. The evaluation does not meet the Reasonable Use Polity since the niaates increase would be greater than that allowed. This type of evaltation is normaIly reserved only for larger septic systems and is not typically applied to individual serviciag_ • COMMENT The Towns}dp needs to determine their poficy regarding acarmalative impacts owing to subdivision development Subdivision development within a ground water basin ~ be based on acct~uiativc impacts and thus each development mnst axount for fugue upgradient gad downgradiearimpacts for their development AlreraativeIy, the ability m support a proposed subdivision can be based solely as rile subject property and the conditions present at the time of rho evaluation withom regazd w fut~nc development The latter. option is based on a "fast come, first serve" basis. The farmer option provides a "level playing field" for all property owners. item it 15. Tesaprobe is waect is their evahtation to use 1,400 Lday. .Item 12 16. Tetraprobe has not supplied the requested information err made a logical connection between tested soils and those soils seen on the property (ie, mineral tomcat), It is onr opinion that this'evaluadon is based on' speculative information. Zt is zeasonable to assume drat the sorts have some sorprive opacity, but it has not yet been quantified. 17. The phosphorous concentration of 14 mg/L is inconsistent wiih the 15 mg1l, stipulated in Appendix C3 of the MOEE GradeIiaes for HydmgeoIogic Studies for Land Development Applications (Section 53.(d)). 18. AEC is in agrccment with Teaapmbe that There is some mrdetemained degree of phosphorous sorption capacity in the site sorts. COMMENT • The Township needs to detetatine dtcn-poliry regarding phosphorous inputs to the Lake Simcoe basin. Individual septic systems are not nomtaIIy evaluated for phosphorous impacu on the lake. However, there is great concern abort the ghosphorvus loading into the lake and new initiatives being considered at this lime. The MOE has begun 01/29/99 10:J8 '$7057218926 AZI3fU'fH ENV -~-.-+ ORO MEDONT'E TfPP [{7J 010 a •~~. to 17an any devciapment an specific takes in the Hahburton ]tegion.because fttr[her degradation of the lake quality by development is anticipated to adversely harm fire sustaittability of the lake. Logistical Considerations Item 1 1. No comment regnired Item 2 2. No cotnmentrequired Item 3 ~. No coasidemdon should be given to the poss-~ility of diverting dweUnng drainage to the subsnrf'ace (i.e., roof Ieadecs) to improve etrrito~ental conditions as suggestedm the original document. This iechazge area should be removed from any ground water dilution caIcaladon made including the nitrates evaluation presented above. Stormwater Management (Qnality and Qtiantity) No stotmwater tnanagemenrplaa was presented. It is feltthe hydrologic aspecss of the deceIopmcnt should have been presented to ea,ure drat the development coacept is appmpriatc: Bcyond gcncxal comments about. the rue of infiitmtion galleries is roadside ditching, no calculations were presented on the infrastructttreraquirements for. adequate stotmwater connol and managemcnt. • She Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority suggests is their Watershed DevelopmenrPolicy tha[ a Stormwater Management Plan is required for plans of snbdivisioiL. The dontmcat also indicates tharnew development shall comply with Level 1 stormtvater quality pmtecdon in accordance with the 1994 MOEE document entitled "Stotmwater Management Ptacticns-Planning and Design ltiianual. Several other specific condirions for the s[ormwatcr management pion are highlighted in Section 6 of the Watershed D~evelopmcnt Policies Manual. Erosion Control Item 1 1. No commcni rcquiruL The Township Engineer should review'this information. Item ~ 2. No comment required_ The Township Engineer should review this information. Item 3 3. No comment requned. The Township Eagineei should review dtis information: Item 4 4. No cotnment required. The Township Engineer should review'dtis information- Details related to the acceptable cansttuction practices need to be presented by proponent OA/29/99 10: J9 $7057218928 AZIMUTH ENV .»-. ORO MEDONTE TVPP 1Q 011 ./ COIICEIISIOIIS ~. We recommend the Township sedc clffiificatian on [he sfoiemenrioned issues prior m de[r_rm:*+;.+a, the accep~hx'liry of the agpli~tioa. - ~~ Yours uuly, nZTMCTTx ENVII20NMENTAL CONSULTING, IIvC. Paul Neals, B.Sc.Agr Vice-President PCN: ~ ~. • . IO • PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE April 28, 1999 David Scandrett, P-87/99 Part of Lot 33, Concession 2 (Oro) Proposal The applicants have applied for a Zoning By-law Amendment in order to perrnit two single detached dwellings on a property located in Concession 2, Part of Lot 33 (Oro) for a period of 14 years. Official Plan -Rural Zoning By-law - AgriculturaURural (A/RU) Department Head Comments Is the septic system adequate to handle both dwellings? Fixed period of 14 years seems to be an unusual amount of time (10 years permitted). What happens after the 14 years, and is it at the expense of the • owners? Planninq Department Comments In the former Township of Oro Official Plan there were policies, which allowed two single detached dwellings on one property for the purposes of full- time farm help. This provision however tended to be misused/abused and was removed when the new Oro-Medonte Official Plan was adopted. The Township is currently attempting to resolve the conflict related to the existing properties, which currently have two existing dwellings. In 1995 the Planning Act was amended to permit a garden suite on a temporary basis for a period not to exceed ten years. A garden suite was defined in the Planning Act as "a one unit detached residential structure containing a bathroom and kitchen facilities that is ancillary to an existing residential structure and that is designed to be portable." When this was implemented in the Planning Act through the Temporary use provisions it was intended that a Temporary Use By-law be approved by Council to implement this provision. The Township at that time determined criteria for consideration with any Temporary Use By-law. A copy is attached for the Committee's reference. • The Oro-Medonte Official Plan does not contain any policies, which would permit two dwellings on a single property. The applicants have applied for a rezoning for a period of 14 years, however an Official Plan Amendment would also be required to permit the application as proposed. The Committee should determine the rationale behind the 14-year time period from the applicant, and further ascertain if the 10-year Temporary Use By- law for a garden suite would meet the applicant's needs. If the Committee sees favor with this application, an agreement would be required to be entered into between the applicant's and the Township, which would be registered on title and would ensure the removal of the structure at the end of the time frame. Securities would also be required to be posted with the Township for the entire time period to ensure the removal of the structure. The Township Zoning By-law 97-95, as amended now permits an accessory dwelling unit attached to a single detached dwelling. The Committee should determine if this would be a viable option for the applicant. In considering this application as is, the Committee must address the issue of the precedent, which could be set in granting this application and should discuss mechanisms, which would ensure the removal of the structure if the . Committee sees favor with this application. Recommendation: That Development Application P-87/99 proceed to a Public Meeting in accordance with the Planning Act only after the Committee determines the appropriateness of the form of application on the subject property. POLICY ON GARDEN SUTTES (GRANNY FLATS) In February of 1997 Council adopted a report of criteria required to permit a garden suite on properties within the Township of Oro-Medonte. Prior to a garden suite being constructed on any property a Temporary Use Zoning By-law Amendment is required to be processed through the Planning Department, a copy of the application is attached for completion. A "Garden Suite" is defined in the Planning Act as the following: ^ a one unit detached residential structure containing a bathroom and kitchen facilities that is ancillary to an existing residential structure and that is designed to be portable. This structure is permitted for a period of not more than 10 years. Further to this definition Council has adopted the following criteria in considering an Temporary Use By-law application: 1. A mobile home or trailer (as defined below) is not considered a "Garden Suite"; 2. The "Garden Suite" must utilize all existing servicing available on the property including, but not limited to: hydro, well, and septic system; 3. The existing driveway to the main residential dwelling is to be utilized for access and no new entrance will be permitted; • 4. That the minimum gross floor area is required to be 50 square metres (538 square feet) and that maximum gross floor area is 85 square metres (915 square feet) provided that the "Garden Suite" is not more than 50% of the gross floor area of the main residential dwelling; 5. The Simcoe County District Health Unit or the Ministry of Environment and Energy must indicate, in writing, that they have no objection to the Temporary Use By-law; 6. That the applicant must enter into the appropriate agreement with the Municipality which shall be registered on title to ensure removal of the "Garden Suite"; Z That a site plan be provided by the applicant and appended to the agreement noted above; 8. The "Garden Suite" is not transferable to any subsequent owner(s) and the owner applying for the Temporary Use By-law is responsible for removal of the "Garden Suite" prior to sale of the property; and 9. That securities in an amount deemed appropriate by Council are deposited with the Municipality for the term of the "Garden Suite". a MOBII,E HOME is defined as: "a home, movable and suitable for permanent or semi-permanent residence and not being less than 15 metres in length and 3 metres in width, and containing suitable sanitary and food preparation facilities within the same. The unit remains a mobile home even though it may be jacked up and its running gears removed. This definition does not include manufactured buildings for residential occupancy constructed in compliance with CAN/CS.4-2240.2.1, "Structural Requirements for Mobile Homes", CAN/CSA-2240.8.1, "Light Duty Windows", and CAN/CSA-2240.3.1, "Plumbing Requirements for Mobile Homes" if the building is constructed in sections not wider tban 4.$8 metres (16 feet), or CSA A-277 "Procedure for Certification of Factory-Built Houses".(ONTARIO BUILDING CODE SECTION 2.1.1.4) a TRAILER is defined as: "any vehicle so constructed that it is suitable for being attached to a motor vehicle for the purposes of being drawn or propelled by the motor vehicle, notwithstanding that such vehicle is jacked up, but not including any vehicle unless it is used or intended for the short-term camping, living, sleeping, or eating accommodation of persons therein, and shall be deemed to include a tent". n PLANNING q~ ~` =q.I.y _. t,A(JD USE CONTROLS AND RELATED ADMIMS"i'RATION S. 4Q F land elects to provide facilities, service height or density of d l i(6.1} Mere by-law appealed. - If the period of time during which an interim i eve opment, the r i on 1 by-law is in effect has expired and the council has passed a by-law under sect nto one or more agreements with the e - ~pttsequent on the completion of the review or study within the period of time s or matters. ' ed in [he interim control by-law, but there is an appeal of the by-law under greement entered into under subsection - ~on 34(19), the interim control by-law continues in effect as if it had not expired it applies and the municipality isentitled the date of the order of the Municipal Board or until the date of a notice issued owner and, subjett to the provisions of ~~the secretary of the Boazd under subsection 34(23.1) unless the interim control and all subsequent owners of the land, is repealed. 1994, c. 23, s. 73(3). ~'pN _ ; ('I) Prohibition- -Where an interim control by-law ceases to be in effect, the the council of a local of the municipality may not for a period of three years pass a iunher interim l b l i i municipality has. aw nterim wntro y- nal - trol by-law that applies to any lands to which the orig ~rstudybeundertakeninrespectofland ~ 'ed. any defined area or areas thereof, the (hereinafter referred to as an i (8) Application of s. 34(9). -Subsection 34(9) applies with necessary nterim ne specified in the by-law, which period i5cations to a by-law passed under subsection (1) or (2). 1983, c. 1, s. 37(7, 8). passing thereof, prohibiting the use of aliryorwithinthedefinedare _ ~-39. (1) Temporary useprovisions.-Thecouncilofalocalmunicipalitymay,in aorareas set out in the by-law. ,bylaw passed under section 34, authorize the temporary use of tand, buildings or #ouncil of th res for any putpose set out therein that is othetwise prohibited by the by-law. e municipality may _ +C 1, s. 38(1). ienod of time during which it will be in t exceed twoyears from the date of the ~ t- - (1.1) Definition. - In [his section, "garden suite" means aone-unit detached s. 37(1, 2). 'dential s[mctute containing bathroom and kitchen facilities that is ancillary to an ice or hearing is re uired i ting residential structure and that is designed to be portable. q pr or to the rut the clerk of the municipality shall ~ (1.2) Agreement for garden suite. - As a condition to passing a by-law , rdies and containing the information ;~,lttthorizing [he temporary use of a gazden suite under subsection (1), the council may subsection (I) or (2} within chitty days ~:,fequire the owner of the suite or any other persons to enter into an agreement with the :. l3, s. 23(1). _~' municipality under section 207.2 of the MunicipatAcr. 1994, c. 2, s. 44(1). rlic body to whom notice of a by-law ~ :~ r~ (2) Area and time in eftect. - A by-law authorizing a temporary use under days from the date of the passing of } --lubsecnon (i) shall define the area to which it applies and prescribe the period of time rig with the clerk of the municipality ~ ~' Wtwhieh the authorization shall be in effec4 which shall not exceed by-law and the reasons in support of - sy - (a) ten years from the day of [he passing of the by-law, in the case of a by-law (2). authorizing the temporary use of a gazden suite; or ro) three yeats from the day of the passing of the by-law, in all other cases.1983, V ed under subsection 4 ,subsections :o the a O ppeal.1993 a 26 54 9 - , c. 1, s. 38(2); 1994, c. 2, s. 44(2). -~ , , s. ;1 96, (3) Extension. - Despite subsection (2), the council may by by-law grant further ~~O~ofnotmorethanthreeyearseachduringwhichthetemporaryuseisauthorized. --Where the period oftimeduring sired and the council h - e~. (4) Noa-application of s.34(9)(a).-Upon the expiry of the period or periods of as not passed detionoftherevieworstud within f .-~tlmementionedinsubsections(2)and(3),clause34(9)(a)doesnotapplysoastopermit y by-law, or where an interim control ( ~ ~ continued use of the land. buildings or sttvctures for the purpose temporarily 1 thereby is reduced. the provisions ~ ~ authorized. 1983, c. 1, s. 38(3, 4). i immediately prior to the coming ( nto force and have effect in r I s - 4~. (1) Agreement exempting owner from requicement to provide parking. - espect i to the interim control by-law. 1983 ! -~- Where an owner or occupant of a building is required under a by-law of a local . 1 '-. municipality to provide and maintain parking facilities on land that is not part of a • _ highway, the council of the municipality and such owner or occupant may enter into an 45 i n U TABLE OF CONTENTS Document Development Application Schedule "A" to the Application Proposed Zoning By-law Location Map Topographic Map Surveyor's Sketch Tab n -J Township of Ors-Aledanfe. PO Q~rr 100, Ora, Onfaria_ LOL 110 llevelopmeut r~plicatiou • Application No. P- [ j Application to amend the O(icial Plan oClhe Township [XJ Application to amrnd the Comprehensive Zoning By-law ( ] Application to consider a Drag Plan of Subdivision [) Other, pleaze specify f/)67E hereby apply, as specified above. to the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medante. II is exprenly understood shat this application is in regard only to the lands u hereinafter dumbed, and is made pursuant fo the provisions of The Planning Act- R.S.O.. 1990- All costs assodated with the applicuion shall be paid as per the TnrifF of Pecs Dy~law including all cos¢ assoaarcd n'ith au appeal o! the applicabon m the Untarm ALmicipal Hoard. } VWe enclose herewith applicasion and processing fees in the amours of S29S0.00 for an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning ©y-law (EI10000 is a refimdable deposit m accordance rvith the Tarifiof Pces Oy-law). 8~ifNF.BO-rt00'taa-oricss?; ~_ ;rBy-iaovt DATED AT THE / "' - '•> ~"' ? OF ~~, ~.~~.'~ [N THE ~'<~. T;, OF /- ~•~~ ~.~- Tti ~ ~ ~' TIIIS ~~ DAY OF ~ ' r ~ ~ 199? . ~~ ~ %~ i71 ~ ~~~ ~~ Signature ofApplicantw AUthodz<d Agent Signatrveo ommissioner (To be witnessed by a Commissioner) To be completed by the Applicant or Authorized Agent (Please punt or type) Name of Applicant David M. 8candrett FuIlMailingAddress R.R. p2 Shant Da Ontario LOL 2L0 Telephone Number (705) 728-9971 (}Tome) (705) 423-3916 (Business) 2. Name of Applicant's Agent Phyllis Carlyle (wi£e) Full Mailing Address Shanty Day Ontario LOL 2L0 Telephone Number _ (705) 778-997 t (HO(nP) (905) 895-12'}1. Ext . 1400 (Business) (905) 895-3768 (Fax) NOTE: All correspondence and communlcatlons rvi[1 be directed to the Applicant's Agent unless otherwise specified. Township ojOro-hfedonte. PO Box l00. Oro. Ontario, LOL ZYO Development Application Application No. P- • 3. FuII legal desrnption of the property which is the subject of this Application including the name of the former Municipality in which it is located, e.g. Lot L Concession 1, Township of Onllia, and. if known, the area of the land covered by the proposed amendment. Part oY Lot 33, Concession 2 (at the intersection of the Bass Lake Sideroad) former Township of Oro 12.8 acres To be answered by the Applicant (Please print or tvoe) 4. 1.1 Are you the registered owner of the subject lands? Yes X No 1.2 Do you act on behalf of the registered owner? Yes No 2.1 Do you have an option to purchase the subject lands? Yes_ No_ 2.2 [f so, what is the expiry date of the Option? 2.3 Have you an offer to Purchase or Agreement of Sale in respect of the subject lands, or any portion thereof with the Registered Owner? Yes_ No_ 2.4 What is the expiry date of any Offeror Agreement mentioned in 4.2.3? 2.5 Is the above noted Option, Offer or Agreement conditional on the success or failure of this Application? Yes_ No_ • 5. PresentOficialPlandesignation(s) Rural 6. Present Zone classification(s) Agricultural/Rural 7. Present Use of subject lands Residential - Single Family Dwelling 8. Proposed use of subject lands Residential - Two Single Family Dwellings 9. Official Plan designation required t0. Zone Classification required Site Specific Re-Zoning to Permit Two Singl Family Dwellings for 14 Years t I. Applicant's reason, azgument and/orjustification for requiring the proposed Amendment(s) (attach a supplementary schedule if necessary). SCHEDULE "A" • 2 Township of Oro-Medome. PO Box 100, Oro. Ontario, LOL 1.Y0 Development Application . App6carion No. P- 12. Supplementary and supposing material to be submitted by the Applicant-. All information as required under the Township of Oro-Medome Development Guidelines. 2. Survey or sketch prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor showing: [~ Applicant's/Ownersrotal holdings of land in the subject area. [~ Land which is to be subject of the requested Amendment clearly indicated thereon (in the case of ao amendment, please provide ten (t0) 11" Y 17" copies of the site plan or boundary survey). [~ The location, size and use of all existing buildings or structures on the subject lands and on immediately adjacent properties. All topographical features shall also be shown. [~ The location, width and names of ail road allowance, rights-of--ways, streets or highways within or abutting the property, indicating whether they are public travelled roads, private roads, rights-of--way or unopened road allowances. l3. What other Provincial Ministries or other Agencies or individuals have been consulted with prior to the submission of this Application? (eg. Ministry of Municipal Affairs, School Boards, District Health Unit, County Engineer, etc.) I4. Is the subject land or any land within 120 m (400 R) of the subject land the subject of another Development Application made by the applicant for approval of an Official Plan amendment, a Zoning By-law amendment, a Plan oiSubdivision, a Minor Variance, a Consent, or a Site Plan? Yes No X If yes, please state which type of application, if known, the application number, and describe the lands which are subject to this application. NOTE: Only jut/y completed app/lcaNons accompanied by the necessary supporting materrats wi/! be processed T/~e personal injormatian on this form is being ca/leased pursuant to the Planning .9ct, R.S.O., 1990, aP. t 3 and wit/ be used in relarlon to the processing ojthis Development Appficatron. /jyou have any questions, please ask at the Oro-Afedonte Township O;~ces. SCHEDULE "A" u REQUEST To permit a second single family residence for a fixed period of fourteen years on a 12.8 acre property located in the agriculturallrural zone REASONS FOR THE REQUEST 1. The proposed by-law would create affordable housing fora 14 year period for an older woman who is a long standing member of the community. This woman has cared for the owner's children for 7 I/z years and is an integral part of the family unit. Unfortunately, affordable housing is limited in Oro-Medonte and this has resulted in difficulty in meeting her housing needs. 2. The property has been owned by the current owner for over 21 years. The owner's family has grown in number through the birth of two children and the existing small residence does not meet the family's • housing needs. The family desires to remain in the area and maintain their ties with the community. The proposed second single family residence would be a larger structure in the middle of the parcel and would accommodate the family's needs. 3. The property is zoned agriculturaUrural but has not been subjected to agricultural practices for over 23 years as the 12.8 acre parcel does not provide for an economically viable operation. The highest and best use of the property is for residential purposes. 4. There are 5 homes currently in a small grouping of permanent residences at the intersection of the Bass Lake Sideroad and the 2nd Concession. The locale has the characteristics of a small hamlet with the presence of an old school house at one comer. 5. The current access to the property is at the T intersection where the Bass Lake Sideroad meets the 2nd Concession which presents egress and ingress problems. The existing access would be closed upon the expiration of the by-law. The proposed Location of the driveway for the new residence provides an easier, safer road access directly onto the 2nd Concession away from the intersection. 6. The owner will provide a separate well for the new residence. The soils are sandy, well drained and suitable for an in ground system. The size of the property (12.8 acres) presents no difficulty in accommodating a new system as well as an area for a reserve bed. 7. The owner will provide a new well for the new residence. The wells in the neighbourhood are traditionally drilled and tap a deep aquifer. There has been no difficulty relating to supply in the area. 8. The owner has planted approximately 500 trees around the eastern, western and southern perimeter of the property that will function to buffer the new residence from the road and preserve the vistas along the 2"d Concession. The new residence will be set back from the road approximately 300 feet. The eventual elimination of the original house will open the vista at the intersection of the 2"d Concession and the Bass Lake Sideroad. . 9. There are no wetlands on the property and the property has minimal slope; a characteristic which would not be altered through the construction of the second residence. The proposed construction would result in minimal disruption of the existing vegetation. 10. The second residence must be analyzed with respect to its impact on the adjoining uses. The agriculturaUrural used to the west, which is active farnung, would not be impacted through the addition of the second residence in that the residence would be set back a minimum of 300 feet from the property line. The nearest barn associated with the adjoining rural use is one concession removed. The rural residential uses to the north, which consist of two permanent residences, would be enhanced when the existing structure is removed and the new residence is separated by an even greater distance. 11. The end result would be the creation of a large lot with a single family residence in the centre, well set back from the road with new water and septic systems with less impact on the adjoining uses than exist today. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE BY-LAW NUMBER 99- A BY-LAW TO AMEND ZONING BY-LAW NUMBER 97-95, AS AMENDED WHEREAS it is deemed desirable to amend By-law 97-95; AND WHEREAS the authority is granted pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S_O. 1990, Chapter P. 13 to the Council of the Township ofOro-Medonte to exercise such powers; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT the lands subject to this By-law consist of Part of Lot 33, Concession 2, of the former Township of Oro, as more particularly shown in Schedule "A" attached hereto. 2. THAT Schedule "A" attached hereto shall form part of this By-law 3. THAT notwithstanding anything to the contrary in By-law 97-95 in addition to • the uses permitted in the AgriculturaURura1 Zone, the lands may also be used for the purposes of a second single family dwelling for a fourteen year period commencing from the date of the passage of this by-law. PASSED this day of ,1999 Clerk U Schedule "A" Part of Lot 33, Concession 2, former Township of Oro 1 Subject Lands n U ~ y0 ~ W~ G Z Gp ~ ~ y0 $ W~ O~G G -~_: ~ , • • CONCESSION 1 CONCESSION 2 Si-~~ c,= .~ o r J 3 ~ C on.~cESS iON Z~ Twnr a ~! N w! c..~ 4~~V\ .C wsO C`N^iY~O TO G~yy Sr aasr. ~ isz~ j 1 gUR1L REiIDP<iTZAL a+ea ~ re 'S ~r x2104...4 II'~ rivtr r Tfc.y7 f „ RN2AC 1 = .NRAI. ~ R i~ S b ~~ :; <er =~ ~ <o r Z Z c a - ~u SZMCOP C~