Loading...
06 03 2020 2020-ZBA-05 UCCI Conslidated Companies Inc.A Notice of Public Meeting for r krp Proposed Amendment to the Zoning By-law of Bi%a .tliiitle the Township of Oro-Medonte 2020-ZBA-05 UCCI Consolidated Companies INC. Due to the evolving public heath situation (COVID-19), effective March 17, 2020 at 8:30 am the Township of Oro-Medonte Administration Office is closed to the general public until further notice. The Township will live stream the Public Meeting for public viewing. Please refer to the Township's website (oro. medonte.ca) for livestream viewing information. Take notice that the Development Services Committee of the Township of Oro- Medonte will hold a Public Meeting on Wednesday June 3, 2020 at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Council Chambers. The purpose of the Public Meeting is to notify the public and to obtain public comments on a proposed Amendment to the Zoning By-law. The subject lands are described as Registered Plan 51 M-187, Block 43 (Municipal number not assigned). A key map illustrating the location of the subject lands, and a copy of the applicants site plan including the lands to be rezoned are included with this notice. The purpose and effect of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is to rezone a portion of the applicant's lands from Open Space (OS) Zone to Rural Residential One Exception (RUR1) Zone to permit ten (10) new residential uses on the subject lands. This Zoning By-law Amendment Application has been submitted with Consent Applications 2020-B-04 to 2020-B-12. Input on the application is welcome and encouraged. Written submissions can be made by: 1. Emailed to glannine(Poro-medonte.ca pdorto or during the Public Meeting; 2. Dropped in the drop box at the Township Administration Office on Line 7 South; 3. Faxed to (705) 487-0133; or, 4. Mailed through Canada Post. All written comments or questions received will be read out loud by Staff at the Public Meeting. Please ensure that you include your name and address so that you may be contacted if necessary. The Township is currently working on additional ways to provide your input on an application. Please check the Township website at https://www.oro- medonte.ca/municipal-services/planning-information prior to the meeting date for further updates. If a person or public body does not make written submissions to the Director, Development Services, The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte before the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is passed or refused, the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision of the Council of the Township of Oro-Medonte to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal unless, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so. The application is part of the public record and is available to the public for viewing/inspection on the Township's website www.oro-medonte.ca. Any person wishing further information or clarification with regard to the application should contact the Planning Division at 705-487-2171. Individuals who submit letters and other information to Council and its advisory bodies should be aware that all information, including contact information, contained within their communications may become part of the public record and may be made available through the agenda process which includes publication on the Township's website. If you wish to be notified of the decision of the Township of Oro-Medonte in respect to the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, you must make a written request. Written submissions should be directed to: Township of Oro-Medonte 148 Line 7 South Oro-Medonte, Ontario LOL 2EO Attn: Andria Leigh, Director, Development Services p Ian ni ng @o ro-m edonte.ca Dated at the Township of Oro-Medonte this 13t1 day of May, 2020. Location Map F7 71 sm)ee.a- Applicant's Draft Zoning By-law Schedule: SCHEDULE W ZONING BYIAW AMENDMENT 0 From: Kevin.Balkaran@HydroOne.com <Kevin.Balkaran@HydroOne.com> On Behalf Of LandUsePlanning@HydroOne.com Sent: Thursday, May 14, 202011:42 AM To: Falconi, Teresa <tfaIcon i@oro-medonte.ca> Subject: Oro Medonte -148 Line 7 South - 2020-B-04 to 2020-B-12 Hello, We are in receipt of your Application for Consent, 2020-B-04 to 2020-B-12 dated May 14, 2020. We have reviewed the documents concerning the noted Application and have no comments or concerns at this time. Our oreliminary review considers issues affecting Hvdro One's'High Voltage Facilities and Corridor Lands' only. For proposals affecting 'Low Voltage Distribution Facilities' please consult your local area Distribution Supplier. To confirm if Hydro One is your local distributor please follow the following link: htto://www.hvdroone.com/StormCenter3/ Please select "Search" and locate address in question by entering the address or by zooming in and out of the map ? 4 .... EL. hydrgne Customers Affected: O 5000 O 501-5000 O 51-500 O 21-50 O < 20 O Multiple 9 Crew — S.rvice Are. 0 Montreal Ottaw •' © U..La x.w.pno O 1 K B Ci Pontit a, BMley�lk O Vi. Exw. ® • • p "IV ' • , @ram Toronto 0 KIt oe wissa.ga b 9, A . . Ilto. \ GoogLeo ,�.I .-.R�rh,.":'.o1. 1...I ,o,,,.o.— I ... I — If Hydro One is your local area Distribution Supplier, please contact Customer Service at 1-888-664-9376 or e-mail CustomerCommunications(o)HvdroOne.com to be connected to your Local Operations Centre Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thankyou, Kevin Balkaran University Co -Op Student, Real Estate Department 185 Clegg Road Markham, ON L6G 1137 Kevin.Balkaran(@HvdroOne.com From: Saunders, David <dsaunders@oro-medonte.ca> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 10:33 AM To: Falconi, Teresa <tfalconi@oro-medonte.ca> Subject: RE: Notice of Public Meeting (2020-ZBA-05) and Notice of Public Hearing (2020-B-04 to 2020-13- 12) UCCI Consolidated Companies Inc. - Development Services Committee Meeting scheduled for June 03, 2020 Teresa Development Engineering has No Objection to the above noted ZBA and associated Severances with the following comments (below). Note: A fulsome Functional Servicing Report (SWM and overall drainage / Lot servicing for grading, san. & water, etc.) and Engineering Design set as well as any other reports and drawings shall be required for a subdivision application by Development Services. The road pattern was to have the (current) 'dead end' cul-de-sac extended to connect Greenwood Forest Rd. with Windfields Dr. W. (Capital and / or Operations likely have comment regarding this issue.) Regards David Saunders Manager, Development Engineering Township of Oro-Medonte From: Metras, Justin <jmetras@oro-medonte.ca> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 10:01 AM To: Falconi, Teresa <tfa[con i@oro-medonte.ca> Subject: RE: Notice of Public Meeting (2020-ZBA-05) and Notice of Public Hearing (2020-B-04 to 2020-13- 12) UCCI Consolidated Companies Inc. - Development Services Committee Meeting scheduled for June 03, 2020 Teresa Operations has no concerns with the change in zoning, but has the following overall comments that were part of the pre -consultation meeting held with the owner last May, but not incorporated in to the response letter. Greenwood Forest Drive is to be extended to link back up to Windfield Drive. This is for Operational and Emergency Services needs. A 5m x 5m daylight triangle is required on severed Lot 1. An overall drainage plan should be prepared and constructed prior to individual home construction. Greenwood Forest Drive should be straightened where possible through land dedication / land swap along the north side. That the Windfield Drive East and Windfield Drive West be opened as through road as per the original subdivision plan. This is for Operational and Emergency Services needs. 6. Provide 5% parkland dedication. Regards Justin Justin Metras Manager, Infrastructure and Capital Projects Township of Oro-Medonte From: Bev BEATTIE <bbev@rogers.com> Sent: May 20, 2020 4:04 PM To: Planning <Planning@oro-medonte.ca> Cc: Bev Beattie <bbev@rogers.com> Subject: Notice of Public Hearing- Application by UCCI Consolidated Companies Inc. Good afternoon; Thank you for the mail notice of the consent application- notice of public hearing related to owner UCCI Consolidated Companies Inc. In light of the proposed severed lands, please find below some comments and further questions. A. Has there been an Environmental Impact Study completed? This forest area is the home of wild turkey, rabbits, fox, deer, and a variety of birds. As such, it will be important to assess the environmental impact on the displacement of the wildlife living in this area. B. Are the permits for the 'Yen (10) new residential uses on the subject lands" to be solely used for single dwelling homes that are owned? There is a concern if there are plans for multiple rental units being built in this community. C. What will the "Retained Lot' be used for and why is there "Dedicated lands for parking"? Again, this community is for residential and cottage use, with concerns if there are plans for private -revenue generating activities. D. Will there be roads built to join Windfields Dr. E and W, and as well Greenwood Forest Rd. and Windfields Dr. W? Again, has there been an environmental impact study done to determine the impact of the displacement of the wildlife living in these areas where roads will be built? E. What are the plans for water and sewer services for the proposed lots? Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and to inquire further as to the proposed development plans. Sincerely, Bev and Al Beattie 10 Park View Ave. Oro Medonte, Ont. From: Bev BEATTIE <bbev@rogers.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 5:13 PM To: Falconi, Teresa <tfaIcon i@oro-medonte.ca>; Weatherell, Todd <tweatherell@oro-medonte.ca> Cc: Bev Beattie <bbev@rogers.com> Subject: Re: Notice of Public Hearing- Application by UCCI Consolidated Companies Inc. Hello Todd; Thank you for responding so quickly. Based on the responses we are concerned and oppose the development, as it is currently presented There needs to be further studies done to determine the following: a) the significant impact on the displacement of other diverse wildlife that live in the community; b) a specific plan on how rare wildlife species such as the Eastern Wood -pewee and the Red-headed woodpecker will continue to be protected; and c) rather than suggesting, a well -developed plan concerning how the Butternut trees in the community will be protected. If there is no set time frame on when the park will be developed, then there is no need to rush the proposed development, and specifically the development of a parking lot. There also needs to be information provided, even though it is not a planning issue, on the impact of possible tax increases for local residents. This will allow time for all members of the community to become fully informed and have an opportunity to respond in a fair and equitable manner, due to the current restrictions community residents are facing. Again, thank you for responding to our questions, as it provides an opportunity to critically examine the proposal and to make well-informed decisions, which have the potential to impact the residents of the community, the natural wildlife, and the local water/ lake supply. Sincerely, Bev and Al. Beattie From: kim whyte <kjwhyte@rogers.com> Sent: May 20, 2020 10:48 AM To: Planning <Planning@oro-medonte.ca> Subject: Input regarding Proposed Amendment 2020-ZBA-05 I live at 21 Greenwood Forest Road and I oppose the amendment to the Zoning by-law for the following reasons: 1- The'proposed use' is not in accordance with the Township of Oro-Medonte's Official Plan: THE COMMUNITY VISION The primary purpose of the Official Plan is to provide the basis for protecting the Township's natural heritage system while managing growth that will support and emphasize the Township's unique character, diversity, civic identify, rural lifestyle and cultural heritage features and to do so in a way that has the greatest positive impact on the quality of life in Oro-Medonte. According to the people of Oro-Medonte, the excellent quality of life is what makes 'he Township a desirable place to live. This quality of life is created, in large part, by the rural character of the community, the open countryside, farmland, extensive wooded areas, the Oro Moraine, Lake Simcoe, Bass Lake and number of small Settlement areas. Rather than being dominated by man-made structures and landscaped yards, the Township has an open m relatively natural and rural character. These are the qualities that, taken together, contribute to the identity of the community that is of the greatest importance to residents. The open land space consists of a robust forest that contributes to the identity of this community, the daily lives of local residents, flora and fauna. The forest not only provides a beautiful backdrop in the neighbourhood, it is also the home of deer, fox, coyote, wild turkey and a variety of other bird life and plant life. It is because of this rural character and beautiful natural setting that dozens of local residents walk along Greenwood Forest Road as part of their daily routine. The proposed land use would be extremely detrimental to the quality of life in this quiet, rural community. Question #1: What it the intended future purpose of the 'Retained Lot'? Question #2: What does 'land to be dedicated to the Municipality for parking spaces' mean? Is there an agreement/understanding in place between the Township and UCCI Consolidated Companies Incorporated? Question #3: What were home owners of 17, 19, and 21 Windfields Drive told regarding the future of the open space in their backyards? This question is important because there is a prevailing opinion that the seller significantly misrepresented their intentions. Questions #4: Does the Township have plans to develop the 300' feet of shoreline on Greenwood Forest Road? Thank you, Kim Whyte From: Joyce Jacobs <joycej7080@gmail.com> Sent: May 20, 2020 10:51 AM To: Planning <Planning@oro-medonte.ca> Cc: HJ-GMail <howardjay46@gmail.com> Subject: Greenwood Forest drive Director, Development Services Committee of Oro-Medonte We are angry! 1. Definitely no through road access from Greenwood Forest Rd to Windfields Dr W. This is a safe street where people bicycle and walk dogs. We do not want cars racing through the area where there are children. A better alternative, if you want, is to join lines 4 and 5 by going through Windfield. 2. No dedicated parking lot. This is unnecessary in a residential neighborhood. 3. The original owner, whom we had personally met, Mr Ucci, told us the land on the north side of what is now Greenwood Forest Dr was never to be built on. It is shown on early plans as dedicated parkland or green belt. 4. Request. To delay meeting scheduled on Wednesday June 3 to July to allow information to reach other residents. Not enough notice was given before said meeting. Joyce Jacobs Jacobs Family Schroeder Family Ellis Jacob Michael Higgins Jeff Bourret Bruce McCartney Amanda Walker Domenic Natale F.B. Hovey Rinaldi Family Karen West Shiffman Family Gary Bomza From: Brenda Norwich <bnorwich@outlook.com> Sent: May 21, 2020 7:08 PM To: Weatherell, Todd <tweatherell@oro-medonte.ca> Cc: Falcon!, Teresa <tfalconi@oro-medonte.ca>; Scott, Shawn <shawn.scott@oro-medonte.ca> Subject: RE: UCCI questions Hi Todd, thank you very much for answering our questions. I just want to go on record that I oppose the zoning changes. This is a very unique neighbourhood for so many reasons, but the biggest being the green space around us and our privacy. The wildlife, the ability to walk down Green Forest Road every morning taking our dogs for a walk without lawns/houses etc.. Opening up roadways, building houses, creating park space and parking lots will change the ENTIRE feel of this small knit community that we call home. I know you expected to hear this..... but this is literally our way of life at stake. I sincerely hope that the township does the ethical thing to protect it's longterm citizen's/tax payers and the local wildlife. (Last week I took a picture of a very rare large red-headed woodpecker in the forest behind my house). I would also like to request that this meeting be postponed until it can happen in person. We have a lot of elderly people (80/90's) who are affected directly by the changes beside and behind their houses.... Who cannot navigate email let alone join into a meeting virtually to hear what is going on and voice any concerns. I can't imagine that there is any reason that this meeting needs to happen with such haste. It is not ideal or fair to us. Anyways, just wanted to go on record with some additional heart felt concerns.... Many thanks for responding. It is appreciated.... Brenda 20 Parkview Ave. From: Brittany Harvey <brittanyharvey2@gmail.com> Sent: May 21, 20201:30 PM To: Weatherell, Todd <tweatherell@oro-medonte.ca> Cc: living_stonl8@hotmail.com; Planning <Planning@oro-medonte.ca> Subject: Re: 2020-ZBA-05 Hi Todd, As per the request made by the Township in the documents sent to the residents affected by this rezoning, we at 14 Park View Ave. (Shawn Livingston, Brittany Harvey) are formally stating our OPPOSITION in writing to the application 2020-B-04 to 2020-B-12 (2020-ZBA-05). We are not satisfied that independent assessments were not completed for the functional services report or the Natural Heritage Evaluation Report. We are also opposed to the application and plans for the retained lot (including a dedicated parking lot). We believe there has been a lack of communication between the Township, the developers (applicants), and the community affected by this rezoning. We will be in attendance during the June 3 virtual meeting, but are requesting the Township consider postponing this meeting until such a time we can meet in person. This application contains a number of proposals which require discussion, and I do not believe the virtual platform is an appropriate means for these conversations. Please let me know if any further correspondence is required (either by email or letter) to formally state our opposition. Thank you, Brittany Harvey From: Farideh Smith <farideh_smith@yahoo.com> Sent: May 21, 2020 7:16 PM To: Planning <Planning@oro-medonte.ca> Subject: UCCI consolidation Companes This is to confirm that I oppose to the application 2020-B-04 to 2020-B-12. Also I would like to ask to postpone the public meeting to the time that we can attend in person. There are residents who could not join a virtual meeting, Regards, Farideh Smith 14 Simcoe Ave. From: Robert and Jessica Peacock <peacock.macedo@gmail.com> Sent: May 21, 202010:11 AM To: Planning <Planning@oro-medonte.ca> Subject: 2020-ZBA-05 UCCI Consolidated Companies Re: 2020-ZBA-05 UCCI Consolidated Companies INC. Ms. Leigh, Please consider this an application to be referenced in the event that we wish to proceed with appealing the final decision of the Township in regards to the application for Zoning By -Law Amendment to rezone Registered Plan 51M-187, Block 43 (Municipal number not assigned) from Open Space (OS) Zone to Rural Residential One Exception (RURl) Zone to permit ten (10) new residential uses on the subject lands, which was submitted with Consent Applications 2020-B-04 to 2020-B-12. Please consider this application to be on behalf of all residents of Oro Plan 709, thereby entitling any resident of Oro Plan 709 the ability to appeal the decision made by the Council of The Township of Oro-Medonte to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in regards to the above mentioned Application for Zoning By-law Ammendment. Regards, Robert and Jessica Peacock Supposedly there is also a trail proposed to be running along the rear property lines of the existing houses. This would mean that in addition to our house potentially overlooking a parking lot and a house, there would also be people walking practically across our back yard. The concept of cutting down the forest, let alone replacing it with a parking lot is extremely undesirable. At the very least, a block of untouched forest should be left to separate any new construction, trails, etc. from the existing residences. Regards, Robert and Jessica Peacock Sixteen Park View Avenue Oro-Medonte, ON LOL 2E0 From: Kathleen McDowell <kmcdowell51@rogers.com> Sent: May 24, 2020 4:09 PM To: Planning <Planning@oro-medonte.ca> Subject: New Zoning Application for Greenwood Forest I am a homeowner on Lakeview Rd, Oro Medonte, part of the neighbourhood impacted by the proposed development of 10 residential homes on Greenwood Forest. I am definitely opposed to the new zoning application as I feel it impacts the neighbourhood in many ways. A few of the many concerns I have are, months and maybe years of construction vehicles, increased traffic as residents access their homes and the public drive to a new park, the need for independent testing as to the impact on wildlife and the water table. Why was I not sent an information package with the plan for the development? Please send one to me. I hope you realize you will be dealing with a steering committee which will address all the concerns of residents. It should be a face to face meeting with the mayor, councillor, head of the planning department and a representative of the Ucci Group. Why would we want to lose the recreation opportunities and solitude of one of the most beautiful parts of Oro Medonte? What you are creating is a population implosion! Concerned citizen and tax payer, Kathleen McDowell From: grenlea grenlea <grenlea @sympatico.ca> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 12:23 PM To: Planning <Planning@oro-medonte.ca> Subject: Ucci rezoning application Greenwood Forest Rd. Council, The Official Plan for Oro-Medonte states " this Official Plan establishes an'environment first' philosophy in the Township" and supports the rural character and extensive wooded areas of the Township " Rather than being dominated by man-made structures and landscaped yards." Sections A2.1.2 (b), and (f) section A3.1.2 support the concept of environmental protection through the preservation of natural wooded areas. We feel that this development would have negative impact on the environment through habitat destruction and have an impact on the Lake Simcoe watershed. We feel that this development is not in the best interest of the area and in conflict with the Official Plan. Therefore We are opposed the the proposed amendment application by Ucci Consolidated for Greenwood Forest Rd. Regards, H.Leake P.Grenier 25 Greenwood Forest Rd. Oro- Medonte From: Jeff Bourret <jeffbourret@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 2:26 PM To: Planning <Planning@oro-medonte.ca> Subject: Zoning amendment 2020-B-04 to 2020-B-12 Responding to documents sent to our home regarding the rezoning of land on Greenwood Forest Road (2020-B-4 to 2020-B-12), my wife and I at 35 Greenwood Forest Road are OPPOSED to the new zoning application. We are concerned about the environmental impact to the area (runoff into the stream that feeds into the lake, and the impact on wildlife in the area, etc.). Impact on the water/table availability is another area of concern. We believe Independent assessments of these issues should be done. We also would like the township to consider postponing the public hearing until a time the community can meet in person to discuss the issues. Thankyou Jeff Bourret 35 Greenwood Forest Road From: Alla Sidoruk <allasidoruk@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 9:40 PM To: Planning <Planning@oro-medonte.ca> Subject: Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment To: Development Services Committee Township of Oro-Medonte The Director, This email is to inform you that I am strongly opposed to the newly proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment to Registered Plan 51M-187, Block 43. Reasons for my opposition are included in the Petition which I support and have signed. Yours Sincerely, AIIaSidoruk 11 Simcoe Avenue Oro-Medonte, ON LOL2E0 allasidoruk(l¢mail.com Andria Leigh May 28th, 2020 Director, Development Services Planning Department Township of Oro Medonte Re: Zoning Bylaw Amendment 2020-ZBA-05, UCCI Consolidated Companies Inc. We live at 18 Parkview Avenue, and we oppose the amendment to the Zoning by- law for the following reasons: 1) We moved to Oro for a country style of living close to the lake and nature. When we bought we were told that the forest adjacent/behind our house would always be open space. The open space not only provides a beautiful backdrop in the neighbourhood, it is also the home of deer, fox, coyote, coywolf, wild turkey and a variety of other bird wildlife and plant life (see list following submission). The proposed land use would be extremely detrimental to the quality of our life in this quiet, rural community. Some people sit and watch the lake, we sit in our backyard and watch the forest. A parking lot or even a walkway would not be tolerable. 2) The 'proposed use' is not in accordance with the Township of Oro Medonte's Official Plan: THE COMMUNITY VISION The primary purpose of the Official Plan is to provide the basis for protecting the Township's natural heritage system while managing growth that will support and emphasize the Township's unique character, diversity, civic identify, rural lifestyle and cultural heritage features and to do so in a way that has the greatest positive impact on the quality of life in Oro-Medonte. According to the people of Oro-Medonte, the excellent quality of life is what nakes the Township a desirable place to live. This quality of life is created, in large part, by the rural character of the community, the open countryside, farmland, extensive wooded areas, the Oro Moraine, Lake Simcoe, Bass Lake and number of small Settlement areas. Rather than being dominated by man-made structures and landscaped yards, the Township has an open, relatively natural and rural character. These are the qualities that, taken together, contribute to the identity of the community that is of the greatest importance to residents. Respectfully Submitted, Brian and Della Emms 18 Parkview Avenue, Oro Medonte Birds regularly seen and heard in our backyard/forest Baltimore Oriole, Blue Jay, Cardinal, Chickadee, Chipping Sparrow, Crow, Dark Eyed Junco, Downy Woodpecker, Eastern Bluebird, Eastern Wood -peewee, Goldfinch, Hummingbird, House Sparrow, Lark Sparrow, Mourning Dove, Northern Flicker, Nuthatch, Pileated Woodpecker, Purple Finch, Red Headed Woodpecker, Red - bellied Woodpecker, Robin, Rose -breasted Grosbeak, Red -winged Blackbird, Starling, Wild Turkey, Yellow -bellied Sapsucker, and others..... Anv tree removal would be detrimental to all of these species. Wildlife regularly seen and heard who use our backyard/forest to access the lake Coyote, Coywolf, Deer, Fox, If parkinq lot and development were to proceed, the wildlife would have no. access throuah the forest to the lake. To: Township of Oro Medonte, Planning Dept & Committee of Adjustments From: Bruce Hovey, 41 Greenwood Forest Re: UCCI CONSOLIDATED COMPANIES INC. 2020-ZBA-05 Rezoning from Open Space Zone to Rest Rur1 to Dermit 10 new residential lots with consent applications Dear Sir(s); As a long time resident of Oro Medonte over 30 years I am writing this letter to the Township and it's planning department and Committee of Adjustments to table my concerns regarding the UCCI Greenwood Forest development proposal. To help get my opinion across I've itemized the reasons why I do not support the proposal as presented for the following reasons; 1. It does not conform to the Provincial Official Plan Designation therefore would require an Official plan Amendment to proceed 2. It controvenes the Province's and Township's own policy of only entertaining development in Hamlets 3. The creation of 10 small lots through Committee of Adjustments consents is an abuse of the planning process. This type of application should be by Plan of Subdivision with circulation to all the various governing bodies including regional, environmental and environmental for their reviews. 4. Building intensification within 400 feet of Lake Simcoe without investigating the effects it may have on the Lake, nitrate load and ground water assessments would be negligent. 5. To allow intensification on land designated rural is contrary to all prudent planning and flys in the face of provincial safety measures to guard against any attempt to allow this. To allow this excessive change in designated use is setting a dangerous precedent. 6. When the UCCI developed Windfields Rd that backs onto the subject lands decades ago it was granted that development on the basis of maintaining this strip of land for open space and as a deer run. It has been a great source of varied wildlife to enjoy. To change its use now is like taking park land rezoning it and dividing it up. It's just not right. 7. 1 would hope this proposal will be stopped in its tracks but if not and the Township staff believe otherwise I ask that to at least severely reduce the number of lots and ensure their driveways do not line up with the driveways on the lake side. In summary, I would like to also raise concern generally expressed by neighbours and other resident friends a growing concern and general feeling the township has in recent years been railroaded by developers and business owners at the expense of residents. The shame of this is it's all done without any real economic benefit to our Township. I want staff to know us taxpayer's have your back and will fully support you to defend our rights to prudent planning. Lastly Id like to say the Ucci and Davidson family have been long time good neighbours and I hope they won't take my objection personally. I'm hoping this may be a case of planning consultant's wagging the owner dog. Thank you for letting me voice my concerns. Regard's Bruce Hovey 41 Greenwood Forest Rd Oro-Medonte 705-721-6360 From: Bruce McCartney <baIca ris@icloud.com> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 3:29 PM To: Planning <Planning@oro-medonte.ca>; Michael Higgins <MHiggins@mother-parkers.com> Subject: UCCI Consolidated Companies Inc Proposed Amendment to the Zoning By -Law of Oro Medonte; Consent Applications 2020-B-04 to 2020-B-12; PUBLIC MEETING JUNE 3,2020 Dear Sirs; This objection is being filed on behalf of Michael Higgins (mhieeinsO.mother-Parker's.com; 647-244-5893)and Bruce McCartney (balcarisa.icloud.com; 416-692-7162). We live at 27 Windfields Drive West and own the land on Lake Simcoe, on the south side of Windfields Drive West, from the Davidson/ Ucci property line on the west to to the Bomza/ Road Right of Way (between Greenwood Forest and Windfields Drive West), on the east; and the land on the north side of Windfields Drive West from west of our property line on the south to a point close to the first house east of the Creek. That means that the boundaries of our properties include the creek that flows into Lake Simcoe and the woods adjacent to the creek that are sometimes used as a pathway from Greenwood Forest to Windfields West. We recently received notice of the UCCI application and saw, earlier this week, for the first time, the documents upon which the application was based. Although we do not feel we have had adequate time to prepare a proper response, we do object. We would much prefer that this proposal be fully discussed at a public meeting rather than a virtual meeting. When Michael Higgins and I bought our properties from UCCI, we did so on the understanding (by way of title search) that the subject lands were zoned Open Space and that they would remain so zoned. I am sure that the other residents on Windfields West believed the same. It seems unfair that, now that the Windfields West lots have been sold, UCCI has decided to attempt to change the zoning, sever lots and build on this land. I did some research on subdivisions in Ontario. The government site suggests that when an owner seeks to create a lot or two, that owner may seek approval for "land severance". When, however, an owner intends to divide a piece of land into two or more parcels and to offer one or more for sale, that owner is subdividing property and the provisions of the Planning Act apply. That requires division by Plan of Subdivision. It is our view that UCCI is doing an end run by asking for a zoning change and severance. This request should be made under the Planning Act with a new subdivision plan. We have reviewed the joint submission being made on behalf of local Oro-Medonte residents and have asked Ed Evans to add our names and email addresses to the submission. We hereby adopt the comments in that submission. I will attach a copy of the submission to this email or enclose it in an additional email. We have a number of additional concerns to those mentioned above: - the creek on our property is a vibrant creek which feeds Lake Simcoe. There is a significant amount of wild life in the area. Further development in the area and particularly opening the road allowance between Greenwood Forest and Windfields West would adversely affect that creek and any runoff into Lake Simcoe. Increased traffic and further winter maintenance will be harmful to the environment. The UCCI applications suggest that the lots will have access to existing public roads when in fact the development of a new public road between Greenwood Forest and Windfields Drive West is contemplated. Doesn't this alone require land division by Plan of Subdivision? -the subject lands are one of a very few parcels that remain natural in the area. We bought the properties on the north side of Windfields West and the properties to the east of the creek to prevent further development in the area and to maintain some healthy green space. It would be a shame to allow UCCI to ruin the subject land which is zoned Open Space. If houses are to be built there, a significant portion of the wood lot will have to be chopped down. -shouldn't a detailed review of the entire shoreline area be carried out before a development of this sort is allowed? The UCCI proposal is indeed a major development that will greatly affect the shoreline. To call it an infill project is rather disingenuous. -Robert Bowles, an Environmental Consultant has had a chance (given the time restraints) to do a very quick preliminary review of the Birk's Natural Heritage Evaluation. He finds it lacking. I will attach Mr Bowles preliminary report in this email or immediately following this email -Several of the lots in the UCCI proposal are undersized (ie.5 hectares rather than the .6 hectares required). Obviously UCCI is trying to cram in as many houses as possible. This will increase the number of trees that will be cut; will increase the use of wells drawing on the water that is available and increase the risk of runoff from improperly maintained septic systems. We don't believe that the "majority of existing tree cover on the proposed lots" will be "retained and protected". -the parking lot being granted to the township is inappropriate. Why would such a parking lot be necessary? How does UCCI or the township justify putting such a parking lot in the front of the residents at 27 Greenwood Forest or in the backyard of the residents immediately to the east of of the proposed development? Won't the run off from the parking lot affect the small stream and the water flowing into Lake Simcoe from the remaining lot owned by Oro- Medonte? -What is the purpose of the retained lot? Why is it being rezoned if is not intended to be sold and developed? Can we expect UCCI to build another home there in the future? Thank you for your consideration. Bruce McCartney(Balcaris@icloud. com; 416-692-7162) And Michael Higgins(mhiseins(a)mother-Parker's.com: 647-244-5893) 27 Windfields Drive West Opinion and Site Visit by Robert Bowles, Environmental Consultant. Background 1. I am an independent environmental consultant. I have been an environmental consultant for the last 18 years with my business Bowles Environmental Consultants. Before that I was one of the principals of Bowles and Sober Environmental Consultants for 6 years, completing many contracts with that firm. I conduct several workshops and centaurs on several environmental subjects such as stream studies, bird identification, habitat requirements, butterfly, and dragonfly workshops. 2. I have received numerous awards for this work, including several from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority ("LSRCA") and recognition by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry ("MNRF"). 3. I have successfully completed the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Wetland Evaluation Course for both Northern and Southern Ontario and have conducted several wetland evaluations. I have set up a learning module on wetland evaluation for the Ontario Master Naturalist Program which I founded six years ago and teach it out of Lakehead University in Orillia. I teach eight learning modules on different environmental subjects. The wetland module has been taught for the last five years by me and the MNRF biologist that teaches the Ontario Wetland Evaluation Certificate course for MNRF. I have also taught a module on amphibians and reptiles for the Ontario Master Naturalist Program for the last five years along with another expert on wetland herpetofauna who teaches this subject at Sir Sanford Fleming College. 4. I am qualified by the MNRF as a Butternut Health Assessor under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 and have worked on butternut assessments. 5. I have conducted several Element Occurrences for the MNRF on reptiles, amphibians, birds, plants, butterflies and dragonflies verifying old Species at Risk ("SAR") records and documenting if the species or the proper habitat still exists. I have taken courses on SAR and I am qualified and have documented several records of SAR for the Natural Heritage Information Centre ("NHIC") section of the MNRF. I have taught courses and given workshops on SAR in Ontario. I set up a learning module on Species At Risk and have taught this module for the last four years as part of the Ontario Master Naturalist Program. 6. I acted as the Regional Coordinator for the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas 1981 — 1985 for the District Of Muskoka and Regional Coordinator for the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas 2001 — 2005 for Simcoe County plus several other bird surveys and studies over the years. 7. I was a member of the MNR Multi -species Turtle Recovery Team and make recommendations on turtle species at risk and their habitats. I have conducted several surveys and habitat requirements for SAR snake species on major road construction projects. 8. I was a member for several years of the Stewardship Network of Ontario and serve for over six years as chair of the MNRF North Simcoe Stewardship Network engaging members and attending many workshops and conventions on stewardship. There was an effort at the time to work with the Ontario Eastern Habitat Joint Venture on Ontario Wetland Restoration. Wetland restoration is very difficult and not always successful but have found one of the best organizations on wetland restoration is the Wetland Trust. They have restored 1400 wetlands in 18 States and two Canadian Provinces and their wetland restoration and training biologist, Thomas Biebighauser from Kentucky has produced courses and a technical guide manual on wetland restoration and construction for course participants. I keep this manual handy as a reference in my office after acquiring it about ten years ago and use it often since wetland construction is very difficult and so many factors and calculations have to be made to construct a wetland or veinal pool that will actually function effectively for wetland obligate species that need them for their survival. 9. In the past, I have been qualified several times as an expert witness before the Ontario Municipal Board and the Joint Board under the Consolidated Hearings Act. 10. I was retained by the Greenwood Forest(Windfields and Area residents on May 25, 2020 as an Environmental Expert opinion for the Public Hearing (2020-B-04 to 2020-B-12) Ucci Consolidated Companies Application (the "Application") 11. I have read the Natural Heritage Evaluation, Part of Lot 28, Concession 5, Township of Oro-Medonte, Project No. 02-009-2019, April 2020 prepared by Birks Natural Heritage Consultants by ecologist, Brad Baker. Issues to Address 12. I will address the natural heritage components of the development in regard to comments in this report as compared to my site visit. Site Visit 13. I visit the site on Tuesday, May 26, 2020 with Ed Evans who has an extensive history of the area and conducted our surveys from Greenwood Forest Road, Windfields Drive West, Windfields Drive East, Park View Avenue, Oro-Medome Municipal Lots, and private adjacent lots with landowner permission. I will ask our lawyers to obtain permission firm the developer for a site visit on the proposed development site to enable me to complete a better survey. Summary of Opinion 14. The consultant conducted seven site visits on different dates to prepare the UCCI application Natural Heritage Evaluation for a total of 20.5 hours. A total of 5 hours were surveys in October very late in the year for surveys. Amphibian surveys totalled only 0.5 hours on June 26, with no spring frog calling surveys or breeding surveys. I added eight plant species and six bird species in only a 4-hour roadside survey on May 26, 2020. UCCI Birks Natural Heritage evaluation Page 1 — Site Description The property is a large lot in the along the shoreline measuring approximately 6 hectares of entirely naturalized dominated by woodland and a small wetland area. Woodland habitat is contiguous off the property adding to a wildlife movement corridor of natural woodlands. They are estimating that more than half the 6 hectares, or 3.6 hectares of woodland habitat will be lost by this development. Page 3 — Sections 2.1.6 and 2.1.7 of the Lake Simone Protection Plan state that development and site alteration is not permitted in fish habitat and section 2.1.8 extends protection of those features within 120 metres of the potential impact. There were several species of fish observed in large numbers in Orolea Creek which is only 50 metres away from the west side of the development property. Page 9 — Birks NHC identified a small area that is considered as wetland as shown on Figure 1 of 0.14 hectares along the southern property line (Figure 1.) The function of this wetland community is generally considered to be limited in terms of wildlife habitat. Conditions are not suitable for amphibian breeding and/or turtle overwintering habitat. During our May 2fi n site visit, we observed three species of adult frogs feeding in this wetland and observed the reproduction of hundred of Wood Frogs tadpoles. Page 9 — 4.3 Woodland For the purpose of this assessment, the contiguous woodland feature will be considered to be candidate Significant Woodland on the basis of those listed functions. The consultants are stating that the 6 hectares are contiguous Significant Woodland but are proposing a loss of trees from this contiguous woodland of 3.6 hectares of woodland habitat. Page 10 — Dawn Bird Surveys A 2019 survey documented 27 species of birds including Eastern Wood -pewee and Red-headed Woodpecker. Both species have now been documented on site and we heard both these species calling on our May 26 site visit. I am certain there are more significant species nesting on site and more bird surveys should be conducted this year after June 6. Amphibians In the UCCI application Natural Heritage evaluation, Gray Tree Frog was documented within the study area, approximately 750 metres northwest of the property limits. No amphibians calling was documented within the SWTM I-1 wetland community. One incidental amphibian species, Wood Frog, was documented on October 10, 2019. There would be very few if any amphibians calling during the late survey date of June 26. Residents have told me that there were several species of frogs calling from the wetland in late April, 2020 with a loud chorus on most days. This is not surprising consider the number of young Wood Frogs that we observed and other adult frogs in the wetland during the May 26 site visit. I also heard a Gray Treefrog calling on the development site during the site visit just south of Windfields Drive west. Page 10 Significant Wildlife Habitat Birks HNC staff found no records of designated Significant Wildlife Habitat function associated with the study area. They assumed Bat Maternity Colonies During my site visit, I observed several large snags and hollow trees suitable to nursing female bats and daytime roost for bats. A survey should have been completed for snag density since I think it would be very high. However, they are assuming maternity colonies for Silver -haired and Big Brown Bat. Again, after making this statement of Significant Wildlife Habitat, they are proposing that over half of it be removed for the development. Page 11 Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species. Since both the Eastern Wood -pewee and Red-headed Woodpecker have been confirmed using the development habitat, the development should not be allowed to protect these special concern and rare wildlife species. The development consultants are stating that the development site should be considered Significant Wildlife Habitat. They also agree that since butternut and endangered bat species are found on the development site that it is habitat for threatened and endangered species. This fact alone should prevent any development on this site. Page 15 Maternity Colony Habitat Assessment In the UCCI application evaluation there are general comments in this section but a complete survey should have been done and potential tree measured and mark and recorded on a map. Page 15 —Fish Habitat A vegetation protection zone, minimum of 30 metres wide should be established adjacent to Lake Simcoe. Given the distance of fish habitat to the property and proposed lot severance, only indirect impacts will be considered within this report. The proposed lot severance is only 50 meters from Orolea Creek. Page 17 — Fish Habitat Lake Simcoe and Orolea Creek (adjacent lands only). UCCI natural heritage evaluation stated there are no surface water connection to Lake Simcoe from property. This is incorrect and there is a stream that flows from the proposed parking area north of Greenwood Forest Road to Lake Simcoe through the municipal lot beside the Baker property at 25 Greenwood Forest Road. This stream was visited during the site visit on May 26 and a strong flow of water was observed. Several adult Wood Frogs were observed in and along the stream. This stream adds to the coldwater fisheries of Lake Simcoe preventing algae growth and creating spawning habitat for Coldwater fisheries like Lake Trout, Lake Whitefish and Lake Herring (Cisco) and are important for the aquatic life of Lake Simcoe. The proposed parking area on the east side of the development at lot 10 is the worst place for a parking lot since the salt, sand, oil residue and fire rubber from the vehicles will be carved by this stream into Lake Simcoe impacting the water quality. Impact Assessment conclusion page 21 Loss of Wetland Habitat No amphibians breeding was documented within the community. Therefore, the wetland feature is not expected to provide this feature or function. However, during the May 26 site visit, we confirmed breeding and other functions of this small wetland so those statements are incorrect. Page 25 — Increased Potential for Invasive of Non-native Species Currently, there is no evidence of unusual non-native and invasive species abundance within the property limits. We observed large, healthy stands of Garlic Mustard in bloom throughout the development site in certain area and the development will add to the spread of this invasive species. We also observed several Common Buckthorn shrubs and the consultants report Glossy Buckthorn. Both these species will spread in the opened forest areas after the development. Page 27 — the wetland within the development properties will be altered. Removal of trees will result in a loss of 3.6 hectares of woodland habitat. We observed several frog species in the wetland including many Wood Frog adult and hundreds of Wood Frog tadpole plus adult Green Frogs and Leopard Frogs. The amphibian reproduction habitat will be lost with the development. I would be interested in how the calculation of 3.6 hectares loss of woodland habitat was calculated since not only the building footprint but septic areas, lawns and gardens, driveways and parking area will fragment the woodland habitat and wildlife corridors. This proposed development site has scored high on many features which should add to its protection and the development of this site should have the protection of all the features, many agreed to by the developer consultant and would have impact of many species if this development is approved. Submitted May 29, 2020 Mayor Harry Hughes Deputy Mayor Ralph Hough Councillor Ian Veitch Councillor Tammy DeSousa Councillor Cathy Keane Councillor Shawn Scott Councillor Randy Greenlaw Chief Administrative Officer Robin Dunn Township of Oro-Medonte, 148 Line 7 South, Oro-Medonte, ON. LOL 2E0 Dear Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Councillors and Chief Administrative Officer: RE: UCCI companies request to rezone a portion of land from Open Space (OS) Zone to Rural Residential One Exception (RUR1) Zone to permit Application to sever ten (10) residential lots from Registered Plan 51 M-187 (the "Application") This joint submission is made on behalf of the following concerned local Ora-Medonte residents ("Concerned Oro-Medonte Residents"): - Name (e-mail address) - Name (e-mail address) - Name (e-mail address) - Name (e-mail address) - Etc. The residents of our neighborhood are opposed to the rezoning and development (2020-B-04 to 2020-B- 12) Ucci Consolidated Companies Applications for the following reasons. From a process perspective, we are upset and concerned that the virtual public hearing scheduled for June 3 is proceeding at this time. Area residents (most of whom are elderly and several hard of hearing) have been subject to government stay at home guidelines. They will not be able to properly participate and ask questions on a matter that significantly impacts their quality of life. Many seasonal residents (cottagers) have not been able to go to their cottage at all to physically inspect the proposal. This inability of resident seniors to be able to properly participate in this important planning process with significant adverse impact on their quality of lives and natural environment is a significant human rights issue. Residents must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to make an assessment and an informed decision about whether or not to support the application. Following historic administrative timelines and processes that do not take into account the COVID environment we are currently living in is severely prejudicial to affected residents. Given the serious impact the application will have on the entire neighborhood, the process must ensure that the public has ample opportunity to provide meaningful input and must make modifications and accommodations having regard to COVID in order to do so. There is no immediacy to the Application and there is no reason why the Application needs to go forward in a manner that circumvents proper process and due consideration, certainly in light of the pandemic in which we find ourselves. In addition, we note that due to COVID-19, we have not been afforded the opportunity to examine and evaluate the Application in a manner that would enable residents to come to a fully informed view and make fully informed submissions to Council. In particular, in the normal non-COVID case, the submissions and reports (Planning Justification Report, Functional Servicing Report and Natural Heritage Evaluation) filed by the Applicant would have been available for public review on May 13, 2020 or earlier and the public would have had time and the ability to attend the township office, review all the materials, retain outside experts, consultants and lawyers if deemed necessary and make submissions on an informed basis by the June 3 submission deadline. Given COVID stay at home guidelines, the public did not have access to these reports and could not attend the township offices and therefore are prejudiced in their ability to make appropriate submissions for the June 3, 2020 hearing. When asked for copies of the reports, officials at the township (assuming following usual non-COVID protocol) initially proposed that the reports would be made available online with the meeting agenda on May 29, 2020. It was not until repeated requests were made that reports were emailed to certain persons who requested them on May 25, 2020. As a result, only certain parties requesting copies of the reports were able to obtain them and the reports were not available for any type of public review until May 25, leaving only a few short days to review, evaluate and retain outside environmental, planning and legal experts to help interested residents understand the impact of the Application and make informed submissions to Council for the Council and township planning staff to consider in making recommendations and determining the outcome of the Application. We also note that at this time there does not seem to be any information as to how the virtual meeting is to take place. Any process that does not enable residents to participate in any public hearing and receive all requisite information on the same basis and at the same time as the applicant is inherently unfair and creates a bias in favor of the applicant. We therefore ask that Council defer making any decision on the Application at the June 3 public meeting until such time as the public has an opportunity to review all the information available and provide input and comments by way of a second public hearing and that Council consider the additional time required by interested residents (many of which are elderly and are strictly following the Ontario Government's COVID guidelines) to consult with each other and retain outside experts. To state the obvious, just as a public hearing in the normal fashion is not possible so too is the "neighborhood meeting" not possible and it takes more time to get things done in the COVID environment. We submit that not accommodating a second public forum would disenfranchise the residents in the area and would result in Council making decisions without hearing concerns and suggestions from members of the public who are directly impacted by the Application. From a substantive perspective, while the Concerned Oro-Medonte Residents have not had the opportunity to fully inform themselves for the reasons described above, the following are oreliminary issues of concern. Of necessity, this list of concernsis not exhaustive or fully developed given the time and process -related constraints noted above. 1. The subject lands are zoned open space and should be protected based on the policies of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan that the Township of Oro Medonte has re -confirmed its support and compliance with in a letter dated February 18, 2020. (attached).. This proposal for a major development will have significant adverse impact to the ecological integrity and natural heritage features of this high quality forest woodland, adjacent cold water streams, animal, bird, plant, and cold water fish habitat, due to the subject lands being with 120 feet of the Lake Simcoe shoreline. The subject lands are in the Province's map of Lake Simcoe Watershed "High Quality Natural Cover" which, according to the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, is something we are trying to grow, from 28% watershed wide today, to 40% in the future. This will not be achieve if we don't make a point of protecting it.. 2. The application will bring traffic into the area as the application includes a new road that will make Greenwood Forest a throughway where it is now a dead end. 3. The subject lands do include Wetland which is frog reproduction habitat, contrary to findings in the Applicant's Natural Heritage evaluation report. These Wetlands within the subject lands will be lost as a result of development if the Application is approved. 4. The location of the proposed road is very close to environmentally sensitive Oro Lea cold creek which runs into Lake Simcoe. Vehicular contaminants, snow clearing, and de-icing materials will runoff into the creek which will significantly adversely impact the ecological integrity of this cold water creek that is critical to healthy cold water fish habitat. Additional consideration should be given to the need for the access road at all, and whether the Greenwood ForesUWinfield connecting road or the EaSUWest Winfield road connection is appropriate. 5. Contrary to the Applicant's Natural Heritage evaluation report, there is a stream that flows from the proposed parking area north of Greenwood Forest Road to Lake Simcoe.. This stream adds to the coldwater fisheries of Lake Simcoe. Vehicular contaminants, snow clearing, and de- icing materials will runoff into this continuous surface water directly into Lake Simcoe, causing significant adverse impact to cold water fish habitat and water quality in the lake. 6. The Lake shoreline area adjacent to the subject lands is ideal fish habitat. From 50 meters to several hundred meters out from the shoreline is one of Lake Simcoe's prime cold water Whitefish and Lake Trout Habitats. One of the key objectives of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan is to protect this cold water fish habitat. The run off from the parking lot, road construction and increased traffic adjacent to the cold water creek will damage the cold fish habitat which is one of the most significant natural heritage features of Oro Medonte and key objectives of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan to protect. 7. The development would cause thousands of trees to be cut down which will destroy animal, bird, amphibian and plant habitat. This would begin less than 60 meters from the Lake. The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan protects woodland area with 120 meters from the shoreline. The proposed major development would reduce critical high -quality woodland and wildlife habitat which is a key natural heritage feature that LSPP protects. In summary, we have identified a number of very serious concerns with the Application. We submit that Council defer a decision on this Application at the June 3, 2020 Public Hearing. The public should have the time needed to investigate these concerns more fully and the opportunity to present them and any other matters that may come up in due course and as part of a process that respects the rights of the public and takes into account the exigences of the pandemic. From: michael van rooyen <mike_vanrooyen@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 8:17 AM To: Planning <Planning@oro-medonte.ca> Subject: Greenwood forest rd zoning application- opposed Hello, Me and my spouse at 12 simcoe avenue oppose the proposed application to change the current forest/open space into rural residential lots. The people on park view deserve better than to all of a sudden have a parking lot in their back yard. The space is "open space' for a reason and is part of what gives the area a unique feel. I hear the coyotes in that forest all the time so I'm sure you'll end up destroying/killing many animals. We also didn't move here to listen to construction, the designated open space is part of what was appealing for the area. The people on ridge road that just built those nice new houses we're also told the space would stay as designated open space, not fair for them. Lastly I digress, I know money talks, and clearly some people in the township believe that is all that's important. So 1 would propose some sort of compromise. Build at most 3 houses closer to the end of greenwood forest dr., make the rest of the space some sort of designated "protected open space" that won't be able to be built on ever in the future. That way the money scoundrels can make their quick buck and we can still maintain most of what makes our area unique. Thanks Michael van rooyen and Caitlin strength. From: Brenda Norwich <bnorwich@outlook.com> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 8:21 AM To: Planning <Planning@oro-medonte.ca> Cc: Evans, Ed <Ed.Evans@ledvance.com>; Scott, Shawn <shawn.scott@oro-medonte.ca> Subject: Parkview Neighbourhood Petition Good Morning, please find attached a petition of those neighbours opposing the re -zoning. I expect more responses over the weekend and will send you an updated list on Monday morning. Please let me know if you have any questions. Many thanks... Brenda Friday, May 29, 2020 Mayor Harry Hughes Deputy Mayor Ralph Hough Councillor Ian Veitch Councillor Tammy DeSousa Councillor Cathy Keane Councillor Shawn Scott Councillor Randy Greenlaw Chief Administrative Officer Robin Dunn Township of Oro-Medonte, 148 Line 7 South, Oro-Medonte, ON. LOL 2E0 Dear Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Councillors and Chief Administrative Officer: RE: UCCI companies request to rezone a portion of land from Open Space (OS) Zone to Rural Residential One Exception (RUR7) Zone to permit Application to sever ten (10) residential lots from Registered Plan 51M-187 (the "Application") This joint submission is made on behalf of the following concerned local Oro-Medonte residents Please see excel file attached The residents of our neighborhood are opposed to the rezoning and development (2020-B-04 to 2020-13- 12) Ucci Consolidated Companies Applications for the following reasons. From a process perspective, we are upset and concerned that the virtual public hearing scheduled for June 3 is proceeding at this time. Area residents (most of whom are elderly and several hard of hearing) have been subject to government stay at home guidelines. They will not be able to properly participate and ask questions on a matter that significantly impacts their quality of life. Many seasonal residents (cottagers) have not been able to go to their cottage at all to physically inspect the proposal. This inability of resident seniors to be able to properly participate in this important planning process with significant adverse impact on their quality of lives and natural environment is a significant human rights issue. Residents must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to make an assessment and an informed decision about whether or not to support the Application. Following historic administrative timelines and processes that do not take into account the COVID environment we are currently living in is severely prejudicial to affected residents. Given the serious impact the application will have on the entire neighborhood, the process must ensure that the public has ample opportunity to provide meaningful input and must make modifications and accommodations having regard to COVID in order to do so. There is no immediacy to the Application and there is no reason why the Application needs to go forward in a manner that circumvents proper process and due consideration, certainly in light of the pandemic in which we find ourselves. In addition, we note that due to COVID-19, we have not been afforded the opportunity to examine and evaluate the Application in a manner that would enable residents to come to a fully informed view and make fully informed submissions to Council. In particular, in the normal non-COVID case, the submissions and reports (Planning Justification Report, Functional Servicing Report and Natural Heritage Evaluation) filed by the Applicant would have been available for public review on May 13, 2020 or earlier and the public would have had time and the ability to attend the township office, review all the materials, retain outside experts, consultants and lawyers if deemed necessary and make submissions on an informed basis by the May 29th submission deadline. Given COVID stay at home guidelines, the public did not have access to these reports and could not attend the township offices and therefore are prejudiced in their ability to make appropriate submissions for the June 3, 2020 hearing. When asked for copies of the reports, officials at the township (assuming following usual non-COVID protocol) initially proposed that the reports would be made available online with the meeting agenda on May 29, 2020. It was not until repeated requests were made that reports were emailed to certain persons who requested them on May 25, 2020. As a result, only certain parties requesting copies of the reports were able to obtain them and the reports were not available for any type of public review until May 25, leaving only a few short days to review, evaluate and retain outside environmental, planning and legal experts to help interested residents understand the impact of the Application and make informed submissions to Council for the Council and township planning staff to consider in making recommendations and determining the outcome of the Application. We also note that at this time there does not seem to be any information as to how the virtual meeting is to take place. Any process that does not enable residents to participate in any public hearing and receive all requisite information on the same basis and at the same time as the applicant is inherently unfair and creates a bias in favor of the Applicant. We therefore ask that Council defer making any decision on the Application at the June 3 public meeting until such time as the public has an opportunity to review all the information available and provide input and comments by way of a second public hearing and that Council consider the additional time required by interested residents (many of which are elderly and are strictly following the Ontario Government's COVID guidelines) to consult with each other and retain outside experts. To state the obvious, just as a public hearing in the normal fashion is not possible so too is the "neighborhood meeting" not possible and it takes more time to get things done in the COVID environment. We submit that not accommodating a second public forum would disenfranchise the residents in the area and would result in Council making decisions without hearing concerns and suggestions from members of the public who are directly impacted by the Application. From a substantive perspective, while the concerned Oro-Medonte Residents have not had the opportunity to fully inform themselves for the reasons described above, the following are preliminary issues of concern. Of necessity, this list of concerns is not exhaustive or fully developed given the time and process -related constraints noted above. The subject lands are zoned'Open Space' (OS) and should be protected based on the policies of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP), that the Township of Oro Medonte has re -confirmed its support and compliance with in a letter dated February 18, 2020. (attached). This proposal for a major development will have significant adverse impact to the ecological integrity and natural heritage features of this high quality forest woodland, adjacent cold water streams, animal, bird, plant, and cold water fish habitat, due to the subject lands being with 120 feet of the Lake Simcoe shoreline. The subject lands are in the Province's map of Lake Simcoe Watershed "High Quality Natural Cover" which, according to the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, is something we are trying to grow, from 28% watershed wide today, to 40% in the future. This will not be achieved if we don't make a point of protecting it. 2. The application will bring traffic into the area as the application includes a new road that will make Greenwood Forest a throughway where it is now a dead end. 3. The subject lands do include Wetland which is frog reproduction habitat, contrary to findings in the Applicant's Natural Heritage evaluation report. These Wetlands within the subject lands will be lost as a result of development if the Application is approved. 4. The location of the proposed road is very close to environmentally sensitive Oro Lea cold creek which runs into Lake Simcoe. Vehicular contaminants, snow clearing, and de-icing materials will runoff into the creek which will significantly adversely impact the ecological integrity of this cold water creek that is critical to healthy cold water fish habitat. Additional consideration should be given to the need for the access road at all, and whether the Greenwood Forest/Winfield connecting road or the East/West Winfield road connection Is appropriate. 5. Contrary to the Applicant's Natural Heritage evaluation report, there is a stream that flows from the proposed parking area north of Greenwood Forest Road to Lake Simcoe. This stream adds to the coldwater fisheries of Lake Simcoe. Vehicular contaminants, snow clearing, and de-icing materials will runoff into this continuous surface water directly into Lake Simcoe, causing significant adverse impact to cold water fish habitat and water quality in the lake. 6. The Lake shoreline area adjacent to the subject lands is ideal fish habitat. From 50 meters to several hundred meters out from the shoreline is one of Lake Simcoe's prime cold water Whitefish and Lake Trout Habitats. One of the key objectives of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan is to protect this cold water fish habitat. The run off from the parking lot, road construction and increased traffic adjacent to the cold water creek will damage the cold fish habitat which is one of the most significant natural heritage features of Oro Medonte and key objectives of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan to protect. 7. The development would cause thousands of trees to be cut down which will destroy animal, bird, amphibian and plant habitat. This would begin less than 60 meters from the Lake. The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan protects woodland area with 120 meters from the shoreline. The proposed major development would reduce critical high -quality woodland and wildlife habitat which is a key natural heritage feature that LSPP protects. In summary, we have identified a number of very serious preliminary concerns with the Application. We submit that Council defer a decision on this Application at the June 3, 2020 Public Hearing. The public should have the time needed to investigate these concerns more fully and the opportunity to present them and any other matters that may come up in due course and as part of a process that respects the rights of the public and takes into account the exigences of the pandemic. Name Ally Defrancesco Kim Whyte Helen Mepham Tonnell Morris Peter/Lynda Mepham Eddie Mayhew Kim Whyte Howard & Pauline Bill & Linda Collins Rolande and Clare Deanna Bourret Brittany Harvey Brenda & Joe Tracy & Derek Widdick Brian and Della Jessica & Robert Peacock Jessica & Matt Eaton Bev & Al Beatie Kathleen McDowell Vanessa & Phil Graham Susie Raczkeu Alla Sidoruk Michael Van R000yen Farideh & Reza Smith Ron and Barb Mitchell Lisa/James Marshall Shelby & Ryan Morris Cori/Cody Address Vito Greenwood Greenwood 1 Greenwood 3 Greenwood ? Greenwood Greenwood Greenwood Greenwood 8 Greenwood 24 Parkview Ave 35 Greenwood 15 Parkview 20 Parkview 14 Parkview 18 Parkview 16 Parkview 15 Parkview 10 Parkview 14 Lakeview 20 Lakeview 9 Simcoe 11 Simcoe 12 Simcoe 14 Simcoe 1166 Line 5 S 1186 Line 5 S 1182 Line 5 S 1195 Lind 5 S yes on petition no Oppose oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose oppose Oppose Oppose Friday, May 29, 2020 Mayor Harry Hughes Deputy Mayor Ralph Hough Councillor Ian Veitch Councillor Tammy DeSousa Councillor Cathy Keane Councillor Shawn Scott Councillor Randy Greenlaw Chief Administrative Officer Robin Dunn Township of Oro-Medonte, 148 Line 7 South, Oro-Medonte, ON. LOL 2E0 Dear Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Councillors and Chief Administrative Officer: RE: UCCI companies request to rezone a portion of land from Open Space (OS) Zone to Rural Residential One Exception (RUR1) Zone to permit Application to sever ten (10) residential lots from Registered Plan 51M-187 (the "Application") This joint submission is made on behalf of the following concerned local Oro-Medonte residents • West Oro Ratepayers Association (worarateoavers()a.omail.com) P.O. Box 121, Oro Medonte • The Jacobs Family (iovicei70800)amail.com) 31 Greenwood Forest Road • The Evans Family ed.evans@ledvance.com 27 Greenwood Forest Road, Oro Medonte • Michael Higgins MHicoins(")a mother-oarkers.com 27 Windfields Drive West • Bruce McCartney balcaris(a)icloud.com 27 Windfields Drive West • Jeff & Deanna Bourret ieffbourret@hotmail.com 35 Greenwood Forest Road • The Bomza Family 63 Greenwood Forest Road Ibomza@bellnet.ca;; ilbomza@amail.com; ibinder@stikeman.com • Ellis Jacob ellis.iacob@cineplex.com 33 Greenwood Forest Road, Oro Medonte • More names to follow will submit updated list June 3 The residents of our neighborhood are opposed to the rezoning and development (2020-B-04 to 2020-13- 12) Ucci Consolidated Companies Applications for the following reasons. From a process perspective, we are upset and concerned that the virtual public hearing scheduled for June 3 is proceeding at this time. Area residents (most of whom are elderly and several hard of hearing) have been subject to government stay at home guidelines. They will not be able to properly participate and ask questions on a matter that significantly impacts their quality of life. Many seasonal residents (cottagers) have not been able to go to their cottage at all to physically inspect the proposal. This inability of resident seniors to be able to properly participate in this important planning process with significant adverse impact on their quality of lives and natural environment is a significant human rights issue. Residents must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to make an assessment and an informed decision about whether or not to support the Application. Following historic administrative timelines and processes that do not take into account the COVID environment we are currently living in is severely prejudicial to affected residents. Given the serious impact the application will have on the entire neighborhood, the process must ensure that the public has ample opportunity to provide meaningful input and must make modifications and accommodations having regard to COVID in order to do so. There is no immediacy to the Application and there is no reason why the Application needs to go forward in a manner that circumvents proper process and due consideration, certainly in light of the pandemic in which we find ourselves. In addition, we note that due to COVID-19, we have not been afforded the opportunity to examine and evaluate the Application in a manner that would enable residents to come to a fully informed view and make fully informed submissions to Council. In particular, in the normal non-COVID case, the submissions and reports (Planning Justification Report, Functional Servicing Report and Natural Heritage Evaluation) filed by the Applicant would have been available for public review on May 13, 2020 or earlier and the public would have had time and the ability to attend the township office, review all the materials, retain outside experts, consultants and lawyers if deemed necessary and make submissions on an informed basis by the May 29th submission deadline. Given COVID stay at home guidelines, the public did not have access to these reports and could not attend the township offices and therefore are prejudiced in their ability to make appropriate submissions for the June 3, 2020 hearing. When asked for copies of the reports, officials at the township (assuming following usual non-COVID protocol) initially proposed that the reports would be made available online with the meeting agenda on May 29, 2020. It was not until repeated requests were made that reports were emailed to certain persons who requested them on May 25, 2020. As a result, only certain parties requesting copies of the reports were able to obtain them and the reports were not available for any type of public review until May 25, leaving only a few short days to review, evaluate and retain outside environmental, planning and legal experts to help interested residents understand the impact of the Application and make informed submissions to Council for the Council and township planning staff to consider in making recommendations and determining the outcome of the Application. We also note that at this time there does not seem to be any information as to how the virtual meeting is to take place. Any process that does not enable residents to participate in any public hearing and receive all requisite information on the same basis and at the same time as the applicant is inherently unfair and creates a bias in favor of the Applicant. We therefore ask that Council defer making any decision on the Application at the June 3 public meeting until such time as the public has an opportunity to review all the information available and provide input and comments by way of a second public hearing and that Council consider the additional time required by interested residents (many of which are elderly and are strictly following the Ontario Government's COVID guidelines) to consult with each other and retain outside experts. To state the obvious, just as a public hearing in the normal fashion is not possible so too is the "neighborhood meeting' not possible and it takes more time to get things done in the COVID environment. We submit that not accommodating a second public forum would disenfranchise the residents in the area and would result in Council making decisions without hearing concerns and suggestions from members of the public who are directly impacted by the Application. From a substantive perspective, while the concerned Oro-Medonte Residents have not had the opportunity to fully inform themselves for the reasons described above, the following are preliminary issues of concern. Of necessity, this list of concerns is not exhaustive or fully developed given the time and process -related constraints noted above. The subject lands are zoned 'Open Space' (OS) and should be protected based on the policies of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP), that the Township of Oro Medonte has re -confirmed its support and compliance with in a letter dated February 18, 2020. (attached). This proposal for a major development will have significant adverse impact to the ecological integrity and natural heritage features of this high quality forest woodland, adjacent cold water streams, animal, bird, plant, and cold water fish habitat, due to the subject lands being with 120 feet of the Lake Simcoe shoreline. The subject lands are in the Province's map of Lake Simcoe Watershed "High Quality Natural Cover' which, according to the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, is something we are trying to grow, from 28% watershed wide today, to 40% in the future. This will not be achieved if we don't make a point of protecting it. 2. The application will bring traffic into the area as the application includes a new road that will make Greenwood Forest a throughway where it is now a dead end. 3. The subject lands do include Wetland which is frog reproduction habitat, contrary to findings in the Applicant's Natural Heritage evaluation report. These Wetlands within the subject lands will be lost as a result of development if the Application is approved. 4. The location of the proposed road is very close to environmentally sensitive Oro Lea cold creek which runs into Lake Simcoe. Vehicular contaminants, snow clearing, and de-icing materials will runoff into the creek which will significantly adversely impact the ecological integrity of this cold water creek that is critical to healthy cold water fish habitat. Additional consideration should be given to the need for the access road at all, and whether the Greenwood Forest/Winfield connecting road or the East/West Winfield road connection is appropriate. 5. Contrary to the Applicant's Natural Heritage evaluation report, there is a stream that flows from the proposed parking area north of Greenwood Forest Road to Lake Simcoe. This stream adds to the coldwater fisheries of Lake Simcoe. Vehicular contaminants, snow clearing, and de-icing materials will runoff into this continuous surface water directly into Lake Simcoe, causing significant adverse impact to cold water fish habitat and water quality in the lake. 6. The Lake shoreline area adjacent to the subject lands is ideal fish habitat. From 50 meters to several hundred meters out from the shoreline is one of Lake Simcoe's prime cold water Whitefish and Lake Trout Habitats. One of the key objectives of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan is to protect this cold water fish habitat. The run off from the parking lot, road construction and increased traffic adjacent to the cold water creek will damage the cold fish habitat which is one of the most significant natural heritage features of Oro Medonte and key objectives of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan to protect. 7. The development would cause thousands of trees to be cut down which will destroy animal, bird, amphibian and plant habitat. This would begin less than 60 meters from the Lake. The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan protects woodland area with 120 meters from the shoreline. The proposed major development would reduce critical high -quality woodland and wildlife habitat which is a key natural heritage feature that LSPP protects. In summary, we have identified a number of very serious preliminary concerns with the Application. We submit that Council defer a decision on this Application at the June 3, 2020 Public Hearing. The public should have the time needed to investigate these concerns more fully and the opportunity to present them and any other matters that may come up in due course and as part of a process that respects the rights of the public and takes into account the exigences of the pandemic. Via email: rescuelakesimcoe@gmaii.com February 18, 2020 Linda R. Wells Dear Ms. Wells: i Township of Proud Heritage, Exciting Future Re: Request for Support of Motion, Lake Simcoe Protection Plan The Council of the Township of Oro-Medonte, at its February 12th Council meeting, passed the following motion with respect to the above -noted matter: Be it resolved 1. That the correspondence and presentation by Linda Wells, on behalf of Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition re: Request for Support of Motion, Lake Simcoe Protection Plan be received. 2. That Council continue to support the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan during the review year. 3. That staff report back outlining the process Oro-Medonte will follow with respect to Township conformity with the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan update. 4. That the applicant be advised under the Mayor's signature. Yours sincerely, Harry Hughe Mayor /vc Cc: Council 148 Line 7 South P: (705) 487-2171 Oro-Medonte, ON LOL 2EO F: (705) 487-0133 wwworo-medonte.ca To: The Township of Oro Medonte May 28, 2020 From: The Evans family, 27 Greenwood Forest Road, Oro Medonte Subject: UCCI request to sever ten residential lots from lands Registered Plan 51M-187, Block 43 with focus on request for lands dedicated for parking, retained lot, severed lots major development and construction of through road connecting Greenwood Forest Road to Windfields Drive Our family comprises three generations of cottagers over 60 years and for the past 30 years, full time residents of Oro Medonte on Greenwood Forest Road. Our family home is immediately adjacent to the subject lands. We care deeply about the beautiful natural heritage of Oro Medonte and greatly appreciate the quality of life in our community and active stewardship of our shared Lake Simcoe watershed. Our family is very upset by the damage to our quality of life and most importantly the significant permanent damage to the fragile Lake Simcoe ecosystem that the proposed amendment to the zoning by-law and the applicant's development plan would cause. There are four key reasons of particular concern to our family, why the applicant's development plan would cause significant adverse effect and permanent damage to the integrity of Lake Simcoe ecosystem and Oro's Medonte's natural heritage: 1. The proposed plans include land dedicated for a parking lot. This requested parking lot is immediately adjacent to a culvert and small stream that runs directly into Lake Simcoe. This requested parking lot is located less than 60 meters from Lake Simcoe. This small stream flows into the lake through a natural lakefront woodland and enters the lake into a fish habitat with conditions ideal for spawning. This area of Lake Simcoe is one of the most important habitats for the fragile Lake Trout and Whitefish populations. The planned parking lot's runoff would have significant adverse effect on the Lake Simcoe ecosystem and damage Oro Medonte natural heritage and contravene the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan and the Township of Oro Medonte's official plan. 2. The proposed plan includes the construction of a through road from Greenwood Forest Road to Windfields Drive. It appears this road would be 60 meters from Lake Simcoe and within 30 meters of Oro Lea Creek. The construction of the through road and ongoing runoff from the road would have significant adverse effect and permanently damage this important South Oro cold creek. This cold creek flows into a Lake Simcoe fish habitat which is ideal spawning grounds, near habitat for fragile Lake Trout and Whitefish. This would contravene the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan and Oro Medonte official plan due to the significant adverse effect on this important cold water stream, a critical part of Lake Simcoe ecological integrity and Oro Medonte natural heritage 3. The proposed plan includes land described as retained lot. This retained lot is an undeveloped woodland which is a wildlife habitat as are all the proposed severed lots. This Woodland wildlife habitat is home to a wide range of animals, birds and plants, including deer, fox, mink, frogs, red headed woodpecker (a species at risk), pileated woodpecker a wide range of migratory birds, waterfowl, raptors, and a large population of trillium and other wildflowers. The subject and adjacent lands are critical deer and other animal, bird, plant and amphibian breeding and migration routes. 4. It is particularly important that the proposed retained lot and two of the severed lots is directly across Greenwood Road from a large, approximately 1-hectare undeveloped natural woodland on 300'+ of fragile natural Lake Simcoe shoreline. This undeveloped Lake Simcoe shoreline woodland is a wonderful rare unique Oro Medonte natural heritage gem: a municipally owned undeveloped natural woodland on the Lake Simcoe shoreline. It a home to all of the animals and birds listed above in addition many more over the years from beaver, eagles, hawks, snowy owls to swallows with a natural shoreline facing Lake Trout and Whitefish fish habitat and an aquatic zone ideal for fish spawning with natural riparian zone . This development will cause adverse effects to the ecological integrity of this wonderful natural area, so it is critical for the community to understand the full details of the purpose and impacts of all aspects of the development plan. It is critical that any plans for the retained lot are detailed and defined. It is critical to protect the adjacent woodland shoreline land directly across from Greenwood Forest road from the development of the retained lot and severed lots. A full detailed plan and full independent Environmental Impact Assessment is required for the subject lands to determine any adverse impacts on the adjacent municipally owned woodland shoreline land. It is critical to ensure that the municipally owned woodland containing small stream and shoreline, and the important wildlife and fish habitat are protected for generations to come. In accordance with the objectives and vision of the Oro Medonte official plan and the Lake Simcoe Protection plan it is critically important to protect the ecological integrity of woodland, shoreline, Lake and Streams, and natural connectivity of wildlife: - No new parking lot within 120 meters of the Lake or adjacent to any streams within high quality woodland - No road construction within 120 meters of the Lake or adjacent to Oro Lea creek - Assurances from the Township of Oro Medonte to plan in accordance with the official plan and Lake Simcoe Protection plan that no adverse impact, alteration, impairment, disruption or harm occurs to the adjacent Municipally owned natural shoreline woodland. As defined in the Lake Simcoe Protection Act it is critical that an independent Environmental Impact Assessment is done to ensure that Lake Simcoe ecosystem and the natural heritage of Oro Medonte is protected The proposed major development plan including parking lot, within 60 meters of the Lake directly beside a culvert and small stream, and through road construction within 60 meters of the Lake and within 30 meters of the important Oro Lea cold creek, would cause adverse impact and significant permanent damage to the ecological integrity of the fragile Lake and stream eco systems, woodland and wildlife and cold water fish habitats We request that due to the critical importance and certain risks of adverse ecological impacts to the Oro Medonte natural heritage resulting from this application that the review and decision making process for this application not proceed until such time as it safe to hold in person public hearings so that concerned residents, Municipal elected official and planning staff, developer applicant and other concerned Lake Simcoe watershed stakeholders can meet together in person. We have reviewed the joint submission being made on behalf of local Oro-Medonte residents and have added our family name and email address to the submission. We hereby adopt the comments in that submission We appreciate your thoughtful consideration to this matter of critical importance to the Oro Medonte natural heritage and quality of life for our community today and generations to come. We further appreciate your response to our questions: 1. Why is the parking lot requested? 2. Why is the requested parking lot situated less than 60 meters from the Lake beside a culvert adjacent to a small stream flowing directly into the lake? 3. Who are the intended users of the requested parking lot? 4. What is the purpose and plans for the requested Retained lot? 5. What is the purpose of the construction of the thru road from Greenwood Forest Road to Windfields Road? 6. Has an independent Environmental Impact Assessment of the full impact of the major development application including the impact of the requested Zoning By -Law to rezone land from high quality natural Open Space to Rural Residential One Exception. With focus on Lands Dedicated to parking, plans for Retained and severed lots and road construction connecting Green Forest Road to Windfields Road and the impact on the Municipally owned woodland, natural undeveloped shoreline, wildlife habitat, fish habitat including Oro Lea cold creek? Yours Truly, The Evans Family From: Vanessa Lefebvre-Champoux <vanessa_lc@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 3:26 PM To: Planning <Planning@oro-medonte.ca> Subject: Greenwood forest and windfield project Good afternoon, My name is Vanessa Graham and I live at 20 Lakeview rd, in oro-medonte. I am writing to you with concerns I have about the construction project of building new houses along greenwood forest, building a commercial parking lot And other expansions. I have a few concerns. First off, I did not receive a letter about this as other residents did, second I am concern about the amount of traffic that will cause in our very quiet neighborhood (which is one of the reasons we had bought this house), the wildlife that will be disturbed in those areas, the conservation of Lake Simcoe as well as there are many creeks that lead to it from those areas. Another concern I have is the accessibility of the meeting to everyone. We live in an area where there are a lot of elderly people who do not have access or the knowledge to know how to use technology to be able to watch the meeting. I think it would be wiser to delay the meeting until we can all attend in person. I appreciate you reading this and taking these concerns seriously as I know they are shared by all our community. Have a good weekend Vanessa Graham June 3, 2020 Development Services Committee 5j) Additional correspondence received From: Brenda Norwich <bnorwich@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 9:42 AM To: Planning <Planning@oro-medonte.ca> Cc: Scott, Shawn <shawn.scott@oro-medonte.ca>; Evans, Ed <Ed.Evans@ledvance.com> Subject: Final submission to oppose re -zoning - Parkview area Good morning, please find attached the updated joint submission as noted above, for the residents of the Parkview neighbourhood area. Many thanks.... brenda Submitted May 29, 2020 Mayor Harry Hughes Deputy Mayor Ralph Hough Councillor Ian Veitch Councillor Tammy DeSousa Councillor Cathy Keane Councillor Shawn Scott Councillor Randy Greenlaw Chief Administrative Officer Robin Dunn Township of Oro-Medonte, 148 Line 7 South, Oro-Medonte, ON. LOL 2E0 Dear Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Councillors and Chief Administrative Officer: RE: UCCI companies request to rezone a portion of land from Open Space (OS) Zone to Rural Residential One Exception (RUR1) Zone to permit Application to sever ten (10) residential lots from Registered Plan 51 M-187 (the "Application") This joint submission is made on behalf of the following concerned local Oro-Medonte residents ("Concerned Oro-Medonte Residents"): - Howard Leaks and Pauline Grenier, grenlea@sympatico.ca - Rolane and Clare Lefave, cdefave@gmail.com - Shawn Livingston and Brittany Harvey, bdttanyharvey2@gmail.com - Brenda Norwich and Joe Murgel, bnorwichn@ outlook.com -Brian and Della Emms, envsol@rogers.com - Jessica and Robert Peacock, peacock.mecedol@.amail.com - Coalton McLean and Anastasia Rogan, aroaan220-hotm all. com - Vanessa and Phil Graham, Vanessa IcO.hotmail.com - Alla Sidoruk, allasidoruk0amail.com - Michael VanRooyen, mike vanrooven @nhotmail.corn - Fairdeh Smith and Reza Ryanfard. Farideh smiths@ vahoo.com - Kim Whyte, kwhyte@rogers.com The residents of our neighborhood are opposed to the rezoning and development (2020-B-04 to 2020-B- 12) Ucci Consolidated Companies Applications for the following reasons. From a process perspective, we are upset and concerned that the virtual public hearing scheduled for June 3 is proceeding at this time. Area residents (most of whom are elderly and several hard of hearing) have been subject to government stay at home guidelines. They will not be able to properly participate and ask questions on a matter that significantly impacts their quality of life. Many seasonal residents (cottagers) have not been able to go to their cottage at all to physically inspect the proposal. This inability of resident seniors to be able to properly participate in this important planning process with significant adverse impact on their quality of lives and natural environment is a significant human rights issue. Residents must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to make an assessment and an informed decision about whether or not to support the application. Following historic administrative timelines and processes that do not take into account the COVID environment we are currently living in is severely prejudicial to affected residents. Given the serious impact the application will have on the entire neighborhood, the process must ensure that the public has ample opportunity to provide meaningful input and must make modifications and accommodations having regard to COVID in order to do so. There is no immediacy to the Application and there is no reason why the Application needs to go forward in a manner that circumvents proper process and due consideration, certainly in light of the pandemic in which we find ourselves. In addition, we note that due to COVID-19, we have not been afforded the opportunity to examine and evaluate the Application in a manner that would enable residents to come to a fully informed view and make fully informed submissions to Council. In particular, in the normal non-COVID case, the submissions and reports (Planning Justification Report, Functional Servicing Report and Natural Heritage Evaluation) filed by the Applicant would have been available for public review on May 13, 2020 or earlier and the public would have had time and the ability to attend the township office, review all the materials, retain outside experts, consultants and lawyers if deemed necessary and make submissions on an informed basis by the June 3 submission deadline. Given COVID stay at home guidelines, the public did not have access to these reports and could not attend the township offices and therefore are prejudiced in their ability to make appropriate submissions for the June 3, 2020 hearing. When asked for copies of the reports, officials at the township (assuming following usual non-COVID protocol) initially proposed that the reports would be made available online with the meeting agenda on May 29, 2020. It was not until repeated requests were made that reports were emailed to certain persons who requested them on May 25, 2020. As a result, only certain parties requesting copies of the reports were able to obtain them and the reports were not available for any type of public review until May 25, leaving only a few short days to review, evaluate and retain outside environmental, planning and legal experts to help interested residents understand the impact of the Application and make informed submissions to Council for the Council and township planning staff to consider in making recommendations and determining the outcome of the Application. We also note that at this time there does not seem to be any information as to how the virtual meeting is to take place. Any process that does not enable residents to participate in any public hearing and receive all requisite information on the same basis and at the same time as the applicant is inherently unfair and creates a bias in favor of the applicant. We therefore ask that Council defer making any decision on the Application at the June 3 public meeting until such time as the public has an opportunity to review all the information available and provide input and comments by way of a second public hearing and that Council consider the additional time required by interested residents (many of which are elderly and are strictly following the Ontario Government's COVID guidelines) to consult with each other and retain outside experts. To state the obvious, just as a public hearing in the normal fashion is not possible so too is the "neighborhood meeting' not possible and it takes more time to get things done in the COVID environment. We submit that not accommodating a second public forum would disenfranchise the residents in the area and would result in Council making decisions without hearing concerns and suggestions from members of the public who are directly impacted by the Application. From a substantive perspective, while the Concerned Oro-Medonte Residents have not had the opportunity to fully inform themselves for the reasons described above, the following are oreliminary issues of concern. Of necessity, this list of concernsis not exhaustive or fully developed given the time and process -related constraints noted above. 1. The subject lands are zoned open space and should be protected based on the policies of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan that the Township of Oro Medonte has re -confirmed its support and compliance with in a letter dated February 18, 2020. (attached).. This proposal for a major development will have significant adverse impact to the ecological integrity and natural heritage features of this high quality forest woodland, adjacent cold water streams, animal, bird, plant, and cold water fish habitat, due to the subject lands being with 120 feet of the Lake Simcoe shoreline. The subject lands are in the Province's map of Lake Simcoe Watershed "High Quality Natural Cover" which, according to the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, is something we are trying to grow, from 28% watershed wide today, to 40% in the future. This will not be achieve if we don't make a point of protecting it.. 2. The application will bring traffic into the area as the application includes a new road that will make Greenwood Forest a throughway where it is now a dead end. 3. The subject lands do include Wetland which is frog reproduction habitat, contrary to findings in the Applicant's Natural Heritage evaluation report. These Wetlands within the subject lands will be lost as a result of development if the Application is approved. 4. The location of the proposed road is very close to environmentally sensitive Oro Lea cold creek which runs into Lake Simcoe. Vehicular contaminants, snow clearing, and de-icing materials will runoff into the creek which will significantly adversely impact the ecological integrity of this cold water creek that is critical to healthy cold water fish habitat. Additional consideration should be given to the need for the access road at all, and whether the Greenwood Forest/Winfield connecting road or the East/West Winfield road connection is appropriate. 5. Contrary to the Applicant's Natural Heritage evaluation report, there is a stream that flows from the proposed parking area north of Greenwood Forest Road to Lake Simcoe.. This stream adds to the coldwater fisheries of Lake Simcoe. Vehicular contaminants, snow clearing, and de- icing materials will runoff into this continuous surface water directly into Lake Simcoe, causing significant adverse impact to cold water fish habitat and water quality in the lake. 6. The Lake shoreline area adjacent to the subject lands is ideal fish habitat. From 50 meters to several hundred meters out from the shoreline is one of Lake Simcoe's prime cold water Whitefish and Lake Trout Habitats. One of the key objectives of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan is to protect this cold water fish habitat. The run off from the parking lot, road construction and increased traffic adjacent to the cold water creek will damage the cold fish habitat which is one of the most significant natural heritage features of Oro Medonte and key objectives of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan to protect. 7. The development would cause thousands of trees to be cut down which will destroy animal, bird, amphibian and plant habitat. This would begin less than 60 meters from the Lake. The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan protects woodland area with 120 meters from the shoreline. The proposed major development would reduce critical high -quality woodland and wildlife habitat which is a key natural heritage feature that LSPP protects. In summary, we have identified a number of very serious concerns with the Application. We submit that Council defer a decision on this Application at the June 3, 2020 Public Hearing. The public should have the time needed to investigate these concerns more fully and the opportunity to present them and any other matters that may come up in due course and as part of a process that respects the rights of the public and takes into account the exigences of the pandemic. June 3, 2020 Development Services Committee 5j) Additional correspondence received From: Clarerolande Lefave <crlefave@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 3:58 PM To: Planning <Planning@oro-medonte.ca> Subject: Fwd: 2020-zba-05 ucci con.com.inc. Hi Todd. I am Clare Lefave, have been living at this beautiful quiet corner of Parkview Ave and Greenwood forest Rd. with my wife Rolanda for over 22 years.And what you are proposing would change our way of living fast. Rezone the area from OS zone to a RURI zone for housing, open Greenwood forest Rd through,a public park on the lake lot, and a 60 ft.public parking lot right behind our back yard. This 6011.wide parking lot not only effect us but everyone else going up Parkview Ave. Therefore we cannot accept this rezoning and say No.. And I want to be clear,i have never told anyone that a parking lot in my backyard was okay.. Thanking you, Clare Lefave 24Parkview Ave June 3, 2020 Development Services Committee 5j) Additional correspondence received From: nancy <nancy.miao@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 202011:51 PM To: Planning <Planning@oro-medonte.ca> Subject: Application Email, 2020-B-04 to 2020-B-12 To whom it may concern: I am writing to express my concern with regards to the Consent Applications 2020-B-04 to 2020-B-12 to sever ten (10) residential lots from lands legally described as Registered Plan 51M- 187, Block 34. My family and I have lived on Greenwood Forest Road since 1999, and it has always been our form of escape from the chaos and stress of the city. For the past twenty years, our family has enjoyed the relative peace and quiet of the street. The relatively untouched forest and unmarred ravine have helped reduce the noise of the traffic from Ridge Road, and has afforded the residents a sense of privacy, given the lack of traffic on the Northern side. This has also allowed the wildlife on the edge of the lake to flourish, and we fear that any new construction will scare away or destroy the habitat of our furry mink neighbours. With the proposed re -zoning, we believe the addition of ten houses will double the current amount of traffic, and will inevitably result in the removal of the lush greenspace that is so integral to the value of our property. We would ask that you please reject this application, in light of the above. Sincerely, Nancy Miao 51 Greenwood Forest Road June 3, 2020 Development Services Committee 5j) Additional correspondence received From: Rolande LeFave <beaurl826@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 2:59 PM To: Planning <Planning@oro-medonte.ca> Subject: Public Hearring Consent applications 2020-B-04 to 2020-B-12 I Rolande LeFave 24 Parkview Ave Oro-Medonte oppose the retained lot for dedicated parking. Signed Rolande LeFave May 312020. Registered Plan51M-187 Block43 . June 3, 2020 Development Services Committee 5j) Additional correspondence received Lake Simcoe Region conservation authority www. LSRCA.on. ca Sent via e-mail: aleiehOoro-medonte.ca May 31, 2020 Municipal File No: 2020-ZBA-05 LSRCA File No.: ZO-14714-051320 Andria Leigh Director, Development Services Township of oro-Medonte 148 Line 7 South Oro-Medonte, ON LOL 2EO Dear Mrs. Leigh: Re: Application for Zoning By-law Amendment, Greenwood Forest Drive, Township of Oro- Medonte LSRCA staff have reviewed the above -noted application for Zoning By-law Amendment. We understand the purpose and effect of this application is to amend the Zoning By-law of the subject lands from Open Space (OS) Zone to Rural Residential One Exception (RUR1) Zone to facilitate the creation of ten (10) new residential on the subject lands. Documents Received and Reviewed by Staff Staff have received and are reviewing the following documents submitted with this application: • Planning Justification brief prepared by Innovative Planning Solutions. April 15, 2020 • Functional Servicing Report prepared by Pearson Engineering Ltd. April 2020 • Natural Heritage Evaluation prepared by Birks Natural Heritage Consultants. April, 2020 (Note: LSRCA received documents to review on May 26, 2020, the following and attached comments are preliminary— more detailed comments will be provided under separate cover) Staff has reviewed this application as per our delegated responsibility from the Province to represent provincial interests regarding natural hazards identified in Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2014) and as a regulatory authority under Ontario Regulation 179/06. The application has also been reviewed through our role as a public body under the Planning Act as per our CA Board approved policies. Site Characteristics Existing mapping indicates that the subject property is not within an area governed by Ontario Regulation 179/06 under the Conservation Authorities Act. Current environmental mapping shows that the lot appears to be tree covered. • The property is currently designated Rural by the County of Simcoe Official Plan and Shoreline by the Township of Oro-Medonte's Official Plan 120 Bayview Parkway T 905.895.1281 Newmarket, Ontario UY 3W3 F 905.853.5881 Member of Conservation Ontario TF 1.800.465.0437 Lake Simcoe Region conservation authority • The property is currently zoned Open Space in the Township's Zoning By-law. ®Iona Simone Region Lakcone SoWW 1. 6.401 L_ WMra O]0 0 lei e00 Delegated Resoonsibilitv and Statutory Comments: Page 2 of 4 FwNm LSRL Wata Bound ry 0 LSPP Wamrsro0 Boundary — Pa Wtm BouMary RaguUaon aaa aAfa .nl Par.1 La am cozaaswn RoaE LaEels Wate.. Lake SinKoe Roans Rally r.a Loaror Tw kluncgaMy 528r1030 rwrF um'ym )re�W.i �y �wasriwr ti�w1wM1�.: rYO���Yd� u� ��u.rumm ai W ow_i 1. LSRCA has reviewed the application through our delegated responsibility from the Province to represent provincial interests regarding natural hazards identified in Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement. The site does not contain any flood or erosion hazards . The Application is therefore consistent with Section 3.1 of the PPS. 2. LSRCA has reviewed the application as per our responsibilities as a regulatory authority under Ontario Regulation 179/06. This regulation, made under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, enables conservation authorities to regulate development in or adjacent to river or stream valleys, Great Lakes and inland lake shorelines, watercourses, hazardous lands and wetlands. Development taking place on these lands may require permission from the Lake Simcoe Region conservation authority Page 3 of 4 conservation authority to confirm that the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution or the conservation of land are not affected. LSRCA also regulates the alteration to or interference in any way with a watercourse or wetland. The site is not within a regulated area. Advisory Comments 3. LSRCA is reviewing the application through our responsibilities as a service provider to the Township of Oro-Medonte/County of Simcoe in that we provide comment on all Zoning Amendment applications through a MOU as well as through our role as a public body, pursuant to the Planning Act. The subject property appears to be covered by significant woodland. Pursuant to Section 2.1 of the PPS, the Application will need to demonstrate no negative impact to natural heritage features or their ecological functions. This will be demonstrated through submission of a Natural Heritage Evaluation to the satisfaction of LSRCA in accordance with the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. The woodland feature is identified through LSRCA's Natural Heritage System and Restoration Strategy. If permitted, any proposed removal of a natural heritage feature on this site would require the Applicant to satisfy the prerequisites for ecological offsetting pursuant to 3.2 of LSRCA's Ecological Offsetting Plan. An Ecological Offsetting Strategy (EOS) that describes, in concept, how the loss of natural heritage features will be compensated is required to the satisfaction of LSRCA. Technical comments related to Natural Heritage are being prepared by Kate Lillie, Natural Heritage Ecologist and will be provided under separate copy. The proposed development constitutes "Major Development" as defined by the LSPP and therefore will be required to satisfy DP-4.8 of the LSPP. This will include submission of Stormwater Management Report in accordance with LSRCA Technical Guidelines for Stormwater Management Submissions. Technical comments related to stormwater management will be provided by Ken Cheney, P. Eng. and will be provided under separate copy. Technical comments related to Hydrogeology will be provided by Caroline Hawson, P. Geo. And will also be provided under separate copy. Attached please find a preliminary review of the Planning Justification Report prepared by IPS Consulting. These comments have been prepared by the undersigned noted below. Any questions concerning these comments should be directed to Melinda Bessey (m.bessev(@LSRCA.on.ca) or Shawn Filson (s.filson(@LSRCA.on.ca). Summary Because much of the site is covered by significant woodland, the development area, if permitted, will be determined through the natural heritage review. Any removal of ecological features will require submission of EOS. The proposed development will require submission of Stormwater Management Report to satisfy DP-4.8 of the LSPP. The Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Offsetting Policy (LSPOP) does not apply to single Lake Simcoe Region conservation authority Page 4 of 4 family dwellings however it does apply to subdivisions. LSRCA notes that Section D2.1(d) of the Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan generally requires development of more than four lots including the retained lands to be accomplished through a Plan of Subdivision rather than by consent. Based on our preliminary review of the submitted documents, it would be pre -mature to provide a recommendation on this matter. Given the above comments, it is the opinion of the LSRCAthat this Zoning Amendment Application be deferred until such time that the natural heritage concerns have been satisfactorily addressed and consistency and conformity with the applicable Provincial, County and Township policies has been demonstrated. Please inform this office of any decision made bythe municipality with regard to this application. We respectfully request to receive a copy of the decision and notice of any appeals filed. Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned Sincerely, Melinda Bessey, MSc, MCIP, RPP Director— Planning 3 � Shawn Filson, MSc Planner I 0- 0 o n •- a m 3 L c cn V 0 Z 7i c ta � a0a m Y c c O W u w C D C c Q co inm o r n0c�� Z E c m m U c a a w Om Y 0 2N d h a C7 3 -wo c c � m � u w aCL v >o w a L Y w c '3 E N 0 C w Q E E c Q m U a c w O Ly Y L U w w 0 mm •w a Y w m O m m E u c E in a.E: Y c E m ° na J V L 0 0 N w >n Y Y vw ac 0 w u E 3 c E E w v o i w nn m m C w ° °' w O E E 0 w O n uw 0 00 L m w T m U y,j 0 a Z O = w ` .Mvv p ? m o 0 wV� O w v y� y w L C L O O ;L '> a w ; ° o w y n aL E L L Y yN O Y w C C L w E OV N > m C aw > L w M W a N T Y c N O O C w v E w u W w c Q O N > o v ¢ ° 0. L U w p O G Y °. J L w w a F F (U .-4 N - U YO ww N c w t' c U N ate+ w 10' Y Q O. A C N O •� w v 0. '0 0 m E w u�> v w w °u m u (u c u N > m c '� W CL o n C Q 3 L p 0 3 L tD L C n O C) w N 'c u ,,T. Y m aYi v 3 '" ° a c N > w E g w cmO E o c o `o wY-i 1 w 0 N d N O O 'O w a a v L O p m .O L Y u E w ¢ 'o m v m m 'O '> > W Y N E N o c J w w Z a a 0 3 w m T a a c w Y O n N O L T G C L 0 0 C 0 m.0 °' G 1D U ti m c n c L c w w-o wv w x ri vvv Y w O75 L w L t`0 O m O O L L W L +' O w L 0 a N u n N a u N 3 Y �n 3 u w w c 0 b Y C V ` C O _ ° ccs ccw a a a a ti 27� a a L N O -,� aV, ° .G u o u k6 0 3 v Q o o E a w -Z o N W O G j ° W +rz a p a o •.,,u-,� G o G o� 0 0 0 0 m 0 4� 01 U a 'VI V 'o w Y O CL U_ W p� D• G 0� O@ N Y 0 u G°° o a ti O o v . a 3 u° r° v �, o, w ° h w L c h u S C 'L °� •y 0 m •u .0 a.. 3 v N 'u C Q Y C ,y W° N O qu O 0° O N O t U G H O.00 'y v O C •'-' �` t w O G C O C u 0 L v E v° N c y c v y c m m y Y p a 3 o G w y C r .� a u- Cl)u ` V N o o` o Y w 0 0 3 v � ° a" v n, v° Y m e -�' a co o r>> u °u 3 m "�I m v N 3 a W ~ M$ C O w Y w O YC +' N N W 0 N 01 Caci v ty c° a O N moLo Z° Ln n m° um o •❑ c E Z Y F wa o o O 13 OO hNO QO � a 1 °O C m w Y aC c OO '`.=ua❑v O O +° , ❑ V I m C a L N > m � m . Y O O ClnNj W in oaf p0 o� bD a O N L V1 Y (0 ry o O 'O N O -O U f0 Y YL' O N ❑, a ❑ N O N O LL y d °- m° aC+ L W O C L N N Y❑ C M c Q C rl "❑ L O U U C C O Y L i IC 3 Y U C Y N l0 w w b❑ C❑❑ E C W •Z Y W 0O O. _ v O. N ]. c 3 N O❑ °. U pC O 3 W O C. ,i,, C y U> Y L w W y L Z >• !� U O u •� Y •u ❑ C r ❑ w d Y° Y Y O N LL ✓ a O. a- N 'ti p W w°_ C 0/ a❑ O N `o O d v ^ v m c 3 a Om c m>° a Y ° m a a 'i 3 C 2 to O Y n coa G! Y 3 Y Ul ❑ L .c C c v > c' a E o r a m C w ON v s = a, w c° v m W ° pO °W .- a . a $ - a'� a'u a rn' ° 0 oa a bD O` N C' L O` t� Qc [0[- C N aj > L cu d `l C O Y a 3 !-' N ° O u Q O Y O. N O. C. m C N `! V1 J O O. a L H ❑ .4T .❑ N un t O❑ 00 H m v is 0 Co a a a ti 3 N O O u O C 3 m N w W Q A a+ w C U O C o Y Y w p m w Y L Y L Y L L K E E C f a C l7 w C L Y N L� o o a w L pq o CO o Z c" Y >. u^ Y c u n c c° L a L m 3 O D Z O W W w w N O LV= Y n w N w w O '> w O -O N Y C w C L Y yw. w O n N OV J v? J OO L C O u 7 O c C C C a 0 O = Y N O y O Ln w N .N y n Y L O N C O m m O. O N C Y E L y m L w C Y m w N w w bn Y Y w v° m 0— 'c 3 w C) QJ 0 0 ,.n m °.' Y w m o E m z -o W m m -O > c y Y m y� 0 m wCO � N J t L00 i O Wy E 2 w I � � GYM/ CYO � C �- G j O C '3 C c> w G =p 10 �' OL C a Uo f` N N C 41 o '" Ql n 'Y c CO Y o °c w E w ,c, Y n w ° �` N v E, a E ° E m c ^ c^ M E' L o a E w o E o w o a E L ti vLi v N a O p= N u o c a �L a t E o o Y> v .° r c o O N n N E O C L N N Y Y m O U 3 fY0 L y C L L *' w w O m O O N w w- O 0 w w L {•' N L Y M y- m m O Y O 0 "O O u 0 a C O 'O u N w Y O p w J C Y Y Y 0 E m •" a O. w n Y L O Y `! E N 3 C_ L >_' N> m J N L O 0 0 0 3 C O. 'O CO Y c7 Y .k L ~ w o w a CL w Y o w= O w Q" m m- a v a v C m C n C C m O. O w N Y C w O t K W C w 'O L w E v w E a O m w E m` U J C O .� Q O Z Y O O N C .Y L O •w E o E u oL o o. w �Cm u >> 3 w o c L w m P c E c y n w w E>� Ou OU ou m N l,7 m N m Y -- G V/ m '7 Ln n L f- n O Q 'O O. co a M Ln Ln v v v s s � /!�� a a a Ism m a a m a 3 a W ~ o Z o w �'° t o E a .,,, ..� a` w •• ° w> c v n *' a c u CZ CC e OOrn° w a m>c ou n U c w v E°' Y o v°2a v> eocr I 2 v Ot° 3 C3c i N oi Ln °°` N c v" ° ° Q 3 v m' 3 - 3° 3°°°y °� O Z N C O Y "O — w WC G O a `I `^ C C N c y 3 u N G C u ° aL+ N N O bD 13 z 3 o v w° ^ °c u `w ° ° v s to ° N w o o w h J v a > o n W a c% v o _ o v '3 ti° 0 o f ¢ c G C a z ac a ° > v c E o 3 mz o v v z �°�' a e c w c v c' °c ti '� 3 v c `v c o m L n a a r a a 3 v E E o o `w E '^ o 3 E c w a a y v z a o v .c w a ° c o 'C ° o> v n a c „� v r v G N o n o r a u na ° a o EX n r c u a a o m r o° E June 3, 2020 Development Services Committee 5j) Additional correspondence received From: Dave Leighton <dleighton@urbantech.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 4:28 PM To: Weatherell, Todd <tweatherell@oro-medonte.ca> Cc: Falconi, Teresa <tfalconi@oro-medonte.ca>;janiceleighton2015@gmail.com Subject: RE: RE Zoning Application - Open Space to Res - Greenwood Forest Road Thanks Todd, We are not in support of the proposed re -zoning application. Dave & Janice Leighton 57 Greenwood Forest Road June 3, 2020 Development Services Committee 5j) Additional correspondence received From: Rick Stewart <ski Da(dhotmail.com> Sent: June 1, 2020 7:50 PM To: Leigh, Andria <aleiehPoro-medonte.ca> Subject: Amendment to Zoning By-law I am submitting questions and concerns regarding the proposed amendment to the zoning bylaw for UCCI Consolidated Companies INC. 2020-ZBA-05, Applications 2020-804 to 2020-13-12 to be addressed at the public meeting June 3,2020. My property is located at 9 Windfield Dr E and the proposed development will boarder the rear and the west side of my lot with the proposed parking lot and walkway. 1) My main concern is to the safety and security of my property, What measures will be put into place to prevent trespassers on to my property? Will fencing be installed at the rear and along the west side of my lot to prevent people from cutting across my lot to the parking lot. If fencing is not going to be installed then what will be proposed? Due to the previous problems I have had, some sort of security WILL be required 2) Will the Twp. Be responsible for the maintenance, and any garbage that may end up on my property? 3) What will be allowed on this pathway, will it be just for pedestrian traffic or will motorized vehicle like snowmobiles, 4 wheeler and dirt bikes be allowed. Note: I will strongly protest a walkway that will allow motorized vehicles. 4) It is my understanding that there is vacant lands dedicated to the TWP. On the south side of Greenwood Forest Road that is to be converted into park land, and the parking lot and walkway will be required to service and access this park. Question, WHEN will this park be developed and if the TWP has no plans to develop a park. Is the construction of the parking lot and walkway ACTUALLY REQUIRED. 5) Who is paying for the construction of the parking lot and the walkway? What are the specifications for material and construction for both. These are my questions and concerns at the present time. Please notified me of any changes. Please acknowledge that have received my questions Thank you Rick Stewart 9 Windfield Dr E 705 790-1142 ski Da(@hotmail.com June 3, 2020 Development Services Committee 5i) Additional correspondence received -----Original Message ----- From: Howard Jacobs <howiavnotes(&)icloud.com> Sent: June 2, 2020 10:52 AM To: Subject: June 3 meeting Question. Why would you want to open up land beside Evans and JACOBS for the public? There is Shelswell park and large municipal park for the public. OM also has lots in the Oro Lea area that could be developed. Joyce JACOBS Sent from my Pad This email was scanned by Bitdefender From: Joyce Jacobs <iovicei7D80@amail.com> Sent: June 2, 2020 10:54 AM To: Subject: Re: Development Services Committee / Council following DSC Confirmation Question. Why would you destroy a woodland to make a public park when there is already Shelswell Park and the big municipal one. This is a residential area Joyce JACOBS Sent from my iPad June 3, 2020 Development Services Committee 5j) Additional correspondence received From: Bryn80 <bryn80@rogers.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 2:44 PM To: Planning <Planning@oro-medonte.ca> Subject: Fw: Amendment to by-law 2020-ZBA-05 meeting June 3/20 From: Bryn80 Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2020 2:32 PM To: aaendacommentCaloro-medonte.ca Subject: Amendment to by-law 2020-ZBA-05 meeting June 3/20 June 2,2020 RE- public meeting June 3 regarding 2020-ZBA-05 amendments and consent applications 2020 B-04 to 2020 B-12 Registered Plan 51M-187 Block 43 I am writing about the planned public meeting to discuss the proposed amendments to the zoning bylaw of the township of Oro-Medonte. At this time, the province is in a public health emergency and virtual meetings are the only way to hold a public meeting. Clearly, issues that affect a small number of residents or have minimal objections could be undertaken. The province has provided approval for virtual meetings that must occur because of the urgent nature of the issue to be reviewed. It is very difficult to honestly state that these amendments meet any of these criteria. In our township, there is considerable variability in internet speed. Those individuals with older hardware or slower internet speeds will have great difficulty in video and audio quality during virtual meetings. There could many members of the group most affected by these amendments who are in the age group where computer literacy may affect the ability to participate. Has the township reached out to the neighbours who may be impeded by computer literacy to give them an option of telephone participation? If even one person objects at a later date with respect to any of these issues, then the meeting will be judged to be deficient. I would like to add that the technical quality of the online cannabis meeting recently held online was poor. The audio from some of the councilors was inaudible who were accessing by telephone. The session was dropped by my computer part way through and I had to log in again. This meant that that I missed some minutes of the meeting. There were others that told me of a similar issue at exactly the same time that my session was dropped. In summary, I strongly object to this virtual meeting at this time. It needs to be rescheduled. Sincerely Bryn Pressnail 5 Bay St. Shanty Bay June 3, 2020 Development Services Committee 5j) Additional correspondence received KITCHENER WOODBRIDGE LONDON KINGSTON BARRIE BURLINGTON June 2, 2020 Todd Weatherell, RPP, CPT Township of Oro-Medonte 148 Line 7 South Oro-Medonte, ON LOL 2EO Provided by Emaii to tweatherelloo oro-medonte.ca RE: Consent Applications 2020-B-04 to 2020-B-12 & ZBA Application 2020-ZBA-05 Registered Plan 51 M-187, Block 43, Township of Oro-Medonte OUR FILE 20147E This correspondence has been prepared in response to the Notice of a Public Hearing for Consent Applications 2020-B-04 to 2020-B-12 and Notice of Public Meeting Zoning By-law Amendment ("ZBA') Application 2020-ZBA-05, for the lands described as Registered Plan 51 M-187, Block 43, in the Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe. It is understood that the Applicant intends to create ten (10) residential lots from the subject lands through the consent process; and, rezone a portion of the lands from Open Space (OS) to Rural Residential One (RUR1) to permit ten (10) new residential lots. We have been retained by a number of landowners in the area to: • undertake a review of the proposed consent and ZBA applications; and, • review the applicable planning documents In order to determine if there is land use planning justification for the proposed development. Based on our preliminary review, the land use planning documents do not support the proposed development. A list of the landowners whom we represent can be found in Appendix 1 to this letter. In preparing this correspondence, we have had an opportunity to review the development proposal and supporting documentation, and undertake a review of the applicable planning documents, including the Provincial Policy Statement ("PPS"), the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe ("Growth Plan"), the County of Simcoe Official Plan ("County OP"), the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan ("LSPP") the Township of Oro- Medonte Official Plan ('Township OP") and the Township of Oro-Medonte Zoning By-law ('Township ZBL"). 113 COLLIER STREET / BARRIE / ONTARIO / L4M 1 H2 / T 705 728 0045 / F 705 728 2010 / WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS The proposed lot configuration does not appear to have appropriate regard for the existing lot fabric in the area. For example, proposed lots 5, 6 and 7 share portions of their rear lot line with one lot on Windfeld Drive. 2. The proposal does not conform to the Township OP a. The proposed consent application appears to be an "end -around" the policy framework of the Shoreline Designation which does not permit Plans of Subdivision in the Shoreline Designation, unless all of the lots have frontage on and direct access to the shoreline (C5.3.3). b. The proposed lot creation application does not conform to the Intent of the policies of the Official Plan that describe the preferred means of land division (D2.1). c. In accordance with Section D2.1 of the Township OP, the development of ten (10) lots should be considered through a Plan of Subdivision, where site wide matters can be reviewed in a comprehensive manner to ensure the orderly and efficient development of land. 3. Land use planning justification provided in support of the previous development proposals for the site (UCCI) did not contemplate residential development on the subject lands, as the development of the subject lands for residential purposes did not conform to the Shoreline policies in the Township OP and the existing character of the area. The land use policy context for the Shoreline designation in the Township OP remains the same and multi lot development of the scale proposed, that does not have lot frontage and access to Lake Simcoe, is still not permitted in the Shoreline Designation. 4. The land use planning justification for the historic (UCCI) development recognized the importance of buffering existing residential development by open space uses. The previous justification stated, "the proposed development has been designed in such a manner so as to buffer much of the existing residential area by open space uses and by concentrating residential uses through the centre and northern portions of the subject property". 5. The proposed development would erode the planned open space areas that were implemented through previous planning approvals to buffer existing residential development. 6. The proposed development is within a candidate key natural heritage feature (significant woodland), as determined by the EIS submitted in support of the application. The County OP recognizes that significant woodlands that are not mapped as Greenlands are to be protected in accordance with the key natural heritage feature policies (3.8.11 & 3.3.15). Section 3.3.15 does not permit development and site alteration in key natural heritage features. As a result, the proposed development does not conform to the County OP. The proposal does not conform to Policy 6.23-DP of the LSPP, which does not permit development or site alteration within a key natural heritage feature. 8. The proposal is considered major development based on the definitions of the LSPP. At the time of preparation of this correspondence we have not reviewed whether the application meets the technical requirements for major development that are outlined in the LSPP. 9. The proposal does not conform to Section 2.2.9.6 of the Growth Plan. The subject land are not zoned for residential development and the shoreline designation in the OP does not permit the scale of development that is proposed. 10. The proposed development does not conform to Section 4.2.3 of the Growth Plan which does not permit development or site alteration within a key natural heritage feature, on lands outside of settlement areas. The subject lands were identified through a Natural Heritage Evaluation as meeting the criteria for Significant Woodland which is a key natural heritage feature. 11. The proposed development is not reflective of the existing residential character of the area, which is characterized by residential lots with direct access to Lake Simcoe. Section C5.3.3 of the Township OP identifies that ensuring new development has direct access to the water is one of the key elements in maintaining the existing character of the Shoreline area. Yours truly, MHBC Ellen Ferris, BSc., MSc. Jamie Robinson, BES, MCIP, RPP Planner Partner Attachments: Appendix 1 — List of Represented Land Owners List of Represented Land Owners Consent Applications 2020-B-04 - 2020-B-12 & ZBA Application 2020-ZBA-05 Registered Plan 51 M-187, Block 43, Township of Oro-Medonte OUR FILE 20147B Wolfgang and Ingrid Schroeter 43 Windfield Drive W Chris and Diana Schroeter 49 Windfield Drive W Stephen and Shannon Schroeter 17 Windfields Drive Nick Rinaldi 19 Windfield Drive W Brandon Clark 21 Windfield Drive W Bruce McCartney and Michael Higgins 27 Windfields West (own the property to the north as well) Ed Evans on behalf of Evans Family 27 Greenwood Forest Road Jacobs Family 31 Greenwood Forest Road Jeff and Deanna Bourret 35 Greenwood Forest Road Ellis Jacob 33 Greenwood Forest Road June 3, 2020 Development Services Committee 5j) Additional correspondence received From: andy west <andyyywest@yahoo.ca> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 9:28 PM To: Planning <Planning@oro-medonte.ca> Subject: Notice of Public Hearing -Application by UCCI Consolidated Companies Inc. Hello, My name is Andy West. I am part of a third generation of family owners of a property on Greenwood Forest Road. I am writing on behalf of my family to express our deepest concerns around, and opposition to the proposed development by UCCI Consolidated Companies Inc., application 2020-13-04 to 2020-B-12 (2020-ZBA-05). Having reviewed the application, as well as comments from neighbours as posted on the Township website, I can see that there is much to be concerned about here. Clearly, crucial steps in the application and review process have been overlooked, leaving many residents caught off guard at a time when it is very difficult to make formal cross assessments, in addition to building plans of opposition. This feels opportunistic, seemingly taking advantage of a moment of global uncertainty, and bypassing many of the standards of ethical assessment that are required in these applications. This leaves me with many administrative question marks, which is not a good start. As expressed in the many letters of dissent I have just read, I also have grave concern for the natural habitat, wildlife, streams, and water table that will be negatively impacted and/or wiped out by such a large development on a small parcel of land. Sadly, it is this displacement of nature that has brought us to the Pandemic world we now live in. This is not dramatics. This is truth, and we must all do our part. An unbiased and fair environmental assessment is a must. As with my neighbours, I have many questions that I feel must be addressed. I will not repeat them in this letter, but strongly echo their opposition, and request to postpone this hearing until a time when all residents are given all of the facts around this proposal, can prepare the rightful responses in a fair and equitable way, and most importantly can appear in person as a community. To not allow for this goes against the very principles of what a public forum should be. I am asking you to push this back, for the good of all parties involved. Thank you Andy West June 3, 2020 Development Services Committee 5j) Additional correspondence received From: Stephen Schroeter <sschroeter@napoleon.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 202011:04 PM To: Planning <Planning@oro-medonte.ca> Subject: Proposed Amendment to Zoning on Windfield/Greenwood Forest Hi Planning Team. I own the property at 17 Windfield Drive West. Prior to purchasing my lot I reviewed the Township Official Plan and Zoning By-law. I bought my lot knowing fully that property behind me was designated Shoreline and Zoned Open Space and that this designation and zoning would protect the green space. I was aware that the shoreline designation does not support multi lot development through Plan of Subdivision. Staff and council should not support this development as it proposes a change to the area that does not conform to the Official Plan Stephen Schroeter June 3, 2020 Development Services Committee 5j) Additional correspondence received From: kim whyte <kiwhvteProeers.com> Sent: May 21, 202011:20 AM To: Weatherell, Todd <tweatherell(cDoro-medonte.ca> Subject: Thank you Hi Todd, Thank you for your prompt response.) apologize for asking question #3. 1 am aware that the Township cannot predict the future and I am aware that property owners can change their minds. My point, which I know is not your problem, is a lack of credibility/ethical behaviour on the part of the property owner. Sorry, I should not have asked you to comment on that. When you refer to the 'park that is located on Greenwood Forest Road' do you mean the vacant land between Parkview and Simcoe? Can you confirm my objection will be part of the discourse on June 3rd? Thank you, Kim June 3, 2020 Development Services Committee 5j) Additional correspondence received From: Brandon Clark <brandonclark@kenzington.ca> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 11:41 AM To: Planning <Planning@oro-medonte.ca> Subject: Re: Proposed Amendment to Zoning on Windfield/Greenwood Forest To whom it may concern, I own the property and am currently building at 21 Windfield Drive. Prior to purchasing my lot I reviewed the Township Official Plan and Zoning By-law. I bought my lot knowing fully that property behind me was designated Shoreline and Zoned Open Space and that this designation and zoning would protect the green space. I was aware that the shoreline designation does not support multi lot development through Plan of Subdivision. I had also confirmed this with my lawyer prior to purchase. Staff and council should not support this development as it proposes a change to the area that does not conform to the Official Plan. Thank you for your time, Brandon Clark (705)791-1313 brandonakenzineton.ca June 3, 2020 Development Services Committee 5j) Additional correspondence received From: Claire Malcolmson <claire.malcolmson@email.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 8:34 AM To: Agenda comment <A¢endacomment(ooro-medonte.ca> Subject: comment for UCCI Re. June 3rd 2020 Agenda Item J) Notice of Public Meeting for Proposed Amendment to the Zoning By-law of the Township of Oro-Medonte, Registered Plan 51 M-187, Block 43 (Municipal number not assigned), 2020-ZBA-05, UCCI Consolidated Companies Inc. and Consent Applications 2020-B-04 to 2020-B-12. Dear Mayor Huges and members of Council, It is disappointing that this development application made it this far. It appears to not conform to the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan's shoreline and natural heritage policies. And despite Council's stated commitment to the Lake, Oro-Medonte's Official Plan and mapping are not up to date with current provincial law. In 2014 Tim Crooks (dearly departed Lake Simcoe champion from Shanty Bay) and I from the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition, and AWARE Simcoe provided recommendations to the Town, for the OP review, attached again here. The recommendations followed community mapping session in which residents identified which ones, and why, natural areas were special to them, or were valued for ecological reasons. Had these changes been made, and had planning staff understood how the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan worked, and applied it, I believe this application would not have got this far. I implore you to do better moving forward, and to ensure that this development application is treated according to provincial law. We rely on our elected officials to do so. It should not be necessary for citizens to organize like this to ensure that the law is being followed. Please know we will be watching and commenting on this as an important test case for Council's commitment to the lake, the application of the LSPP, and the watershed decision -makers' ability to protect the features that make this lake healthy, special, beautiful, and sustainable. Further, the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition would like to be contacted by the Township with information regarding the current status of the Official Plan review, opportunities for input, review, and comment timelines. Thank you, Claire Malcolmson Executive Director Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition mcoe )n E AND REHABILITATE MAGINE THE FUTURE FI1UIVY /flla to PI"otect! Recommendations for 2014 Oro-Medonte Official Plan review By the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition and AWARE Oro-Medonte June 2014 The Township of Oro-Medonte is in the process of revising its Official Plan to conform to the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP). The members of the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition and AWARE Oro-Medonte request that the Township incorporate the following recommendations into the new Oro-Medonte Official Plan. Note that the recommendations are not an inclusive list and do not include all the revisions that must be done to bring the Official Plan into conformity with the LSPP. Obiective: Update and revise the current Oro-Medonte Official Plan so that it conforms to all Lake Simcoe Protection Plan policies. The updates will apply to the part of Oro-Medonte that is in the Lake Simcoe watershed. Assumption Although the Official Plans of Municipalities are reviewed about every five years, we assume that we are planning for health of Lake Simcoe for the long term. We do not want to be discussing the very same problems and poor prognosis of Lake Simcoe in five, twenty, fifty or one hundred years from now. Therefore, for the purposes of our recommendations, we assume that we are planning for the future good health of Lake Simcoe for the next fifty to one hundred years. Economic Development Plan of Oro-Medonte: The following challenges and needs were taken from the "Economic Development Plan for Oro- Medonte" completed by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural affairs and others, dated September 2011. The information came from a survey obtained from two community meetings attended by 60 people and from a survey filled out by 56 respondents. Listed below is a sample of some of the development and environmental concerns that were identified: V • Preserving natural beauty and recreational opportunities. • Avoiding environmental degradation. • Maintaining the rural atmosphere. • Controlling development so it doesn't change the rural atmosphere. • A clear plan for growth areas. • Avoidance of urban sprawl. • Maintain the treed landscape. • Deforestation, water pollution and loss of species habitat. • Pollution of Lake Simcoe. • Lack of bike trails. Fortunately, the Township may be able to satisfy and meet the above challenges when it conforms the OP to the LSPP and implements the following recommendations. Problems and Recommendations: 1. Natural Cover Target Problem One of targets of the LSPP is to "achieve 40 percent high quality natural vegetative cover in the watershed". High quality natural vegetative cover refers to wetlands and woodlands that meet particular site level criteria and are 25 hectares or larger. (Please refer to the HQNC Oro Medonte.pdf map sent.) At the moment, the high quality natural vegetative cover in the part of Oro-Medonte that is in the Lake Simcoe watershed is roughly 40 percent. Part of Policy 6.23-DP of the LSPP states that development or site alteration is not permitted within a key natural heritage feature, a key hydrologic feature or a related vegetation protection zone. However, there are exemptions to this policy; for example existing uses as at the date the LSPP was passed are allowed. (See LSPP Policies 6.23-DP and 6.45-DP for a list of all the exemptions) ). An example of an existing use is to allow the owner of a woodlot that is zoned Rural to build a house on the land. This means that the owner could cut down trees and therefore reduce the amount of natural vegetative cover. We are concerned that the cumulative effect of all the exemptions will reduce the high quality natural vegetative cover to less than 40 percent. This would harm Lake Simcoe by allowing more phosphorus to flow into the lake every year. Although Section B of the current Official Plan contains many worthwhile general statements related to the preservation and enhancement of the natural environment, it does not contain any measurable objectives. Recommendation The solution is to protect at least 40 percent high quality natural vegetative cover to mitigate the impact of the exemptions to policy 6.23 of the LSPP. We recommend that the township include this target in the appropriate section of the revised Official Plan. This measurable, achievable and challenging target will be clear to developers, the public and planners. E 2. Natural Heritage Definitions Problem The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has not yet approved the draft definitions of "key natural heritage features" and "key hydrologic features' written by the MNR pursuant to LSPP policy 6.30-SA. Recommendation We recommend that the Township adopt and use the MNR draft definitions of "key natural heritage features" and "key hydrologic features" for LSPP policy 6.30-SA. The draft definitions are attached. (See attached document from the MNR titled Definition of key natural heritage terms.pdf.) These definitions are inclusive and include nearly all large and small woodlands and wetlands. The inclusive nature of the draft definitions will protect as much as possible and will therefore limit the loss or fragmentation of Oro-Medonte's precious woodlands and wetlands. 3. Simplifying Environmental Protection Designations Problem The current OP contains three different environmental designations: EP, EP1 and EP2. In addition, the LSPP may require a fourth designation, in order to protect the "key natural heritage features" and "key hydrologic features". These similar designations make the OP complicated and difficult to understand. Recommendations a. Take this opportunity to review and simplify the current environmental designations. The Township may need a new environmental protection designation that will conform to the protection legislated by the LSPP for "key natural heritage features" and "key hydrologic features" as defined by the draft definitions given by LSPP policy 6.30 SA. We suggest that the new designation be called Environmental Protection for Woodlands and Wetlands (EPWW). b. Place the following features into the Environmental Protection for Woodlands and Wetlands designation: i. The Rail Trail Greenlands, all the undeveloped woodlands and wetlands that are between the Ridge Road and the developed areas along the Lake Simcoe shoreline and between Barrie and Orillia, excluding the current built up areas. ii. Key natural heritage features as defined by LSPP policy 6.21-DP (wetlands, significant woodlands, significant valleylands and natural areas abutting Lake Simcoe). iii. Key hydrologic heritage features as defined by policy 6.22-DP (wetlands, permanent and intermittent streams, and lakes other than Simcoe). iv. Areas of high quality natural cover that are 25 hectares or greater (as shown on the map produced by MNR called, "Areas of High Quality Natural Cover in the Lake Simcoe 0 Watershed Oro-Medonte" dated December 12, 2012). 4. Simplifying Maps Problem The municipality is not required to update its maps when it updates its policies to conform to the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. Outdated maps will confuse everyone working on land use issues, and we fear, will lead to inadequate understanding of, and inadequate protection of forests and wetlands. Recommendations a. Update the map "Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan Natural Features - Schedule B", so that it includes all the features listed under recommendation number 3, features we suggest be included in a new designation, EPWW, using mapping completed by the MNR as a result of the LSPP. The map should make it clear and easy for residents, developers and planners to see what areas are off-limits to development. b. Update policies applying to lands adjacent to key Natural Heritage System and Key Hydrologic Features to conform to the LSPP. See section B of the Oro-Medonte Official Plan, and LSPP Chapter 6, vegetation protection zones, and LSPP policy 6.27. 5. Endangered Species Problem The 2007 Official Plan says that no habitats of endangered species were known when the Environmental Protection 1 (EP1) boundaries were drawn, but that the habitats of endangered species would be added to EP1 if additional studies were done. Recommendation The OP should include and reflect information about the habitats of endangered species. Solicit input from naturalist groups, members of the public, local colleges, the Ministry of Natural Resources, and others on current research and information regarding the habitat of endangered species within Oro-Medonte, in order to increase the level of protection from EP2 to EP1 where appropriate. This should be done very soon, to allow participants time to prepare submissions. 6. Protecting Shorelines 1Z79707 5 The Lake Simcoe shoreline is heavily developed, and needs to be naturalized in order to improve the lake's environmental health. Recommendations a. Adopt the recommendations in the forthcoming Shoreline Management Strategy, which stems from LSPP policy 6.12 and 6.13-SA. b. Commit to taking action on these two LSPP policies in the updated OP: 0 6.14-SA: Public bodies are encouraged to actively re -naturalize public areas adjacent to shorelines and streams to a minimum of 30 metres where practical and feasible. 0 6.15-SA: Through the implementation of the stewardship, education and outreach policies (8.5-8.11) owners of existing cottages and residences will be encouraged to re -naturalize shorelines and areas adjacent to streams up to 30 metres where practical and feasible. c. Ensure that a hydrological assessment is completed prior to granting planning approvals for new waterfront lots to ensure that the density of development will not cause the nitrate limit to be exceeded. (See MOE Guideline D-5-4). Small lot development should be restricted to sites that meet the highest recommended standards for nitrate control. 7. The Creation of New Lots Problem One of the main objectives of the Oro-Medonte Official Plan is to maintain the rural character of the Township. The current OP contains many references to the need to protect the environment and maintain the rural quality of life. Also, the Provincial Places to Grow legislation directs new development to the Settlement Areas (called Rural Settlement Areas in the current OP). In spite of the objectives of the Township and the Province, it is possible to create new lots outside Settlement Areas. For example, Sections C6.3.1, C2.3.1, C2.3.2 and D2.2.1 of the OP allow new lots to be created. Over time the Official Plan could allow the creation of many new lots. These new lots will erode the rural character of the Township by creating strips of housing (strip development) along the rural concession roads. Recommendations We recommend that the Township review the regulations in the Official Plan for creating new lots, for example: Section C1.3.2: This section is very restrictive, no recommendation. Section C2.3.1: We propose that the Township make this section more restrictive and define what is meant by "only a limited number of new lots for residential purposes can be created". How many is 'limited"? Section C2.3.2: No recommendation. Section C6.3.1: This section may be sufficiently restrictive. Section D2.2 and D2.2.1: Over a period of 28 months, from January 2012 to April 2014, 20 new lots were created under Policy D2.2.1 of the Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan. Lots created at that rate would amount to 956 new lots in the whole Township over the next 100 years. We are concerned about the number of lots that may be created in the Lake Simcoe watershed part of Oro-Medonte. n Problem The Phosphorus Reduction Strategy paper tell us that new development will put additional phosphorus into Lake Simcoe. Therefore, until housing and other developments can be built on new lots without harming the lake, we suggest the following. Recommendation: Make the restrictions for creating new lots more restrictive. For example, if housing or other development is planned for a new lot, make sure that the development is done is ways that will not produce additional run-off that may harm the lake. B. Insufficient Land for Development Problem When existing building lots inside and outside of Settlement Areas are filled, where will the Township settle people? How will the Township accommodate population growth without contributing to urban sprawl and without reducing woodland and wetland cover? Recommendation We believe that intensification is part of the answer to the above problems. For example and where possible, we suggest that owners of large lots in Settlement Areas be allowed subdivide and or sever their lots into one or more lots. This recommendation allows for the creation of new lots in existing Settlement Areas in Oro-Medonte without losing natural cover. 9. Septic System Inspections Problem Some of the phosphorus loading into Lake Simcoe comes from faulty or obsolete septic systems. We are very pleased that individual septic systems are being inspected in Oro-Medonte. However, many residents are concerned that the rules followed by the inspectors fail to identify inadequate systems and that the inspectors do not find obsolete or inadequate septic systems. Recommendations a. Inspectors must be trained and carry proper certification in order to carry out septic inspections for the Township, and the inspectors should be prepared to explain to the homeowner how and why the procedure will result in an assurance that their septic system meets or exceeds the standards. b. As a minimum, we recommend that the Township set up a website that shows how the septic inspections should be performed. Ideally, we would like the Township to send a mailing to each household that indicates how the septic inspections should be carried out. 10. Progress Report to the Public Problem e The residents of Oro-Medonte would like to know what the Township is doing to reduce the amount of phosphorus flowing into the lake. Recommendations We understand that this is outside of the OP review process, but the public consultations provide an opportunity for the Township to update the residents on its progress in completing the following LSPP policies. The policies listed below are the responsibility of the Municipality. Policy Category Description No. 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.15 4.20 4.21 SA Prepare comprehensive storm water management plans for each settlement area. SA Municipalities are encouraged to implement storm water retrofits for existing opportunities prior to completing policy 4.5. DP Revise official plans to incorporate policies to reduce storm water runoff and pollution from major development and existing settlement areas. DP Applications for major developments* must include storm water management plans. Planned Planned Start Completion Date Date June 2014 June 2014 June 2009 June Policy in 2009 force DP New storm water management plans for major June Policy in developments * must meet given standards. 2009 force DP Approve a new on -site sewage system only June Policy in for the given circumstances. 2009 force DP Ensure that given measures are incorporated Policy in into subdivision and site -plan agreements. force HR Undertake site alteration in the watershed to Policy in conform to policy 4.20 force Legend: DP is a "designated policy" that must be completed. SA is a "strategic action" policy. HR is "have regard to" policy. * A "Major Development' means development consisting of the creation of four or more lots, or the construction of a building with a gross floor area or 500 square metres or more or the establishment of a major recreational area. For more information please contact: Claire Malcolmson, RescueLakeSimcoeCoalition@gmail.com, 647-267-7572 Tim Crooks, tvcrooks@sympat ico.ca, 416-961-8487 Ann Truyens, at@iglide.net, 705-721-7898 June 3, 2020 Development Services Committee 5j) Additional correspondence received From: LARRY BELL <larryandkimll@rogers.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 3:08 PM To: Planning <Planning@oro-medonte.ca> Subject: Amendment of 2020-ZBA-05 Good Afternoon, Our family has enjoyed living in this community for over 10 years, when we purchased we understood that the lands behind us would either be left or a golf course as that was the original plan. We understand that change and development makes for strong communities. However we do have some concerns with the proposed lots, that will be behind us. 1- What is the definition of retained lot? And what is it retained for? This seems vague and uninformative, that information is deliberately withheld. And why? 2- Lands dedicated for parking? For what? Why? 3- We would like clarification on the pathway between 9 and 11 Windfield dr East, is that path part of this plan? 4-Are there purchasing rights to that land instead of the path? As we would prefer to not have the pathway. 5- We are concerned with the new lots they are small, and people tend to encroach in lands that do not belong to them around here, as we have the majority of the land we would be remiss if we did not ask for some definition of property like a fence or barrier to ensure such issues in the future do not arise. Thank you for your time, we look forward to some answers. Cheers Larry and Kim Bell ml c N _o .�I--------- i I r IIIII —� c� a o cCO -a c a a) E0� c m a) y (D 0— 4 > o U) o� �� `� O a z c� o ns T o0 �. COw 'E > L*-m� c co � a) N -t a) 0 �O•�°-� Oo O U N O U QQ O +� c + n NGCOW a C +JO �N� iLp C ia) 0Oc ONa) N OOO Q i(1)Q X OLLO ow UO ao�0 w U U U v 06 a N .O o N N = O N U m E m 211 I :� , Tc' .E 0 N u c 0 N c 0 N o- 0 00a a i W N 0N� O m N= O N N � O C �U W E A� W E Q 3 m M^ W C ._ O N N 0 O U Q a Q 0 N 0 0 a 75 0 U a c N a 0 E 0 U) c m a� 0 0 c O Ic O d f6 N 0 N a) 0 N m a3 Q -0 G .0 Cd E a) -02 C co C0 a) C a0 t6 E m 0- tm O C O ry N � o a) w 0 CL C = N a_0 V) N N In fn N N In 1/1 fn f/ N N N N N N N N N N N N N U U U U U U U U U U U N Q L N L N L N L N L d L N L N L N L N N t L r J <o in in Co U in CO co r O O O O O O O O O O O N N N In N fn U1 fn U1 -V1 v@1 N N N N N N N N N P N N 2EEEEEE2EEEE E E E E E E E E E E E LL V M m N G6 V O N O W O r N N O M of O W @ U N -p N J d m h N Y C y (O r W m d J J J J J J O J J J CL J a U N 4 O CD O N O N *a QJ N C U� ci ca C Ln -� CD 4 a m� a) O a) L CD c O m 0- Jr- in c 0 a) 0 E O N N c E O U O a) O N 'C O O U CL O 0 c O O cu fl. U Q Q O Q (n m 'Al O Q N c a) E a) c ca L a) m E O CO td cmc U .L a) a) Y U) m C O O V U- c O O O (n =3 O m a) O cn W <L a) O> U 0) .L O O 0 = a) � (� L L Q `5= O�Z Wzw �Z< �0< 0® ❑ N= o U) N r o C � V E C E Q 3 m C O N 1 MO W 1 0 0 N M c U U 0 O � 1 N .O O N N c O N V �U -� c " E a m W c .O N 111 3 2 HH H k U H W Y U) W Z o W v W (4 co LU a O x IL LO O a m N O N O N E C E Q 3 m m a� c .F N m O N C O Al V MA l (m N C Uci 0 L� O� a� N O 60 N O 0 �; U E E a 3 m m .F 0 N V) On v U 0 Z U 7 d W V V LO O 1 m N 1 O N O N C d E E a 3 m` W Im r. .F O N Al u c- F i ,. 1 • _ • 1 'y t. R • w €� nr �l,� tsmxa.�• - IM m N= o N N C U c E E Q m i` W 0 N 0 0 �cr Q a, v Y L ro 0 Y LL N -0 dJ 0 3 0 eo 3 c � Y N 0 OJ L i U U U U 0 ru r 1 0 1 m Q N C O N C O U ad 0 0 1 m N 1 6 N O N a+ C ^yam L A� W E Q 3 m m c O N ci c Al u U a, ao c 0 L U N N V� a 3 a°Jo 4- O > N N v CO I Q� E O Li a coW N Q CQ N i-+ E C Oou N `n v OL CDQ N L � }' ` - .cn v, �+ C a+CL � C i` in O t O C O U b.0 ~ E U C� •E ao ro n ° qA .� C O N LO CD a v c o c� a Q v -J m •a Ln N• p o t a� m C � i O c — 4- L E L � �N N O �, v Q V u O ?� ,} aJ 'D C O U O Q. c � O O 4- +, N M� Ln N Q W Ln E LE In .� p •� v 0 = 3 O C 30 o � V O C 0 U . �- N c U '^ , a a E v= -c U H CL ro es- F Ou Q 0u co a O m V m m r-iol i 4- V) aJ L O L.L O O C ai ai L C7 C to Ln M m 4 c 0 L L.L. • I ►E v L Q 4+ 0 J ti L U m W_ • • Ln v L a-j U L L+ N t L 0 C 0 N i 0 v nc3 C X 0 L Q Q co v a; O C: E L 4-- 2 O 1 > OL }' O U .0 0 v Q) ra L L O 04 0 t cr Ln N 0 • • a O m U w Z J CLZ V C N N pUp C � N a `v IW^ V J 0 N E E a � m / • - �/ / c N L L S P co P n d N N 1 o g j o z Eyy0 ) yy yy pa y�y s y N N N N N N N K❑ U V 4-1 N A a a I, I� UYn rmr C L O _ — '3 v N b.0 c w c � � o o -, ro U N QJ bio N (6 ++ v L f6 Q Ln Q _ co O in v (U > v Ln c z o — ? x-0 t Q i 0 � +J (_ � CD O L) -j N 0 V„ Z _ ate-+ Q i C: -0 W G U c L c C 4- Q) U M Yh 1 I I� }-__------- I x � I c� CL a) V i 0 c o cn >1 ,CD cn O N d C = Ecn CD � O i cn L cn C p a)OQ a)}' U tB N � a)U C -O L O E .— N O -0 U U 4} O T— O m C co cn C: � i�i c a) +. -0 N FL U L C�, (n a) m in O O C +� C N O U U N� U (�a) E O E _ _ N }' O O O L N >,O O C U N C C U cnN> •— cn N p O V pp O> 0 0 �- N .— O O L O w N 0-Q Q N O C N � 0 Co U� > N O +� O Fu 4 -� �. � cn � U E N a)a +J c cn -p U w� a)Oa)-0 O 5 N— cn N +� C) � m O� (6 , cn O O N H U Z cOn o �H H-0 o Ri a) N N N ca "� 0 0 c O C m •� o N o E 0 o U) o `�CMm �a 0- a) '— � cn .� 0 0 -r a) � 0 0 cn O C C Q O Q) N C C: 0- co a) i O N C - N O0 a) U co () i a) cn 0 a).� }' O T- a) cn o E N N Co C O O .0) N L Co () � 0 N C `O L C Ca cn fn N C OO cn O +� }. 0 E U N C .LM c N �, O N O O� �c�- v� 0_ M m loco Qa) c o 0 0_ coa> m ° m v n (D U) cn — 0 Q- 0 cn 0 c 0= CT Q H ca c� H a) = ° U � a) o 4-0 cn p o � O U a_ cn 00 N N Q n C Ca— (U O C2 0 cn O C Cll (a O— IN U) O O C L U a)� -0 a) Q p " O C am Ca +� C1 C p N O N N — mc con a N 0 Q� O U L cn Ocn L U N C E O_ p 0 p o C: N _ �O E N 0 C E a Y 0 E cn to U) cn O C cn 0-0C= 0 Q C C 0T c O0 U C6 E LCU Q -O Z3 cmCO �, C Q C L C L +� N CB (a p CZ C -0 C L (� 0 .— N .— p) U) O a) cn — cn cn C 0 cn 0 C 000� o—C Q. 00 O C N UEn � Q M � � N N H U) H H c O a' SR 9999999990 IstP op O. n $ O O $ h v '� fV M ♦ In �O A a0 O. O� O O O � J J O O 2 � p�u c �