Zoning By-law – Comment Summary Table

Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 1 of 31
Township of Georgian Bay – Zoning By-law – Comment Summary Table – Fourth Draft
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
1
October 1, 2014
The strip of land referenced in the comment is zoned EP-PSW in the Fourth
Chris Joyce
Draft, based on Provincially Significant Wetland mapping from the MNRF. The
water area is also zoned EP-PSW. Any legally existing structures such as docks,
or boathouses, are permitted as legal non-conforming uses. However, any new
uses proposed in the EP-PSW zone (other than conservation) would require a
Zoning By-law Amendment. Additionally, any new buildings or structures
proposed in or within 15 metres of the EP-PSW zone would require a Zoning Bylaw Amendment or Minor Variance.
2
Devry Smith (David
White)– On Behalf of
Larry Eisses
October 1, 2014
The partially approved Township OP provides policies establishing maximum
Gross Floor Area requirements for the Waterfront Communities of Go Home Bay,
Six Mile Lake, and Cognashene. These communities also already include GFA
provisions in the existing Zoning By-law, along with the Palisade Bay / East
Bone Island Waterfront Community. Additional policies speak to the regulation
of the built form of new development, including in the Wah Wah Taysee
Waterfront Community. The only areas that are subject to GFA restrictions in
the Fourth Draft are the aforementioned Waterfront Communities
(notwithstanding provisions regarding legal non-complying uses, home
occupations, etc.).
A major goal of this Zoning By-law Review was to provide clarity to the GFA
definition in the Zoning By-law.
As such, new GFA definitions were established based on significant consultation
with Township staff, the public, the Township’s Planning Committee and various
Community Associations.
It should be noted that the only type of residential dwelling permitted in any of
the SR or SRI zones is a single detached dwelling. Accordingly, the GFA
provisions do not limit the range and mix of housing types that are permitted.
The permitted dwelling types in shoreline areas are consistent with those
permitted by By-law 91-19.
In areas outside of shoreline areas (particularly settlement areas) a range and
mix of housing is permitted though policies of the Official Plan and implemented
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 2 of 31
Name / Address
3
Devry Smith – On
Behalf of Dave Young
Date of Comment
October 1, 2014
Reply – MHBC Input
though the zoning by-law in a manner that is consistent with the PPS.
The partially approved Township OP provides policies establishing maximum
Gross Floor Area requirements for the Waterfront Communities of Go Home Bay,
Six Mile Lake, and Cognashene. These communities also already include GFA
provisions in the existing Zoning By-law, along with the Palisade Bay / East
Bone Island Waterfront Community. Additional policies speak to the regulation
of the built form of new development, including in the Wah Wah Taysee
Waterfront Community. The only areas that are subject to GFA restrictions in
the Fourth Draft are the aforementioned Waterfront Communities
(notwithstanding provisions regarding legal non-complying uses, home
occupations, etc.).
A major goal of this Zoning By-law Review was to provide clarity to the GFA
definition in the Zoning By-law.
As such, new GFA definitions were established based on significant consultation
with Township staff, the public, the Township’s Planning Committee and various
Community Associations.
It should be noted that the only type of residential dwelling permitted in any of
the SR or SRI zones is a single detached dwelling. Accordingly, the GFA
provisions do not limit the range and mix of housing types that are permitted.
The permitted dwelling types in shoreline areas are consistent with those
permitted by By-law 91-19.
In areas outside of shoreline areas (particularly settlement areas) a range and
mix of housing is permitted though policies of the Official Plan and implemented
though the zoning by-law in a manner that is consistent with the PPS.
4
Julie Gray-Cates – On
Behalf of Wildwood
by the Severn
October 3, 2014
See response #2 to Draft 3.2 additional comments.
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 3 of 31
Name / Address
5
Sterling Monster
Date of Comment
October 6, 2014 (x 2)
Reply – MHBC Input
Home Occupations are permitted uses within the SR1, SR2 and SR6 zones,
subject to the footnotes to Table 6.2. Home Occupations are not permitted in
any of the SRI zones. The SRI zones apply to island properties which are
separate from the mainland geographically. Access to an island by a road does
not impact the zoning. With regards to Brandy’s Island, though it is named an
island our understanding it that it is part of the main land. Some of the reasons
for not permitting Home Occupations in the SRI zones are as follows:


The vast majority of SRI zoned properties are not accessible by land.
Home Occupations have the potential to increase traffic. If on an island,
this would mean an increase in boat traffic over what is typical for a
recreational property.
The vast majority of SRI zoned properties are used as recreational
dwellings. Home Occupations are generally not in keeping with the
character of such areas.
Notwithstanding this, the new Zoning By-law will be revised to place your
property at 300 Prisque Road in an SRI exception zone which permits a home
occupation.
The location of ML zoning has been modified.
The EP zoning in the Fourth Draft corresponds either with existing EP mapping
from Zoning By-law 91-19, subsequent Zoning By-law Amendments, or with
Wetland and Provincially Significant Wetland mapping from the MNRF.
Additionally, at the September 5, 2014 Township Planning Committee meeting,
the Committee passed resolution PC-28-2014, which resolved that Type One
Fish Habitat be placed in a Fish habitat zone throughout the Township of
Georgian Bay based on fish habitat information from the Ministry of Natural
Resources. The Committee of the Whole subsequently endorsed this resolution.
Accordingly, Type 1 Fish Habitat, as identified by the Ministry of Natural
Resources, is zoned FH1 in the Final Draft.
To re-zone a piece of land from an EP or FH1 zone, a proponent must
demonstrate through a report from a qualified professional either that the area
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 4 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
is not the natural heritage feature it was zoned to protect (e.g. wetland, type 1
fish habitat, etc.), or that the actual boundaries of the feature are different than
those identified by the MNRF. However, any legally existing buildings, structure
or uses within the EP-PSW or FH1 zones are permitted to continue with legal
non-conforming / legal non-complying status.
6
Jim Tushingham
October 6, 2014
The two islands referenced in the Comment are NSI-1 in the Final Draft of the
By-law.
7
Jack Hope
October 9, 2014
Table 6.1 – Footnote 1
We agree that footnote 1 is redundant given that provision 4.10 f) already
specifies that a home occupation shall not include a bed and breakfast
establishment or a motor vehicle or marine related use. Footnote 1 is to be
removed.
FH1 Zone – Docks
8
John van Nostrand –
On Behalf of the Wah
Wah Taysee Planning
Committee
October 10, 2014,
October 26, 2014,
October 29, 2014
Correct, docks are not permitted as-of-right in the FH1 zone, with the FH1 zone
based on the best available information for Type 1 Fish Habitat. By not
permitting docks in the FH1 zone, the intent is that where possible, docks be
directed to areas that are not Type 1 Fish Habitat. Recognizing that in some
instances this may not be possible, docks could be permitted in the FH1 zone
through a Minor Variance or Zoning By-law Amendment if it is demonstrated
that the chosen area is appropriate for a dock, that the area is not in fact Type 1
Fish habitat, that the negative impacts on the habitat will be mitigated, etc.
Shoreline Activity Area
Shoreline Activity Area maximum width percentage to be modified from 15
percent to 10 percent in accordance with the request of the association.
Table 6.3 & Table 7.3 – Minimum Lot Frontage
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 5 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
Additional footnote to be added to recognize a minimum lot frontage for SR1,
SR2, SRI1 and SRI2 Zones in WWTCWC at 210 metres.
GFA Definition
Cognashene and Go Home Bay GFA definition to apply to WWTCWC as
requested by the association.
i) Wave Rush Up Mapping – Island 378 A & B
The wave rush-up mapping was modified in Draft 4. Fetch has been taken from
points between Tobermory and Manitoulin Island and a view shed analysis has
been conducted based on these points. This methodology more appropriately
identifies areas subject to the full fetch of Georgian Bay and has resulted in
some areas being removed from the wave rush up requirements. Further
scoping of for the mapping was completed for the Final By-law
ii) Tadenac Eco-System Special Policy Area
This area to be identified in the mapping, with provision included that reference
the Official Plan.
9
Melissa Halford – On
Behalf of the District
Municipality of
Muskoka
October 10, 2014
Provincially Significant Wetlands and Significant Coastal Wetlands
Significant Coastal Wetland are encompassed in the EP-PSW Zone. Coastal
Wetlands are encompassed in the EP-W Zone.
Development in the PPS refers to a “Planning Act Application” - this concept is
ingrained in the Township Official Plan. As a result, including coastal wetlands in
the EP-W Zone is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the Official Plan of
the Township.
Township is comfortable with a 15 metre development setback from the limits of
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 6 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
an EP-PSW or an EP-W zone.
Flood Hazards
High water mark for Trent-Severn to be included. Parks Canada contacted to
confirm if there is a flood line elevation for Trent-Severn – at the release date of
By-law – no response from TSW had been included.
Secondary Dwelling Units
Tables 8.1 and 15.1 and will be updated to indicate the Secondary Dwelling
Units are a permitted use, subject to the provisions of Section 4.25.
The secondary unit provisions of the by-law are consistent with the PPS and
conform to the District and Township Official Plan by permitted secondary units
in dwelling units. The Township would like to be cautious in permitting
secondary uses in accessory units. Requiring the minimum yard requirements
of a principal use to be met is important.
Municipal Services
Section 4.27 of the By-law clearly requires that development within servicing
areas be serviced with municipal servicing. Servicing Areas to be included as
schedules instead of appendices.
Setback from Waterbodies
The By-law will be revised to add the footnote to all appropriate zones.
Shoreline lot, Waterfront lot and Island lot
The Fourth Draft contains a definition for “Lot, Waterfront”. The By-law will be
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 7 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
refined to use consistent language.
Condominium Roads
Section 4.7 b) to be updated to include condominium roads.
Section 4.11
The Township is comfortable with the provisions; they are OMB approved.
Setback from Waste Disposal Site
All lands within 500 m of waste disposal sites and former waste disposal sites
have been placed within in H2 Zone. A general provision is not required.
RM Zone
The maximum density of 30 UPH for the RM2 Zone is appropriate given the
housing style permitted (Townhouse). The Official Plan permits a maximum
density of 40uph. Any proposal for between 30 and 40 UPH would require a
ZBA and required community consultation.
The housing styles and lot requirements for the other RM zones sufficiently limit
density.
Schedule 144
Map 144 will be revised accordingly.
Schedule 149
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 8 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
Zone maps to be revised accordingly.
Schedule 150
The Township is satisfied with the zoning of the Gates of Muskoka property
proposed in the 4th Draft.
Adjacent Lands to Provincially Significant Wetlands and Significant Coastal
Wetlands
The Zoning By-law is consistent with the PPS, District Official Plan and Township
Official Plan in regards to wetlands. “Development” in these documents refers to
a Planning Act application. In accordance with the adjacent lands polices of the
OP, all “Development” in proximity to a PSW would be required to be supported
by an EIS. The Township will consider the Site Plan Comments.
Vacant Lots on Highly Sensitive or Over Threshold Lakes
General Provision 4.42 provides regulations for development on lots located on
Highly Sensitive lands or Over Threshold Lakes. These lakes are identified on
Appendix E. The Township is comfortable with this approach.
10
Alan Heisey
October 15, 2014
By-law 91-19 does not identify the land as three separate zones. It identifies
the lands referenced as SR2 and OS.
The SRI2 Zoning in the new Zoning By-law permits detached dwelling and
typical shoreline residential accessory structures.
The parcel fabric included in the By-law was obtained from Teranet, who are
responsible for managing the Province’s parcel data. The parcel data identifies
the area as one lot. Township information also identifies the area as one lot.
If you have surveys that identify the lands as separate lots, such as PIN number
or additional evidence to demonstrate that the parcels are separately
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 9 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
conveyable lots, please provide this information to the Township.
Whether one lot as the parcel fabric indicates, or three lots as your
correspondence indicates, is a matter of title for the property and not directly
related to the zoning of the property. The proposed SRI2 zoning for the lands
would permit the same uses and zone requirements regardless of the lot
configuration.
11
Stuart and Janice
Barnes
October 16, 2014
See response #3 to comment #157 (Third Draft).
12
Celeste Phillips – On
Behalf of the Hidden
Glen Trailer Park
October 17, 2014
The general approach in the Zoning By-law Review was to maintain existing
development rights. Accordingly, the existing zoning of the Site was maintained
in the Final Draft.
The provision of a site specific exception should proceed through site specific
Zoning By-law Amendment process.
A site specific amendment could include specific setbacks for trailers from
internal roads and from trailers on adjacent sites.
13
Alan Waffle
October 19, 2014,
October 24, 2014
Comment 1
The EP-PSW zone in the fourth draft is based on the most up to date PSW
mapping provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. The EPPSW zone on Map 126 in the area of Island 646 identifies the Roberts Island
Provincially Significant Wetland.
In order to determine whether a proposed undertaking will have a negative
impact on natural features or their ecological functions, a proponent would need
to submit an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) prepared by a qualified
professional (e.g. biologist) which reviews the proposed undertaking. This would
be coordinated with a Zoning By-law Amendment and would be required to
permit the undertaking within the EP-PSW zone.
The proponent would be responsible for the EIS and Zoning By-law Amendment
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 10 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
application.
The EIS would outline any potential mitigation measures, if appropriate.
The Township is responsible for implementing the Provincial Policy Statement.
As indicated in your comments, Policy 2.1.4 of the PPS prohibits development
and site alteration within significant coastal wetlands and significant wetlands in
Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E. The Township is located in Ecoregion 5E. This policy
is implemented in Policy D.1.4.5 of the Approved Township OP, which prohibits
development and site alteration in Provincially Significant Wetlands and
Provincially Significant Coastal Wetlands. In order to implement these policies in
the new Zoning By-law, all Provincially Significant Wetlands and Provincially
Significant Coastal Wetlands were placed in the EP-PSW zone, which does not
permit any development.
The Zoning By-law cannot contemplate maters such as tax reductions, etc.
14
Jeanie DeMarco
October 20, 2014
15
Anthony Usher – On
Behalf of 2387584
Ontario Inc.
(Delawana Inn)
October 22, 2014
Comment 2
PSW information was provided by MNRF.
The Zoning By-law has maintained the existing zoning of the property from
Zoning By-law 91-19, wherein the Property is zoned a combination of SR5, RU,
CT2 and EP, except that updated EP mapping (e.g. Fish Habitat, PSW) has been
included.
The CT1-7 Zoning has been added to the shore road allowance as requested.
EP-PSW permitted uses to be modified to permit Conservation Education as a
permitted use.
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 11 of 31
Name / Address
16
Henry McKinlay
Date of Comment
October 23, 2014,
October 27, 2014
Reply – MHBC Input
Comment 1
1. The EP zoning in the Fourth Draft corresponds either with existing EP
mapping from Zoning By-law 91-19, subsequent Zoning By-law Amendments, or
with Wetland and Provincially Significant Wetland mapping from the MNRF.
Additionally, at the September 5, 2014 Township Planning Committee meeting,
the Committee passed resolution PC-28-2014, which resolved that Type One
Fish Habitat be placed in a Fish habitat zone throughout the Township of
Georgian Bay based on fish habitat information from the MNRF. The Committee
of the Whole subsequently endorsed this resolution. Accordingly, Type 1 Fish
Habitat, as identified by the MNRF, is zoned FH1 in the Final Draft.
2. To re-zone a piece of land from an EP or FH1 zone, a proponent must
demonstrate through a report from a qualified professional either that the area
is not the natural heritage feature it was zoned to protect (e.g. wetland, type 1
fish habitat, etc.), or that the actual boundaries of the feature are different than
those identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources. However, any legally
existing buildings, structure or uses within the EP-PSW or FH1 zones are
permitted to continue with legal non-conforming / legal non-complying status.
3. It is typical for Zoning By-law’s to establish minimum setbacks from
environmental features. For example, the Fourth Draft also establishes a
minimum setback of 15 metres from any other EP zone or the NSC and NSI
zones.
4. By not permitting docks in the FH1 zone, the intent is that where possible,
docks be directed to areas that are not Type 1 Fish Habitat. Recognizing that in
some instances this may not be possible, docks could be permitted in the FH1
zone through a Minor Variance or Zoning By-law Amendment if it is
demonstrated that the chosen area is appropriate for a dock, that the area is
not in fact Type 1 Fish habitat, that the negative impacts on the habitat will be
mitigated, etc. It is submitted that even if only floating docks were permitted,
the boat traffic to and from the floating docks could have a negative impact on
the fish habitat.
Comment 2
1. The Township OP states that the Township supports the protection of Fish
Habitat, and the Type 1 (Critical) Fish Habitat have high productive capacity, are
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 12 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
highly sensitive to development, or have a critical role in sustaining fisheries.
Consideration of removing or revising the FH1 zone in a certain area would
require the support of a Fish Habitat Impact Assessment or Environmental
Impact Study, prepared by a qualified professional.
2. As per response # 1, studies conducted by a qualified professional are
required in order to consider a revision to the FH1 zone. The FH1 zone
represents Critical Fish Habitat based on the best available information.
3. The required setback from the FH1 zone encourages shoreline structures and
buildings to be located in areas that are not critical fish habitat. Additionally, it
discourages boating and other activity in such areas. As an example, if a dock
were permitted directly adjacent to Critical Fish Habitat, than boats accessing
the dock could be boating through and disturbing the habitat. The same could
be said for boathouses.
4. Zoning Critical Fish Habitat FH1 in the New Zoning By-law ensures that the
mapping for such habitat is a consideration for the issuance of building permits,
and that in the case of new proposed docks, consideration is given to locating
docks outside of Fish Habitat where at all possible.
17
Mary Flynn-Guglietti –
On Behalf of Fred and
Darlene Havers
October 23, 2014
The determination of areas identified on Appendix A was based on an objective
viewshed analysis which evaluated areas subject to the full fetch of Georgian
Bay from an area from Tobermory to Manitoulin Island.
It should be noted that as per provision 4.14 b), Appendix A identifies lands
potentially subject to the minimum opening elevation of 178.9 metres C.G.D.
18
Lloyd Moore
October 23, 2014
19
Chris Joyce
October 24, 2014
Additionally, as per response #16 to the Draft 3.2 additional comments, your
client’s island that is zoned SRI7-20 is subject to a site specific minimum
opening elevation of 178.8 metres C.G.D.
The SR1-45 zone provisions are modified in the By-law.
The EP-PSW zone is based on PSW mapping provided by the MNRF. The
boundaries of the EP-PSW zone reflect the boundaries of PSWs as established by
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 13 of 31
Name / Address
20
Joshua Morgan – On
Behalf of Picnic Island
Resort Ltd.
Date of Comment
October 24, 2014
Reply – MHBC Input
the MNRF. In order to refine the boundaries of the EP-PSW zone, revised
mapping and justification needs to be provided by a qualified biologist or
ecologist, and confirmed by the MNRF.
The general approach in the Zoning By-law Review was to maintain existing
development rights rather than incorporate new site-specific requests.
Accordingly, the existing zoning of the Site was maintained in the Fourth Draft.
The Zoning of the Site has remained the same throughout all drafts of the new
Zoning By-law.
The provision of a site specific exception should proceed through a site specific
Zoning By-law Amendment process and should be subject to additional
justification.
21
Rob Woodroofe
October 24, 2014
The island was re-zoned to NSI-1.
22
Charlotte Snider
October 24, 2014
See response to Comment #194 (Third Draft Comments).
You are correct that open space islands are now subject to additional provisions
for the parent zone (e.g. SRI1, SRI2, etc.). This is appropriate as the OS zone
does not provide appropriate provisions for residential uses. Please note that if
an SRI-50 or SRI-51 island does not meet these provisions, the buildings and /
or structures are still permitted as legal non-complying buildings and structures.
23
Jim Bowden
October 26, 2014,
October 27, 2014
Comment 1
Policy D.2.2.4.4 of the Partially Approved Township OP requires a 30 metre
setback from the high water mark for septic system leaching beds. This
implements policy F.23 of the District of Muskoka Official Plan. Accordingly,
Section 4.26 of the New Zoning By-law requires a 30 metre setback from the
high water mark for the leaching bed components of septic systems. Section
D.2.2.4.4 also provides criteria for the consideration of a reduced setback
through a Minor Variance or Zoning By-law Amendment. These criteria cannot
be incorporated into the Zoning By-law to allow reduced setbacks as-of-right.
Comment 2
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 14 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
The provisions of Section 4.14 b) and the accompanying wave run-up mapping
are required to implement Policy D.3.4.5 of the Partially Approved OP.
The determination of areas identified on Appendix A of the Fourth Draft was
based on an objective viewshed analysis which evaluated areas subject to the
full fetch of Georgian Bay from an area from Tobermory to Manitoulin Island. It
should be noted that as per provision 4.14 b), Appendix A identifies lands
potentially subject to the minimum opening elevation of 178.9 metres C.G.D.
Comment 3
See response to Comment 1. The criteria provided in the OP for consideration of
a reduced setback, through a Minor Variance or Zoning By-law Amendment.
Comment 4
The approach from the onset of the Zoning By-law Review was to preserve
undeveloped islands which were zoned OS in Zoning By-law 91-19 for
conservation. It is submitted that it is appropriate for the provision of any
structures on such islands to be subject to a Minor Variance or Zoning By-law
Amendment to determine whether such buildings or structures are appropriate,
and if so, where they should be located.
24
Cathy Cooper
October 26, 2014
1. The SRI-50 and SRI-51 zones only permit legally existing buildings or
structures, No new buildings or structures, or expansions to the legally
existing buildings or structures are permitted except through a Minor
Variance or Zoning By-law Amendment process. This approach has been
consistently used throughout the Zoning By-law Review process.
Additionally, the Wah Wah Taysee Planning Committee, Madawaska Club
of Go Home Bay and Cognashene Cottagers’ Association have expressed
support for this approach.
2. These two islands have been zoned NSI-1, which permits legally existing
buildings, but does not recognize a residential use on the islands.
3. Including a definition for GFA in the new Zoning By-law is appropriate
notwithstanding the ongoing OMB appeal. The definitions in the By-law
were developed based on a public process, are endorsed by various
cottage associations.
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 15 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
4. The new Zoning By-law maintains the maximum building height
provisions from Zoning By-law 91-19. Building height is measured from
the average natural grade at the front of the building. This maximum
height is an absolute number that applies regardless of whether the
building is comprised of basements, cellars, half storeys, etc.
5. The permitted yard encroachments in the New Zoning By-law are
generally maintained from Zoning By-law 91-19, except where
refinements were required based on terminology changes and
clarifications. Notwithstanding this, Footnotes 1 and 2 to the yard
encroachment table were added at the request of the Cognashene
Cottagers’ Association.
6. The Zoning By-law establishes regulations for buildings and structures
and the use of land. Disregarding the regulations of the Zoning By-law is
illegal.
7. Regardless of the size of the half storey vs. the first storey, the Gross
Floor Area provisions and building height provisions apply.
8. The approach of measuring building height for a building with any type of
peaked roof to the mid-point between the eaves and the peaks is
appropriate.
9. Ownership is not a Zoning matter that can be regulated under S. 34 of
the Planning Act. Structures on shoreline road allowance and ownership
consideration are controlled though other municipal policy.
25
Karen Weaver / Doug
Good
October 26, 2014,
October 27, 2014
Comment 1
The wave rush-up mapping has been modified. Fetch has been taken from
points between Tobermory and Manitoulin Island and a view shed analysis has
been conducted based on these points. This methodology more appropriately
identifies areas subject to the full fetch of Georgian Bay and has resulted in
some areas being removed from the wave rush up requirements.
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 16 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
Comment 2
1) A resolution was passed by the Township’s Planning Committee, and
subsequently endorsed by the Committee of the Whole stating that
setbacks greater than 20 metres for holding tanks can be applied when
requested by Community Associations. The 30 metre setback was
requested by the Cognashene Cottagers Association.
2) Policy D.2.2.4.4 of the Partially Approved Township OP requires a 30
metre setback from the high water mark for septic system leaching beds.
This implements policy F.23 of the District of Muskoka Official Plan.
Accordingly, Section 4.26 of the New Zoning By-law requires a 30 metre
setback from the high water mark for the leaching bed components of
septic systems. Section D.2.2.4.4 also provides criteria for the
consideration of a reduced setback through a Minor Variance or Zoning
By-law Amendment. These criteria cannot be incorporated into the
Zoning By-law to allow reduced setbacks as-of-right.
26
Goran Kvrgic
October 26, 2014
PSW / FH1 Mapping: Zoning PSWs EP based on MNRF mapping is commonplace,
appropriate and necessary to ensure that such natural heritage features are
considered in determining the location of a building or structure that would not
otherwise require a planning act application. Existing legal docks are permitted
as legal non-conforming uses. Extensions to non-conforming structures are
subject to ZBA or Minor Variance. This is an appropriate approach as it requires
the landowner to determine the most appropriate location for such an expansion
or new dock.
Other comments:
1. A Zoning By-law is a document which is legally approved by the subject
municipality. The Schedules are part of the By-law and are thus legally
approved.
2. Provision 4.1.13.2 (f) is based on an approved Zoning By-law
Amendment. This is the only request we have received to amend the
provision. Such a revision should be subject to a specific Zoning By-law
Amendment.
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 17 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
3. A reduced setback from an EP zone would be considered through a Minor
Variance or Zoning By-law Amendment, subject to the findings of an
Environmental study.
4. Section 4.6 prohibits the use of a marine vessel (amongst others) as a
dwelling unit. Dwelling unit is described as a room or rooms which
function as a housekeeping unit used or intended to be used as a
domicile. Accordingly, Section 4.6 serves to prohibit the use of a marine
vessel as a dwelling unit (i.e. used as a domicile / permanent or seasonal
residence), in order to ensure that properties do not in effect have
multiple dwelling units.
5. This provision was in place since the Second Draft of the New Zoning Bylaw and is intended to appropriately regulate the built form of legal noncomplying uses. An increased height could be considered through a Minor
Variance, which allows consideration of site and area specific factors
including character.
6. Policy D.2.2.4.2 requires 75% of linear shoreline to be maintained in a
natural state (i.e. no landscaping, play structures, etc.).
7. Legally existing access ways (e.g. walkway, breezeway) in EP-W or EPPSW zones are permitted to continue as legal non-conforming / legal
non-complying even. Any new walkway / breezeway proposed in an EPW or EP-PSW zone would only be permitted subject to a Minor Variance
or Zoning By-law Amendment. This ensures that potential impacts are
evaluated and that walkways are located in appropriate locations.
8. The maximum cumulative area for the SR3 zone of 60 m² max applies to
decks (i.e. attached), not free-standing decks. In the rest of the
Township, the Zoning By-law does not provide a maximum area
limitation on decks, except that decks greater than 1.2 metres in height
are included in lot coverage.
9. Some of the reasons for not permitting home occupations in the SRI
zones are as follows:
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 18 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment


Reply – MHBC Input
The majority of SRI zoned properties are not accessible by land.
Home Occupations have the potential to increase traffic. If on an
island, this would mean an increase in boat traffic over what is
typical for a recreational property.
The majority of SRI zoned properties are used as recreational
dwellings. Home Occupations are generally not in keeping with the
character of such areas.
10. The Township’s Planning Committee passed a resolution that structures
not be permitted in the FH1 zone. This resolution as subsequently
endorsed by the Committee of the Whole.
11. Conservation Education is now permitted in the EP-PSW zone. This is an
appropriate use for a PSW. Other examples of where this use occurs are
the Wye Marsh or the Tiny Marsh.
12. See response #7 above.
13. “Development” as per the PPS is a policy related term to be applied in
policy documents such as Official Plans, not regulatory documents such
as ZBLs. “Site Alteration” not used in ZBL.
27
Zoe Adrian
October 27, 2014
Section 4.26 c) allows for the replacement of a legally existing septic system
provided the require yard setbacks are not further encroached (i.e. in the same
location or further from the water / other lot lines). This is also allowed for
expansions, subject to the minimum elevation criteria of the Zoning By-law.
28
Scott Blair
October 27, 2014
See response to Comment #27.
29
Patsy Cross – On
Behalf of the
Madawaska Club of
Go Home Bay
October 27, 2014,
October 29, 2014
Comment 1
SRI2-34 changes to SRI3-34.
Maximum breezeway height for Go Home Bay changed to 4 m.
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 19 of 31
Name / Address
Go Home Bay
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
Comment 2
All SRI3-51 properties changes to SRI3.
31
Ross Cooper
October 27, 2014
One of your properties is no longer identified on Appendix A while one is, based
on a viewshed analysis.
32
Jim Tushingham
October 27, 2014
Properties rezoned to NSI-1.
33
Allan Hazelton – On
Behalf of the Eastern
Georgian Bay
Protective Society
October 27, 2014
The general approach of the new Zoning By-law was to maintain existing zoning
rights from Zoning By-law 91-19, but to reflect updated environmental
constraint mapping. This approach was used for the Macey Bay property.
34
Armin & Annemarie
Grigaitis
October 28, 2014
Property zoned CM3 in its entirety. CM3 zone permitted uses are the same as
from Zoning By-law 91-19.
35
Greg Corbett – On
Behalf of the
Cognashene
Cottagers’ Association
October 27, 2014
The Municipality requires an agreement to be entered into prior to construction
on a shore road allowance that is not purchased.
The finger length of docks in Cognashene has been reduced to 10 metres.
Provisions in the By-law have been removed related to road assumption. Road
assumption considerations could be considered through a By-law passed under
the Municipal Act but will not be included in the Zoning By-law.
Modifications have been made to Appendix A of the Zoning By-law related to
wave run-up mapping. Additional information has been provided to Planscape
to identify how wave rush up mapping was prepared. Wave rush up mapping
was prepared by identifying points between Manitoulin and Tobermory in the
north western portion of Georgian Bay and viewshed analysis was conducted
from various points.
Modifications to the encroachment provisions in the By-law have been included
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 20 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
in the final draft.
The Zoning By-law applies a 30 metre setback to leaching bed components of a
septic system. Tanks may be permitted closer than 30 metres to the high water
mark.
Definitions of leaching bed and septic system have been modified in the final
draft of the By-law. We believe the septic system setback requirements
included in the By-law conform to the Official Plan.
In the final draft of the By-law, septic systems are required to be located on the
same lot as the dwelling in which they serve.
The through lot provisions of the Zoning By-law have been modified for
Cognashene to require development to be focused on the largest lot frontage.
The maximum permitted height of breezeways in Cognashene in the final draft
of the By-law is 4 metres.
The footnotes of the Shoreline Residential Zone and Shoreline Residential Island
Zone tables have been modified in the final draft of the By-law. The SRI7-6
zoning on Stocking Island has been modified to reflect the zoning identified in
By-law 97-83 that was passed on September 15, 1997.
In accordance with the Committee of the Whole resolution from September 5,
accessory docks have not been included as a permitted use within the FH1 zone.
The islands identified on Map 97 have been zoned NSI-1.
Modifications have been made to Diagram 6, Diagram 8, Diagram 13, Diagram
14b and Diagram 17 as requested.
36
Beth Halpenny
October 28, 2014,
October 31, 2014
The Zoning By-law does not contain a provision requiring field verified surveys
for the purpose of determining compliance with Zoning By-law standards. This
is not an item that is permitted to be included in the Zoning By-law in
accordance with S. 34 of the Planning Act. Such provision is not typically found
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 21 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
in a Zoning By-law. The Building Official, By-law officer or planner may request
a survey should they have concerns related to the proper siting of buildings and
structures in accordance with the By-law requirements.
In our review, the language in Section 4.1.13.2 is clear.
The yard requirements for accessory buildings and structures included in the
Zoning By-law have been based on public comment and review of Planning
Committee.
The Zoning By-law contains a minimum separation distance between buildings
and a separation distance from roads. The separation distance is developed in
association with various community associations.
Occupancy agreement is not required to be referenced in the Zoning By-law.
This is not one of the areas that may be regulated in accordance with the
Zoning By-law passed under S. 34 of the Planning Act.
Section 4.1.13 a) has been removed as a separate document that requires shore
road allowances to be purchased. This information is not required to be
included in the Zoning By-law.
The minimum eave projection requirement is included to ensure that a
boathouse has an eave. It is also included to ensure that the walls or support
posts of a boathouse are not flush with the fascia.
The By-law includes requirement for maximum projection of a dock and a ramp.
In most areas, the combined projection is 26 metres. The By-law does not
include a limit to the ramp length to ensure accessibility to properties in times of
low water.
A dock finger length of 15 metres was passed in a resolution of Committee of
the Whole at their September 5th Meeting. Lesser dock finger length standards
are applied to some coastal water front communities.
The approach to regulating sleeping cabins allows for a covered porch on one
side of the building. The proposed sleeping cabin provisions clearly define the
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 22 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
maximum floor area and roof overhang requirements to allow for the accurate
interpretation of areas to be included within floor area and adequately identify
overall building size.
The Zoning By-law contains an appropriate setback from the FH1 Zone.
The Zoning By-law contains a general provision that requires a development to
have frontage on a municipally maintained road, private road or navigable
waterway.
In accordance with S.34 of the Planning Act, the Zoning By-law is not an
appropriate tool to contain regulations with respect to road assumption.
New lot creation policies are included within the Official Plan, not the Zoning Bylaw.
The Zoning By-law appropriately provides direction for the expansion of legally
existing, non-complying dwellings. These provisions have been provided
following the results from an Ontario Municipal Board Hearing.
The Zoning By-law contains provisions related to legal, non-complying buildings.
By the very nature, illegally developed buildings are not permitted.
The Zoning By-law provides clarification with respect to expansion and
replacement of existing septic systems.
A more detailed review of the fetch mapping associated with the minimum
opening elevation requirements on Georgian Bay has been undertaken.
Updated fetch mapping is found in Appendix A of the Zoning By-law. Appendix
A is intended to function as a screening tool to identify where properties may be
subject to wave run-up as a result of the fetch of Georgian Bay. The minimum
opening elevation requirements in the Zoning By-law apply to all buildings.
The Zoning By-law contains a requirement that a coastal engineer is not
required to review whether the property should be subject to wave run-up. A
coastal engineer may be required depending on the circumstances related to the
nature of the property. The language of the By-law provides the flexibility for
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 23 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
the Municipality to consider various professionals based on the unique
circumstances of each property.
Permitted yard encroachments for Cognashene have been determined in
accordance with the Cognashene Community Association comments.
The permitted yard encroachments section of the By-law applies to permitted
yard encroachments in to a “required yard”. Reference has not made in the
Section to an “actual yard”.
Septic tank, septic system and holding tank setbacks have been included in
accordance with the resolutions from Planning Committee and Committee of the
Whole from their September 5th Meeting. The By-law identifies septic system
replacement and expansions can be permitted provided required elevations are
satisfied.
Through lot policies of the By-law have been updated. In the Cognashene
Coastal Community, principal dwellings are required to be sited closer to the
longest front lot line.
The Zoning By-law contains modified walkway and breezeway provisions for
various communities such as Cognashene. The SRI-51 exception zones restrict
future development.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans does not issue building permits for
docks. DFO issues permits only when structures have a crib area of greater
than 15 square metres. Municipalities may include other requirements for
development of in water structures including the application of building permits.
It is appropriate for a municipality to identify locations where shoreline
structures are and are not permitted to provide regulations to these structures.
The dock provisions of the Zoning By-law indicate that a main dock with fingers
is considered as one dock.
Gross Floor Area definition has been included in the Zoning By-law and has been
developed in coordination with community associations and the public feedback
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 24 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
received throughout the Zoning By-law process. The GFA definitions in the Bylaw have been endorsed by various community associations
Modified definition of septic system has been included in the Zoning By-law.
Modified definition of leaching bed has been included in the Zoning By-law.
We believe that the definition of legally is appropriate.
Comments related to loft are an enforcement issue. The Zoning By-law defines
the space, such that it can only be used for storage only. If such space is used
for another use, this becomes an enforcement issue. The lot frontage definition
in the Zoning By-law accurately defines how lot frontage is to be considered in
various circumstances.
Definition of a through lot is appropriate. Section 4.3.6 in the By-law provides
requirements related to how buildings may be situated on a through lot.
Pergolas are not a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. They are however a
defined term.
There is no need in the Zoning By-law for a definition of provincial road
standard. Road assumption policies are not included in the Zoning By-law.
We do not believe there is a need for the term right-of-way to be defined.
The definition of half-storey is appropriate. We do not believe that it is
necessary to reference a percentage of the main floor in order to be considered
to a half storey.
We believe that the definition of tent is appropriate.
The final draft of the By-law contains a definition for water access lot. A sketch
has been included to assist the definition of dwelling width in order to confirm its
application.
Modifications have been made to the islands located on Map 97. These
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 25 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
properties have been placed into the NSI-1 zone.
Appendix A has been modified based on a more detailed review.
The sleeping cabin drawing has been modified.
The definition and diagram of lot frontage is sufficient.
Lot area considerations and lot area diagram have been modified.
Gross Floor Area diagram appropriately identifies areas to be included within
gross floor area considerations.
37
Greg Corbett – On
Behalf of Rasar
Investments Ltd.
October 28, 2014
Provision re-instated into New Zoning By-law.
Our response to your previous comment was released after the Fourth Draft was
released. Accordingly, the removal of the holding provision was incorporated
into the Fifth Draft.
Site re-zoned to SR6-32 and SR6-32(H), which permits docks in locations as
identified in the registered Site Plan Agreement.
38
Allan Hazelton
October 28, 2014
“Water Access Lot” definition revised.
39
Patsy Cross – On
Behalf of the
Madawaska Club of
Go Home Bay
October 25, 2014
Accessory Building Height
Max. height for Go Home Bay revised accordingly.
Sleeping Cabin
Max. height for Go Home Bay revised accordingly.
4.14 Minimum Opening Elevation and Shoreline Setback
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 26 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
The Zoning By-law contains a definition for “high water mark”, which identifies
that on Georgian Bay, the high water mark is 117.4 C.G.D.
4.2.6 Septic Systems
Provision re-instated in final version.
SRI2-34
Re-zoned to SRI3-34.
SRI3-11
Re-zoned to SRI3.
SRI3-10
The provision establishes the minimum lot area and frontage as existing ensures
that large lots cannot be subdivided, and that undersized lots are not legal noncomplying. As such, we would request consent by all affected property owners
to remove this exception zone.
Mapping Comments
Incorporated in final version of new ZBL.
40
Mary Bull – On Behalf
of Sterling Monster
and 1249919 Ontario
Ltd.
October 28, 2014
The SRI zones apply to all lots that are geographically separated from the
mainland, as is the case with Island 95.
The property in question has been zoned SRI1-32. As such a “home occupation”
is permitted on the property.
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 27 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
A general approach to this Zoning By-law review process has been to
recognizing existing zoning rights except for the incorporate of updated EP
mapping, and to generally not accommodate site specific zoning requests.
However, based on consultation between the property owner and Township
staff, an exception was made in this case to permit a home occupation on the
Site. However, in order to incorporate the requested exception zone provisions,
we submit that a separate Zoning By-law Amendment process is a more
appropriate process.
ML Zoning in the area of Prisque Road has been updated.
41
Mary Bull – On Behalf
of Macey Bay
Developments Corp.
October 29, 2014
Zones
A general approach to this Zoning By-law review process has been to
recognizing existing zoning rights except for the incorporate of updated EP
mapping, and to generally not accommodate site specific zoning requests. This
has been done for the Macey Bay site. The area around the outside of the Macey
Bay represents the Shore Road Allowance. Section 3.6 of the new Zoning By-law
explains how zone boundaries are applied in such areas.
Permitted Uses
The partially approved Township OP does not permit new tent and trailer parks.
Accordingly, only existing trailer parks are permitted in the CT2 zone.
Section 4.38
Provision 4.38 a) regulates the parking and storage of travel trailers whereas b)
regulates the use of travel trailers. The provisions reference travel trailers and
tent trailers, which we submit are included as the defined term “travel, travel or
tent”.
Parking and Loading
Table 5.2 was revised to include trailer or recreational vehicle parks.
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 28 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
Zone Requirements
As per the yard definitions, the required yard is from the lot line to the main
building(s) or structure(s).
Regulations for Individual Sites
If development is proposed for the site that does not comply with the Zoning
By-law, it is submitted that a site specific Zoning By-law Amendment is an
appropriate means of establishing trailer site provisions for the property.
Trailer and Recreational Vehicle Park Site Definition
Definition revised accordingly.
Environmental Zones
The Environmental Protection mapping is based on the most accurate
information available. Though the PPS references provincial and federal
regulations in association with Fish Habitat, it is submitted that zoning Type 1
Fish Habitat as FH1 ensures that the location of such habitat is considered when
development is proposed on a site. The Planning Committee also passed a
resolution that was subsequently endorsed by the Committee of the Whole
stating the Type 1 Fish Habitat would be zoned FH1.
EP Zone Setback
If the required setback from the EP zone cannot be met, than a Minor Variance
or Zoning By-law Amendment can be considered based on natural heritage
study / review.
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 29 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
Septic Systems
The OP provides criteria for the consideration of a reduced septic system
setback through a Minor variance or Zoning By-law Amendment. A reduced
setback would need to demonstrate that these criteria are satisfied.
Definitions for septic systems and components are taken from the Ontario
Building Code and allow for setbacks and elevations to be regulated.
Sections 4.1.12 and 4.1.13
These sections apply to waterfront lots, which the Macey Bay site is
Notwithstanding this, it is submitted the tourist commercial development is
often most effectively regulated through site specific zoning exceptions, through
site specific Zoning By-law Amendment processes.
Section 4.14
The Macey Bay property is subject to provision 4.14 a).
Through Lots
The Macey Bay property is a peninsula. Part a) of the Lot Frontage definition
advised how to measure frontage in such cases.
42
Chris Joyce
(Remainder of
Previously Posted
Comments)
October 24, 2014
The EP-PSW is based on PSW mapping from the MNRF.
Any legally existing buildings or structures, including docks, are permitted as
legal non-conforming / legal non-complying uses, buildings or structures. Any
proposed new buildings or structures that do not conform or comply with these
provisions would require a Minor Variance or Zoning By-law Amendment
supported by a natural heritage study.
It is typical for some dock to be moved inland in winter and reinstalled each
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 30 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
spring. This would not impact the non-conforming status of a legally existing
dock.
43
John Birnbaum
November 1, 2014
Provision re-instated into New Zoning By-law.
44
Greg Corbett – On
Behalf of the
Cognashene
Cottagers Association
October 31, 2014
The Two properties have been zoned NSI-1.
45
Armin Grigaitis
October 27, 2014
1. The Township’s Planning Committee passed a resolution that was
endorsed by Committee of the Whole, that a larger setback from the high
water mark than 20 metres be used where directed by a cottage
association. The Cognashene Cottagers’ Association has requested the 30
m setback.
2. Holding tank definition revised.
3. Leaching bed definition revised.
4. Septic system definition revised.
46
Nick Hodson
November 4, 2014
The Third Draft of the New Zoning By-law was released on July 17, 2014. The
Third Draft included Environmental Protection One (EP1) mapping of all Type
One Fish Habitat and Provincially Significant Wetlands, including those over
water. Permitted uses in the EP1 zone in the Third Draft included “Accessory
Docks”.
At a Planning Committee meeting on September 5th, 2014, the Committee
passed a resolution that Type One Fish Habitat be zoned FH1 throughout the
Township based on MNRF mapping, and that no buildings or structures be
permitted in the FH1 zone. This resolution was subsequently supported by the
Committee of the Whole. Additionally, any EP1 zones covering PSWs were
changed to EP-PSW. These changes were made to more clearly identify the
Zoning By-law Review
4th Draft Comments
Page 31 of 31
Name / Address
Date of Comment
Reply – MHBC Input
different types of natural heritage features, and to recognize that Type One Fish
Habitat and PSWs are significant natural heritage features.
It was recognized that removing the permission for accessory docks in some
areas previously identified as EP1 was significant. As such, the decision was
made to hold a second public meeting, in which these mapping changes and
their rationale were specifically reviewed.
Zoning By-law reviews are ever evolving processes in which there can be many
significant changes over the life of the review. The identification and protection
of natural heritage features is an important and often contested decision. The
identification and protection of such features evolved over the life of the Zoning
By-law Review based on public input and a review of other information. It is
submitted that while the approach to PSW and Fish Habitat features was refined
between the third and fifth drafts, the general mapping approach was relatively
unchanged except for identifying specific natural heritage feature types. The
change related to permitted uses in the FH1 zone was based on Planning
Committee and Committee of the Whole resolutions. Additionally, an additional
public meeting was held to provide an additional opportunity to review the
mapping changes.
Accordingly, it is our opinion that appropriate opportunity for public engagement
was made available for all aspects of the New Zoning By-law.

Download Report