REPORT ON COUNCIL
May 29, 2004
Public Planning Meeting concerning the proposed recreational trailer park in Concession 2: 10:10 a.m. – 12:27 p.m.
Mayor Robert Klug, Deputy Mayor Pierre Paul Maurice and Councillor Peggy Breckenridge present;
Councillors Ray Millar and Rob Panasiuk absent because of prior commitments.
The proposed recreational park in Concession 2 would be a seasonal campground facility to be developed in 4 phases with the following uses and structures:
290 seasonal sites for tents and trailers
seasonal group camping
10 cabins for year round use
trails and observation tower
accessory recreational uses
lodge/recreation/health facility
a paintball range
mountain bike facilities
For the development to go forward, half of Lot 25, Concession 2, which is currently designated “Rural,” “Greenbelt,” and “Environmental Protection II” in the Township’s Official Plan, would have to be redesignated as “Major Recreation.” There would also have to be a zoning change for the north half of Lots 24 and 25, Concession 2.
The 180 individuals who attended the public meeting at the Wyebridge Community Centre heard Nick McDonald, the Township’s consulting planner, outline the proposal, and then heard presentations from the developer’s experts. The latter defended the paint ball facility and the heavy use of groundwater and extensive septic systems, and minimized noise and traffic.
Among the nine individuals who spoke in favour of the proposed development were the owner of the paintball park in Wasaga Beach, a couple who intend to be married there and the Reverend Sid Maddock, a resident of Woodland Beach, who felt that Tiny Township should trust Dr. Stubbs. Another supporter argued that the trailer park proposal is better than spreading sludge on farmers’ fields. Former Mayor Anthony Lancia also spoke in favour of the development, as he had at the first public meeting on December 1, 2001, primarily because, when he was Mayor, he had encouraged the developer.
Many serious concerns were raised by the 19 who spoke against the proposed trailer park. Several of these represented large groups — including the Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations (with 21 member associations), Tiny’s Residents Working Together, the Deanlea Beach Association (with more than 200 member households), the Rochelle Beach Association, and the Edmor/Georgian Heights Association. These 19 speakers raised concerns about the loss of trees and wildlife and quiet; about increases in traffic, beach use, and garbage; and about the costs of increased police and by-law. Several speakers made the point that if the Township was going to change the standards in its official plan, there had to be benefits to cause it to do so, and these were not obvious. Others pointed out that trailer parks do not pay their fair share of taxes — a whole park may pay taxes equivalent to those levied on a single waterfront cottage.
REPORT ON COUNCIL
June 14, 2004
Committee of the Whole Meeting: 9:05 a.m. – 7:10 p.m.
Regular Evening Meeting: 7:25 p.m. – 9:16 p.m.
All Members of Council present.
CONFIDENTIAL / CLOSED SESSION: 4:08 p.m. – 7:09 p.m.
DEPUTATIONS: Dorene Trunk drew to Council’s attention the fact that applicants to the Committee of Adjustment are not required to supply a survey at the time when the Committee decides whether to grant a variance from the Township’s Official Plan. This omission needs to be remedied as decisions are made without committee members having an adequate grasp of the situation.
Anthony Lancia gave another in a series of deputations about the handling of the Township’s financial records, recurring to concerns that he felt had not been answered by the Township’s auditors or by the Township’s treasurer. In particular he addressed the matter of the $83,000 that he suspects was the package paid to Mike Emms, the former Water Department Supervisor, after he was dismissed by the last Council; in his view, this amount was improperly charged to the Township’s water system users.
Councillor Rob Panasiuk asked Lancia what he wanted Council to do, reminding him that the members of Council are not accountants, and that they therefore take advice on accounting matters, either from the treasurer or from the Township’s auditors. They HAD sought advice from both of these with regard to Lancia’s allegations.
Further, Panasiuk noted that he did not necessarily accept Lancia’s premise, that the fact that a payment may have occurred was evidence that a dismissal was wrongful. He was not privy to the previous Council’s reasons for terminating Emms, but dismissals are rarely “with cause.” There are many possible reasons for a dismissal and for costs associated with it to be appropriately charged to water users.
Lancia admitted that many of his concerns had been allayed in responses by the treasurer and the auditors, and that an open discussion of his remaining concerns would go a long way to satisfying him — even if such a discussion had to be conducted in hypothetical terms.
In her deputation, Patricia O’Driscoll raised questions about staff acting without Council authorization.
DRAFT ZONING BY-LAW: Nick McDonald of Meridian Planning Consultants, forwarded a memorandum recommending that “the lot line closest to the water’s edge and the one that is shown on registry office/assessment office mapping will be deemed the water’s edge for the purposes of the By-law. Anyone wishing to build on such a lot will have to identify where the water’s edge is located in addition to the location of the 178 metre contour interval.” This recommendation eliminates the controversial earlier recommendation of an EP2 zone along the shore, and eliminates the current By-law’s open space zone along the shore. For the complete memorandum, click HERE.
NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT ACT: Two representatives from R. J. Burnside made a presentation about the new Nutrient Management Act. From the audience it was impossible to tell whether they had been asked to bring Council up to speed on the new Act or whether they were drumming up business. The representatives were aware that the disposal of septage (untreated sewage from septic pump outs) is a primary concern to Tiny Township, but all they could report was that, to date, the act is unclear on the subject. The buzz is that the spreading of septage on fields is to cease but there is nothing in the regulations to implement this.
TOWNSHIP GRANTS: In the course of budget discussions, Council decided that it was inappropriate to use taxpayers’ money to give grants to charities and to schools. Letters are to be sent to current recipients of Township grants, explaining that applications for such grants will no longer be entertained.
PAY INCREASES: Council formally increased staff salaries by 3% — the amount set in the recently passed budget. Council’s basic annual pay increase has been tied to that of staff for the last 3 or 4 years.
Whether that is appropriate is still under discussion, so no decision was taken about Council’s pay increase.
ENCROACHMENTS: Council passed a new Encroachments By-law. The Manager of Public Words reported that encroachments are being dealt with systematically, from south to north, unless something draws attention to itself. In Concession 1, some 40 encroachments by private property owners onto Township-owned land require attention. These are being dealt with when staff has time — usually in the fall.
Memorandum to the Township of Tiny Council from Nick McDonald, May 27, 2004, re Zoning of Shoreline Areas
As Council is aware, we have been reviewing the issue for some time on how to zone shoreline areas immediately abutting the water’s edge of Georgian Bay. At the present time, By-law 30-77 places the majority of the land below the high water mark and the water’s edge as it existed when the By-law was prepared in the Open Space (OS) Zone.
One exception is at Rowntree Beach, where the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) determined that the edge of the Block (Block A) in the front of Plan 750 extended to the water’s edge. In this case, Block A is zoned Open Space One (OS1). The decision of the Court in the Rowntree case essentially means that, wherever a lot shown on a registered Plan of Subdivision was shown as ending at the high water mark, it in fact extends to the water’s edge, wherever that may be.
As a result of the above, we have been working through a number of options with respect to how the lands between the lots shown on the assessment maps and the actual water’s edge should be zoned. Options include:
Placing all lands between the water’s edge and the extent of the private lots shown on the assessment mapping in the EP2 Zone.
Extending the existing zoning on each property to a line that represents the water’s edge.
Leaving the determination of zoning to a later date, when a surveyor would determine what lands are above and below the 178G.S.C. metre elevation. All lands below the 178 metre elevation would be zoned EP2 and all lands above would be the adjacent zone.
All of the above options have been discounted since they will make the By-law extremely difficult to implement and interpret and will cause some uncertainty with respect to the nature, use and ownership of lands along the shoreline.
On the basis of the above, a fourth option has been identified. Given that the location of the water’s edge is unknown, it is proposed that the lot line closest to the water’s edge and the one that is shown on registry office/assessment office mapping will be deemed the water’s edge for the purposes of the By-law. Anyone wishing to build on such a lot will have to identify where the water’s edge is located in addition to the location of the 178 metre contour level.
It is my opinion that the option presented above as the fourth option is the only reasonable option for the By-law. As new information on the location of the water’s edge becomes available, the mapping will be updated as required, without needing an Amendment to the By-law. It should be noted the main control on building in the shoreline area will continue to be the restrictions that emanate from the location of the 178 G.S.C. elevation.
Yours truly,
Nick McDonald
