THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING NO. PED-8-2016 MINUTES PLACE: Council Chamber, District Administration Building TIME: 9:00 a.m. DATE: July 21, 2016 PRESENT: Committee Chair P. Wiancko; District Chair J. Klinck; Members N. Alcock, A. Edwards, P. Kelly, B. Young ABSENT: Member L. Giaschi-Pacini OFFICIALS PRESENT: M. Duben, Chief Administrative Officer; S. Hastings, Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development ALSO PRESENT: Councillor S. Baker; L. Leslie, M. Lawley, J. Mulligan, Muskoka Tourism Marketing Agency; C. Doyle, Director of Environmental and Watershed Programs; S. Valentine, Director of Planning; M. Halford, Manager of Planning Projects; M. Ross, Communications Officer; A. Back, Deputy Clerk CALL TO ORDER Committee Chair Wiancko called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS None were declared. CEREMONIAL AND INVITED PRESENTATIONS a) Leah Leslie, & Michael Lawley, Muskoka Tourism Marketing Agency Presentation and Update on activities for 2016 Ms. Leslie and Mr. Mulligan provided a quarterly update which highlighted 2016 planned activities. To access the presentation, please click on the following link: https://muskoka.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/28189?preview=28305 ASSIGNED FUNCTIONS a) Approval of Amendment No. 12 to the Official Plan of the Town of Gravenhurst (Ojha) Report No. PED-8-2016-1 (Delegated Decision)
Transcript
THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA
PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
MEETING NO. PED-8-2016
MINUTES PLACE: Council Chamber, District Administration Building TIME: 9:00 a.m. DATE: July 21, 2016 PRESENT: Committee Chair P. Wiancko; District Chair J. Klinck;
Members N. Alcock, A. Edwards, P. Kelly, B. Young ABSENT: Member L. Giaschi-Pacini OFFICIALS PRESENT: M. Duben, Chief Administrative Officer; S. Hastings,
Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development ALSO PRESENT: Councillor S. Baker; L. Leslie, M. Lawley, J. Mulligan, Muskoka
Tourism Marketing Agency; C. Doyle, Director of Environmental and Watershed Programs; S. Valentine, Director of Planning; M. Halford, Manager of Planning Projects; M. Ross, Communications Officer; A. Back, Deputy Clerk
CALL TO ORDER Committee Chair Wiancko called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS None were declared. CEREMONIAL AND INVITED PRESENTATIONS a) Leah Leslie, & Michael Lawley, Muskoka Tourism Marketing Agency Presentation and
Update on activities for 2016 Ms. Leslie and Mr. Mulligan provided a quarterly update which highlighted 2016 planned activities. To access the presentation, please click on the following link: https://muskoka.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/28189?preview=28305
ASSIGNED FUNCTIONS a) Approval of Amendment No. 12 to the Official Plan of the Town of Gravenhurst (Ojha)
Ms. Halford provided a digital presentation which highlighted the proposed official plan amendment. To access Ms. Halford’s presentation, please click on the following link: https://muskoka.civicweb.net/document/28280
Moved by P. Kelly and seconded by A. Edwards D45/2016-PED
THAT Amendment No. 12 to the Official Plan of the Town of Gravenhurst, as adopted by Town By-law No. 2016-44, BE APPROVED.
Carried. MUSKOKA OFFICIAL PLAN a) Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 45 to the Muskoka Official Plan
(Lake System Health Policy Update) Report No. PED-8-2016-3 Ms. Doyle and Ms. Valentine highlighted the report; provided a digital presentation which outlined the update related to the Lake System Health Policy; and summarized the proposed official plan amendment. In response to a question regarding the recent reclassification of Camel Lake, Ms. Valentine confirmed that this was undertaken by the Township of Muskoka Lakes as part of their review of lake character and that it is unrelated to water quality classifications contained within the District’s report. She added that staff were aware of the phosphorus concerns on various lakes and noted that there would be more information to come on that topic. When questions were raised regarding the timing of this project vis-a-vis the Official Plan Review, it was confirmed that Committee had previously identified this project as a priority. Ms. Valentine noted that if after the August open houses, the process needed to be slowed down, there would be an opportunity to dovetail this process with the Muskoka Official Plan consultations which are scheduled for Spring and Summer of 2017. Subsequent to the meeting, minor typographical errors (resulting from red-lining the document) contained within Appendix ‘I’ and ‘II’ were corrected. To access the presentation, please click on the following link: https://muskoka.civicweb.net/document/28304
Moved by J. Klinck and seconded by N. Alcock R46/2016-PED
THAT draft Official Plan Amendment No. 45 (Lake System Health Policy Update) BE CIRCULATED to the Area Municipalities, agencies, and other stakeholders for input;
AND THAT open houses and a statutory public meeting BE SCHEDULED.
Carried. Ms. Doyle left the meeting at 9:58 a.m. FEDERAL OR PROVINCIAL INITIATIVES a) Proposed Wildland Fire Assessment and Mitigation Standards
(EBR Registry Number 012-7075) Report No. PED-8-2016-2 Ms. Valentine highlighted her report and provided a digital presentation which summarized the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s proposed wildland fire assessment and mitigation standards that would be required to be implemented through the Muskoka Official Plan. The Committee expressed its dissatisfaction with additional regulatory requirements and its impact to homeowners and the development community. The Ministry had only allowed 45 days to provide comments on the subject. Given the short timeline, Ms. Valentine confirmed that at a meeting which was attended by planning staff from all Area Municipalities, the group agreed that a comprehensive set of comments submitted to the Province from the District, would be most appropriate and effective. Mr. Duben noted that a cover letter to the District’s submission would include language regarding the short response time and that additional comments may also be submitted from Area Municipalities whose Planning Committees or Councils had not had an opportunity to discuss the matter. To access Ms. Valentine’s presentation, please click on the following link: https://muskoka.civicweb.net/document/28303
Moved by B. Young and seconded by N. Alcock R47/2016-PED
THAT Staff Report No. PED-8-2016-2 BE SUBMITTED as the District of Muskoka’s comments respecting the proposed wildland fire assessment and mitigation standards included in the draft “Wildland Fire Risk Assessment and Mitigation: A Guidebook to Support the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014” (EBR Registry Number 012-7075); AND THAT the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry specifically BE REQUESTED to provide updated and accurate wildland fire hazard risk
mapping for the District of Muskoka geographic area.
Carried. FINANCIAL & ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS a) Planning Division Staff Complement
Report No. PED-8-2016-4 Ms. Hastings highlighted her report and confirmed that several options (including a contract position) had been evaluated. She noted that a recent search for a temporary planner had produced a limited response.
Moved by P. Kelly and seconded by A. Edwards R48/2016-PED
THAT the PED Department Complement BE AMENDED to reflect the addition of 1 Permanent FTE Manager (M3) to be filled no earlier than November 1, 2016 in accordance with all District policies, procedures and subject to job evaluation; AND THAT the 2016 Tax Supported Operating Budget BE AMENDED as outlined in the following table:
Carried. NEW BUSINESS a) Muskoka Airport – Runway Construction Update
Mr. Stirling advised that the day following the opening of the recently reconstructed runway, Muskoka received a significant amount of rainfall. Staff noted that the rain was pooling along some seams between asphalt lifts in certain areas of the runway, although not in the centre landing area. Regulations specify that runways are to have less than a 5 mm variation across any section of a 4.5 meter portion of a runway. When the contractor and engineers returned to the airport for further inspection, and following several tests, it was identified that the
Application Fee Revenue (22,500) (20,000) (42,500)All Other Revenue (1,655,399) (1,655,399)2016 Net Levy Impact 2,995,277 0 2,995,277
worst offending areas of the runway had a variation of 6 – 10 mm. Mr. Stirling noted that engineers on site had experienced similar occurrences at other airports, including Pearson International. A number of options are being reviewed by the consultant and contractor, and the required remediation is expected to be undertaken before the end of the summer. Mr. Stirling confirmed that repairs would be coordinated during evening hours, if possible, to minimize the impact and disruption to businesses at the airport and the aviation community.
b) Ministry of Municipal Affairs – Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) Reform In response to an inquiry from the Committee Chair, Ms. Hastings noted that although District staff had not invested significant time into OMB reform, she participates on the Regional Planning Commissioners of Ontario (RPCO), and at its July 22, 2016 meeting, comments regarding OMB reform would be finalized, submitted to the Province, and soon after that, made public. She added that the comments may include items such as: OMB promotion and training; eliminating the OMB back-log; and recommendations for consistency in its decision making process. Recognizing the need for the public to be able to appeal a Municipality’s decision, concerns were raised regarding the OMB, composed of non-publicly-elected members, having the authority to overturn decisions made by elected officials at the Municipal level. Councillors noted that a report on this subject is also anticipated to be released during the upcoming Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Conference in August, 2016. Staff was requested to provide both reports to Committee when available.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Muskoka District Council Composition – Standing Committee Discussions
Report No. CES-7-2016-4 District Chair Klinck suggested that with the comments received through the last round of Committee meetings, the general feeling was to wait to see what changes come forward from the Municipal Act review before proceeding further. District Chair Klinck acknowledged the report prepared by the District Clerk which summarized comments from the June Committee meetings. He added that the Engineering and Public Works Committee, at its July 20, 2016 meeting, passed a resolution to recommend that Muskoka District Council direct staff to prepare a report to outline options for a facilitator to guide Council through the process; prepare a terms of reference; and outline potential costs. Councillor Young provided Committee with an update of his deputations at the Area Municipalities regarding equal representation.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by N. Alcock and seconded by B. Young P49/2016-PED
THAT the Planning and Economic Development Committee adjourns to meet again at 1:00 p.m.
Carried. The meeting adjourned at 11:12 a.m.
_____________________ Deputy Clerk
MUSKOKA TOURISM REPORT TO PED
July 2016
PED-8-2016-MTMA-2016 Highlights
Page 1
• Web Traffic over the last 365 days:
• 2 million page views (+ 19% )
• 800,000 visitors ( +57% )
• 432,533 outbound links ( +57% )
• 2016 Google AdWords Campaign
• 13,341 clicks to discovermuskoka.ca
• 461,005 impressions
• Excellent performance - pages per session and time on site for paid search is close to that of organic
traffic, meaning we are reaching the right web users with relevant content
2016 HIGHLIGHTS
PED-8-2016-MTMA-2016 Highlights
Page 2
• 2nd Annual Tourism Marketing Summit and MTMA Annual General Meeting
• Brand Strategy Launch July 2016
• Proposed change in service location. In partnership with the South East Georgian Bay Chamber of Commerce,
MTMA will pay up to 50% of the capital cost and up to 50 % of operating expenses to create a new information
kiosk at the Petro Canada station in Port Severn. The Chamber of Commerce will pay the other 50% of
expenses. The current MTMA space in Bressette House is no longer required. Georgian Bay Township officials
have been fully involved in these discussions. Muskoka Lakes Township will invest in the project.
2016 HIGHLIGHTS
PED-8-2016-MTMA-2016 Highlights
Page 3
• Muskoka Live
• Aligned with brand strategy
recommendations
• Partners: Gravenhurst Opera
House, Peter’s Players, Kee to Bala,
Deerhurst Resort, Huntsville
Theatre Company, and Huntsville
Festival of the Arts
2016 HIGHLIGHTS
• MTMA has lead role in a collaborative, cross-marketing campaign highlighting our incredible live entertainment
experiences in Muskoka. Entertainment producers are cross-marketing each other's shows, referring their web
visitors to an entertainment schedule portal created by Muskoka Tourism – www.muskoka.live
• With digital ads highlighting the must-see summer concerts, and live theatre productions taking the stage this
• Digital ads reached over 5 million Facebook and Google users
• Digital ads had over 17.5 million Facebook and Google impressions
• 2016 Muskoka Maple Trail
• 9,000 page views on our website, and another 3,700 page views of the Google Map
• Partnership with H / LOB Chamber of Commerce and 30 private industry partners. Wrap-up survey from
one of the participants is highlighted below:
2016 HIGHLIGHTS
Q1: Overall, were you pleased to be a part of the Muskoka Maple Trail? Extremely pleased Q2: How many visitors would you estimate visited your property as a result of the Muskoka Maple Trail? What percentage of these guests were from 100+ km away (best guess)? 500 people and about 70% were over 100+ km away Q3: Do you see value in continuing the Muskoka Maple Trail in 2017? Definitely
• Project lead on the Muskoka Visitor Guide, amalgamating five publications into one
• Completely industry funded: $146,000 investment from 100 tourism partners.
• Muskoka Visitor Map
• Completely industry funded: $27,000 investment from tourism businesses
• Winter Digital Consumer Advertising Campaign
• $30,000 marketing campaign, leveraging federal provincial and private dollars
• Brand Strategy.
• MTMA levered $3 from other partners for every dollar invested by MTMA.
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS January 1 – June 30, 2016
PED-8-2016-MTMA-2016 Highlights
Page 15
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT!
PLEASE KEEP CURRENT WITH
MTMA BY READING OUR MONTHLY UPDATES
PED-8-2016-MTMA-2016 Highlights
Page 16
Page 1
TO: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee FROM: Melissa Halford
Manager of Planning DATE: July 21, 2016 SUBJECT: Approval of Amendment No. 12 to the Official Plan of the Town of
Gravenhurst (Ojha) REPORT NO: PED-8-2016-1
____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION (Delegated Decision) THAT Amendment No. 12 to the Official Plan of the Town of Gravenhurst, as adopted by Town By-law No. 2016-44, BE APPROVED. ORIGIN The Council of the Town of Gravenhurst adopted Amendment No. 12 to the Town’s Official Plan by By-law No. 2016-44 on May 24, 2016 and has submitted it to the District of Muskoka for approval. ANALYSIS Purpose of Amendment No. 12 The subject property is currently designated “Urban Mixed Use Waterfront Area” in the Town of Gravenhurst Official Plan. The purpose of this amendment is to specifically permit a Residential Care Facility on the subject lands, increase the permitted density on the lot and to define the three proposed models of care for the facility (i.e. Independent Living, Assisted Living and Memory Care). A copy of the adopted Official Plan Amendment is attached as Appendix “I”. Property Description and Surrounding Uses The lands subject to this Amendment are located at 520 Isaac Street with frontage on Lake Muskoka in the Urban Centre of Gravenhurst. The lands are legally described as Lots 101 to 104, Lot 113 and Part of Lots 105 to 108, Part of Lot 114, Plan 23, and Part of Isaac Street,
Page 2
Town of Gravenhurst, District Municipality of Muskoka. A location map is attached as Appendix “II”. The subject lands are approximately 0.8 hectares (2.2 acres) with approximately 20 metres (65.6 feet) of frontage on Isaac Street. A rock ridge traverses the northerly side of the lands. The property currently contains an existing dwelling and is surrounded by low density residential development. An unopened municipal road allowance and Lookout Park are located to the north of the subject lands. To the west, the property overlooks the Muskoka Wharf which contains a mixture of commercial and residential uses. Circulation and Public Meeting The public meeting was held by the Town of Gravenhurst at their Municipal Office on May 24, 2016 to consider the proposed Official Plan Amendment as well as an associated zoning by-law amendment. The applicant’s agent, Joshua Morgan of Morgan Planning & Development Inc., made oral submissions at the meeting in support of the application. Jamie Robinson of MHBC Planning spoke on behalf of local residents in opposition to the proposal. Several letters of objection were also received from neighbouring property owners prior to the public meeting citing scale and density of development, parking, emergency access and height as concerns. Many members of the public also spoke in opposition of the proposal at the public meeting. However, several letters of support for the proposal were also submitted and a number of local business owners and residents spoke in favour of the development proposal at the public meeting. Certain neighbours continue to object to the Amendment as noted in emails and letters to the District of Muskoka following the Town’s adoption of the Amendment. Since there appears to be outstanding objections that are not resolved, this application does not meet the criteria to be processed as a “minor” Official Plan Amendment and approval is required from the Planning and Economic Development (PED) Committee. The criteria of a “minor” and “major” amendment are attached as Appendix “III”, for Committee’s reference. This delegation by-law is currently in the process of being amended, as per Resolution No. R41/2016-PED. This revision would clarify that only Official Plan Amendments with outstanding objections related to District interests would require PED Committee approval. However, as this application predates the passing of this resolution, PED Committee approval is required. The District of Muskoka was circulated the Town’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for review and comment. Staff had no concerns with the intent of the proposed Amendment. However, a holding provision was requested in order to address servicing implications related to the proposed increase in density. This was addressed through a revised zoning by-law amendment. Planning Documents and Other Considerations Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) The Provincial Policy Statement indicates that settlement areas are to be the focus of growth and development and that planning authorities shall identify appropriate locations and promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS also supports a mix of uses within the designated growth areas in a compact form and density that allows for the efficient use of land and infrastructure.
Page 3
In addition, the PPS indicates that an appropriate range and mix of housing types and densities shall be provided to meet current and projected future needs. This is to be achieved by permitting and facilitating all forms of housing required to meet local social, health and well-being requirements. As the proposed amendment would permit a range of housing options in order to allow older persons to age-in-place within an Urban Centre, it would be consistent with the PPS. Muskoka Official Plan The subject lands are located within the “Urban Centre” designation of the Muskoka Official Plan. Urban settlement areas are envisioned to be the focus of growth and the appropriate location for large scale mixed use residential proposals, with development occurring on full municipal water and sewer services. The Muskoka Official Plan also promotes the provision of a full range of housing forms to meet projected demands. The proposed development represents intensified residential development containing a mix of residential accommodations as well as the provision of health care options geared towards the needs of an aging population. In addition, the subject property is located on Muskoka Bay on Lake Muskoka. To address any water quality impacts resulting from this development, the Town is in receipt of a stormwater management plan and will be implementing best management practices through site plan control. As such, the proposed development would conform to the Muskoka Official Plan. Town of Gravenhurst Official Plan The subject property is designated “Urban Mixed Use Waterfront Area” in the Town’s Official Plan. The existing Official Plan policies permit mixed use development including a range of commercial uses servicing the residential and tourist markets as well as medium and high density housing. The proposed Residential Care Facility would be considered mixed use as it would provide residential accommodations and health services for the residents. As the policies in this designation do not clearly articulate density requirements for Residential Care Facilities, an amendment to the Official Plan was required by the Town. The proposed amendment also includes definitions of each of the proposed models of care permitted within the proposed Residential Care Facility. District staff would concur with Town staff that this Amendment generally conforms to the intent of the Town’s Official Plan. Town of Gravenhurst Zoning By-Law 10-04 A concurrent application to amend the Zoning By-law was also submitted in order to reduce the on-site parking requirement, reduce the exterior side yard setback, increase the maximum height of development and provide definitions for the three models of care proposed as part of the Residential Care Facility, a use which is currently permitted under the existing provisions the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law. The zoning by-law amendment was approved on May 24, 2016 by Town Council. However, this decision has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by a neighbouring property owner.
Page 4
Consideration of Written and Oral Submissions In accordance with Bill 73 - Smart Growth For Our Communities Act which is now in force and which made amendments to the Planning Act, all decisions by approval authorities made under the Act after July 1, 2016 are required to identify the effect, if any, that the written and oral submissions had on the decision. The concerns noted above relate to scale, density, parking and height are each local in nature. They were considered and/or addressed through the decision that was made by Town Council to adopt the Amendment. However, as it relates to emergency access, which is considered a District interest, this development proposal is typical for single structure, multiple residential development across Muskoka and Ontario. Overall, the recommendation of this report takes into account public comments in the context of the Provincial, District and Area Municipal planning policies. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS No impacts on the 2016 Tax Supported Operating Budget and Capital Budget and Forecast are anticipated as a result of this report. COMMUNICATIONS Notices of the public meeting and adoption were circulated by the Town in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act. A Notice of Decision will be provided by the District in accordance with the Planning Act. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES The approval of Amendment No. 12 (Ojha) to the Town of Gravenhurst Official Plan supports the following goal (in part) as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities: 1. Manage development and growth in a sustainable manner balancing environmental,
economic, social and cultural elements… Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Melissa Halford, B.A.(Hons), MCIP, RPP Samantha Hastings, MCIP, RPP Manager of Planning Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development S:\DEVELOPMENT\Dev Applications\GRA\OPA\OPA No.12-Ojha\Internal Reports\2016 06 28 PED Committee Report OPA No. 12 - Ojha.Doc
Page 5
Appendix “I”
Page 6
Appendix “I”
Page 7
Appendix “I”
Page 8
Appendix “I”
Page 9
Appendix “II”
Page 10
Appendix “III”
(Excerpt from By-law No. 2016-5)
Page 1
TO: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee
FROM: Christy Doyle Director of Environmental and Watershed Programs
and
Summer Valentine Director of Planning
DATE: July 21, 2016
SUBJECT: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 45 to the Muskoka Official Plan (Lake System Health Policy Update)
THAT draft Official Plan Amendment No. 45 (Lake System Health Policy Update) BE CIRCULATED to the Area Municipalities, agencies, and other stakeholders for input;
AND THAT open houses and a statutory public meeting BE SCHEDULED.
ORIGIN
In May of 2016, Muskoka District Council accepted the Revised Water Quality Model and Lake System Health Program Final Report by Hutchinson Environmental Sciences Limited (HESL) dated April, 2016 and resolved to initiate an Official Plan Amendment process to address the recommendations found within the report.
ANALYSIS
Proposed Muskoka Official Plan Amendment No. 45
The proposed Official Plan Amendment serves to provide updated, simplified, and scientifically defensible planning policies to guide development around lakes and rivers throughout the watersheds in Muskoka. The policies aim to continue to protect recreational water quality and respond to the key findings of the HESL report. HESL indicates that planning policy based on the Recreational Water Quality Model and with a narrow focus only on phosphorus should be updated to afford a standard level of protection for all lakes against a variety of environmental stressors and provide for the implementation of best management practices.
Page 2
However, while the consideration of multiple environmental stressors has been identified as being important to maintaining recreational water quality, HESL’s report also advises that phosphorus remain a key indicator of water quality and the District’s monitoring program should be used to track phosphorus concentrations and other measurable trends on a lake or river-specific basis. Therefore, HESL suggests that policies be refocused around three phosphorus-related indicators which offer insight into observable changes in recreational water quality:
a. Phosphorus concentrations exceeding 20 micrograms/litre; b. A statistically increasing trend in phosphorus concentration; and/or c. Confirmed occurrence of a blue-green (cyanobacterial) algal bloom.
Confirmation of one or more of these phosphorus indicators has occurred on 7 lakes across the District and the draft policies suggest that this would lead to a lake-wide and comprehensive investigation to determine the cause of the indicator. Causes may include, but not be limited to, responses to human shoreline development and associated phosphorus loads, natural factors, and/or other factors including those related to a changing climate. Depending on the cause of the indicator, supplemental policies may be needed to ensure water quality is protected in addition to the aforementioned standard level of protection. Additional background information is available in Staff Report No. PED-5-2016-2. The proposed Official Plan Amendment is intended to implement the key findings and approach recommended in the HESL report and to form a basis for stakeholder and public consultation. The proposed amendment is attached as Appendix “I”. Track changes version of the Amendment is also provided for illustrative purposes in Appendix “II”. In parallel with the development of the draft Official Plan Amendment, the District’s Lake System Health Program is also being assessed by staff to determine how it may potentially be modified to best support the recommendations of the final HESL report. Since the HESL report was accepted by PED Committee in April 2016, the District’s water quality monitoring program has been adjusted to seek supplemental data on the seven lakes with noted phosphorus related indicators. Additional work will likely be focused on further refinements to the water quality modeling and monitoring program, communication with lake associations, developing a program for delivering causation studies, and ensuring stewardship programs align with and promote the most recent science. COMMUNICATIONS Consultation to Date During the preparation of the HESL report, staff had several preliminary discussions with the Province (i.e. the Ministry of Environmental and Climate Change and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing), the District and PEDC Chairs, CAO and Solicitor as well as Area Municipal planning staff to explore the emerging findings. In April, when the final HESL report was released, PED Committee directed staff to share the background information and results with the Area Municipalities. At that time, staff also sent explanatory letters to all residents of the seven lakes where a phosphorus indicator has been flagged (i.e., Ada, Bass, Barron’s, Bruce, Brandy, Stewart and Three Mile), with corresponding emails sent to all Area Municipal Mayors, District Councillors, and relevant Ward Councillors.
In addition to making presentations to each Area Municipal Council, staff have briefed the Area Municipal CAOs, the Township of Georgian Bay Water Quality Executive Committee, and Muskoka Watershed Council on the findings of the HESL report and the proposed policy direction. District and/or HESL staff also attended lake association meetings for Brandy and Stewart Lakes. Similar requests have also been made by the Muskoka Lakes Association and the Three Mile Lake Association. Meetings are scheduled for later in July. Staff presentations, correspondence and discussions have generally been well received with a high level of engagement and a number of questions from recipients and participants. While the specific discussions have varied depending on the group, four key areas of interest have emerged:
1) Impacts of the proposed policy changes on lakes that are currently listed as High Sensitivity or Over Threshold but where a phosphorus indicator has not been flagged;
2) Concerns that the proposed policy direction relies heavily on site plan control, which the Area Municipalities are challenged to enforce;
3) Questions regarding how the proposed policy direction will impact lake/river property owners and municipalities from a financial perspective; and
4) Impacts to property owners on lakes where a phosphorus indicator has been flagged (i.e. property values, new requirements to substantiate development, and grouping lakes with different water quality concerns and/or causes).
Aside from the four key areas of interest, other common questions included:
• How this project addresses or correlates with concerns about water levels and flooding?
• Why the existing policies are open to challenge at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) during the interim period?
• How much development contributes to phosphorus concentrations over natural processes, boat traffic, and other contributors?
• How Muskoka’s water quality compares to that of other watersheds or jurisdictions?
• How properties not subject to planning approvals can be improved to reduce impacts on water quality?
• How the District’s water quality monitoring program compares with those conducted by other organizations (e.g. Lake Associations, Area Municipalities, etc.)?
• If the proposed policy changes relate to advances in science as opposed to being driven by other factors (e.g. OMB decisions, changes in lake health/chemistry, etc.)?
The draft Official Plan Amendment No. 45 addresses some of the early feedback received. In order to continue consultations more formally, it is recommended that draft Official Plan Amendment No. 45 be circulated to the Area Municipalities, agencies, and stakeholders to receive additional feedback and that 3 open houses and subsequently a statutory public meeting be scheduled. Proposed Next Steps The Province, Area Municipalities, agencies, and other stakeholders will be circulated the draft Official Plan Amendment and open houses and a public meeting will be held as required by the
Page 4
Planning Act. Where appropriate, additional open houses and/or attendance at lake association meetings will be considered, when staff resources permit, in order to provide information and receive input on the proposed policies. Press releases and notices will be prepared and provided to the local media periodically throughout the process. Staff reports, presentations, and general information will also be available through the District of Muskoka Website. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Funds for the proposed Official Plan Amendment are included in the 2016 Tax Supported Capital Budget and Forecast (Project 810019 – Official Plan Updates) and are expected to be sufficient to undertake the amendment process. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Reporting on Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 45 to the Muskoka Official Plan supports the following goals/strategies as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities: 1.0 Manage development and growth in a sustainable manner balancing environmental,
economic, social and cultural elements. Recognize that in Muskoka a healthy and vibrant economy depends on wise stewardship of the environment. Build on the cultural heritage of Muskoka and demonstrate municipal leadership in environmentally sustainable policies, programs and practices.
1.2 Maintain Muskoka’s reputation for high quality surface water and recreational opportunities and continue to support the Muskoka Water Strategy and the Lake System Health Program; and
9. Work with all order of government, particularly the Area Municipalities, and the people of Muskoka to achieve these goals. Actively advocate for Muskoka with senior levels of government for programs and policies that will assist Muskoka to reach these goals.
Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Christy Doyle, BA, MES (Pl), MCIP, RPP Samantha Hastings, MCIP, RPP Director of Environmental Commissioner of Planning and Watershed Programs and Economic Development Original signed by Summer Valentine BSc, MPL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning S:\POLICY\Muskoka Official Plan\OPA\OPA #45 Lake System Health Policy Update\Internal Reports\PEDC July 2016\2016 07 21 Report To Committee Report To Circulate Draft OPA 45 Final.Docx
Appendix “I” July 21, 2016
AMENDMENT NO. 45 TO THE MUSKOKA OFFICIAL PLAN (Lake System Health Policy Update)
SECTION 1. TITLE AND COMPONENTS OF THE AMENDMENT Section 5 herein shall constitute Amendment No. 45 to the Official Plan of the Muskoka District Area. Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 herein do not constitute part of the Amendment but provide more detailed information respecting the Amendment. SECTION 2. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT 2.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Amendment is to provide updated, simplified, and scientifically defensible planning policies to guide development around lakes and rivers throughout the watersheds in Muskoka by to addressing the recommendations found within the Revised Water Quality Model and Lake System Health Program Final Report by Hutchinson Environmental Sciences Limited (HESL) dated April, 2016.
2.2 BACKGROUND
In 2005, Muskoka District Council adopted The Lake System Health Program, which is intended to guide and minimize the impact of human development on water resources, to preserve the environmental health and quality of life in Muskoka and also to protect the future of Muskoka as a premier recreational region. The Lake System Health Program incorporates the best available science and responds to emerging water quality issues, based on periodic review, which in turn guides District policies to achieve a holistic and balanced approach to managing Muskoka’s watershed health and its shoreline development. This Official Plan Amendment incorporates the recommendations from the most recent review as outlined in the HESL report. The HESL report indicates that planning policy based on the Recreational Water Quality Model and with only a narrow focus on phosphorus should be updated to afford a standard level of protection against a variety of environmental stressors and provide for the implementation of best management practices.
While the consideration of multiple environmental stressors has been identified as being important to maintaining recreational water quality, HESL’s report also advises that phosphorus remains a key indicator of water quality and the District’s monitoring program should be used to track phosphorus concentrations on a lake or river-specific basis. HESL identifies three phosphorus-related indicators which offer insight into measurable and observable changes in recreational water quality. Confirmation of one or more of these phosphorus indicators suggests that a lake-wide and comprehensive investigation is warranted to determine cause. Depending on the cause of the indicator, additional policies may be needed to ensure water quality is protected. The HESL report provides additional background information, but does not form part of this Amendment.
Page 5
Appendix “I” July 21, 2016 SECTION 3. LAND SUBJECT TO THE AMENDMENT The policies in this Amendment are general in nature and apply to the entire District Municipality of Muskoka. SECTION 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND INTERPRETATION The changes to the Muskoka Official Plan as described in this Amendment shall be implemented in accordance with the Implementation policies of Section K of the Plan. The provisions of the section entitled Application and Interpretation in Section A of the Muskoka Official Plan shall apply with respect to the interpretation of this Amendment. SECTION 5. THE AMENDMENT 5.1 Amend Section A by deleting reference to “SCHEDULE F - LAKE CLASSIFICATION BY
PHOSPHORUS SENSITIVITY” under “TITLE AND COMPONENTS”.
5.2 Amend Section F by deleting Lake System Health and Recreational Water Quality preambles as well as policies F.12 to F.43 and replacing them with the following:
“ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Lake System Health Water is an essential part of Muskoka’s natural environment and a critical resource, especially for people who live, work and play within The District of Muskoka’s watershed. In the face of the changing climate, and the pressures of growth and development, continued strong action is needed to protect, maintain and, where possible, enhance the health of Muskoka’s watershed for the present and future generations.
In Muskoka, water quality is managed across many levels of government and with the assistance of many interested community organizations and individuals. Several departments within The District of Muskoka, together with its partner agencies including multiple Ministries within the Province of Ontario, the Area Municipalities, Muskoka Watershed Council and various other community organizations including Lake Associations, and individuals, all have a role to play in ensuring that Muskoka’s waters remain clean and healthy.
In January 2003, Muskoka District Council approved the Muskoka Water Strategy. The Water Strategy is a framework of integrated strategic initiatives to protect and enhance Muskoka’s water. In 2005, Council adopted The Lake System Health Program, which is intended to guide and minimize the impact of human development on water resources, to preserve the environmental health and quality of life in Muskoka and also to protect the future of Muskoka as a premier recreational region. The Lake System Health Program incorporates the best available science and responds to emerging water quality issues, based on periodic review, which in turn guides District policies to achieve a holistic and balanced approach to managing Muskoka’s watershed health and its shoreline development. The policies of this Plan were updated in July 2016 to reflect the results of the most recent review. Key Program Activities
The following sections describe key components of the Lake System Health program.
Page 6
Appendix “I” July 21, 2016
F.12 Recreational water quality monitoring and modeling are important components of
tracking the health of watersheds in Muskoka. On a lake or river-specific basis, the results of recreational water quality monitoring are a particularly important indicator of a waterbody’s recreational water quality health.
F.13 The District of Muskoka will continue, through its development review and approvals function, to ensure that water quality is protected and enhanced and will require Municipalities to adopt provisions in Area Municipal official plans and zoning by-laws in order to achieve this objective.
F.14 The District of Muskoka will promote, and where possible and appropriate,
require stormwater management approaches and practices that will protect the health of lakes and rivers within Muskoka.
F.15 Stewardship programs engage the local community and empower individuals to
care for or remediate specific portions of the watershed. Local stewardship is especially important on waterbodies where a phosphorus management indicator has been confirmed. The District, will, in collaboration with the Area Municipalities, the Muskoka Watershed Council, lake associations and other stakeholders, lead and/or support and participate in stewardship initiatives as appropriate.
F.16 The District of Muskoka will, in collaboration with the Area Municipalities, the lake
associations and other stakeholders, facilitate and participate in remedial action programs and/or plans for any waterbody but with lakes where a phosphorus management indicator has been confirmed taking priority. The purpose of remedial action programs is to identify areas of degradation or sources of contamination in and around these lakes and to develop a plan with actions to remediate and improve the situation.
F.17 The District of Muskoka will, in collaboration with the Area Municipalities and other
stakeholders, undertake limits to growth assessments for waterbodies in Muskoka, with those lakes where a phosphorus management indicator has been confirmed taking priority. Limits to growth assessments are intended to identify the development limits of a waterbody by using existing base data, known constraints, and applying the various applicable official plan policies to determine potential development capacity. These limits to growth assessments will provide background information for District and local municipal planning decisions and initiatives.
Recreational Water Quality
The District has a history of generally managing the health of the waterbodies in Muskoka for nutrient input, particularly phosphorus. Phosphorus occurs naturally in the environment and is a nutrient that plants and animals need to grow. Phosphorus enters Muskoka’s waterbodies naturally each year from animal waste, soil erosion and decomposing plant material. Phosphorus also enters waterbodies through changes in land uses near watebodies such as shoreline clearing, development, and also from stormwater run-off and septic system effluent. With increasing human activities, and when shoreline plants are removed or diminished and can no longer manage to properly filter out sediments in surface runoff, phosphorus levels rise. Because phosphorus is a nutrient, high phosphorus levels in waterbodies encourage excessive growth of aquatic plants and algae.
Page 7
Appendix “I” July 21, 2016 Over the past several years, strengthened planning policies across Muskoka have contributed to stabilized phosphorus levels. Since 2000, there have been no statistically significant increases in phosphorus concentrations in any waterbody in Muskoka. Apart from shoreline development, Muskoka’s water is impacted by a variety of environmental stressors. The potential effects of multiple environmental stressors must now be considered including but not limited to a changing climate with resultant changes in precipitation, temperature, runoff and evaporation that affect physical, chemical and biological conditions of waterbodies, invading species populating an increasing number of waterbodies, and declining concentrations of calcium. Appropriate shoreline development will contribute to the resiliency of each waterbody against a variety of environmental stressors. While the consideration of multiple environmental stressors is important, Hutchinson Environmental Sciences Limited’s Report, Revised Water Quality Model and Lake System Health Program (April 2016), advises that the continued use of the District’s monitoring program should be used to track phosphorus in The District of Muskoka’s waterbodies and that three key phosphorus indicators offer insight into measurable and observable changes in recreational water quality on a waterbody-specific basis:
a. Phosphorus concentrations exceeding 20 micrograms/litre; b. A statistically increasing trend in phosphorus concentration; and/or c. Confirmed occurrence of a blue-green (cyanobacterial) algal bloom.
Confirmation of one or more of these phosphorus indicators warrants investigation to determine cause. Causes may include, but not be limited to, responses to human shoreline development and associated phosphorus loads, natural factors, and/or other factors including those related to a changing climate. General Development Policies
F.18 The District of Muskoka recognizes that monitoring phosphorus is an important tool
for indicating recreational water quality while also recognizing that both the manner in which a shoreline is developed and the amount of shoreline development can have significant impacts on water quality.
F.19 The District of Muskoka will continue to lead in the protection of recreational water quality through maintaining its water quality monitoring program for the protection of Muskoka’s watershed and will review it on a regular basis. This program has been designed to address recreational water quality only and does not include factors to address fisheries values.
F.20 Through the review of the Muskoka recreational water quality program, it has been
determined that the overall health of lakes and rivers in Muskoka is very good to excellent and that the cautious approach to development taken in Muskoka has been beneficial. This cautious approach will be continued. In this regard, new lot creation, development or redevelopment will only be permitted where it is determined that phosphorus impacts on water quality can be managed, mitigated or effectively eliminated and where resiliency to other environmental stressors is improved.
F.21 For the purposes of this policy set, a vacant lot will mean an undeveloped lot which
meets the minimum area and frontage requirements for a building lot as defined by the Area Municipality and redevelopment will mean any substantial change to
Page 8
Appendix “I” July 21, 2016 existing development on a lot, including reconstruction, additions, and new structures.
F.22 The role of natural vegetated shorelines in buffering waterbodies from erosion,
siltation and nutrient migration adjacent to the sensitive littoral zone is critical to the protection of water quality. Preservation and restoration, where appropriate, of shoreline buffers is therefore required. At a minimum, a target of 75% of the linear shoreline frontage of a lot will be maintained in a natural state to a target depth of 15 metres from the shoreline where new lots are being created and where vacant lots are being developed. Where lots are already developed and further development or redevelopment is proposed, or where the lot is located within an Urban Centre or Community designation, these targets should be achieved to the extent feasible. Where these targets cannot be met, a net improvement over the existing situation is required.
F.23 A minimum 30 metre setback from any shoreline will be required for leaching beds.
Where this is not feasible, on-site phosphorus management and mitigation measures in accordance with the standard protection policies of this Plan will be required.
F.24 A minimum 20 metre setback from any shoreline will be required for all development,
excluding shoreline structures and open decks. Where this setback cannot be achieved, a lesser setback may be considered in the following circumstances, provided on-site phosphorus management and mitigation measures are implemented in accordance with the standard protection policies of this Plan:
a) Sufficient lot depth is not available;
b) Terrain or soil conditions exist which make other locations on the lot more
suitable;
c) Redevelopment on an existing lot or replacement of a leaching bed is proposed where the setback is not further reduced;
d) Redevelopment on an existing lot or replacement of a leaching bed is proposed where a setback is further reduced and a net improvement over the existing situation is achieved; or
e) The lot is located within an Urban Centre or Community and a net
improvement over the existing situation is achieved. Standard Protection Policies
Substantial Development on All Waterbodies
F.25 In order to ensure no negative impact on recreational water quality, all substantial development, including lot creation, development of a vacant lot, and redevelopment of a lot within the Waterfront designation (including backlots), and on shoreline lots in the Urban Centre and Community designations will be subject to site plan control or development permitting.
Site Plan Control and Development Permits
F.26 Where site plan control or a development permit is required for on-site
Page 9
Appendix “I” July 21, 2016 phosphorus management and mitigation and to build resilience to other environmental stressors the following matters will be addressed:
a) appropriate location of buildings, structures and sewage disposal systems;
b) retention or restoration of a natural vegetative buffer in accordance with Section
F.22 to prevent erosion, siltation and nutrient migration;
c) maintenance or establishment of native tree cover and vegetation on the lot wherever possible;
d) appropriate location and construction of roads, driveways and pathways, including use of permeable materials; and
e) implementation of stormwater management and construction mitigation techniques, including proper re-contouring, discharging of roof leaders, use of soak away pits and other measures to promote infiltration.
Other Tools
F.27 The Area Municipalities are encouraged to use any other available tools to manage and mitigate phosphorus migration to waterbodies and to build resilience to other environmental stressors including, but not limited to, site alteration and tree cutting by-laws, septic re-inspection programs, and education and stewardship activities.
Public Lands
F.28 The release of Crown land, other than lands under water, for private development is discouraged, particularly in the Waterfront designation. Should the Province dispose of Crown land for private development, such land will not be further divided unless it is to alleviate problems associated with existing development and no more than one single family dwelling will be permitted on those lands as of right.
F.29 The maintenance, enhancement or restoration of native vegetative buffers
along shorelines in municipal parks and other municipal lands is strongly encouraged.
Causation Study Policies Appendix J : Waterbodies
F.30 A waterbody will be added to Appendix J once one or more of the following is
confirmed: a) A long-term total phosphorus concentration of greater than 20 ug/L
demonstrated by the five (5) most recent spring overturn phosphorus sample measurements taken within the last ten (10) years;
b) A long-term statistically significant increasing trend in total phosphorus concentration demonstrated by at least five (5) sample measurements starting in 2001 or thereabouts; and/or
Page 10
Appendix “I” July 21, 2016 c) A blue-green algal bloom documented by the province or health unit and made
up of cyanobacteria species.
F.31 Once a waterbody has been confirmed to be subject to one or more phosphorus management indicators, the District’s Recreational Water Quality monitoring will be conducted on that waterbody on an annual basis until such time as the waterbody is no longer listed in Appendix J.
F.32 In general, Causation Studies will be undertaken by the District of Muskoka to determine the cause of the phosphorus management indicator for waterbodies listed in Appendix J. Such studies may include review of existing water quality monitoring data, additional water quality sampling and data collection, waterbody-specific application of the District of Muskoka Water Quality Model, hydrology and inflows assessments, septic system inspection, and surveys of land use patterns, shoreline disturbance and existing development constraints. Causation Studies for the waterbodies listed in Appendix J will be completed in order of priority based on development potential estimated through limits to growth assessments.
F.33 Until such time as a Causation Study can be completed and any recommendations are adopted by Muskoka District Council and implemented through policy, the waterbodies listed in Appendix J will be subject to enhanced protection policies of this Plan.
F.34 Should a Causation Study determine that the cause of the phosphorus management indicator is related to development, an enhanced protection policy set will apply or waterbody-specific policies will be developed to ensure that any additional lot creation, development of vacant lots, or redevelopment of a lot can proceed without negatively impacting water quality. Such policies may include the requirement for water quality impact assessments, ongoing monitoring, generalized development restrictions, and/or remedial action planning.
F.35 Should a Causation Study determine that the cause of the phosphorus
management indicator is not related to development, the waterbody will be deleted from Appendix J and will be subject to the standard protection policies of this Plan.
F.36 A waterbody may be added or deleted from Appendix J in accordance with the
policies of this section without amendment to this Plan but with notification to Muskoka District Council to ensure transparency.
Enhanced Protection Policies Lot Creation
F.37 Lot creation on private services may only proceed where a site specific
assessment which demonstrates that the development can proceed without negatively impacting water quality and outlines the circumstances under which development should occur.
Page 11
Appendix “I” July 21, 2016 The assessment shall consist of the following main elements at a minimum:
i. Identification of recommended building and septic
system (including the leaching bed) envelope and mitigation measures based on site specific soil and topographic conditions, including but not limited to, detailed construction mitigation plans, enhanced shoreline setbacks and buffers, measures for protecting natural vegetation, and stormwater management;
ii. Monitoring to confirm that the vegetative buffer and
stormwater mitigation measures are in place until such time as construction is complete and an occupancy permit is issued and on an annual basis until such time as the waterbody is no longer listed in Appendix J;
iii. The use of a septic system with soils that have a
demonstrated ability to effectively eliminate phosphorus or equivalent septic abatement technologies will be required; and
iv. The report must be completed to the satisfaction of the
Area Municipality and the recommendations of such a report including the monitoring and septic system requirements shall be implemented through a zoning amendment, site plan control or development permits, and/or other agreements registered on title.
F.38 Despite Section F.37, lot creation for long-term conservation purposes may be
considered without the requirement for a site specific assessment.
Development of Vacant Lots
F.39 Development of a vacant lot on private services will only be permitted where it is demonstrated through a site specific assessment that identifies building and septic system envelopes, together with appropriate management, mitigation and resiliency measures, including but not limited to, detailed construction mitigation plans, shoreline setbacks and buffers to protect water quality and where these requirements are implemented through site plan control or development permits.
Redevelopment on Existing Lots
F.40 Redevelopment on existing lots on private services will only be permitted where on-site phosphorus management and mitigation and resiliency measures are implemented in order to prevent negative impacts on water quality in accordance with the standard protection policies of this Plan.
F.41 Where the setback requirements cannot be met due to insufficient lot depth or the existence of terrain or soil conditions which make other locations on the lot more suitable, or where existing buffers or stormwater management practices do not satisfy the requirements outlined in this Plan, an overall net improvement shall be achieved through on- site phosphorus management and mitigation and resiliency measures in accordance with the standard protection policies of this
Page 12
Appendix “I” July 21, 2016 Plan.”
5.3 Amend Section F by deleting “Schedule ‘F’ - Lake Classification by Phosphorus Sensitivity”.
5.4 Amend Section F by updating policy numbers accordingly. 5.5 Amend the Plan by deleting “Appendix ‘J’ - Lake System Health Terms of Reference Water
Quality Impact Assessments” and replacing it with the Appendix ‘J’ attached to this Amendment as Schedule ‘A’.
5.6 Amend the Plan by deleting “Appendix ‘K’ - “Over Threshold” Lakes for Recreational
Water Quality”.
Page 13
Appendix “I” July 21, 2016
Schedule ‘A’ to AMENDMENT NO. 45 TO THE MUSKOKA OFFICIAL PLAN (Lake System Health Policy Update)
APPENDIX ‘J’
WATERBODIES WHERE A PHOSPHORUS INDICATOR HAS BEEN CONFIRMED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICIES OF SECTION F Waterbodies where long-term phosphorus concentrations exceed 20 micrograms/litre:
- Ada Lake (ML) - Barron’s Lake (GB) - Bass Lake (GR) - Brandy Lake (ML)
Waterbodies with a long-term, statistically significant increasing trend in phosphorus concentration:
- None
Waterbodies with a confirmed occurrence of a blue-green (cyanobacterial) algal bloom:
- Bruce Lake (ML) - Stewart Lake (GB/ML)
Waterbodies subject to more than one confirmed indicator:
- Three Mile Lake (ML) S:\POLICY\Muskoka Official Plan\OPA\OPA #45 Lake System Health Policy Update\Amendment\2016 06 30 Draft OPA 45 For Circulation.Docx
Page 14
Red = New Text Appendix “II” Strikethrough = Deleted Text
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS LIMITATIONS
Lake System Health Water significantly contributes to Muskoka’s geography, biology and cultural heritage. The water that connects Muskoka’s shared waters play a key role in its economy and lifestyle and represents part of its important natural assets. Therefore, the District of Muskoka has an interest in the protection of all of the water resources within its jurisdiction and it is important that the District continues to be a leader in the protection of this key asset.
In January, 2003, Muskoka District Council approved the Muskoka Water Strategy. The Strategy is a comprehensive framework of integrated strategic initiatives to protect Muskoka’s water resources. A significant component of that Strategy is Lake System Health. This program has evolved from the review of the Muskoka recreational water quality model. It incorporates the best available science and a variety of implementation techniques designed to minimize the impact of human activities on water resources, protect and enhance the environmental health and quality of life in Muskoka and protect the future of Muskoka as a premier recreational region and represents good planning. The program is to be implemented in concert with the Area Municipalities and other stakeholders. Water is an essential part of Muskoka’s natural environment and a critical resource, especially for people who live, work and play within The District of Muskoka’s watershed. In the face of the changing climate, and the pressures of growth and development, continued strong action is needed to protect, maintain and, where possible, enhance the health of Muskoka’s watershed for the present and future generations.
In Muskoka, water quality is managed across many levels of government and with the assistance of many interested community organizations and individuals. Several departments within The District of Muskoka, together with its partner agencies including multiple Ministries within the Province of Ontario, the Area Municipalities, Muskoka Watershed Council and various other community organizations including Lake Associations, and individuals, all have a role to play in ensuring that Muskoka’s waters remain clean and healthy.
In January 2003, Muskoka District Council approved the Muskoka Water Strategy. The Water Strategy is a framework of integrated strategic initiatives to protect and enhance Muskoka’s water. In 2005, Council adopted The Lake System Health Program, which is intended to guide and minimize the impact of human development on water resources, to preserve the environmental health and quality of life in Muskoka and also to protect the future of Muskoka as a premier recreational region. The Lake System Health Program incorporates the best available science and responds to emerging water quality issues, based on periodic review, which in turn guides District policies to achieve a holistic and balanced approach to managing Muskoka’s watershed health and its shoreline development. The policies of this Plan were updated in July 2016 to reflect the results of the most recent review. Key Program Activities Components
The following sections describe key components of the Lake System Health program.
F.12 Recreational water quality monitoring and modeling are is an important components
of tracking the health of watersheds in Muskoka Lake System Health. On a lake or river-specific basis, the results of recreational water quality monitoring are a particularly important will continue to be monitored and modeled by The District of Muskoka as one measure indicator of a waterbody’s capacity to sustain development recreational water quality health.
F.13 The District of Muskoka will continue, through its development review and approvals function, to ensure that water quality is protected and enhanced and will require Municipalities to adopt provisions in Area Municipal official plans and zoning by-laws in order to achieve this objective.
F.14 The District of Muskoka will promote, and where possible and appropriate, require
Page 15
Red = New Text Appendix “II” Strikethrough = Deleted Text
stormwater management approaches and practices that will protect the health of lakes and rivers within Muskoka.
F.15 Stewardship programs engage the local community and empower individuals to care
for or remediate specific portions of the watershed. Local stewardship is especially important on waterbodies that have been identified as being Over Threshold or of high sensitivity, as defined elsewhere in this Plan where a phosphorus management indicator has been confirmed. The District, will, in collaboration with the Area Municipalities, the Muskoka Watershed Council, lake communities associations and other stakeholders, lead and/or support and participate in stewardship initiatives as appropriate.
F.16 The District of Muskoka will, in collaboration with any affected the Area Municipalities,
the lake associations community and other stakeholders, facilitate and participate in remedial action programs and/or plans for any waterbody but with lakes where a phosphorus management indicator has been confirmed taking priority considered to have surpassed an acceptable threshold for phosphorus . The purpose of remedial action programs is to identify areas of degradation or sources of contamination in and around these lakes and to develop a plan with actions to remediate and improve the situation.
F.17 The District of Muskoka will, in collaboration with the Area Municipalities and other
stakeholders, undertake limits to growth assessments for waterbodies in Muskoka, with those lakes where a phosphorus management indicator has been confirmed considered to have surpassed an acceptable threshold for phosphorus taking priority. Limits to growth assessments are intended to identify the development limits of a waterbody by using existing base data, known constraints, and applying the various applicable official plan policies to determine potential development capacity. These limits to growth assessments will provide background information for District and local municipal planning decisions and initiatives and lake plans.
Recreational Water Quality
The single most significant impact on water quality on most recreational lakes and rivers in Ontario is the increased levels of phosphorus, that are entering surface waterbodies. Sources of phosphorus are both natural and man made. Natural sources of phosphorus include such things as precipitation and natural drainage form the watershed. Man made sources of phosphorus include increases in overland flow as a result of disruption in the natural vegetation (leading to erosion) in and beyond the riparian zone, use of fertilizers, increased stormwater run-off from impervious surfaces and effluent from septic systems and sewage treatment plants.
Based on the recreational water quality model as detailed in the report prepared by Gartner Lee Limited in 2005 entitled Recreational Water Quality Management in Muskoka, the lakes and rivers in Muskoka have been classified as having high, moderate or low sensitivity to phosphorus. This classification is based on the responsive- ness of a waterbody to phosphorus and its mobility within the watershed and will not change.
Lakes of low sensitivity respond only minimally to the input of phosphorus and it is unlikely that development related phosphorus will increase concentrations by more than 50% of the undeveloped phosphorus load. Lakes of moderate sensitivity have some ability to receive phosphorus without a significant decrease in water quality. Where a lake is classified as being of high sensitivity, there is the potential for development to input more phosphorus into a lake than it can sustain, causing the measured phosphorus levels to increase beyond the acceptable threshold.
Where the phosphorus loading to a waterbody exceeds 50% of the undeveloped phosphorus load, the lake or river is considered as being “Over Threshold” for phosphorus loading. "Over Threshold" lakes require a higher level of development control as a precautionary action to protect the long-term
Page 16
Red = New Text Appendix “II” Strikethrough = Deleted Text
health of the lake. The District has a history of generally managing the health of the waterbodies in Muskoka for nutrient input, particularly phosphorus. Phosphorus occurs naturally in the environment and is a nutrient that plants and animals need to grow. Phosphorus enters Muskoka’s waterbodies naturally each year from animal waste, soil erosion and decomposing plant material. Phosphorus also enters waterbodies through changes in land uses near watebodies such as shoreline clearing, development, and also from stormwater run-off and septic system effluent. With increasing human activities, and when shoreline plants are removed or diminished and can no longer manage to properly filter out sediments in surface runoff, phosphorus levels rise. Because phosphorus is a nutrient, high phosphorus levels in waterbodies encourage excessive growth of aquatic plants and algae. Over the past several years, strengthened planning policies across Muskoka have contributed to stabilized phosphorus levels. Since 2000, there have been no statistically significant increases in phosphorus concentrations in any waterbody in Muskoka. Apart from shoreline development, Muskoka’s water is impacted by a variety of environmental stressors. The potential effects of multiple environmental stressors must now be considered including but not limited to a changing climate with resultant changes in precipitation, temperature, runoff and evaporation that affect physical, chemical and biological conditions of waterbodies, invading species populating an increasing number of waterbodies, and declining concentrations of calcium, among others. Appropriate shoreline development will contribute to the resiliency of each waterbody against a variety of environmental stressors. While the consideration of multiple environmental stressors is important, Hutchinson Environmental Sciences Limited’s Report, Revised Water Quality Model and Lake System Health Program (April 2016), advises that the continued use of the District’s monitoring program should be used to track phosphorus in The District of Muskoka’s waterbodies and that three key phosphorus indicators offer insight into measurable and observable changes in recreational water quality on a waterbody-specific basis:
a. Phosphorus concentrations exceeding 20 micrograms/litre; b. A statistically increasing trend in phosphorus concentration; and/or c. Confirmed occurrence of a blue-green (cyanobacterial) algal bloom.
Confirmation of one or more of these phosphorus indicators warrants investigation to determine cause. Causes may include, but not be limited to, responses to human shoreline development and associated phosphorus loads, natural factors, and/or other factors including those related to a changing climate. General Development Policies
F.18 The District of Muskoka recognizes that monitoring phosphorus is an important tool for
indicating recreational water quality while also recognizing that both the manner in which a shoreline is developed and the amount of shoreline development can have significant impacts on water quality.
F.19 Lake and river classifications are identified in Schedule F. Any lake or river not listed is assumed to be of moderate sensitivity unless other- wise identified by Muskoka.
F.19 The District of Muskoka will maintain a recreational water quality model and ongoing
monitoring program continue to lead in the protection of recreational water quality through maintaining its water quality monitoring program for the protection of Muskoka’s watershed and will review it on an ongoing a regular basis. This model program has been designed to address recreational water quality only and does not include factors to address fisheries values.
Page 17
Red = New Text Appendix “II” Strikethrough = Deleted Text
F.20 Through the review of the Muskoka recreational water quality program, it has been determined that the overall health of lakes and rivers in Muskoka is very good to excellent and that the cautious approach to development taken in Muskoka has been beneficial. This cautious approach will be continued. In this regard, new lot creation, development or redevelopment will only be permitted where it is determined that phosphorus impacts on water quality can be managed, mitigated or effectively eliminated and where resiliency to other environmental stressors is improved.
F.21 For the purposes of this policy set, a vacant lot will mean an undeveloped lot which
meets the minimum area and frontage requirements for a building lot as defined by the Area Municipality and redevelopment will mean any substantial change to existing development on a lot, including reconstruction, additions, and new structures.
F.22 The role of natural vegetated shorelines in buffering waterbodies from erosion, siltation
and nutrient migration adjacent to the sensitive littoral zone is critical to the protection of water quality. Preservation and restoration, where appropriate, of shoreline buffers is therefore required. At a minimum, a target of 75% of the linear shoreline frontage of a lot will be maintained in a natural state to a target depth of 15 metres from the shoreline where new lots are being created and where vacant lots are being developed. Where lots are already developed and further development or redevelopment is proposed, or where the lot is located within an uUrban cCentre or community designation, these targets should be achieved to the extent feasible. Where these targets cannot be met, a net improvement over the existing situation is required.
F.23 A minimum 30 metre setback from any shoreline will be required for leaching beds.
Where this is not feasible, on-site phosphorus management and mitigation measures in accordance with the standard protection policies of this Plan, as outlined in section F.26, will be required.
F.24 A minimum 20 metre setback from any shoreline will be required for all development,
excluding shoreline structures and open decks. Where this setback cannot be achieved, a lesser setback may be considered in the following circumstances, provided where on-site phosphorus management and mitigation measures are is implemented in accordance with the standard protection policies of this Plan and in the following circumstances:
a) Sufficient lot depth is not available;
b) Terrain or soil conditions exist which make other locations on the lot more
suitable;
c) The proposal is for an addition to an existing building Redevelopment on an existing lot or replacement of a leaching bed is proposed where the setback is not further reduced;
d) Redevelopment is proposed on an existing lot or replacement of a leaching bed is proposed where a setback is further reduced and a net improvement over the existing situation is achieved; or
e) The lot is located within an uUrban cCentre or cCommunity and a net
improvement over the existing situation is achieved.
Low Sensitivity Waterbodies
Page 18
Red = New Text Appendix “II” Strikethrough = Deleted Text
F.24 Area Municipalities are encouraged to require site plan approval or a development permit for substantial development on lots abutting low sensitivity waterbodies. In addition, Area Municipalities are encour-aged to require site plan approval or a development permit for all shoreline and non-shoreline commercial, institutional and industrial development in order to ensure that stormwater management and construction mitigation techniques are implemented.
Moderate and High Sensitivity and Over Threshold Waterbodies Standard Protection Policies
Substantial Development on All Waterbodies
F.25 In order to ensure no negative impact on recreational water quality, all substantial development, including lot creation, development of a vacant lot, and redevelopment ofn a lot within the wWaterfront designation (including backlots), and on shoreline lots in the uUrban cCentre and cCommunity designations, of moderate and high sensitivity and Over Threshold waterbodies will be subject to site plan control or development permitting.
Site Plan Control and Development Permits
F.26 Where site plan control or a development permit is required, or where for on-site phosphorus management and mitigation and to build resilience to other environmental stressors is required, the following matters will be addressed:
a) appropriate location of buildings, structures and sewage disposal systems;
b) retention or restoration of a natural vegetative buffer in accordance with Section
F.22 to prevent erosion, siltation and nutrient migration;
c) maintenance or establishment of native tree cover and vegetation on the lot wherever possible;
d) appropriate location and construction of roads, driveways and pathways, including use of permeable materials; and
e) implementation of stormwater management and construction mitigation techniques, including proper re-contouring, discharging of roof leaders, use of soak away pits and other measures to promote infiltration.
Other Tools
F.27 The Area Municipalities are encouraged to use any other available tools to manage
and mitigate phosphorus migration to waterbodies and to build resilience to other environmental stressors including, but not limited to, site alteration and tree cutting by-laws, septic re-inspection programs, and education and stewardship activities.
Public Lands
F.28 The release of Crown land, other than lands under water, for private development is discouraged, particularly in the Waterfront designation. Should the Province dispose of Crown land for private development, such land will not be further divided unless it is to alleviate problems associated with existing development and no more than one single family dwelling will be permitted on those lands as of right.
F.29 The maintenance, enhancement or restoration of native vegetative buffers along
Page 19
Red = New Text Appendix “II” Strikethrough = Deleted Text
shorelines in municipal parks and other municipal lands is strongly encouraged.
Causation Study Policies Appendix XX : Waterbodies
F.30 A waterbody will be added to Appendix XX once one or more of the following is confirmed: a) A long-term total phosphorus concentration of greater than 20 ug/L demonstrated
by the five (5) most recent spring overturn phosphorus sample measurements taken within the last ten (10) years;
b) A long-term statistically significant increasing trend in total phosphorus concentration demonstrated by at least five (5) sample measurements starting in 2001 or thereabouts; and/or
c) A blue-green algal bloom documented by the province or health unit and made up
of cyanobacteria species.
F.31 Once a waterbody has been confirmed to be subject to one or more phosphorus management indicators, the District’s Recreational Water Quality monitoring will be conducted on that waterbody on an annual basis until such time as the waterbody is no longer listed in Appendix XX.
F.32 In general, no lot creation will be permitted on waterbodies identified as being of high
sensitivity unless the lot is connected to municipal water and sewer services. waterbody-wide Causation Studies will be undertaken by the District of Muskoka to determine the cause of the phosphorus management indicator for waterbodies listed in Appendix XX. Such studies may include review of existing water quality monitoring data, additional water quality sampling and data collection, waterbody-specific application of the District of Muskoka Water Quality Model, hydrology and inflows assessments, septic system inspection, and surveys of land use patterns, shoreline disturbance and existing development constraints. Causation Studies for the waterbodies listed in Appendix XX will be completed in order of priority based on development potential estimated through limits to growth assessments.
F.33 Until such time as a Causation Study can be completed and any recommendations are adopted by Muskoka District Council and implemented through policy, the waterbodies listed in Appendix XX will be subject to the enhanced protection policies of this Plan.
F.34 Should a Causation Study determine that the cause of the phosphorus management indicator is related to development, an enhanced protection policy set will apply or waterbody-specific policies will be developed to ensure that any additional lot creation, development of vacant lots, or redevelopment of a lot can proceed without negatively impacting water quality. Such policies may include the requirement for water quality impact assessments, ongoing monitoring, generalized development restrictions, and/or remedial action planning.
Page 20
Red = New Text Appendix “II” Strikethrough = Deleted Text
F.35 Should a Causation Study determine that the cause of the phosphorus management
indicator is not related to development, the waterbody will be deleted from Appendix XX and will be subject to the standard protection policies of this Plan.
F.36 A waterbody may be added or deleted from Appendix XX in accordance with the
policies of this section without amendment to this Plan but with notification to Muskoka District Council to ensure transparency.
High Sensitivity Waterbodies – Specific Policy Enhanced Protection Policies Lot Creation
F.37 Notwithstanding Section F.29, lot creation on private services may be per- mitted
where the Area Municipality has the resources and tools in place and is prepared to implement the following requirements:
The lLot creation on private services may only proceed where a water
quality impact assessment site specific assessment which demonstrates that the development can proceed without negatively impacting water quality and which outlines the circumstances under which development should occur. undertaken and implemented to the satisfaction Muskoka and the Area Municipality
The water quality impact assessment shall consist of the following main
elements at a minimum:
Phase 1
Site condition analysis to determine if the required conditions exist on site so that development can occur in a manner that will ensure the protection of water quality and shall include analysis of the site and surrounding area, soil characteristics, and vegetation cover. The Phase 1 report must be completed to the satisfaction of the Dis- trict of Muskoka and the Area Municipality before proceeding to Phase 2.
Phase 2
i. Identification of recommended building and septic system
(including the leaching bed) envelope and mitigation measures based on site specific soil and topographic conditions, including but not limited to, detailed construction mitigation plans, enhanced shoreline setbacks and buffers, measures for protecting natural vegetation, and stormwater management;
ii. Monitoring will be required to confirm that the vegetative
buffer and stormwater mitigation measures are in place until such time as construction is complete and an occupancy permit is issued and at a time approximately two years following the issuance of an occupancy permit on an annual basis until such time as the waterbody is no longer listed in Appendix XX;
Page 21
Red = New Text Appendix “II” Strikethrough = Deleted Text
iii. The use of a septic system with soils that have a demonstrated ability to effectively eliminate phosphorus or equivalent septic abatement technologies will be required; and
iv. The report must be completed to the satisfaction of the Area
Municipality and Tthe recommendations of such a report and including the monitoring and septic system requirements are required to shall be implemented through an official plan or a zoning amendment, and in Section 51(26) (subdivision, condominium or consent) and site plan agreements control or development permits, and/or other agreements registered on title.
A detailed terms of reference is contained in Appendix J.
F.38 Despite Section F.37, lot creation for long-term conservation purposes may be
considered without the requirement for a site specific assessment.
Development of Vacant Lots on Private Services
F.39 Development of a vacant lot on private services will only be permitted where it is demonstrated through a Phase 2 Water Quality Impact Assessment site specific assessment that identifies building and septic system envelopes, together with appropriate management, mitigation and resiliency measures, including but not limited to, detailed construction mitigation plans, shoreline setbacks and buffers will to protect water quality and where these requirements are implemented in through site plan agreements control or development permits.
F.40 The use of a septic system with soils that have a demonstrated ability to effectively
eliminate phosphorus will be required.
Redevelopment on Existing Lots on Private Services
F.40 Redevelopment on existing lots on private services will only be permitted where on-site phosphorus management and mitigation and resiliency measures are implemented in order to prevent negative impacts on water quality in accordance with the standard protection policies of this Plan, including phosphorus management measures.
F.41 Where the setback requirements cannot be met due to insufficient lot depth or the
existence of terrain or soil conditions which make other locations on the lot more suitable, or where existing buffers or stormwater management practices do not satisfy the requirements outlined in this Plan, an overall net improvement shall be achieved through on- site phosphorus management and mitigation and resiliency measures in accordance with the standard protection policies of this Plan.
F.42 A net reduction of phosphorus loading to the lake will be required for commercial
redevelopment.
Over Threshold Waterbodies – Specific Policy
Lot Creation - General
F.43 In general, no lot creation will be permitted on waterbodies identified as being Over Threshold unless the lot is connected to municipal water and sewer services.
Page 22
Red = New Text Appendix “II” Strikethrough = Deleted Text
Lot Creation - Moderate and Low Sensitivity Waterbodies
F.44 Notwithstanding Section F.36, lot creation on private services may be permitted on waterbodies identified as being of moderate or low sensitivity where the Area Municipality has passed a municipal site alteration and tree cutting by-law or a development permit by-law and is prepared to implement the following requirements:
a) An amendment to the local Official Plan will be required to im-
plement specific development policy.
b) Lot creation may only proceed where a water quality impact assessment, undertaken and implemented to the satisfaction of Muskoka and the Area Municipality demonstrates that develop- ment can proceed without impacting water quality and which outlines the circumstances under which development should occur.
c) The water quality impact assessment shall consist of the fol-
lowing main elements at a minimum:
Phase 1
Site condition analysis to determine if the required conditions exist on site so that development can occur in a manner that will ensure the protection of water quality and shall include analysis of the site and surrounding area, soil characteristics, and vegetative cover. The Phase 1 report must be completed to the satisfaction of the District of Muskoka and the Area Munici- pality before proceeding to Phase 2.
Phase 2
i. Identification of recommended building and septic sys-
tem (including the leaching bed) envelope and mitiga-tion measures, including but not limited to, detailed construction mitigation plans, shoreline setbacks and buffers, measures for protecting natural vegetation, and stormwater management;
ii. Monitoring will be required to confirm that the vegeta-
tive buffer and stormwater mitigation measures are in place until such time as construction is complete and an occupancy permit is issued, and on an annual basis until such time as the waterbody is no longer consid- ered to be Over Threshold;
iii. The use of a septic system with soils that have a dem-
onstrated ability to effectively eliminate phosphorus; and
iv. The recommendations of such a report and the monitor-
ing and septic system requirements will be imple- mented through the official plan amendment and in the zoning amendment and Section 51(26) (subdivision, condominium or consent) agreements and site plan agreements or development permits.
Page 23
Red = New Text Appendix “II” Strikethrough = Deleted Text A detailed terms of reference is contained in Appendix J.
Development of Vacant Lots on Private Services
F.45 Development of a vacant lot on private services will only be permitted where it is demonstrated through a Phase 2 Water Quality Impact Assessment that building and septic system envelopes, together with appropriate mitigation measures, including but not limited to, detailed construction mitigation plans, shoreline setbacks and buffers will protect water quality and where these requirements will be implemented in site plan agreements.
F.46 The use of a septic system with soils that have a demonstrated ability to effectively
eliminate phosphorus will be required.
Redevelopment on Private Services
F.47 Redevelopment on private services will only be permitted where phosphorus mitigation measures are implemented in order to prevent negative impacts on water quality, including measures such as setbacks, vegetative buffers and stormwater management.
F.48 Where the setback requirements cannot be met due to insufficient lot depth or the
existence of terrain or soils conditions which make other locations on the lot more suitable, or where existing buffers or storm- water management practices do not satisfy the requirements outlined in this Plan, an overall net improvement should be achieved through the use of phosphorus management techniques.
F.49 A net reduction of phosphorus loading to the waterbody will be required for
commercial redevelopment.
Page 24
Page 1
TO: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee FROM: Summer Valentine Director of Planning DATE: July 21, 2016 SUBJECT: Proposed Wildland Fire Assessment and Mitigation Standards (EBR Registry Number 012-7075) REPORT NO: PED-8-2016-2 ____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION THAT Staff Report No. PED-8-2016-2 BE SUBMITTED as the District of Muskoka’s comments respecting the proposed wildland fire assessment and mitigation standards included in the draft “Wildland Fire Risk Assessment and Mitigation: A Guidebook to Support the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014” (EBR Registry Number 012-7075); AND THAT the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry specifically BE REQUESTED to provide updated and accurate wildland fire hazard risk mapping for the District of Muskoka geographic area. ORIGIN The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) has posted a notice on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) Registry to advise the public and municipalities that a guidebook has been drafted to assist in the implementation of policies intended to assess and mitigate the potential for wildland fire. The deadline for submission of comments is July 22, 2016. BACKGROUND The protection of public health and safety from the risk of wildland fire is considered a provincial interest. The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) contains general policies that address wildland fire as a natural hazard and seek to direct development outside of areas at risk or alternatively, to mitigate the risk of wildland fire. The District of Muskoka is required to include wildland fire hazard polies in the Muskoka Official Plan through the on-going review process. The draft Guidebook is intended to outline assessment and mitigation standards and tools to support the implementation of the general PPS policies and corresponding official plan policies.
These standards and tools represent the Province’s recommended approach to ensure that planning decisions are consistent with the PPS. The draft Guidebook is accompanied by generalized wildland fire hazard risk mapping developed by the MNRF (attached as Appendix “I”). This broad level mapping does not confirm or exclude the presence of hazardous forest types, but it can be used as a starting point for more detailed assessments. ANALYSIS The draft Guidebook contains seven chapters that provide an overview of the issue and policy context, explore wildland fire behaviour and characteristics of hazardous forest types, outline how to conduct a fire assessment, describe mitigation techniques, and recommends implementation through various planning strategies and tools. The primary focus is the interface between development and forested areas where the manner in which development occurs can impact the risk to human health and property damage from wildland fire, in particular where hazardous forest types exist based on forest composition and condition (i.e. high concentrations of conifer trees in forests or stands, vegetation that has sustained storm, insect or disease damage, and/or areas with abundant understory vegetation and ground fuel accumulation). While forest fires are a natural process with certain ecological benefits, they are the second most common natural disaster after flooding and the probability of fire increases as human activity encroaches into forested areas.
The draft Guidebook recommends two ways to protect development from wildland fires based on either a municipally-led hazard assessment or proponent-driven and peer reviewed site specific assessments of wildland fire risk. Development can either be directed away from areas of high to very high risk or development can proceed with appropriate mitigation, provided that significant natural heritage features or functions are not impacted. The Province is suggesting that such site-specific assessments be sought at all scales of planning processes, from plan of subdivision to minor variance applications. Additionally, if there is a substantial lag time between provisional and final approval, it is being recommended that assessments be updated or that long-term monitoring of mitigation measures be put in place because of the dynamic nature of forest ecosystems. Planning policy should recognize wildland fire hazards and require assessments and incorporation of mitigation measures on neighbourhood, site and/or structural scales as appropriate. Comments for Provincial Consideration With the Fort McMurray fires fresh in our memories and with a changing climate that predicts drier conditions, increasing severe weather events and alterations in insect and forest disease patterns, the importance of this initiative is evident. Factoring in the rising cost of fire suppression and the socio-economic consequences of wildland fires on communities (e.g. property and infrastructure damage, health care and emergency services costs, etc.), it is evident that this issue requires further attention. The draft Guidebook indicates that wildland fire risk will be a significant issue for development in areas of central and northern Ontario, including the District of Muskoka. As such, it is requested that the Province consider the following comments in its review:
Page 3
Mapping The draft Guidebook suggests that the mapping provided by MNRF is generalized and may not be accurate (i.e. some areas shown as high risk may not be and there may be other areas not shown as high risk that should be included). A review of the mapping also reveals that the information is dated and still shows former wooded areas that have been developed over the past 10 years as high risk for wildland fire. While potentially helpful as a generalized screening map, the Province recognizes the limitations of the MNRF mapping and is recommending that each municipality undertake their own assessment of wildland fire risk, which could be based on existing emergency services or Fire Smart mapping (i.e. a program delivered through a partnership between the Partners in Protection, a national non-profit agency focused on training and fire risk education, and municipalities) where it exists. The Province indicates that it is important that Planning Authorities seek up-to-date wildland fire hazard information because the implementation of policies could restrict development on private lands. District Emergency Planning staff were consulted and have indicated that they are not aware of any Fire Smart or other fire risk mapping at the District or Area Municipal levels. This was confirmed by local Fire Chiefs through discussion with the Area Municipal Planners. Undertaking a municipal-wide assessment to confirm the MNRF mapping is likely to require the investment of significant resources, especially given that forests cross municipal boundaries within and outside of the District. Therefore, we would request that MNRF examine other options to provide more accurate mapping to the areas of the province that are most impacted by this initiative. In particular, we suggest examining the possibility of working with private companies such as Westwind Forest Stewardship Inc. who may have existing and up to date data. Another possibility could be the use of the pending update of MNRF’s Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) mapping to refine the wildland fire hazard risk maps. In addition, local fire departments monitor weather conditions and use the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index (FWI) System to identify real-time risk of wildland fire. If the risk is high or extreme, there are preventative actions or communications that can be put in place (e.g. fire bans). MNRF is aware of these processes and the level of risk, which is reflected in Forest Fire Agreements with Area Municipalities. These mitigating factors and actions should be considered in any update to the wildland fire hazard risk mapping. Implementation – Site Specific Assessments If a jurisdiction-wide assessment is not feasible, the Province is recommending that the proponent of any development subject to the municipal planning process undertake a site-specific investigation and if forests are present, a wildland fire risk assessment should be required. Given the nature of development in Muskoka, we anticipate that most proposals would be required to undergo an assessment to demonstrate consistency with the PPS under the proposed guidelines. This could have significant negative economic impacts, which may not be proportional to the risk. The District of Muskoka Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (HIRA) maintained by District Emergency Services staff estimates the probability of wildland fire as “very unlikely” (i.e. 1-2% chance of occurrence in any given year, likelihood of an event once every 50-100 years). In addition, MNRF historical data shows only one incident of significant wildland fire (i.e. 40 hectares or greater) in Muskoka between 1960 and 2015. However, it is acknowledged that climate change may result in altering patterns of fire risk.
Page 4
District staff are of the opinion that other policy sets in the PPS could also assist in mitigating wildland fire risk through promoting land use patterns that:
- Direct development to settlement areas, particularly intensification within the existing built-up areas;
- Phase development in settlement areas to logically expand outward toward the wildland-development interface;
- Limit development in rural areas (especially for vulnerable populations);
- Ensure multiple access points to major development for emergency access;
- Improve road connectivity; and
- Impose increased development setbacks from the wildland-development interface.
Implementation of such policies, in addition to design guidelines that consider fire safety, may limit the need for site specific assessments to support development. Area Municipal Perspectives District staff circulated the EBR Registry posting to the Area Municipalities and a meeting was held to discuss the matter. While some Area Municipal planners may choose to bring forward information reports on wildland fire assessments and mitigation standards, most felt that a single comprehensive set of comments from the District to the Province through the EBR would be most effective. In addition to the concerns and questions raised above, the Area Municipal staff also noted the following:
- Most of the mitigation standards outlined in the draft Guidebook can only be implemented through site plan control and associated agreements and enforcement activities (i.e. vegetation replanting, selective clearing, long-term vegetation management plans, use of specific building materials, etc.). This would require site plan control to be expanded to all areas of a municipality and for all types of development. This could result in the need for additional resources at the Area Municipal level for implementation and enforcement.
- While the draft Guidebook suggests that wildland fire assessments can be conducted in tandem with environmental impact studies by similar professionals, there were questions raised as to whether local ecological consultants had the expertise to suggest appropriate fire mitigation measures, particularly in the area of building design and structural modifications.
- Lastly, in Muskoka, the maintenance of native vegetation is strongly encouraged to buffer shorelines, mitigate the impacts of climate change, support resilient ecosystems, provide habitat, and conserve energy. With the draft Guidelines suggesting vegetation management to modify a forest’s structure and composition such as selective vegetation removal, planting of different species, and removing deadfall and understory vegetation, among other actions, there is considerable potential for public confusion and a need to balance the risk of wildland fire with the many other known benefits of maintaining native vegetation.
Page 5
Conclusions In the absence of updated mapping, from a municipal planning and risk management perspective, wildland fire hazards may present another compelling argument to limit rural development and to direct the majority of permanent residential and employment development to Urban Centres and Communities. Until more accurate mapping is available, wildland fire risk assessments and the implementation of mitigation measures will need to be considered as appropriate for rural, waterfront, and greenfield development adjacent to the wildland-development interface through the planning process. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS No impacts on the 2016 Tax Supported Operating Budget and Capital Budget and Forecast are anticipated as a result of these proposed guidelines. Future regulatory changes will be monitored and further assessed for potential financial implications. COMMUNICATIONS Area Municipal planning staff and District Emergency Services staff were consulted prior to the drafting of this report, were provided the opportunity to comment on the draft report, and were forwarded copies after it was finalized. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Reporting on Proposed Wildland Fire Assessment and Mitigation Standards supports the following goals/strategies as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities:
9. Work with all orders of government, particularly the Area Municipalities, and the people of Muskoka to achieve these goals. Actively advocate for Muskoka with senior levels of government for programs and policies that will assist Muskoka to reach these goals.
9.2 Approach senior levels of government on matters of common interest with a consolidated and effective position.
Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Summer Valentine, BSc, MPL, MCIP, RPP Samantha Hastings, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development S:\POLICY\Projects&Programs\Provincial Initiatives\2016\Wildland Fire Guidelines\PED-8-2016-2-Committee Report Wildfire Guidebook FINAL.Doc
Potential Wildland Fire Hazard RiskExtremeHighPine - Needs EvalutationNon-Fuel/UnknownConservation ReserveProvincial ParkCrown LandNational Park
Produced by the Distr ict of Muskoka un der licence fromOntario M inistry of Natural Resources, Copyrigh t (c) Queens Printer 2015.
The information contained here in may be erroneous, inaccurate or mislead ing. The parties compiling and/or disclosing the information make no warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy of any or all of the informa tion contained herein.
Any party relying on this informatio n does so at their own risk and shall not, under any circumstances, make any claim a gainst anyone on the grounds that the information was erroneous, inaccurate or misleading.
This road network information has b een generat ed or adapte d from Ontario Ro adNetwork Database , a database built from so urce data pro vided by the Municipalitiesof Ontar io to the Government of Ontario under licence.
The Ontario Road Network Database is the property of the Government of Ontar ioand is used under lice nce from the Government of Ontar io.
District of Muskoka
Potential Wildland Fire Hazard Risk Map
Appendix "I"
Page 6
Page 1
TO: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee FROM: Samantha Hastings Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development DATE: July 21, 2016 SUBJECT: Planning Division Staff Complement REPORT NO: PED-8-2016-4 ____________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION THAT the PED Department Complement BE AMENDED to reflect the addition of 1 Permanent FTE Manager (M3) to be filled no earlier than November 1, 2016 in accordance with all District policies, procedures and subject to job evaluation; AND THAT the 2016 Tax Supported Operating Budget BE AMENDED as outlined in the following table:
Application Fee Revenue (22,500) (20,000) (42,500)All Other Revenue (1,655,399) (1,655,399)2016 Net Levy Impact 2,995,277 0 2,995,277 . ORIGIN At the Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting on January 21, 2016, a discussion was held as to whether consideration should be given to revisiting staffing levels in the Planning division through 2016 budget deliberations. Staff advised at that time that not all Area Municipalities had responded to the proposal to receive delegation of planning approvals, and additional streamlining initiatives were still being explored. Staff were requested to prepare a preliminary review of the department’s staffing levels for the Committee of the Whole (COW)
Page 2
meeting in February. As part of the budget presentation at the COW meeting, and in response to the request from the PED Committee, staff suggested that the previous Director level position (M5) be replaced with a Manager (M3) level position. However, no motion was made and the matter was not dealt with by the COW at that time. At the June 23, 2016 PED Committee meeting, Committee members once again inquired about whether the Planning Division is appropriately resourced to deliver on the work plan and staff indicated that a report would be brought forward. ANALYSIS Policy Initiatives Since the elimination of the Director position in 2014 (as described in Confidential Staff Report No. PED-6-2014-3), the advancement of certain longer term policy initiatives and projects has been challenging, including allocation strategies for water and sewage treatment plants and updates of economic and demographic data. Although a consultant has been retained to assist with the Official Plan Review, significant staff time is still required to provide supporting background information, coordinate the public consultation program and explore future policy options. In addition, more focus is needed on input and response to provincial initiatives, such as OMB Reform, Bill 73-The Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015, Inclusionary Zoning, Wildland Fire Guidelines, D4 Guidelines, Species at Risk, etc.. New initiatives such as the Transportation Master Plan and updates to initiatives such as the Active Transportation Strategy and the Development Charges By-law will also require dedicated resources and recent feedback suggests that more frequent Second Home Study updates would be beneficial. Emerging issues for future consideration include water management (quantity and quality) and climate change. Development Review and Approvals The number of active subdivisions has increased from 71 in 2014 to 76 in 2016, and the number of applications for amendments to draft approval has more than doubled from 8 to 17. While the total volume of consent and zoning applications has remained relatively constant at 434 applications annually, staff are challenged to meet Area Municipal deadlines for comments on these development applications. Streamlining Initiatives A number of streamlining initiatives have been undertaken at the District level over the last year, including delegation of Official Plan Amendment approvals to staff, delegation of condominium exemptions to staff, and discussions are underway with the Area Municipalities to reduce zoning by-law and consent applications that are circulated to the District. However, these efforts are anticipated to primarily reduce administrative and processing workload. Staff have initiated an internal development review reform initiative which, in the long term, is intended to further streamline internal planning review and approvals processes, increase efficiencies and improve customer service. This does, however, require a short term commitment of staff resources.
Staffing Options In recognition of the significant budgetary challenges faced by the District, staff have spent considerable time reviewing options to address on-going workload issues in the Planning Division, but have concluded that a return to 2014 staffing levels is required. A number of options have been considered including the following:
• re-instatement of the previous Director (M5) position • replacement of the previous Director position with a Manager (M3) position • retention of consulting assistance to undertake project specific work
Given the significant cost associated with the re-instatement of the Director position and in recognition of the small size of this functional area within the District, staff are not recommending this option. The hiring of consultants for project specific work is not preferred for a number of reasons, as follows:
• Staff resources at the management level are still required to manage these contracts • Opportunities for corporate knowledge and staff professional growth are not provided,
and history and experience are lost from one project to another • Out-sourcing does not promote succession planning, internal innovation or continuous
improvement • Consulting services do not allow for on-going consultation and relationship building with
Area Municipalities, developers, other agencies and internal departments • Consulting services do not address on-going development workload and the continuous
need to keep policy and other initiatives up to date Staff also considered the possibility of a temporary, contract position. However, the workload is not seasonal or temporary in nature and other Area Municipalities have recently been challenged to fill permanent planning positions. In addition, a very limited response has been received for recent postings for contract planning positions at the District. In light of the above noted considerations, staff are of the opinion that a full-time Manager (M3) position is required. This new Manager position is shown on the organizational chart in Appendix “I” and allows for one manager to focus on the development review and approvals functions and the other to concentrate on policy and project related work. This would facilitate a stronger file management role and elevated customer service related to development applications that would provide more of a “one window” approach that would coordinate reviews amongst the Planning, Engineering and Public Works and Legal Departments. In addition, this would enable projects such as allocation strategies to be undertaken and would also facilitate more focus on Area Municipal Official Plan and Zoning By-law review projects and provincial initiatives.
Page 4
An additional experienced manager would be able to take on more complex, politically sensitive files, providing direction and leadership to staff and thereby allowing the Director of Planning to advance strategic initiatives and innovative new approaches that would allow Muskoka to be a leader in areas such as sustainability. This would also allow the Commissioner to further delegate certain approvals functions to the Director, enabling the Commissioner to focus on other corporate assignments and program areas. It is recommended that this position be approved in the 2016 budget year, with a delayed start date of November 1st, in order to avoid any Net Levy impact, as described below. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS As of the end of June, application fee revenues received were already at 82% of budget for the year ($18,535 of $22,500). Assuming that this trend continues, increased revenues of approximately $20,000 are expected. The fully burdened cost of an M3 Manager is $115,560. With an implementation of November 1st, personnel and related costs would increase by $20,000, and be offset by increased Revenue, resulting in no net levy impact in 2016, as shown by the table in the Recommendation. In 2017, total Personnel of $115,560 and IT Services of $5,010 are offset by a continued increase in revenues (application fees) of $20,000. The impact to the 2017 Net Levy is $100,570 as shown in the table below:
Proposed 2017 Budget Impact
Personnel 115,560IT Charges 5,010Application Fee Revenue (20,000)2017 Net Levy Impact 100,570 COMMUNICATIONS The addition of this staff person and the revised organization chart would be provided to the Area Municipalities and the development community, and the District’s web site would be updated. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES This initiative would fulfill, in part, the following goals as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities: 1. Manage development and growth in a sustainable manner balancing environmental,
economic, social and cultural elements. Recognize that in Muskoka a healthy and vibrant economy depends upon wise stewardship of the environment. Build on the cultural heritage of Muskoka and demonstrate municipal leadership in environmentally sustainable policies, programs and practices.
Page 5
11. Attract and maintain a high quality staff and administration focused on service excellence. Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Samantha Hastings, MCIP, RPP Michael Duben, B.A., LL.B Commissioner of Planning Chief Administrative Officer and Economic Development Original signed by Julie Stevens, CPA, CA Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services
70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) 645-2231 Fax (705) 645-5319 1-800-461-4210 (705 area code)
www.muskoka.on.ca TO: Chair and Members Muskoka Standing Committees FROM: Debbie Crowder District Clerk DATE: July 18, 2016 SUBJECT: Muskoka District Council Composition – Standing Committee Discussions REPORT NO: CES-7-2016-4 ___________________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION This report is provided for information. ORIGIN Follow-up to Standing Committee discussions regarding Muskoka District Council composition during the June, 2016 Committee cycle. ANALYSIS Each of the District’s Standing Committees discussed possible next steps relating to Muskoka District Council’s composition. District Chair Klinck introduced the topic stating that any changes to Council composition would need to be approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (MMA). He added that the results of a comprehensive review of the Municipal Act, 2001 is soon expected with possible amendments regarding Upper-tier municipalities including election or appointment of Upper-tier Chairs; and triple majority requirements. Any changes will be communicated through MMA. The following is a synopsis of each Standing Committee’s discussions: Engineering & Public Works
• Municipal expert or facilitator is needed to guide the process and need for clear direction. • Wait for Municipal Act changes to come down from the Province before any decisions are
made. • Councillor voting equality is an issue that needs to be resolved. • Discussions at Committee might be more inclusive, Committee of the Whole Council was
preference of some. • Representation of seasonal residents was discussed. • Need for public engagement on composition review process.
• Representation by total population (permanent and seasonal) should be instituted. • Municipal expert as facilitator was strongly encouraged. • Help needed with determining optimal number of Councillors. • More work required and need more information to make decisions. • Council representation in 1970 looks much different than today. • Discussion about District Chair’s power in the event of tied votes. • Committee of the Whole Council meeting suggested. • If change is wanted, make sure that Consultant is aware before they do any work. • Wait for Municipal Act changes to come down from the Province before any decisions are
made. • Representation at District is fine; review needs to occur at area municipal level.
Planning & Economic Development
• General consensus was that a Committee of the Whole Council meeting would not encourage participation from all members and that discussion at the Committee level would be preferred.
• More information is required, what are other similar municipalities doing about seasonal residents and how do they “count” in the representation equation.
• Councillor remuneration and budget review required. • Councillor voting equality is an issue that needs to be resolved. • A facilitator to guide the process was also discussed.
Corporate & Emergency Services
• Most important item for discussion over current and past term of Council. • Equality of votes required without increasing number of Councillors. • Prefer Committee of the Whole Council meeting to continue discussions with Committee Chairs
as spokesperson. • Townships with three Councillors have increased workload (Georgian Bay and Lake of Bays). • Muskoka Lakes Council looking at reducing its Council size. • Wish for appointment of District Chair to continue. • Muskoka as a whole is over-governed. • Representation by electors is a way to strike a balance. • If workload increases, so should compensation. • During joint Committee meetings, you only get one vote even if you sit on both Committees. • A facilitator to guide the process was also discussed.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS There are no financial considerations at this time. COMMUNICATIONS All discussions regarding Muskoka District Council Composition will be shared with Muskoka’s Area Municipalities.
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Reporting on the Muskoka District Council Composition – Standing Committee Discussions supports the following goal as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities: 9. (in part) Work with all orders of government, particularly the Area Municipalities and the
people of Muskoka to achieve these goals. Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Original signed by Debbie Crowder, AMCT Michael Duben, B.A., LL.B District Clerk Chief Administrative Officer
