REPORT ON COUNCIL
July 26, 2004
Committee of the Whole Meeting: 9:08 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. and 9:05 p.m. – 10:27 p.m.
Regular Evening Meeting: 7:05 p.m. – 8:42 p.m.
All Members of Council present.
CONFIDENTIAL / CLOSED SESSION: 4:30 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. and 9:05 p.m. – 10:26 p.m.
REQUESTS TO MAKE ORAL SUBMISSIONS: As Council considered the four requests, they decided to expand and refine the form that applicants must fill out. They also decided that it would be useful if members of staff were to tell them what they know about each request.
QUESTION PERIOD: Questions concerning items on the agenda are to written out on cards and may be submitted to the clerk at any point during the day. They will be answered during Question Period, time permitting; otherwise they will be answered later. Details of this change in procedure are still being worked out.
NEW ZONING BY-LAW / ISSUES / PUBLIC MEETING:
The Members of Council feel that they still do not have a clear grasp of mapping issues.
Nick McDonald, of Meridian Planning, who prepared the Official Plan and the proposed Zoning By-law, is of the opinion that the current mapping is sufficient for zoning needs. He feels that there is no need to include environmental details on the maps, as surveys are required when a lot is developed, and surveys are to include significant natural features. There is to be no EP zone along the shore; instead, on the water side of the lot, the residential zoning is to extend to the line shown on Registry maps.
However, according to McDonald, David Lambden (the surveyor and boundary expert who was retained from 1999 to 2003 to ascertain the extent of Township ownership along the western shore of Tiny Township) takes a different view. Lambden feels it important that the Township have accurate maps. Council would like to hear his views.
In response to their earlier invitation that he meet with them, Lambden asked that Council read three of his overview reports prior to any meeting. Unfortunately, one or two of these were missing. The replacement reports were due to arrive in the Township on July 26 or 27, and Council hopes to meet with David Lambden in the course of the next meeting of Council.
To allow time for consideration of the mapping issue, Council decided to delay the Public Meeting on the new Zoning By-law until Saturday September 18, Wyebridge Community Centre, at 10 a.m.
IMPLICATIONS OF PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS FOR THE 178 METRE ELEVATION AND SETBACKS: Nick McDonald of Meridian Planning, reviewed the situation with regard to the 178 metre elevation and setbacks. The view he expressed is essentially the same as that in his letter attached to the Report on Council for January 26.
However, he now feels that there is something new to take into consideration. It may be possible to argue that Tiny’s established shore communities should be treated the way the Province treats communities that were built on floodplains. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Municipal Affairs acknowledges that strict adherence to Provincial policies would result in social and economic hardships to such communities. Special policies, guidelines and procedures have been put in place for them.
McDonald was instructed to write a letter to the Province asking that similar special treatment be given to long established shore communities of Tiny Township that would not conform to the proposed 178 metre elevation and setbacks.
BROADER NOTICE FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS: In Tiny, notices of public meetings about zoning bylaw amendments are sent to every owner of land within 120 metres of the area to which a proposed bylaw would apply, and a sign which is clearly visible and legible from a public highway is placed on every separately assessed property in the area to which the proposed bylaw would apply. In addition, ratepayer groups in the general area are routinely sent notice as well and notices of public meetings are posted on the Township’s website.
Last January a public meeting was held and a decision was made to allow sea-doo rental at a property in Balm Beach. In this instance, letters to property owners within 120 metres of the rezoned property were clearly not enough, as shore owners for a considerable distance are affected. The agendas on the Township website did not reveal that sea-doo rental was the issue at hand.
Some time ago, in response to a deputation made by the Federation, Council asked the Planning Department to be more specific about the nature of the zoning bylaw amendments in Council agendas. Now, in addition, Council has decided to enlarge the area (from 120 to 750 metres) to which letters giving notice of a public meeting must be circulated when the application involves any kind of commercial development anywhere in the Township. A minor amendment to the Official Plan will be required.
OPP QUARTERLY REPORT / SPEEDING: Inspector Greg Skinner, head of the Southern Georgian Bay OPP, which handles policing in Tiny Township, presented his quarterly report to Council. He noted that the numbers of offenses in most areas of policing have leveled off. The most frequent offenses are 1) false alarms, 2) motor collisions, and 3) 911 hang ups. The cost of policing last year was $1,150,607 — $123.30 per permanent resident, or rather less if Tiny’s seasonal residents are factored in. This compares favourably with the provincial average of over $200 per citizen.
As there have been many complaints about speeding in Tiny Township, Skinner had been asked to report on ways to curb speeding.
Community Safety Zones, in his opinion, have little impact, unless they are enforced by police officers giving out tickets.
Photo radar was also not a good solution; drivers learn that they have been caught only considerably after the fact, so there is no immediate impact on their driving habits. An officer has to be present when photo radar is used to catch speeders, so there is no saving in manpower. Also, the legislation allowing its use has been repealed and has not been reinstated.
Skinner thought that a radar sign was a better option – as the visual reminder that a driver is speeding often has a salutary effect.
Paid duty officers administering speeding tickets and tickets for other offenses seemed to him to be the best option. A paid duty officer costs $500 for a 10-hour shift. He did not think it was a good idea to let private citizens hire such officers. Skinner would have such an officer shift his place of operation several times in the course of a shift, to the various areas where speeding is a concern.
Councillor Panasiuk ascertained that the fine when a driver is caught driving 20 km over the speed limit is roughly $100, half of which comes to the Township. He pointed out that if 10 such speeding fines were administered in the course of 10-hour shift, the Township would cover its costs. Alternatively, if there was no need to fine that many drivers, then the problem was probably not as great as had been supposed. Council decided to hire one paid duty officer on each day of the three days of the August long weekend, and then review the situation.
SITE 41 MORATORIUM / MAYOR KLUG STILL OPPOSED: Former Deputy Mayor Gordon Salisbury and former Councillor Bob Buchkowsky reported that they have visited the Councils of North Simcoe municipalities and urged them to support a moratorium on Site 41. They sent information packages to the other municipalities in Simcoe. Council also forwarded its own resolution supporting a moratorium to North Simcoe municipalities. The upshot has been that Tay, Springwater and Midland all support a moratorium, while Penetang is opposed.
The pair want Council to send out a request for support to the remaining 11 municipalities of Simcoe County and to lobby other Councils personally. They expressed concern that the support of a Council will not necessarily result in votes for a moratorium at the County of Simcoe, as Mayors and Deputy Mayors may vote as they please. They urged Council to pass a motion that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor vote in such a way as to reflect the views of the majority at County. Mayor Klug (who voted against the moratorium, in a 3-1 vote) said that if such a motion were put in Tiny, he would have to seek legal advice.
In reply to Salisbury and Buchkowsky, Deputy Mayor Paul Maurice (who supports a moratorium) argued that the time to push has not yet come. New information is expected, and when it arrives, that will be the time to approach other Councils. Councillor Ray Millar, long time opponent of the dump, likewise advised caution. Like Councillor Breckenridge, he emphasized that Council has a plan. This plan then had 18 days to run before it is to be acted upon. Mayor Klug said that he wants a comprehensive, county-wide, garbage diversion plan in place before any further landfill sites are opened.
Excerpt from Nick McDonald’s letter of July 15, 2004.
New Provincial Policy Statement
On the basis of a review of the draft Provincial Policy Statement dated June 2004, there are no changes of consequence in the section dealing with natural hazards from the current version of the PPS. Development continues to generally be directed to areas outside of the hazardous lands adjacent to the shorelines of the Great Lakes. In addition, the draft PPS continues to state that development and site alteration will not be permitted within the dynamic beach. Although a minor change to the way dynamic beach is defined is included within the draft PPS, the change is merely editorial in nature.
On the basis of the above, the proposed zoning provision that would allow for some minor development and redevelopment of properties in the shoreline continue to be appropriate (see McDonald’s letter, attached to Report on Council for January 26.) This is notwithstanding the change in the Planning Act, which requires that all planning decisions be consistent with the PPS. The basis for my opinion is that the Ministries of Natural Resources and Municipal Affairs and Housing have both indicated that, to a certain extent, the implementation of a dynamic beach recommendation is at the discretion of the Township of Tiny. As noted previously, it is my opinion that the Township has no discretion with respect to the 178 metre elevation along the shoreline.
Options for Council
There do not appear to be many options for Council to consider. However, the Province has created a series of policies, guidelines and procedures to deal with lands within a floodplain. A floodplain is the area, usually low lands adjoining a water course, which have been or may be subject to flooding hazards. In some cases development is conditionally permitted within a flood fringe. A flood fringe is the outer portion of the floodplain between the floodway and the flooding hazard limit. The depth and velocities of flooding are generally less severe in the flood fringe than those experienced in the floodway.
In some parts of the Province, particularly in the downtowns of older communities, a special policy area has been established. A special policy area, as defined by the PPS, is:
an area within a community that has historically existed in the flood plain and where site specific policies, approved by the Ministers of Natural Resources and Municipal Affairs and Housing are intended to provide for the continued viability of existing uses (which are generally on a small scale) and address the significant social and economic hardships to the Community that would result from strict adherence to Provincial policies regarding development. The criteria and procedures for approval are established by the Province.
In essence the Province has recognized that in certain circumstances, the strict adherence to Provincial policies and guidelines would result in social and economic hardships to a community.
In my opinion, the existing and proposed PPS policies also have the potential to cause significant social and economic hardships to those who own property along the shoreline of Georgian Bay in the Township of tiny. On this basis, it is suggested that Council request the Province to consider including a similar policy in the PPS that would allow for special consideration to be given to shoreline areas which are affected by the policies of the PPS in a negative manner. If such a policy was included within the PPS, the Province in conjunction with the County of Simcoe and the Township would then jointly prepare special policies that would be designed to minimize social and economic hardships along the shoreline.
REPORT ON COUNCIL
July 27, 2004
Special Committee of the Whole Meeting: 8:01 a.m. – 8:03 p.m.
CONFIDENTIAL / CLOSED SESSION: 8:06 a.m. – 10:30 p.m. and 7:45 p.m. – 8:02 p.m.
TOUR OF NORTH END OF TINY TOWNSHIP: This occupied the hours between the two in camera sessions.
