The URL can be used to link to this page

02 22 2012 2011-OPA-02 2011-ZBA-09 (Crestwood Park)• i • • 1 � i[ i 2011- OPA -02 2011- ZBA-09 (Crestwood Park Holdings Inc.) TAKE N0110E that the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro - Medonte will hold a Public Meeting on Wednesday February 22, 2012 at 7.30 p.m. in the Municipal Council Chambers. The purpose of the public meeting is to obtain public comments on proposed amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By -law, under Sections 17, 22, and 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1890 c. P. 13. THE PURPOSE of the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By -law Amendments are to redesignate and rezone the lands described as 99 Mount Saint Louis Road East, being East Part of Lot 10, Concession 7 (formerly Medonte) Township of Oro- Medonte. A portion of the total lands are proposed to be redesignated from Rural to Commercial and rezoned from Agricultural/Rural (A/RU) and Environmental Protection (EP) Zones to General Commercial (GC), Agricultural /Rural (A/RU) and Environmental Protection (EP) Zones in order to facilitate the proposed commercial (Restaurant) use. A KEY MAP illustrating the location of the subject lands is provided below. ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting and /or make written or verbal representation either in support of or in opposition to the proposed Amendments. If a person or public body that files an appeal of a decision of the Township of Oro - Medonte in respect of the proposed Amendments does not make oral submission at the public meeting or make written submissions to the Township before the proposed Amendments are adopted, the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss all or part of the appeal. If you wish to be notified of the decision of the Township of Oro - Medonte in respect to the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By -law Amendments, you must make a written request to the address below. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS should be directed to: Township of Oro- Medonte 148 Line 7 South P.O. Box 100, Oro, Ontario LOL 2XO Attn: J. Douglas Irwin, Clerk ADDITIONAL INFORMATION relating to the proposed Zoning By -law and Official Plan Amendments are available for inspection between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Township of Oro - Medonte Administration Building. For further information, contact the Planning Department at 705 -487 -2171. DATED at the Township of Oro - Medonte this 8`d day of February 2012. Andria Leigh, MCIP, RPP d Director of Development Services FA 0 o a w W& M- 9 f ata EM SUBJECT PROPERTY (89 MOUNT SAINT LOUIS ROAD EAST) Ai V U NtEA'vLiffiel�kVA9 // A�ICUI,lUgF21fl1lgpl� i Il; P.M�MHAOU`c ARCHRECT v:ax... e►ee.:u nn ra wp0am:� PROPOSED ZONING 1 i DESIGNATION . PRNM.. 10.130 I:= OATEmr OPAlV , Nw. 8, 2011 A-1 PUBLIC 4EETING FOR PROPOSED A 4ENDMENT TO THE TO /VNSHIPS ZONING BY-LA\At 97 -95 OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION 2011- OPA -02 ZONING BY -LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION 2011- ZBA -09 East Part of Lot 10, Concession 7 99 Mount Saint Louis Road East (former Township of Medonte) Township of Oro - Medonte 2011 -OPA-02 & 2011 -ZBA-09 Public Meeting February 22, 2012 o Purpose of Meeting - To obtain public comments on proposed amendments to the Township's Official Plan, and Zoning By -law 97 -95, as amended. The proposed amendments would apply to lands described as East Part of Lot 10, Concession 7, municipally known as 99 Mount Saint Louis Road East (former Township of Medonte). o Applications 2011- OPA -02 & 2011- ZBA -09 propose to permit a commercial (""Restauran use to be operated on the subject lands. t// ) pr F: B CO LAI I 0 C r. d dpV U011-pDo Ad I 2011 - OPA-02 & 2011 - ZBA-09 Public Meeting February 22, 2012 • The property subject to applications 2011- OPA -02 and 2011- ZBA -09: • Have approximately 241 metres (791 feet) of frontage along Mount Saint Louis Road East; • Have approximately 685 metres (2,248 feet) of frontage along Highway 400; and • The property has an area of approximately 88 acres ( hectares). 0 0� ,`q *approximate area .related to proposed restaurant use �t W EJECT PROPERTY (SS MOUNT SANIT LOUIS ROAD BAST) IANDt SUEJSCTjTO PROPOSED COMMERCIAL USE 2011 - OPA-02 & 2011 - ZBA-09 Public Meeting February 22, 2012 • Per Schedule "A" to the Official Plan, the subject lands XX X1 LI are designated Rural, with a ' ' portion designated Environmental Protection Tzvo Overlay in the Township's Official Plan, The Environmental Protection Two Overlay designation recognizes a significant woodland feature. 1I PJ'A r ='1 -- I . - - 2011 - OPA-02 & 2011 -ZBA-09 Public Meeting February 22, 2012 • Official Plan Amendment Application 2011- OPA -02 proposes to amend the designation for a portion. of the property ro ert from P Y Rural to Commercial. Exact boundaries are to be determined. • Zoning By -law Amendment Application 2011- ZBA -09 proposes to amend the zoning for a portion of the subject property from the Agricultural/ Rural (A/ RU) Zone and Environmental Protection (EP) Zone to the General Commercial (GC) Zone. Exact boundaries are to be determined. • The purpose of the proposed Amendments is to facilitate the proposed "Restaurant" use. I i 16ih/ . E SITE CONCEPT Ira-ORMATION BASED o1NERALL T09oaNAPM PLAN a ^ OF 99 MOUNT S7. "' RD. EAST OF PART LOT 10, CONCESSION 7, C"TY OF SIMCOE BY DEARDEN AND STANTON LTD. DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 2011 V' SEWAGE IISPOSk 0 N xs so �j SCALE M mrSxl / B, J ,�01, J1 110, // 1{ / J, V. OUTLINE OF AREA OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL SHOWN DASHED NSr551i`E Ni I i AREAS TO REMAIN AS ffa ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION I AREA TO REMAIN AS I AGRICULTURAL I RURAL GOLDWATER RIVER 74SMM NSTS3'45"E - a r= f' % a P Y r ------- ------ - -� AREA TO BE ZONED & DESIGNATED COMMERCIAL SHOWN CROSS HATCHED AREA TO REMAIN AS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RODERICK H. YOUNG ARCHITECT P.O. a" 10 107(bclls el 01114.0feAft0v NHS F553 014 Far a (70 (756)711fiHf E-me1 Y'+ wyac 'l m. SITE DEVELOPMENT AND NEW BUILDING for: NEW RESTAURANT 99 Mount St. Loins Road TowrMp of Oro Madonle TITLE: PROPOSED ZONING l DESIGNATION PROJECT: 90 -130 1 SCALE: 1:2500 DATEISSUED: I DRAWING NUMBER: Nov. 8, 201 9 CT.,+ PA -02 & 2011, Public Meeting �bruary 22. 20 SITE STATISTICS ELEMENT AREA PERCENT TOTAL BUILDINGS & WALKWAY 759.83 sq.m. j 8,178,74 s%ft.) 022 % PARKING I DRIVEWAYS 9,062.39 sq.m. (97,546.75 SOL) 2.51 % LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE 350,078,35 sq.m, (3,768,212,00 SOL) 97.27 % Total 399,900,37 sq,m. (3,873,937,49 s%ft) 100.00 % 1 1 »il�..wa»sw \`I i i I 1 4 1 I i ul.l ♦4\OI.411ke w.`. �k PARKING PROVISIONS PROPOSED USE RESTAURANT WILDING AREA =GROSS FLOOR AREA (Excivi s East Gwapa)= 592.62 sq.m, PARKING REQUIREMENTS BASED ON t SPACE d 9 sg.m. OF G.FA. =592.62 sq.m.19 sq m. PER SPACE =6&M SPACES =66 SPACES PARKNG RECUREMENTS BASED ON PROPOSED USE = 66 SPACES PARKING PROVIDED =168 SPACES BARB IER+REE PARKNG PROVIDED= 4 SPACES LOAJIVG SPACES! 1 9-5 m x 10 m SPACE REQUIRED AND PROVIDED PRCRn.". I Y1wE ..,. T.YIws � ^•iN[ rEk,: .agc..tiYa LL L OPrvSMb 41 111. O R IVS,m Mr NIIY•w »_ . rno•u.I i l l { I ! I f + I 1 -1 ! f�1 l I � �� CI\']'1•"V� -•�} t 'a 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 t I .I I I tw.t 4P10• i ,µ y1 1 I f I 1 � 1 ,�1 t I ,I � "9 aw r- ,a,el.... •., ' . .� u. ONIYEY.} - OME f•• '4Rt @ rq•ewYi... ��.w O)1.1 rl �.I 'I �.1 •vl arI 1 q1.7 w1 1 1 �� _ V _ �� +� iL2 \ -y uw yylYtw.V =Y I wr v n e.. r xx xt +mow w.wwn 9 it v.apv 9;r:♦ I.l11 S14.01 $I... � r u w. YwlvarJr•' @ 'i.�� , .t ,xr,o,. rn „� »r`.: .1: 1 :1171 ..rOE �..Iwa:. mom Z R .¢e wyJ .per '41n y C3 ar m Iw,nrrwu.l "°� ..n.lw R[RRM® In'iM. .elprtiu �SIRVICI •.~, — w /! ,.YARD i— -•'- •ASM y Z {u .% $ r"wwra L A' ^"7t .... I .. IIS•� 0 pv @ i 0 }lr ti:i i. 'zii i. rL��•eai:ii:ti ti.� .iYiii... ..::fir ii.�i•iaC:��'f rp. aP ............................. ........... ........... -- ................. .... .... \• B� 201 J,--OPA�02 & 2011 �ZBAw09 Riihionnt Prr)ninrfx/ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIP I I if% 40MMIMV4 1; or, a 6,1 -ALS ftb �f 2011 -OPA-02 & 2011 -ZBA-09 x �,"Oow ' W i ;., __ .fMvr •i i ara �� '�� rlf! 11'� jp� Y 2011 - OPA-02 & 2011 -ZBA-09 Public Meeting February 22, 2012 Contents of the applicant's submissions included: • Application Sketch • Site Plan drawing • Landscape Concept Plan • Key Map drawing • Draft Official Plan Amendment and Draft Zoning By -law Amendment • Planning Justification. Report • Functional Servicing Package including: • Sewage Servicing • Grading and Storm Drainage Review • Electrical Service and Communication • Traffic Impact Study • Stage 1 Archaeological Research • Hydrogeological Assessment • Scoped Environmental Impact Statement 2011 - OPA-02 & 2011 - ZBA-09 Public Meeting February 22, 2412 Application Process to Date: • Applications have been circulated to relevant agencies, including: • Ministry of Transportation, • County of Simcoe, • Nottawasaga. Valley Conservation Authority, and • Township consulting engineer (AECOM) • Today's Public Meeting is being held as required under the Planning Act Further Processing of Application: • After the Public Meeting, and once comments are assessed by relevant departments) / a.gency (ies), Planning staff will bring forward a report to Council on the proposed amendments. • Timing for the consideration of the proposed amendments is subject to receipt of comments from departments, agencies, and the public, and potential revisions by the applicant as a result of comments received. 2011 - OPA-02 & 2011 - ZBA-09 Public Meeting February 22, 2012 o Questions or comments from Members of Council or the Public. V C Lur i s LAND USE PLANNING I PROJECT MANAGEMENT 2 Wagner Road, Nottawa, ON LOM 1 PO RODERICK H. YOUNG ARCHITECT P.O. Box 10 102 Laclie Street Orillia, Ontario L3V 6H9 Phone (705) 325 -0761 Fax (705) 327 -5114 E -mail young. rya @bellnet.ca STATUTORY PUBLIC MEETI CRESTWOOD HOLDINGS COUNT ST A R Y 2 2, 2012 N AMENDMENT ANI ORO h LOUIS couNCiL AMENDMENT LOT 10, EDONTE ROAD EAST '' \ 10 L} • 1 wr N! X {{ • t s� f - r FI F4. 1 W mi P POT T s 1 F _ 6 • 99 Mount St. Louis Road East • Part East Half Lot 10, Concession 7 • Located at southeast of the intersection of Highway 400 and Mount St. Louis Road East • Frontage of 241 metres of frontage on Mount St. Louis Road • Total area of 35.71 hectares (88 acres) • Lands are rural with an existing vacant residence MOUNT ST, LOUIS SKI RESORT x . vas L O -�� MOVN� d W est o0 P o a °` • Py • 5 � 9 Ell �IU # PROPOSED RESTAURANT AND AREA TO BE REZONED GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) • Si TE 0 . Q r� • °1 F r � iSV3 GNV Hi2JON 3H101 M31A a • To re- designate and re -zone a portion of the lands for a proposed Weber's Restaurant. • To establish the principle of development on a portion of the site and to provide provisions to permit a commercial use being a Weber's Restaurant. • Area to include parking, ingress /egress, private servicing and eatting /open space areas. • Access from Mount St. Louis Road East. yq � p q pI • To re- designate and re -zone a portion of the lands for a proposed Weber's Restaurant. • To establish the principle of development on a portion of the site and to provide provisions to permit a commercial use being a Weber's Restaurant. • Area to include parking, ingress /egress, private servicing and eatting /open space areas. • Access from Mount St. Louis Road East. SITE STATISTICS o Gross Floor Area is 592 square metres — main building o Total Gross Floor Area is 759 square metres o Parking spaces provided is 168 spaces (66 required) 0 4 Barrier Spaces provided • Area to be rezoned is approximately 6.6 acres • Plus 1.54 acres for sewage system (Total Area 8.14 acres) R MO�aDS'� Wt ?} 15 Nap S MO UNT 8T. LOUIS Rem E EaaI MI`- tWaEFAYLY DRI9IYW FM'' of ADN(81fgpP9m V wH%1Ti'@yeyA}MY MY� CI � SITE Iq� ( iQi L------------- z KEY PLAN il,W m. IIRERpR 919E IFwy a99m ZONING PROVISIONS O0 WHbR 2WF CURIQN MMD: A PWlvu,'ryM1,Rpµ/ AAR vm OM[i6FA%4Y01IEWH0 1+RDg1EDiCpH10: mtl[IUU.fR gRStaic RRVOl9Y@ IQi[NiWi OATEmmwlp Io:04YED PIptl6� /EXSI ICTAAFA RAt'LI 9dWpm v9.LO9Mm rox7orol fe9Wny tATFi1GAA[£LIHt7 WWm 211.19m mtNlr(Npwi il,W m. IIRERpR 919E IFwy a99m RAIETppaDE(YN4 0Wa REA11 (Smm) 2WF &JhDi.R(iNE1GR[RNaexWl I IW et BfEmKFft16DA0R1171W GN CIW1ll70"W ApWUAN aftw Nta =wltaff 9PAR1L(71411111FW07. COMMON= WOF1rtl0AIW WIANMRM DHm�14mi 02 a 11 25 u MM1tlHlffl�l SCfE@Imlmep / i%W m zWWm WWn aWWa 7:Wa 7 el GEM AREA 1111111 Prp,CSR TOTALA91LD00AWAIDYAY AqA I41?&7ee0f) 48 % RAM01 DRNERAYS AM-19a9. W.St6]514N 251% LAROSCAPEDOYENAPACE S:C,07A.Seaym. pMWA9x}AI 9737 % T.W 193, X57" . PA14DAAS"X) imm % Lw uptt.np PARKING PROVISIONS vADrDaEauee RivrxsRlRr BIB W pHEAnO6't®IIATAP.tN'Aww [7:lltw • H2@m R+¢ivl+iaAHIFwIeNrEnDV Ironnxv.aarA •>oHwm' law rppwr.•tlYY.ltl • f 6+xaY r,YtwNAT,YEyRIR IN.490dN8AAhl11$.aePAC9e NtaNOMWiJS.MYKfa 1AYfM'�AYWHwxAHED• IEPALFd tIWIPNf e°A'kG IISmR9Aw BPMEJItRPR)RHI SITE PLAN ,94 ttxpepulx0 J�tALi«_tl_ea��ssss�lr.r.P mss .tt W MIptIH � � Y. ORIpYY 14 t � i I 41ey .� '�KSv rRIR nf,ewa P I Illy; 't� W Amfw •1' u. ourewn :� t�- �. •� wa,n aw.asw NM NM[1 ^• �M� uw ollrirxl [� tlixpRSriA.rFmMflMt L . I faptlNSYNW _� -�� IrllmlpDW 1®1aWARR fWNffYI [tl® ARTI MTXRtT RFYYIATED> -P r-- - - -- - -- - -= i i r-- PAATLY.SiTEPLAN AIIRROPpSFD DE'VELOPMEMT p.p A`MISW r' \ 0O i 9 ,J I� Il 1 I I i rwrm.wlpxtw I.bIM.pIriYN �- IulTxrxptluu Nft I p_Ni Yxt tlW ' illr V•V•L�� inn uxveunxr Blip pY y �W I� 14 nm MLq UNppYRR6 N8 iERY1DE I LARD r_ � f1i16 I rI nec+aE . 1 . atl� N► 70A Dr IAMx i WSJ A Z 3 4 4 O O W x W 0 I I DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION C$1lFN.RO7E9 vaEmuivniHUmmra +�wwltlawuwroxNxmwt OMNI�Om9Y ,Nwal7•InlrResm e wwmxeWWtYRraltarHWOweeYf a 1111111 ®mitt IIRRW em 4 W111975 gAAlaaD4H4@Hfr11D111S1 �IRIa181AOMOfDI9BlT9 9 MIND IWKpgIWIppYAIIAYUDUgI E MOM FilE01Y7rItR01V9®0.lOrIW t 051011 tY MMOMWFAt00RBt7 tp. OATEmmwlp REM EEVISUE im ENLARGED WE PLAN SIM DEVELOPNENTAM NEW suom JK RWERICK K YOUNG D eDe, ARCHITECT a 9� oRatW pT$ 2 P.D.Bm IO ¢HE 10 „� ofAO+ltlttn elm Itie1pOSIylO /61 IxnEn 10 -130 FY rm 3ej-0 Enti 5wHg1/fAMm im ENLARGED WE PLAN SIM DEVELOPNENTAM NEW suom JK TorNEW RESTAURANT AwNxaiwaam TmpNPJCeeWY6 rAU oRatW AS NOTED WNW ¢HE nwapz NI%ember9O, 2D19 A7,Bg11911i11L91CAg IxnEn 10 -130 9frflc A-2 • Lands are designated Rural and EP. • Amendment to establish commercial is required i highway use, in order • Amendment would re- designate a portion of lands from Rural to Commercial in order to permit the establishment of a commercial operation. • The remainder of the lands would remain Rural and EP. • EP lands to remain unchanged. OFFICIAL PLAN POLICIES • To develop a • Building will blend in, commercial use. cottage like, will not be • Adequate parking on urban, sensitive to the site and loading facilities. • Adequate buffering and landscaping will be accommodated. • No new entrance to Highway 400 shall be permitted, general rural character of the area. • Site will incorporate landscaping to enhance the site and surrounding area. • No outdoor storage. • Buffering to property to the east, land scap lng and existing garage to r em Agricultural /Rural (AIRU) to a portion of General Commercial (GC) Zone & EP s To permit the restaura b L. �/ / SEWAGE ` (OISPOSAI WE OONGEPT #FOR OF 90 MOUNT ST. i^A RD. EAST J d1 or SEWAGE DISPOSAL SHOWN DASHED COLDWATER.__ RIVER s 0 74UM NIM451 .. .. . .. AREA TO REMAIN AS AOpIg0.1URAL /RURAL p w� 1 T • 1 1 • � I, RODERICK H. YOUNG ARCHITECT PA PM 10 Q9h OR"Lw Ri FU m -mu E4W PpnM0b loc Q SITE DEEVROPMEN7AND NEW SUILDINGtor. NEW RESTAURANT 99 Mma SL LvA Road TowraMp of Oro Mo&* • 1 LE: PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION PROJECT. 10-130 SCA1E: 1:2500 DATE ISSUED. I DRAWING NUMBER: Nov. 812011 riff, ZONING CONFORMITY 3700 square metres 35.99 ha Commercial Area - 33,280 square metres 30 metres 241.9 metres 1-4.0 metres 15 metres 3.0 metres 206.64 metres ).0 metres 26.02 metres '.5 metres 693. metres i.0 metres 6.0 metres plus ).0 metres 6.0 metres plus _1 metres Less than 11 metres MET STORMWATER MANAGEMENT (DEARDON A .=. • Excess precipitation and melt runoff will be directed to the south and south -east • Runoff will be filtered through the grassed swale and selective planted vegetation • Storm Water Management basin will maintain pre - development outlet rates • The parking lot is intended to remain gravel surfaced, but will be assumed to be asphalted. • The Storm Water Management basin and all collection facilities will be dry during non -event periods. exi The ex rvr■.M,...WWI ing pon provide will d o+ ] ' it rate t quaflty buffering, not require any modifications for this prop04 PRELIMINARY ANC (JEFF WARING, LAN L .oar *o f�a r. ti b. - rr i - � Jam- \ _. a-.• . aTr�a,:w_ .r1 . .. _._ r � y - Y � / Hr.WVal,Mrat�p .La�'.I Y .w ara,w ..r Mrs '47 MOM a�a+VYY . w Vr O.f M� w \ulna 01w • -^ aaar W V �wr M Mir � +�/I�Ir d YY/ f �^ J l ri.Iwrr .,. a f r• wre•a aara.Yr i J 7�f a..p .aapr • w.a� �wM.i.fM.w M�'M I ^h MVrW Ir.I aa..� r!r V /•a ryn f•� r�r �IV'Mr rr�, �y�� /y ✓Ir IAVr �I�Mr OYwa a1.. r CTaa.r r.•... aaro lwYra. ti +w VrM rIa nl�w fslwrrC '� - I.Y nr.w� �w N � araa a� . aa�w� Ira. I arwa tir r rayanr ae.. an.1,� tM rw ayr.r araay w �� . V hy\ " "QUW &T. UX* Roar w. MIM)b }ill RESTUR WT CA^1. r. w.uo Wa IAO aaY aaar.%~ w � � tp tla larq 1 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT /OPERATIONS Current operations: Open 220 days a year • Open 10:30am - 8:00pm (avg.) • Open everyday from Easter to Thanksgiving, weekends in the off season • Current payroll (with staff): 115 people Proposed NEW operations: • Open everyday from Easter to Thanksgiving, weekends in the off season • Open 10:30am - 8:00pm (avg.) • Planned staff hires: 65 people CONSULTING TEAM Roderick H. Young Architect — Project Lead & Architect Loft Planning Inc. - Planner C.C. Tatham & Associates — Transportation Engineer Dearden & Stanton — Storm Water Control Beacon Environmental — Environmental & Natural Heritage AMICK - Archaeology Robin Smith Engineering — Sewage Disposal Terraprobe Engineering — Water Supply (Hydrogeology) Gosse & Gilewicz Engineering — Electrical & Communication Jeff Waring, Landscape Architect — Landscape Architect N:v\, f Im_ m I,, C C t, _QA \t. � n \,A I( 1 February 21, 2012 BY Email Township of Oro - Medonte 148 Line 7 South P.O. Box 100, Oro, ON LOL 2X0 Attn: J.Dougias Irwin, Clerk Re: Crestwood Park Holdings Inc. 2011- OPA -02 / 2011- ZBA -09 Proposed Amendments to Zoning and Official Plan We are writing to the Township of Oro- Medonte to express our concerns with the proposed amendments to the Zoning By -Law and Official Plan to allow a commercial development on the South East corner of Mt.St,Louis Road and the 400 Highway. We have reviewed all reports submitted by the proponent's consultants to the Township and find many discrepancies, omissions and errors, The east side of Mt.St,Louis road at the 400 highway is clearly Rural and Agricultural land with significant Environmentally protected areas (Coldwater River, wetlands and tributaries). We feel that the Township has appropriately left this area outside of any settlement area and kept it zoned appropriately. We would also note that the ski resort on the west side of the 400 is part of a secondary plan that is under utilized (several vacant hectares remain undeveloped). We have several concerns with the proposed use including; - Noise, Air and Solid Waste Pollution - Traffic Impact due to a dangerous lack of appropriate site lines. - Potential contamination of Ground and Surface water - Destruction of wildlife habitat (Aquatic and Terrestrial) - Decrease in property value and potential for further development - Public safety and the safety of our children due to transient traffic We cannot find any evidence in the planning justification report, Growth Plan or Township policy to support this development. There are several more appropriate areas to host this type of commercial development in established settlement areas with services and zoning, We look forward to attending the public meeting and expressing our concerns in detail. We kindly request notification of the Townships decision on this matter. Yours truly, Jody and April King, 169 Mt.St.Louis Road E. RR #4 Coldwater, ON LOK 1 EO Head Office: Barrie 229 Maplevlew Drive, Unit I Barrie, ON L4N OW5 705- 734 -2538 - 705- 734 -1056 fax Porn 11 Rev www.lonexonc Itlna m To: Doug Irwin There is a proposal before the Oro Medonte Council to build a Weber's restaurant at the corner of Hwy 400 and Mount St Louis Rd. We own the property across the road from this proposed development and we have some serious concerns: 1. We purchased our beautiful property near a lovely ski resort and have done improvements to our house and property at considerable expense . The value has increased. Placing a burger joint across the road from our home will decrease the value of our place as well as decrease the values of all homes in the vicinity. 2. We moved from the busy, noisy city of Mississauga and found peace and tranquility on Mt St Louis Rd. Now we are being threatened by a Weber's restaurant with the accompanying traffic jams similar to the ones we see at Webers on Hwy 11, the smell of charcoal smoke and burgers in the air, Weber's cups and plates floating in the river past our house and more garbage thrown out along our property. We presently pick up a lot of garbage from the take out restaurants in Barrie and I know the volume of garbage will increase dramatically with a restaurant so close. 3.The poor 80 year old lady who lived on this property prior to Mr Rennie's purchase was forced to move her mailbox way down the road because Canada Post proclaimed it was too dangerous for them to stop at her mailbox. So how can it now be safe for dozens of cars to line up to get into the same entranceway ? 4.The Coldwater River flowing through our property is clean and clear but with a restaurant Just upriver it will not remain so. We have all experienced the results of commercial properties near waterways and the resulting garbage that ends up in the water. Why pollute such a pristine section of this river? 5.The potential for accidents at this proposed entranceway is great, because cars are coming up over a bridge (fast) and are immediately upon the entranceway with little chance to react. 6. I can think of very few people who would like a Macdonald's type restaurant in their neighborhood. This type of establishment would have a detrimental effect on the beauty, tranquility and unsullied environment of Mt St Louis Rd. Wendy and Dwight Holm 164 Mount St Louis Rd E RR4 Coldwater Qnt LOK1EO simcoe '01'a Muskoka DISIIRIQT HEALTH UNIT � C" February 10, 2012 J. Douglas Irwin, Clerk Township of Oro - Medonte 148 Line 7, South P.O. Box 100 Oro - Medonte, Ontario LOL 2X0 Attention: Mr. Irwin Re: 201.1- OPA -03 2011- ZBA -15 (Crestwood Park Holdings Inc.) FEB 17 2012 .+ i "ai..i'-ihVipda...'p.i�p°a�.p}i �3 a E I �i S( l I While this office has no objections to the proposed amendments, by way of this correspondence the Applicant should be made aware of Regulations under the jurisdiction of this Health Unit. Particularly, Regulation 319 (Small Drinking Water Systems) and Regulation 562 (Food Premises) which may govern the establishment of the commercial use. Accordingly the Applicant may wish to contact this unit at the planning stage should these amendments succeed. Yours truly, r. Craig Dale cc: Dave Fraser, Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit Karen Wierzbicki, Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit J Barrie: 'J Goilingwood: J Cookstown J Gravenhursi J Huntsville. J Midland: 15 Spelling R i + „a 2$:? Pretty R."fOr Pk•,•. � 2-25 King Siceel S. :.. it .. Bank, ON )i t. oo. ON i i ks; :� : ^rn v V ;i - -'hl Cr bK4 y ) t i LO P P P11 70 ! 2:? Ci 4> CF.ik �. 1 t�. J =i1X: r r...11 1495 <v 7015-015,631198 FAX. Your Healy, Cor,,necrior3 _1 Orillia 16 February 2012 Attention: Council Township of Oro - Medonte 148 Line 7 South P.O. Box 100, Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0 F Dear Council Members, r V _RQ rti n I am writing in response to the proposed redesignation and rezoning of the lands described as 99 Mount St Louis Road East, being East Part of Lot 10, Concession 7 (formerly Medonte) Township of Oro - Medonte. I am opposed to this application for several reasons. I will only discuss a few in this letter, with additional ones with supporting information to follow at the public meeting on 22 Feb 2012, at the Municipal Council Chambers. The proposed development of the Environmentally Protected (EP) designated lands for purpose of establishing a burger joint is neither consistent with the existing designated land use, nor does it suit the character of the community. There exist other alternative locations, all of which are currently designated as commercial, that will not cause irreparable harm to the local ecosystem, that will not threaten endangered species, that are not at risk of contaminating the water tributaries and that are not situated near residences. The land has been designated as EP for a reason, and thus it would be irresponsible to remove that destination to suit a sole, private developer. In addition, the Scoped Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), funded by the developer is flawed with grievous omissions and inaccurate information on the EP land and legislative requirements. Supporting documentation for these facts are too numerous to include in writing and will, therefore, be made available at the public meeting. Furthermore, the EIS does, however, acknowledge the land as habitat to the Eastern Meadowlark (s. 4.3.1 Rarity, p. 20). As of January 2012, the status of this bird species has been elevated to threatened by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) as per the provincial Endangered Species Act. As a result, a special application for a permit is now required by the MNR. The developer, who wishes to redesignate and change the zoning of the land has demonstrated a pattern of disregard for the environment, due process, provincial and federal laws. Once again, undeniable supporting documentation for these facts will be made available at the public meeting. This behaviour established a pattern that would lead any reasonable, cautious and prudent person to believe that a disregard for the environment, the community and the law would continue. In addition, this development would also be of no direct benefit to the community. The creation of a few minimum wage jobs flipping burgers would not have a sufficient impact on the community that would offset the harm caused. The Mount St. Louis area is a beautiful setting with a recreational ski hill, a feature that adds value to the neighbourhood. A burger joint would bring an increase in noise, traffic congestion, litter, the smell of grease and fat in the air, decrease the value of residential properties and the quality of life for many residents. All of these burger joint side - effects would go unnoticed at already commercially designated lands on the Hwy 400 corridor between Barrie and Port Severn. I hope that you weigh these considerations and those brought up at the public meeting to help you make a decision that reflects the best interests of the community and the views of the voters. I respectfully request that you acknowledge receipt of this letter in writing and, furthermore, I also request to be notified in writing of the decision made in this matter. Regards, a, a V rc Andre Savignac 53 Mount St Louis Road West RR #4 Coldwater, ON LOK 1E0 Re: Opposition to the proposed amendments to re- designate and rezone the lands described as 99 Mount Saint Louis Road East, being East Part of Lot 10, Concession 7 (formerly Medonte) Township of Oro - Medonte. I am opposed to the proposed amendments for the following reasons: ® The current Township of Oro- Medonte's Official Plan does not permit this land to be used for commercial use. An Official Plan is a publicly reviewed and approved long range planning guideline which defines where, when and what type of development can or should occur in specific areas of a municipality. Clearly it was the intention of the Township Council, in passing this Official Plan in its current form, that the area subject to this proposed amendment was not then, and is not now, considered suitable for such a commercial development. It is clear to me that, while an Official Plan can be amended from time to time with public input, this is not the kind of development the originators of the Plan, or its public reviewers, considered appropriate for this parcel of land. It is still not considered to be an appropriate use of this land at this time. • Based on the above point I submit that this proposed land use change is not sound land use planning. Such development should be concentrated in pre- existing commercially zoned areas within the Municipality. The proposed development is a burger restaurant which is not a suitable fit for the rural character of this area of the Township and it does not belong in this beautiful rural /environmentally sensitive setting. We need to preserve environmentally protected areas that still exist before proposed developments such as this are allowed to irrevocably alter what remains. ® Local residents, including myself, have witnessed the ongoing site alterations on the property (99 Mount Saint Louis Road East) by the applicant before applying for re- designation and rezoning approval, which is contrary to the intent of the O.P. and zoning By -Law documents. Site alteration means "activities such as grading, excavation and the placement of fill that would;change the landform and natural vegetative characteristics of a site" (Section 2.1 of the Natural Heritage Provincial Policy Statement and Planning Act). An excavator was on the property digging at the edge of the pond tearing out vegetation. This excavation caused silt to appear in the Coldwater River for at least 24 hours, which may have had negative impacts on fish and fish habitat. Large mature trees were cut and burned in massive burn piles on the property many days. Then machinery was used to remove the stumps and the land was carefully manicured in an attempt to eliminate any evidence of this activity. A review of Google Earth images in the recent past will demonstrate this point, with clear before and after images. Rest assured this evidence will be presented to the OMB Chairperson should this development proposal trigger an appeal. Rest assured I will appeal any decision approving these amendments. As a result of these site alterations prior to approval, the applicant has demonstrated non - compliance with provincial legislation and disrespected the environment, the Township of Oro- Medonte, and neighbouring residents of Mount Saint Louis Road. It appears that the applicant deems this as acceptable behaviour and I believe the possibility exists for similar non - compliant behaviours (violation of codes and regulations) to become common practice in the development project if the proposal is approved and this is unacceptable behaviour. • There is grave concern about the natural heritage of this land as this proposed development places many natural features at risk, such as: the Coldwater River and its associated riparian habitat and native species of fauna and flora. Aquatic species, woodland birds and animals, natural habitat, natural beauty in this country setting will be placed under buildings, parking lots and possibly asphalt with this development. Of particular concern is information contained in the Environmental Impact Statement completed by the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) which indicates: a) Evidence of "Eastern Meadowlark (two pairs) were observed north of the pond in the vicinity of the proposed development ". "The status of this species has recently been elevated to "Threatened" as of January 14, 2012. Section 4.3.1 titled "Rarity" in the Environmental Impact Statement (November 2011) states: "it is our expectation that the meadowlark could be elevated to Threatened status under the provincial Endangered Species Act in the late fall of 2011. if this comes to pass, the two pairs (one in meadow at the northwest corner of the pond and one just south of Mount St. Louis Road East) could trigger the application of that Act under the general habitat provisions of the legislation. This would mean that a permit from the Ministry of Natural Resources could be required, a complex and time consuming process, that ultimately results in a permit not being issued and permissions not granted'. This indicates good reason for this proposal to be rejected by the Municipal Council. A permit from MNR should be required (under the Endangered Species Act) for any work within the proposed development footprint (NVCA). This is an unresolved issue that needs to be looked into with the aid of the Ministry of Natural Resources. b) "Though not mentioned in the EIS, the property is part of the extensive Copeland deer year" (NVCA). Nearby residents have often spotted deer on the field where the restaurant is proposed to be built. Also, be aware that the applicant has removed MTO fencing along the highway corridor on the property that is intended to discourage wildlife from running onto the highway. This illustrates lack of regard for MTO (as it was done without their approval, as far as I can determine), and lack of regard for wildlife that frequent the property's fields, wetlands, and forests as well as the safety of passing motorists. c) The report states that the NVCA understands from the applicant's proposal that picnic areas may be proposed in the area known as the pond /watercourse /wetland and they recommend that a natural buffer be pond in place to preserve this space. Who may I ask is going to oversee compliance to this request? The NVCA is requesting in their report that more information be provided on this and I agree. Pond viewing platforms are also mentioned. Is the Township going to provide permits to allow such construction to take place? I recognize the intent is to "avoid trampling of the vegetation along the entire shoreline ", but who is going to monitor this? With a high volume of traffic heading north to the cottage, the number of pedestrians and pets will not be monitored and there is a great likelihood that they will be drawn to the water's edge. Dogs will see this as an ideal area to run, swim, excrete their bowels, and disrupt natural habitat and wildlife. d) "Storm water runoff from large gravel parking lots can potentially introduce a lot sediment /turbidity into the system" (NVCA), which can /will negatively impact fish and fish habitat, as well as other wildlife. e) The NVCA requires further details on the force main that is to be installed and the directional boring that would need to take place under the watercourses in conformity with the Conservation Authorities Act and the Federal Fisheries Act since part of this proposed development is within in an area affected by Ontario Regulation 172/06. Another concern is the significant sewage volume to be generated by this business and disposed of in a tile bed adjacent to a tributary of the Coldwater River. The force main from the septic tank(s) near the restaurant will pass below a tributary of the Coldwater River and wetland to deliver the septage effluent to the tile bed adjacent to another tributary of the Coldwater. This pipe, were it ever to be built, would need to be adequately engineered to guarantee that there was no potential for rupture or leakage in years to come. I don't believe this sewage pipeline could be constructed to such a standard so as to preclude this possibility in future. Any rupture or leakage would result in the introduction of untreated sewage effluent into a tributary of the Coldwater River and thus into the Coldwater River itself. The Coldwater River supports a native naturally reproducing cold water fishery, which would be damaged by such an occurrence. According to the Forest Conservation and Tree By -laws, 2010, Simcoe County is a jurisdiction with forest conservation or tree by -laws in place. I would like to know if the applicant was ignoring these when cutting and burning trees on the property this past summer (2011). Also, the property contains forested areas, which are considered Significant Woodlands under the Planning Act. ® This proposed development would create a substantial increase in traffic coming and going from Hwy #400. This increase in traffic will bring with it a dramatic increase in associated traffic noise which will carry particularly well on a quiet summer's evening. I submit that this is unacceptable in a quiet residential area. An increase in traffic also presents numerous safety concerns for local residents such as cyclists who use the road for training in the summer months, walkers, joggers and children. There is no posted speed limit on Mt St. Louis Road and most travellers (including large transport trucks) travel at high speeds on this road (excessive speed is a common occurrence in my observance on a daily basis). The Post Office is well aware of the dangers presented by speeders and poor sightlines at the Hwy #400 interchange bridge and as a result they deem it unsafe for their mail delivery vehicles to pull over in this location. Other residents, like myself, that are less than one kilometre from the Hwy #400 interchange bridge have witnessed property damages as a result of dangerous speeding. I have had my mailbox (including its post) completed snapped off 3 times and damaged once from vehicles in the 5 years that I have resided here. I believe this type of speed will present even greater dangers such as an increase in accidents at the Hwy #400 interchange with the addition of another driveway and increased traffic at the bridge with poor sightlines (a location already deemed unsafe for mail delivery vehicles as noted above). o Changes in air quality associated with the ever present odour of a burger restaurant will be noticeable in the immediate area at all times the facility is open for business, which, judging by the existing Weber's Restaurant on Hwy #11 north of Orillia, will be probably a 24 hour operation in the summer season when the air is warm and local residents' windows are open. This is an unacceptable impact on surrounding residential owners in my opinion. As well, the trash storage unit will also contribute to unwelcome odours in the summer months and air pollution. • Light pollution will be a problem, since the restaurant and the parking area will no doubt be well lit at all times, thus bathing the surrounding quiet residential area in an unwelcome persistent ugly glow from this business. This is an unacceptable impact on surrounding family residences in my opinion. • Litter will follow. I have seen first -hand the resultant litter and garbage tossed onto the roadways by patrons of take -out restaurants in many other locations. This is not something I wish to see in the current litter free countryside in which we live. ® The MPP for Simcoe North, the Hon. Mr. Garfield Dunlop, recently wrote an article for a local publication, the "Coldwater Current" Local News and Events, February 2012 expressing his belief that: "It is imperative for Simcoe County and the entire province that Ontario takes a leadership role in protecting our biodiversity. In a special report released recently, 'Biodiversity: A Nation's Commitment, an Obligation for Ontario: The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, Gard Miller said the Government of Ontario must commit to its responsibilities in the 2011 Biodiversity Strategy to stem the continuing decline in Ontario's species and natural spaces. My riding of Simcoe North is a perfect example of where such protective measures are needed. We live in an area where reforestation and protection of wetlands and species at risk are vital to good health, growth and sustainable future. ... The lifestyle we enjoy in Simcoe County and in Ontario, our health, the health of our communities and our economy depends on a healthy biodiversity." • The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority makes it clear at the end of their Environmental Impact Statement that there are several "outstanding issues with this recent submission" such as: the need for "confirmation through an erosion hazard assessment that the proposed trash storage unit area is not within an erosion hazard area of the Coldwater River tributary" and storm water management facilities need to be designed for enhanced quality control ensuring quality and quantity is demonstrated prior to discharge to the online pond. Also to be noted is that in a planning context, the NVCA believes the pond and watercourse should remain in an environmental designation /zone, which brings me back to my first point of objection: lands already designated EP (Environmentally Protected) should remain Environmentally Protected. This makes it clear that there are many potential threats to these lands based on all of the concerns arising from this extensive and invasive proposed development. Y Species at Risk: It is my belief that the subject lands (may) contain the potential for the significant habitat of endangered and threatened species. The general area is known to contain Blanding's Turtle (threatened), Massasauga Rattle Snake (threatened) and Eastern Meadowlark (threatened). The Easter Meadowlark has been observed on this very property by at least one previous EIS. If the Township and the County do not know for certain that the significant habitat of endangered and threatened species is absent from the subject property, and since there is the potential that the proposed development could impact significant habitat of endangered and threatened species (if present), I feel that it would be in the best interest of the County, the Township, and surrounding residents to require that the applicant conduct species at risk surveys /studies (at the appropriate time of year by a qualified individual using protocols approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources) on the subject property. The County and the Township should not approve this proposal until these studies confirm the absence of significant habitat of endangered and threatened species or propose adequate mitigation measures to ensure no negative impacts on significant habitat of endangered and threatened species. This is the only way that both approval authorities can guarantee that they are acting in compliance with the Endangered Species Act and the Planning Act (Provincial Policy Statement). I also request that any surveys be peer reviewed by the Ministry of Natural Resources for accuracy as the MNR is the only provincial ministry with the appropriate species at risk technical expertise. ® Significant Wildlife Habitat: Likewise, it is my concern that the subject lands may contain the potential for Significant Wildlife Habitat. The general area is known to contain the following Special Concern species (under the Endangered Species Act) whose habitat would be considered Significant Wildlife Habitat under the Planning Act: Yellow Rail, Northern Map Turtle, Common Five -lined Skink and Milk Snake. If the Township and the County do not know for certain that Significant Wildlife Habitat is absent from the subject property, and since there is clearly the potential that the proposed development could impact Significant Wildlife Habitat (if present), I feel that it would be sound planning to require that the applicant conduct Significant Wildlife Habitat surveys /studies (utilizing the criteria found within the Ministry of Natural Resources Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide under the Provincial Policy Statement) on the subject property. Since it is the role of the municipal approval authority to identify and map Significant Wildlife Habitat, the Township and the County should not approve this proposal until the appropriate studies have been conducted and reviewed and both the Township and the County can confirm the presence or absence of Significant Wildlife Habitat on the subject lands. This is the only way that both approval authorities can guarantee that they are acting in compliance with the Planning Act (Provincial Policy Statement). For those studies targeted specially at the four Special Concern species noted above, I request that their studies (along with their methodologies and conclusions) be peer reviewed by the Ministry of Natural Resources as the MNR is the only provincial ministry with the appropriate species at risk technical expertise. o Fisheries and Fish Habitat: I am concerned that this proposal will negatively impact fish and fish habitat found in the two permanent, Coldwater tributaries on the subject property that flow into the Coldwater River. Likewise, I am concerned that this proposal will impact fish and fish habitat found within the Coldwater River as both of these tributaries drain into the River. The Ministry of Natural Resources database indicates the Coldwater River supports a variety of coldwater, sensitive fish populations including brown trout, brook trout, rainbow trout, Chinook salmon, largemouth bass and white sucker. This application should be reviewed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) to determine if the proposal will incur a HADD (Harmful Alteration, Disruption, Destruction) on fish and fish habitat within the tributaries and the Coldwater River at this location. Or, if the local Conservation Authority has a Level 1, 2, or 3 agreement with DFO to review proposed projects under section 35 of the Fisheries Act, the local Conservation Authority should conduct a review of the project to indentify any impacts to fish and fish habitat. a Environmental Protection Re- designation: In general, I do not agree that the Environmental Protection (EP) designation located along the northernmost tributary and online pond should be re- designated to Commercial. The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority also believes that the area to be re- designated /rezoned should be limited to that of the commercial development and that the online pond and watercourses, along with the buffer required to protect them, should remain in an environmental designation /zone. • From the map included with the Notice of Public meeting, it appears that the EP designation was drawn to follow the contour of the floodplain, however, it is not clear how wide the EP zone is in this location. The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority refers to a 30m setback of the development from the online pond and tributary which is currently "manicured lawn ". It should be a stipulation of approval (if approved) that the current EP buffer surrounding the online pond and tributary remain under EP designation and that a minimum 30m natural vegetated cover be established adjacent to the online pond and tributary (fish habitat) as per the Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (2010). However, the Reference Manual also states that a planning authority may consider the need for greater distances for natural cover and, due to the sensitivity of the Coldwater River at this location, I believe a distance greater than 30m should be instituted if this proposal is approved. Also, please see attached addendum titled "Deficiencies in Environmental Impact Statement" as prepared by Beacon Environmental and be advised that this forms part of my letter of opposition. I am requesting that I receive written confirmation of receipt of this letter and I wish to be notified of the decision of the Township of Oro - Medonte in respect to the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By -law Amendments in writing as well. Regards, Danielle Berube 53 Mount Saint Louis Road West RR #4 Coldwater, ON LOK 1E0 c.c. Harry Hughes, Mayor c.c. Ralph Hough, Deputy Mayor c.c. Mel Coutanche, Ward 1 Counsellor c.c. The Hon. Garfield Dunlop, MPP Simcoe North c.c. Andria Leigh, Director of Development Services, Planning Department, Township of Oro - Medonte c.c. Council, Township of Oro - Medonte c.c. J. Douglas Irwin, Clerk, Township of Oro - Medonte Deficiencies in Environmental Impact Statement: February 14, 2012 The deficiencies in the EIS prepared by Beacon Environmental, November 2011, are cause for my concern in that the EIS does not meet the conditions of the PPS (Provincial Policy Statement). The County and the Township should not consider this proposal until all of the concerns (see below) are met. Section 2 — Policy Framework 2.1 Provincial Policy Statement (page 1) - EIS states that significant wetlands can be designated either by the Ministry of Natural Resources and /or the municipality when in fact, only the MNR can designate significant wetlands. The MNR evaluates wetlands or reviews evaluations done by individuals trained by the MNR in OWES (Ontario Wetland Evaluation System). - The identification of ANISs (Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest) is the responsibility of the MNR not the municipality or other planning authority. Municipalities or approval authorities must then identify ANISs appropriately in their Official Plan and Official Plan schedules. - The pond contains fish habitat regardless of its origins (natural or manmade) and must be treated as such. Section 3 - Methodolo 3.1 Background Review (page 4) - Indicates that MNR was contacted to gather information about the natural and physical setting of the subject property at the outset of the project. Was the MNR (Midhurst office) also contacted for natural heritage features information including SAR (Species At Risk) occurrences? The author should acquire a list of known and potential natural heritage features from the Midhurst office including a list of SAR that are known to exist in the immediate and general areas so that surveys specific to these species can be conducted to determine whether or not the significant habitat of endangered and threatened species is present on the property. 3.2 Field Investigations (page 5) - Under Fish Habitat Assessment, the report states that a fish habitat assessment was conducted in the watercourse located to the south of the proposed development area. This section does not indicate if a fish habitat assessment was conducted in the pond associated with this watercourse. If an assessment of the pond did not occur, the Townships should request that an assessment occur during the upcoming field season. - Under Other Wildlife, the report states that other incidental observations of wildlife species, including mammals were made during field investigations. It does not indicate if SAR specific surveys were completed. The applicant should acquire a list of SAR species known to exist in the immediate and general areas of the property from MNR so that surveys specific to these species can be conducted to 1 determine whether or not the significant habitat of endangered and threatened species is present on the property. - Significant Woodlands are not included as a natural heritage feature when it is clear that the proposed development is located within 120m of significant woodlands. - Significant Wildlife Habitat is not mentioned. Significant Wildlife Habitat (includes the habitat of Special Concern species under the Endangered Species Act) on the property and adjacent lands must be assessed by the applicant according to the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide under the PPS. As such, any Special Concern species identified by the MNR must be surveyed for using MNR approved survey methodology. The County and the Township should not approve this proposal until it is confirmed through adequate studies that significant wildlife habitat is absent from the property or that it will not be negatively impacted by the proposal. Section 4 - Existing Natural Heritage Conditions 4.1 Fish Habitat - Figure 2 identifies turtle nesting, but the report does not indicate what species of turtle would be nesting here. All turtles in Ontario are at risk except for the Painted Turtle. Therefore, it is likely that the property can be considered the significant habitat of endangered and threatened species or significant wildlife habitat (e.g. Snapping Turtle — Special Concern). The County and the Township need to investigate this further or request additional information from the applicant in order to make informed decisions. - The report indicates that the property (including the area of the proposal) is CUM1- 1(Cultural Meadow). This is the preferred habitat of Bobolink. Therefore, there is a very high potential that the property contains the significant habitat of endangered and threatened species. The County and the Township need to investigate this further or request additional information (Bobolink specific surveys) from the applicant in order to make informed decisions. The County and the Township should ensure that the applicant discusses this situation with the MNR according the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. - Page 8: This section does not include a list of fish species to exist on the property. An assessment of fish habitat cannot occur until the appropriate studies are conducted to determine what fish species are occupying the fish habitat on the property. The County and the Township should recommend additional studies (e.g. electro fishing, netting, etc.) before being able to determine potential negative impacts. 4.2 Vegetation (page 9) - The report indicates that Common Milkweed is located in the CUM1- 1(proposed development area). It is well known that the Common Milkweed is the only food for Monarch Butterflies (Special Concern species under the Endangered Species Act). This makes the CUM1 -1 areas Significant Wildlife Habitat, but does not acknowledge this. The County and Township should ensure that this area is recognized as Significant Wildlife Habitat and that the proposal will not negatively impact it. 2 4.3 Breeding Birds (page 19) - The report indicates that Eastern Meadowlark was identified on the property. On January 14, 2012 this bird was given a Threatened status by the MNR. Therefore, a permit from the MNR is likely required and the County and the Township should ensure that the MNR is contacted in this regard. If the proposed development is shown to be within the significant habitat of endangered and threatened species, the proposal must be denied under the PPS (Provincial Policy Statement, Section 2.1.3). 4.5 Other Wildlife and wildlife Habitat - The list of wildlife does not include Wild Turkeys, which have been observed on the property by neighbouring residents. The Wild Turkey was previously extirpated from the area and is now being restored to the area by the MNR under the Ontario Government's Biodiversity Strategy. 4.5.2 Wildlife Habitat - This section indicates that there is a probable turtle nesting area on the pond, which would make this area (pond and shorelines) significant wildlife habitat under the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide under the PPS. Therefore, this natural heritage feature (significant wildlife habitat) needs to be identified and the impacts of the proposed development on this habitat need to be assessed. Section 6 - Impact Assessment - Under 'Potential Impacts' the report states: "direct loss of vegetation within the cultural meadow ". It should be recognized by the County and the Township that this entails the direct loss of the significant habitat of endangered and threatened species (e.g. Eastern Meadowlark) as well as the direct loss of habitat for, white tailed deer, wild turkey etc. - Under 'Potential Impacts' the report also states: "indirect impacts to pond and watercourse ". The County and the Township should request clarification on the term "indirect ". The report is essentially indicating that there will be negative impacts of fish and fish habitat which the Township and the County must ensure are properly mitigated. - This section indicates that there will likely be noise and light effects, which will impact the lands designated Environmental Protection as well as negatively impact the rural quality of living of neighbouring residents. - This section does not list other potential impacts that exist (and that the County and the Township should be aware of) such as: direct loss of potential significant wildlife habitat direct loss of potential significant habitat of endangered and threatened species potential negative impacts to fish and fish habitat (water quality, water quantity, feeding, spawning, etc.) and potential negative impacts to the significant woodlands on the property (e.g. edge effects, ground water recharge, etc.). - In reference to the 'Buffer to Pond and Watercourse' section, it indicates that the proposed development is to be 30 meters from bank. This section then indicates that parking spaces and recycling 3 and waste facilities will be located within the 30 meter buffer at distances that will be "more than adequate buffer to the watercourse and pond area ". This comment makes an unsupported conclusion. How is a distance less than 30m adequate? Where is the scientific rationale to support this statement? The recommended 30m naturally vegetated buffer can be found in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual under the PPS. This is the best available guidance from the Province that the County and the Township should adhere to. -This section states that there will be exceptions to 30m distance from the water allowing pedestrians and pets into the buffer including access to the shoreline. Again, incursions into the 30m buffer currently designated, Environmental Protection, should not be permitted as per the Natural Heritage Reference Manual. - In reference to "Buffer to the Significant Woodland Feature ", it is stated that "Intrusion into the woodland by pedestrians and pets is not expected ". The County and the Township need to ensure that intrusion into the woodland not be permitted at any time and that this be enforced. Any activity by pedestrians and their pets will negatively impact the significant woodland through soil compaction, introduction of pet waste, introduction of human litter, etc.). -No rationale or scientific evidence is provided to indicate that the "proposed development will not impact the woodland as development is not proposed approximately 16.3m from the woodland ". This overarching statement is not supported by any kind of assessment of potential negative impacts of the proposal on the significant woodland (e.g. edge effects, storm water runoff diversion, etc.). The County and the Township must ensure this rationale is adequately provided before being able to make an informed decision regarding negative impacts on the significant woodland. Section 7 - Proposed Mitigation - This section does not mention how the developer plans to deal with storm water runoff containing salt, sand and chemicals from the property and parking lot. No runoff should be allowed to enter into the tributaries or the Coldwater River. There is no mention in this section of fish or fish habitat and how they may be negatively impacted. The County and the Township need to acquire this information before proceeding. - Figure 3 shows the approx 30 meter minimum buffer, which is recognized as EP (Environmentally Protected) by the Township. Again, this 30m buffer is currently recognized by the Township and the County as being an integral part of local biodiversity and natural heritage systems and it should be ensured that the proposal will not encroach into this area that is so highly valued by the Count, the Township and the local residents. Section 8 - Policy Conformitv 8.1 Provincial Policy This section states "This study has identified that the natural heritage features that occur on and adjacent to the proposed development on the subject property, that are provincially significant or 4 specifically identified by the planning authorities (Le, significant woodlands, fish habitat) will be maintained and protected. The proposed plan is therefore in conformity with respect to natural heritage features identified in the PPS ". I would disagree with these conclusions based on the fact that this report does not provide enough information to make this conclusion. The EIS fails to properly investigate fish and fish habitat and significant woodlands and is entirely lacking in the investigation of significant wildlife habitat and the significant habitat of endangered and threatened species. recommend that this EIS be peer reviewed by the MNR and that the County and /or the Township approach the MNR with this proposal. The MNR is the only provincial agency with the technical expertise to review and comment on species at risk habitat and information. MNR staff are also highly skilled in the review of significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat. 8.2 Simcoe Region Official Plan This section indicates "an adequate setback "...at its closest point, the development will be approximately 16.3m from the feature ". I feel that these statements are unsupported by adequate scientific investigation. 8.3 Township of Oro - Medonte Official Plan - This section states that "Proposed development within 50m of a significant woodland that requires an amendment to the Zoning By -law or to the Official Plan shall be subject to the findings of an EIS." This statement doesn't reflect the Provincial Policy Statement (120m of a significant woodland). - This section states that "A minor variance from the Township of Oro - Medonte will be required for the small recycling and waste structure which will be located approximately 16m from the top -of -bank and a storage railcar that will be located southwest of the main development which will be 21.9m from setback ". Again, the County and the Township should not be approving any application that proposes development and site alteration within and Environmental Protection area. 8.4 Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority Policies and Regulations - This section says the applicant will be compliant with NVCA's regulations, some of which still need to be discussed. However, this section doesn't mention the role of the NVCA in assessing impacts to fish and fish habitat in agreement with Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Note: None of the photos included in the EIS show the landscape after site alterations were made by the applicant before approvals under the Planning Act (excavation, deforestation, grading, etc.). It should also be noted that the aforementioned site alterations caused severe siltation and sedimentation to occur in the pond and be transferred downstream into the Coldwater River. Note: The storm water management plan will need to be properly assessed by a qualified individual(s) before it can be concluded that there will be no negative impacts on fish and fish habitat. Danielle Berube 53 Mount Saint Louis Road W. RR #4, Coldwater, Ontario, LOK 1E0 a From: Ed Balko Sent: February 16, 2012 1:47 PM To: Coutanche, Mel Subject: Re: Crestwood Park Holdings We live in Oro - medonte township in close proximity to a proposed zoning change application. This is in reference to 2011- OPA -02 and 2011- ZBA -09. We just want you to acknowledge our Displeasure with these proposed changes to the Zoning in the area. My wife and I and our children will be attending the Public meeting to voice our concerns about this project. We just want you to be aware as tax payers and voters where we stand on this proposed amendment. Please feel free to Contact us any time. We live at 4225 line 6, R.R.4 Coldwater. Ed and Trudy Balko Doug Irwin Director Corporate Services /Clerk Township of Oro - Medonte From: Garry Kumpula Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:07 AM To: Irwin, Doug; White, Glenn; Coutanche, Mel; Dunn, Robin; . Council Subject: Twp.0- M.2011- OPA -02 (Webers Burger Outlet) Gentleman, We acknowledge receipt of the mailed public notice for the above and would be very much interested at perusing all the further information on file for this application. For example, but not limited to, studies addressing traffic, geology, ground and surface waters, environment etc.. According to the notification, these are available at the Twp. offices during the regular business hours. We plan to be there this morning later on. Having to make a specific trip from the north end of the Twp., any hard copies of reports (or summaries), detailed site plans etc.. to distribute to the neighbours would be appreciated. Also, at this time we ask to be put on the mailing list of this case for further developments and staff report following the upcoming public meeting. Need less to say, we are STRONLY OPPOSED to this develpoment. Regards, Garry and Ethel Kumpula # 57 Mt.St. Louis Rd. West From: Ward Sullivan! -\ Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 12:06 PM To: mel- coutanche(s oro- medonte ca; hhughesCabsympatico.ca Cc:. Council; Irwin, Doug; Leigh, Andria Subject: Re: proposed amendment to zoning : Crestwood Park Holdings 99 Mount St Louis Rd E Ward 1 Councilor, Mayor and management: Thank you for advising me of the meeting regarding the proposed amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By -law, specifically 99 Mount St. Louis Rd East. I will be attending on Feb 22nd. I recently relocated my family to the area, and with my in -laws purchased two homes (33, and 41 Mount St Louis Rd West) We love the idyllic country setting where we are raising our children in a quiet community with great air, and wonderful views including the star filled night sky. (something they could not see in the city due to light pollution). We absolutely love it here. The view of my back deck is of farmland, hills and trees. My "current" view that is. The proposal to change my view to that of a hamburgerjoint parking lot is alarming to say the least. A homeowner nightmare in every sense. It has come to our attention that a proposal has been made to amend, re- designate and rezone the Agricultural /rural property mentioned above to facilitate restaurant use, specifically Webers Hamburgers. We are shocked and appalled that this could even be considered. Clearly we are absolutely against it. One only needs to drive up highway 11 near the current Webers to see what a mess this area can become if such a rezoning is allowed to proceed. I have the following concerns with this. 1. Pollution: Noise pollution from increased traffic, people, music. 2. Pollution: From the seagulls it will attract. 3. Pollution: From the occasional customers who toss garbage, cigarette butts and food; out the window of their car. 4. Pollution: From the restaurant itself when garbage cans blow over and wind takes garbage on a spread. 5. Pollution: Light pollution from the site that prevents us from enjoying the night sky anymore. 6. Pollution: From the proposed heavy toilet facility usage as illustrated in the proposed scheme. This may impact the currently Environmentally Protected areas and may end up polluting the adjacent and downstream waterways. Not to mention the smell that is not here today. 7. The Smell: from constantly cooking meat, to grease and grease storage, and of course to rotting garbage on hot days. 8. Traffic: Increased traffic along Mount St. Louis Rd will impact the current residents. 9. Traffic: Increased traffic on the exit from 400 will have problems as this overpass is not designed for that constant access and egress from the 400 North, and particularly Southbound. 10. Accidents: Years ago when Webers opened up on Hwyll vehicles stopped on the other side of the highway and pedestrians crossed. Danger and accidents caused the facilitation of an pedestrian overpass. Clearly this is not a good idea to have on this country setting. (This is even mentioned on the Webers own website in the history section) 11. Signage: No doubt as per Webers other location there will be ugly neon or backlit signs on the property, as well as signs added to surrounding roads directing traffic to this location. Again changing the beautiful country setting. 12. Destruction: Total destruction of a beautiful country setting with trees, pond, streams, wildlife to put in an ugly hamburger joint with a massive parking lot. 13. Destruction: The ruining of AG /RU land that could be put to better use under it's current zoning. 14. Destruction: Some of the planned build -out includes encroachment on environmental protected ands and buffer zones. Additionally; I am absolutely opposed to this on so many levels. It is a completely unnecessary use for the area. No good will come from it. This property should retain its current use and character of the Township of Oro, and Oro should maintain its current mandate for preservation not commercialization of this area. I worry that any approval of this sort will result in more applications coming with the statement that this change will be precedent for more change on neighboring properties up and down Mount St Louis Rd and the 400 Highway. I short we will end up with ugly commercial sprawl in an area that should remain beautiful and untouched by this kind of development. This is completely unnecessary in that commercial rest stops, restaurants, gas stations and the like, already exist at numerous interchanges near this one. Those other interchanges are better designed for traffic with proper cloverleaf's and long ramps. Specifically Barrie, Hwy 93, Waubaushene, Coldwater, Port Severn etc. Those areas are already zoned commercial and should be where this proposed blight on nature could be better located. As far as I can tell from the talk on the street, No one in the area wants this other than the purchaser of the property. No one wakes up here each morning thinking: wow, I wish their was a big hamburger stand around the corner. At best it brings in some revenue to the local coffers, but that could still be accomplished at a better location already zoned for such. At worst, we create another site for our ever growing ( girth) population to consume convenient fast food that is unhealthy, full of fat, salt, sugar and calories, and is proven to lead to heart disease, cancers, and type 2 diabetes in children and adults. It concerns me that since purchasing the site, the owner has removed trees, pulled up stumps, installed drainage tiles along the field ( to prepare for parking lot ?) had regular bonfires of brush and trees, and more. This leads to the conclusion that either the new owner is one eager- beaver doing work for what he hopes will be a successful application. Or worse, that this deal was basically done in the backrooms of this township long before we ever saw the FOR SALE sign go up and the SOLD sign go up with it before it ever hit the market. I hope that is not the case and my faith in the ethics of the township remains intact. Thank you for reading this, and please keep me informed of meetings and progress on this topic. Respectfully Ward Sullivan 33 Mount St. Louis Rd W. Coldwater ON LOK 1E0 4� ,ko s ..Ra C7 �� U ""D i &,,) Lei h, Andria From: Lstarfiti Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 10:44 AM To: Leigh, Andria Subject: re- zoning of property from rural to commercial @ Mt. St. Louis rd and the 400 Contact: Andria Leigh Hi Andria - -I'm sending you this email to voice my objection to the proposed re- zoning of this above property, also known as the Fowler property. We are currently away and will not be able to attend the meeting on Feb 22 /12.Many questions have to be asked - -I believe the current "official plan" does not provide for the re- zoning of this property and that the official plan would have to change to make it so. I have issues with increased noise in the area, increased traffic, increased garbage thrown about which is already an issue, the decrease of the value of our property and the decrease of the quality of life as we have known it, we have lived in oro twp for 35 yrs. I don't believe having a restaurant that sells burgers would help to enhance the dynamics of this beautiful area. Plus the fact the area as you know is all res idential,rural, and agriculture to re -zone this particular property to commercial in my opinion would certainly not cause a positive outcome. I am adamant that this does not take place. Thank you for listening to me -I would definitely like to hear the feedback from -- the meeting on the 22nd of Feb -- thank- you - -Steve and Lynn thomson Name: @ @ Name E -mail Address:._ Phone Number: Leigh, Andria C, From: Polus, Asia (MTO) <Asia. Polus @ontario.ca> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 10:40 AM To: Leigh, Andria Cc: White, Glenn Subject: FW: 2011- OPA -02 and 2011 - ZBA -09 RE: Notice of Public Meeting for proposed Amendment to the: Official Plan and Zoning by -Low of the Township of Oro - Medonte (Crestwood Park Holdings Inc.) Hi Andria, Thank you for the notification of the Public Meeting regarding the above noted subject, please accept this e -mail as a confirmation that our previous comments dated December 12, 2011 are still applicable. Best regards W. Asia Polus Corridor Management Technician Ministry of Transportation Engineering Office, Central Region Corridor Management Section 7th Floor, Building "D" 1201 Wilson Avenue Downsview, Ont M3M 1J8 Tel. 416 - 235 -3991 Fax 416 - 235 -4267 From: Polus, Asia (MTO) Sent: December 12, 2011 1:41 PM To: White, Glenn Cc: Hendrix, Janice (MTO); Jeganathan, Ayvun (MTO) Subject: 2011- OPA -02 and 2011 - ZBA -09 RE: Crestwood Park Holdings Inc. Construction a Weber's Restaurant Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By -law Amendment 2011- OPA -02 and 2011- ZBA -09 Glenn, We have had an opportunity to review the above -noted amendment and have no objection to it. Currently the ministry is in the process of reviewing the site plan submission and all the associated documentation (Site Plan, TIS, and SWMR) for the construction of the Weber's Restaurant for which comments will be sent under separate cover. No direct access to the Hwy 400 will be permitted now or in the future. When the review is completed and approval of the proposed development is issued one of the conditions will be the required improvements to the intersection at both East and West Ramps and Mount St. Louis Road for which proponent will be financially responsible. That might include ramps terminal improvements (such as resurfacing and re- application of pavement marking) and /or right turn lane at the intersection and other necessary improvements associated with the development. Further details comments regarding site plan submission will be provided soon. The site is located within the ministry's permit control area and therefore an MTO Building and Land Use Permit is required prior to the start of construction. In addition, an encroachment permit will be required for all works on the highway right -of -way. I trust this is sufficient in the interim. If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact Janice Hendrix, the Permit Officer for this area and she can be reached at (416) 235 -5382 or me. Sincerely W. Asia Polus Corridor Management Technician Ministry of Transportation Engineering Office, Central Region Corridor Management Section 7th Floor, Building "D" 1201 Wilson Avenue Downsview, Ont M3M U8 Tel. 416 - 235 -3991 Fax 416 - 235 -4267 Cc: Leigh, Andria; Kate Northcott; Dave Featherstone; young.rya @bellnet.ca; 'Kristine Loft' Subject: Proposed Weber's restaurant Hi Glenn. The NVCA has reviewed the material provided in support of a proposed Weber's Restaurant location at the southeast junction of Hwy 400 and Mount St. Louis Road. We offer the following comments for consideration. Environmental Impact Statement Field work in support of the EIS /proposed development is generally satisfactory. Only one amphibian breeding survey was undertaken — three surveys (early, mid and late spring) are generally required as part of the Marsh Monitoring Protocol; however, given the site context and proposed development footprint, the EIS provides sufficient information to proceed in the absence of the full surveys. The FOM2 -2 (dry -fresh white pine -sugar maple forest) may not be as extensive as depicted on Figure 2 ELC mapping (i.e. orthophotos suggest that the community changes as it approaches Coldwater River and associated bottomlands); however, this is not significant in the context of this proposal. Eastern Meadowlark (two pairs) were observed north of the pond in the vicinity of the proposed development. As noted in the EIS, the status of this species has recently been elevated to "Threatened" and a permit from MNR may be required (under the Endangered Species Act) for any work within the proposed development footprint. This is an issue to be resolved via MNR. Though not mentioned in the EIS, the property is part of the extensive Copeland deer yard. Stratum 1 (core yard) habitat appears to be associated with large blocks of mixed /conifer forest along Coldwater River and bottomlands while Stratum 2 (less sensitive early winter /feeding) habitat is associated with fields and narrow forest lobes on the property. The proposed development will not significantly impact the Copeland deer yard or corridors leading to the yard. The proposed development envelope is set back (on average) approximately 30m from the pond, watercourse and wetland. Proposed mitigation in the EIS is generally satisfactory. Existing habitat in the buffer between the proposed development and pond /watercourse /wetland consists of manicured lawn — there are significant opportunities here to re- naturalize the buffer to improve habitat conditions within /adjacent to the regulated features. We understand that picnic areas may be proposed in this area. The EIS has suggested that a naturalized buffer should be established along the edge of the pond and watercourse. The NVCA supports this approach and request that more information be provided on this — possibly a 5 m wide section along the edge of the parking area in conjunction with a re- naturalization plan elsewhere. Pond viewing platforms may direct pedestrian access to certain areas to avoid the trampling of vegetation along the entire shoreline. We recommend further discussion on this issue. There also needs to be further discussion on Stormwater Management. Stormwater runoff from large gravel parking lots can potentially introduce a lot of sediment /turbidity into the system. Stormwater Manaaement The NVCA has reviewed the information presented in Dearden and Stanton Limited's "Grading and Storm Drainage Review, Proposed Webers Restaurant, 99 Mount St. Louis Road East, Part of Lot 10, Concession 7, Township of Medonte, Now in the Township of Ora - Medonte, County of Simcoe" dated November 2011. Including engineering drawings [E- 2079LG, E -2079] signed and stamped November 9, 2011. Review of this submission was based on requirements and guidelines set out in the MOE's 2003 "Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual," the MNR Natural Hazards Technical Guidelines, and current NVCA guidelines available on our website, www.nvca.on.ca. NVCA staff notes that the following criteria will be applied to this development with respect to the stormwater management: • Post development to pre development quantity control for the 2 to 100 year events, both Chicago and SCS for the entire property prior to discharge from the property. • Enhanced water quality for all runoff from the site. • Safe conveyance of the Regulatory Storm through the site to a sufficient outlet. NVCA staff noted the following outstanding issues with this most recent submission: 1. All development must be located outside of the natural hazards. The NVCA is generally satisfied that the development is outside of the floodplain of the Coldwater River tributaries and the on -line pond. We do however request confirmation through an erosion hazard assessment that the proposed trash storage unit area is not within an erosion hazard area of the Coldwater River tributary (downstream of the pond). 2. As per NVCA guidelines, stormwater management facilities need to be designed for enhanced quality control based on MOE guidelines and quantity control based on matching post to pre development runoff rates for the 4 hour Chicago and 24 hour SCS storm events. Modelling should be provided for the 2, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100 year events as well as the Timmins Regional Storm. 3. As per MOE guidelines all stormwater management facilities should be located outside of the floodplain and online stormwater management facilities are not permitted. Stormwater management (quality and quantity) prior to discharge to the online pond needs to be demonstrated. 4. As per NVCA guidelines all gravel surfaces are assumed to be asphalt in the design of the stormwater management facilities. Planning Context It is our understanding that this proposal requires an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By -law Amendment. The EIS has provided discussion /recommendations on buffers required to protect the pond /watercourse. It is our belief that the area to be redesignated /rezoned should be limited to that of the commercial development and the pond and watercourses along with the buffer required to protect them should remain in an environmental designation /zone. Ontario Regulation 172/06 A part of this proposed development is within an area affected by Ontario Regulation 172/06 whereby a permit is required under the Conservation Authorities Act prior to development. It is standard procedure to ensure all planning approvals are in place prior to the issuance of a permit. We understand a force main will be installed and directional boring under watercourses will be required. The NVCA will require further details on this part of the proposal for conformity with the Conservation Authorities Act and the Federal Fisheries Act. We note that these comments are related to this submission and the information provided within this submission. NVCA requires additional information in order to complete our review and additional comments may be provided in the future. Trusting this is of assistance. Tim Salkeld Resource Planner Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority 8195 '8th Line Utopia, ON LOM 1T0 (705) 424 -1479 ext 233 (705) 424 -2115 tsalkeld @nvca.on.ca `a From: Robert King Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 2:57 PM To: White, Glenn Cc: Leigh, Andria; Irwin, Doug; Coutanche, Mel; Hughes, Harry Subject: Weber's proposal I am writing this letter to voice my concerns regarding the development of #99 Mt. St, Louis road east. I am the owner of the ten acre lot directly adjacent to the north -east side of the proposed site. A commercial development of this type will have a huge impact on the environment and the wildlife that thrive in this area. I am also concerned that the presence of a " Weber's Hamburger restaurant" would greatly depreciate my property value and the other residential properties in the surrounding area. I have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in my lot including the building of my workshop, installation of my driveway allowance, (both fully permitted and inspected by the Township and under the approval of the NVCA). I have also invested a great deal of money in the plans for a custom home on my land. I visit the property regularly and have therefore observed my new neighbor, (Thomas Rennie, owner of Webers), as he has prepared his land for his intended use. His blatant disregard for rules regulation and above all the environment during the past few months has upset me greatly as I am an angler and a conservationist. Mr. Rennie and his work crews removed dozens if not hundreds of mature trees around the lot and in particular along the bank of the pond and tributaries on his lot. He promptly hired an excavator to remove the stumps and roots of these trees so there would be no evidence of their removal. The machine then sloped and graded the bank, the next time we had signifigant rainfall the river was completely clouded with sediment for more than 48 hours, it was disgusting. He also removed hundreds of feet of the MTO fencing along HWY 400. 1 contacted the Downsview head office of the MTO regarding this fence removal and spoke to district manager, Janice Hendrix. She stated that the MTO had no idea that the fence had been removed and that there had been no submission of a request for permission to do so. This is another example of Mr. Rennie's willingness to do as he pleases without regard for rules and regulations or wildlife as the fences primary function is preventing animals from running on to the highway. I currently spend the first few minutes of my weekly visits to my land gathering the garbage that accumulates along my frontage. It usually ads up to about a half garbage bag full and consists of Wendy's, MacDonalds and Tim Hortons wrappers, containers and cups. The closest one of these types of commercial businesses is 22km's away. This is a signifigant impact considering their proximity to my land. I wonder what the extent of allowing such a development next door will be to our lands and our section of the beautiful Coldwater River system. Robert King, President Active Insurance Services Canada Barrie, ON L4M 4Y6 Re: Proposal for Weber's Restaurant at Hwy 400 and Mt St Louis Rd To: Doug Irwin There is a proposal before the Oro Medonte Council to build a Weber's restaurant at the corner of Hwy 400 and Mount St Louis Rd. We We believe the speed limit on Mount Saint Louis Road near the 400 highway Is 80 kilometers/hour. Many cars travel at over 100 K/H at this intersection. Travelling in an easterly direction at I OOK/H there is no time to stop to avoid crashing into a vehicle at this proposed Weber's entrance. Travelling over the 400 highway bridge it is not possible to stop or avoid an accident and injury, if there a vehicle stopped on the road. I know that the Canada Post Office would not allow the previous owner to keep her mail box at her driveway even if it was moved off the road by 8 feet. Canada Post New it was a dangerous driveway for mail delivery. Talk to Robert Ego, he was involved with this decision. They made her move her box %2 a kilometer down the road. I believe that installing traffic lights would lessen the chances of a collision. This business entrance will still be a planned trap for collisions. I don't know about the present Weber's on highway #11 and accidents and injuries at this entrance, but I do suggest you get the statistics. Publish these statistics so we know what to expect. Allowing an accident trap to be built on the bridge ramp could not be legal. Dwight Holm 164 Mount St Louis Rd E RR4 Coldwater Ont LOK1E0 Phone 705 835 3397 Township of Oro - Medonte 148 Line 7 South P.0 Box 100,Oro, Ontario LOL 2X0 Attention: Douglas Irwin, Clerk To Whom It May Concern: As a citizen of Oro- Medonte for the past 16 years, residing on the 8th Line North, I wish to convey my thoughts to the proposed amendments to the Zoning By -law and Official Plan relating to the redesignation and rezoning of the lands described as 99 Mount Saint Louis Rd. East. Oro- Medonte (OM) is a rural community which prides itself on the realization that preservation of the environment, controlling development so it doesn't change rural character, and our natural resources and landscape are our greatest strengths. To this end control over land uses via our specific zoning by -laws is very important to all of us that reside in Oro - Medonte. The lands in question are presently zoned agricultural /rural and environmentally protected (EP). The proposed plan is to have some EP land rezoned to Commercial for the purposes of a restaurant. EP land is designated that way for a reason and no amount of economic pressure should trump ecology. The proposed development is situated very close to a main watercourse that meanders through our community and the possibility of contamination is a real concern, through garbage being deposited in the river and relatively high volumes of sewage flow from the proposed sewage disposal system. Previous leaders were prudent in zoning this land as noted above. Our present leaders should keep it that way. The access and off ramps to Hwy 400 at Mount Saint Louis are not meant for high volume traffic such as that expected from a proposed restaurant (witness the volume of traffic on Hwy 11 at the associated restaurant). This traffic will create a safety hazard for residents and visitors alike. Developments of this nature should be relegated to population centres with infrastructure capable of handling the traffic volume. After reading the comments detailed on a questionnaire posted on the Official Oro - Medonte website I realize that many of OM residents and members of Council have similar views of our township as I, and have similar vision. Avoid environmental degradation, don't succumb to economic pressures that deviate from the vision our residents have, and keep the preservation of our rural culture a top priority. Through this letter I want to express my sincere opposition to the proposed rezoning of the subject property and hope that Council will look beyond the possible minor economic benefit to our community and reject the application of Crestwood Park Holdings Inc. for the better good of Oro - Medonte's rural nature. As requested to do so please let this be confirmation that I wish to be kept informed of any and all developments by The Township of Oro - Medonte pertaining to this matter. Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns and I look forward to a favourable outcome for the residents of Oro - Medonte. Sincerel Dave Bradshaw, P Eng 4740 Line 8 N, R.R. #4 Coldwater, ON LOK 1E0 Oro - Medonte Resident